Trump will let this go through and behind the scenes force a deal where X buys Chrome
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
725 points (99.9% liked)
Technology
59578 readers
2905 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why is everyone acting like this is a thing that will happen? All they have to do is wait roughly 90 days and it'll all go away.
Don't fucking let Musk buy it though
Oh no.
Nah I rather they not get deeply vested in figuring out as revenue...
What company could actually afford to buy it other than Google, Meta, or Amazon? Unless they are forced to sell it at a loss, which is fine with me.
Hear me out... Valve
With all due respect for Valve, they don't need this. They exist in their niche, and they're exceptionally good at doing their work
Chromium engine for half life 3
Valve already use CEF extensively in their client
By "sell," they could also mean ending up having Chrome just split off from Google, as a new, independent entity that is its own company, without anybody needing to buy it in the first place.
How exactly is this company going to make any money?
Selling user data, selling ad placement, subscriptions for paid services, enterprise-grade support contracts, and the like.
They could also take an approach similar to Google, branching back out from being just a browser into a suite of related tools that Chrome can then convince users to switch to (similar to how Chrome gets users to not just use Google search, but also services like Gmail too.)
I assume by continuing to sell data.
The judge would immediately shut that down for creative avoidance. This is an order to sell, not break up. The DOJ specifically indicated behavioural remedies in this case, meaning Google must not remain in control of Chrome.
This is an order to sell, not break up.
Currently, it's still recommended actions to the court. Nothing has actually been finalized in terms of what they're going to actually end up trying to make Google do.
Google must not remain in control of Chrome.
While divestiture is likely, they could also spin-off, split-off, or carve-out, which carry completely different implications for Google, but are still an option if they are unable to convince the court to make Google do their original preferred choice.
A split-off could prevent Google from retaining shares in the new company without sacrificing shares in Google itself, and a carve-out could still allow them to "sell" it, but via shares sold in an IPO instead of having to get any actual buyout from another corporation.
Don’t ya love it when people comment saying something that they think must be true as if it were actually true, without having the slightest idea?
Microsoft is probably drooling at the prospect. They’ve been trying to get that IE monopoly back since this happened to them.
Oracle, sun, tencent, tita...
oracle would create MANGO (Microsoft,Apple,nvidia,google and Oracle)
Broadcom
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the last antitrust win we'll get for years, isn't it?
I know Trump doesn't like Big Tech, but I doubt his admin will punish them meaningfully, but just rail about censorship.
This isn't a win I think. They are yet to meet in the court with Google.
The DOJ will file a revised version of its proposals in early March, before the government and Google return to the DC District Court in April for a two-week remedies trial.
I keep saying this. In 2 months all this antitrust stuff goes out the window. If people actually bothered to show up on 11/5 Kahn and co could actually get some wins for the American people. Instead, we're going to get more monopolies shoved down our throats.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sell it to me, I'll buy it for one dollar.
I'll go treefitty
Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker, says the DOJ is pushing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.”
I'm honestly curious how this would "harm Americans".
It harms wealthy asshole Americans at Google.
Google pretending they have any other nationality other then “the global internet” is cute in a disgusting way.
That statement is technically true.
The billionaire owners are Americans.
I refuse to call any Billionaires Americans. A billionaire in America has far more in common with a billionaire in Ireland or France than with working class Americans. They don't use our schools, drink our water, drive our roads, or rely on our safety nets. They don't take out the trash, do their laundry, wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment, or stress over defunding their retirement to pay for needed medication.
Billionaire involvement in politics should be considered foreign interference. Of course AIPAC is foreign interference too, but apparently that's not a problem either.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Ehh just fight it for a month pay king trump some money and bam their golden.
load more comments
(8 replies)
sell it to Microsoft so they can finally have a web browser that people use
Yes, the anti-trust lawsuit should culminate in one part of a tech giant being sold to another tech giant.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
view more: next ›