zlacker

Google broke itself up in 2015. What are you even asking for here?

Chrome and Android are open source, and there are several forks of both thriving in the ecosystem. Yeah it would be cool if there was a decent open source alternative to GMail and Drive, but no one else seems to have figured out how to get the incentives right for something like that.

>>px43+(OP)
That "incentive" for Google is "80% of our revenue comes from ads".

Google's open source projects are open in name only.

>>px43+(OP)
It's not the lack of open source, it's ease of use. Alternatives exist, but no company is going to run a charity case for you to store tons of data for free. Mail in particular is commonly known to be a hassle which has nothing to do with Gmail the software, as much as Gmail the provider.

>>px43+(OP)
Google broke itself up in 2015. What are you even asking for here?

No, it didn't, it restructured itself into Alphabet, with many subsidiaries. But, all the core businesses are still under that umbrella organization, with most web-related businesses remaining inside the current Google entity.

A forced divestment of the browser business might help. Same for the productivity products.

>>troupo+m
> Google's open source projects are open in name only.

The link at the top of the page is pointing to the GitHub repo, where you can see literally over a million contributions from thousands of people working at hundreds of companies: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/commits/main

I've worked on both Chrome and Android (Chromium and AOSP) professionally, and never worked at Google.

>>alista+n1
What browser “business”? Chrome makes no money. Don’t you think they are going to fund themselves the same way that Firefox does - via Google ads?

No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did.

>>px43+(OP)
Say that to Huawei.

>>scarfa+i2
> No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did.

Considering NCSA Mosaic’s initial release was just 30 years ago this year and it’s considered the first browser, think you might be using a bit of hyperbole there? Twenty years would’ve been more accurate.

>>px43+e2
You and GP both can be right depending on definition used for “open source”.

>>scarfa+i2
I don't think you understand what a business is. Google pays Firefox a lot of money to be the default search which means there is a lot of money in browsers. Google Search conceptually pays Google Chrome to be the default Search engine on Chrome. Except since they're both under the same company they will never take an outside offer which is why it's a monopoly. No different from any other vertically integrated company.

>>px43+e2
There is the OSS vs FOSS distinction which may have been unwittingly invoked. Certainly there is nothing “free” about Chromium except its price. Google is not about to switch to a fork for Chrome and any changes to Chromium which are not approved by Google are unlikely to be in any release builds.

>>px43+e2
Well, true :)

What I should've written is that: yes, they are open source, but there's no way to influence the direction they are going. These projects are 100% Google-run, and very few (if any) decisions are public.

For most projects there's also a significant proprietary part in the actual final product

>>alista+n1
But what does breaking up even mean? Separate companies, each publicly traded with their own C level staff, shareholders, etc?

Because to me it just feels like it might be legally separated, but still owned and directed by the same handful of people. And it being separated makes it safer, in that they can't forward e.g. large fines to the parent company.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about large corporations. or economy. or governments.

>>jsjohn+t4
MSIE was free, 28 years ago in late 1995, and while Netscape did take 5 years to follow suit, by 1998 Netscape was not in a healthy position because of the free competition.

>>marcin+s5
I understand that perfectly, how do you think the theoretical Chrome business would make money?

>>scarfa+i2
Chromebooks are literally a browser that you pay for, and they are heavily embedded in the US education system.

Just because they don't sell floppies in a box like it's 1994 doesn't mean these aren't businesses.

>>xp84+0b
And to a first approximation. No one paid for Netscape then. I first downloaded it free in 1996 from their ftp server.

>>scarfa+5b
The same way the non-theoretical Firefox business makes money.

edit: Safari as well.

>>Cthulh+ua
Yes, breaking up a company means divesting some business units. The new businesses would have their own BoD, leadership, shareholders, etc.

The US did this with Standard Oil in 1911, Bell/AT&T in 1983. And the same laws were used against Microsoft in 2001, though the company was able to avoid a break-up.

Breaking up Google might not be the best option. Perhaps more rigorous regulation by the government would be better, similar to Microsoft. But a break up should be an option.

>>marcin+Of
By showing ads from the “AdSense Company” and sending your personal information to them?

Meet the new boss…

>>rchaud+ab
Yes, you just pay for the browser and not the hardware. Are ChromeBooks also a “keyboard you pay for”?

>>jsjohn+t4
As someone who worked in this space at the time (Webmaster at Spry, Inc. in 1994), and we sold a web browser in the 1994-ish timeframe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBox, no, saying "almost 3 decades" isn't hyperbolic at all. 29 years is close enough.

>>scarfa+yi
Sure, but on the positive side, the Chrome Company has its own incentives.

Today, Google can provide Chrome as a loss-leader, making up for the "free" browser with ad revenue.

The new Chrome Company can't operate that way. It needs to make money on its own. Perhaps MS Bing offers more money. Or they build their own ad system. Or pivot into some other business area.

Anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing Google/Alphabet must be broken up, only that it's a tool that's available in the US, should we (society) decide other regulation is insufficient.

>>alista+gt
> Perhaps MS Bing offers more money.

> Or they build their own ad system.

And we still are being tracked by BigTech with the same business model that people object when Google does it.

> Or pivot into some other business area.

And what other method do you suggest for funding besides ads or people paying for the browser? The second option has never been a long term successful business for browsers?