zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
> Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants.

This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.

When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates and none of us can do anything about it, they perhaps have too much market power.

>>mabbo+Wd
The reason why Google hasn't been and won't be is that everything they make is "obstensibly" open-source. (Minus the advertising network)

Google Chrome is "open source".

Android is "open source".

ChromeOS is "open source".

Nevermind the truth being more "open source" with proprietary bits (the bits that matter).

So the opening argument often is; well, someone else can enter the market and do what they do. But that's missing the trees for the forest (and the devil's in the details).

>>deafpo+KX
At this point, the "open-source" parts are just legal arguments that they can throw in courts whenever they are attacked for antitrust behavior, nothing more.

They know that making it so tedious means it will only be used by a handful of hobbyist and nothing more significant.