Google to be ordered to sell Chrome

Not sure it will really make any difference.

It's easy enough to pick a competing search engine on a PC.

I wish they'd force Google to clean up the Android OS instead.
That is a true mess. It's an ad built with ads to feed the ad god... Google.

I want my Samsung Galaxy A54 5G... de-bloated.
It has so much useless junk on it, that I'm amazed I can carry it around.

Ghot said:

It's easy enough to pick a competing search engine on a PC.

I wish they'd clean up the Android OS instead.
That is a true mess. It's an ad built with ads to feed the ad god... Google.
I want my Samsung Galaxy A54 5G... de-bloated.

Click to expand...

Yeah - Although I prefer Samsung phones, I do hate the way certain useless apps cannot be deleted.

Problem is most major phone companies customise the actual android versions e.g. like Samsungs UI (often pointless) customisations.

For example I can only disable facebook not delete it (the worst app ever in my opinion). I once created an account, but deleted it 30 microseconds later.

But the b#st#rds had my email, and no matter how I block their spam, it still gets through. I have to wear a titanium lined hat to keep my sanity.

cereberus said:

For example I can only disable facebook not delete it (the worst app ever in my opinion). I once created an account, but deleted it 30 microseconds later.

Click to expand...

Yep... 30ms just isn't fast enough when dealing with Zuckerberg.

I don't get it.
Chrome is an add-on to Chromium.
They will sell Chrome and then make a new browser in five minutes ?

The actual insistence is that the search engine in Chrome browser should be de-coupled from Chrome itself. Whether that's even possible to do I'm not that sort or scientist that could even begin to answer but I've used computers long enough to know that you can use all sorts of browsers and all sorts of search engines. All these cases do become one gigantic gravy train laden Lawyers fests -who will be the only winners in this type of action if it even threatens to become 1000 Km within any court.

I see the action is being fuelled by Lawyers in the USA who have an intense dislike for anything connected with Google and especially the Android OS installed in the majority of the world's mobile phones -- perhaps they all have shares in (CR-)Apple -- who knows.

This isn't going to work for years if it ever does -- and then the outcome is usually worse for ordinary folk.

Remember the whole nonsense of the spat between Microsoft and IBM. If the lawyers hadn't got involved we would have had a really good multi-user OS right from the start of the era of the "Modern PC" with OS/2 rather than Windows with all its problems ever since day 1. OS/2 especially OS2/Warp was a really good OS in its day especially on the hardware it had to run on. Windows currently seems like an old out of date ship where reach "refit" / repair just throws up even more problems.



Still we are where we are -- but this whole action against Google is just so totally bonkers. All the money spent on this type of case would easily pay for any amount of investment in Green Energy, and sensible aid to developing countries with quite a bit of change left over. !!!

Cheers
jimbo

if they are going to force Google to sell off Chrome browser will they force MS to sell Edge browser.
as both browser are based on the same open source Chromium and are both large companies with their own browsers.

just a thought, Steve ..

More:

XxXxX said:

if they are going to force Google to sell off Chrome browser will they force MS to sell Edge browser.
as both browser are based on the same open source Chromium and are both large companies with their own browsers.

Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't, anymore than they would tell Apple to sell off Safari. It's not about whether a particular company has a browser or not; it's the dominance of that platform and what the company does with it, e.g. the Microsoft Internet Explorer case from many years ago. Edge and Safari would hardly be called dominant browsers.

pseymour said:

No, they wouldn't, anymore than they would tell Apple to sell off Safari. It's not about whether a particular company has a browser or not; it's the dominance of that platform and what the company does with it, e.g. the Microsoft Internet Explorer case from many years ago. Edge and Safari would hardly be called dominant browsers.

Click to expand...

Maybe not but one cannot deny that Microsoft is a Monopoly.

Ghot said:

Yep... 30ms just isn't fast enough when dealing with Zuckerberg.


View attachment 117072

Click to expand...

Josey Wales said:

Maybe not but one cannot deny that Microsoft is a Monopoly.

Click to expand...

Ghot said:

It's easy enough to pick a competing search engine on a PC.

I wish they'd force Google to clean up the Android OS instead.
That is a true mess. It's an ad built with ads to feed the ad god... Google.

I want my Samsung Galaxy A54 5G... de-bloated.
It has so much useless junk on it, that I'm amazed I can carry it around.

Click to expand...

thats on samsung not google. If you want pure android without bloat, get a pixel phone or a moto that doesnt do that.

cereberus said:

Google told to sell Chrome to end search monopoly

The tech giant is resisting fiercely, calling the proposal "wildly overbroad" and claiming it will hurt consumers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not sure it will really make any difference.

Click to expand...

It will affect the public, and not in a good way. I don't understand how apple can prevent sideloading and microsoft can push edge as much as possible, but google somehow is the problem in the eyes of the gov.

Makes no sense to me. Android and google platforms are the most open between the two and give you more freedom of choice. Bonkers to me.

pseymour said:

No, they wouldn't, anymore than they would tell Apple to sell off Safari. It's not about whether a particular company has a browser or not; it's the dominance of that platform and what the company does with it, e.g. the Microsoft Internet Explorer case from many years ago. Edge and Safari would hardly be called dominant browsers.

Click to expand...

in the MS and Internet Explorer case MS didnt exactly state the truth. MS stated it was part of the OS and couldn't be removed.
i was at the time using Win9x which i had used Win9x Lite to produce the install CD which had Windows running without IE installed and a Windows folder size of 128MB (yes thats MB).
so stranger things have happened, Steve ..

@XxXxX I'm sure you're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is. I've mentioned the high-level view of what the DOJ's stance is. I drew a parallel between the Google case and the MSFT case, although they are not exactly the same. One was about a browser in a dominant OS; the other is about a dominant search engine and a dominant browser. The search engine is also of issue in browsers that are not Chrome.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the DOJ; just saying that is their stance. Also not interested in a legal discussion.

pseymour said:

@XxXxX I'm sure you're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is. I've mentioned the high-level view of what the DOJ's stance is. I drew a parallel between the Google case and the MSFT case, although they are not exactly the same. One was about a browser in a dominant OS; the other is about a dominant search engine and a dominant browser. The search engine is also of issue in browsers that are not Chrome.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the DOJ; just saying that is their stance. Also not interested in a legal discussion.

Click to expand...

im not trying to make any point that is for the courts to decide. the courts make the point.
i was just showing that this type of thing has been going on for some time be it MS or Google or whoever else.
best of luck, Steve ..

andrew129260 said:

thats on samsung not google. If you want pure android without bloat, get a pixel phone or a moto that doesnt do that.

Click to expand...

Exactly