zlacker

>>transp+(OP)
This is entirely unsurprising. It's been clear that Google has been into their Android duopoly-abusive stage for a while now, with more and more of their Android changes moving into GMS or non-AOSP Google apps (like camera, messages, location services, etc) over the last decade. Graphene has been doomed to this fate for a long time, and anyone who thought otherwise was naively optimistic.

The same is clearly coming for Chromium forks, which is why I've always thought the privacy and ad-blocking forks are a joke - if they ever gain enough marketshare, or if google just tires of the public open source charade, they have no chance of maintaining a modern browser on their own.

This is all the more likely now that Google has been emboldened by not having to sell off Chrome for anticompetitive reasons.

>>scottb+ll
Just a year prior, I would have been against a decision to force Google to part with either Android or Chrome.

Now, I'm of the opinion that they should have been forced to sell off both, and maybe Chromebooks too, for the good measure.

No company with a direction as vile and openly user-hostile as what Google currently demonstrates should have anywhere near this level of control over the ecosystem.

>>ACCoun+9m
The sad thing is I think Google keeping Chrome is actually likely the better of two possible bad outcomes... Anyone else interested and willing to pay the true value of owning the entire Internet ecosystem is almost certainly going to look to extract value from that, and that's almost certainly worse than what Google does today. E.g. using everyone's browser to extract training data for AI without getting IP blocked.

>>scottb+io
Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this.

Maybe the development will slow down, but let's be honest: we would still be fine if Android and iOS had stopped "improving" years ago. Now it's mostly about adding shiny AI features and squeeze the users.

>>palata+zr
>Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this.

Facebook was once small too. Yet people happily signed up, giving up their privacy in the process. What makes you think the remaining companies offering a free browser wouldn't try to monetize users in a similar way? How many people are willing to pay $5/month for a browser?

>>gruez+et
> Yet people happily signed up, giving up their privacy in the process.

When Facebook started, it was a different era. And since then, Facebook has clearly abused their position with anti-competitive behaviours.

> How many people are willing to pay $5/month for a browser?

If they can keep using Google Chrome for free, we already know the answer. If the only way for them to have a reasonable browser would to pay... who knows? People pay more than that to access movies that they could download as torrents.

Also does it have to be 5$ per month? Do browsers need to keep adding so many features, and hence so many bugs and security issues, that only huge companies can keep up and nobody wants to pay for that work?

Maybe it's enough to pay 1$/year for a company to maintain a reasonably secure browser with the features that people actually need. Do people actually need QUIC? Not sure.

>>palata+vu
>When Facebook started, it was a different era. And since then, Facebook has clearly abused their position with anti-competitive behaviours.

Insurgents like tiktok show that even today, people will happily give up their privacy for some dopamine.

>If they can keep using Google Chrome for free, we already know the answer.

Why would google continue maintaining chrome if they can no longer derive any benefit from it?

>If the only way for them to have a reasonable browser would to pay... who knows? People pay more than that to access movies that they could download as torrents.

No, the contention is that people will go for free browsers that violate their privacy or monetize them somehow, not some future where all browsers cost money.

>Maybe it's enough to pay 1$/year for a company to maintain a reasonably secure browser with the features that people actually need. Do people actually need QUIC? Not sure.

Remember when whatsapp was also $1/year, ostensibly for similar reasons? How did that go?