[skinkestek]

> Just out of curiosity, what are some of Chrome's shady dealings?

A parent company that could and would literally put ads for it on the front page of Google? (i.e. before a sesrch term has been entered)

This is a place where I'm not aware that anyone else has been allowed to put anything, so if this isn't abuse of market power then I don't know what.

Same with other Google web properties that magically work better in Firefox if you change the request headers..!

[techrat]

A company putting an ad for its own product on its own website is not an example of a shady tactic.

"Allowed?" Next you'll tell me that Microsoft should be forced to exclusively advertise other browsers other than their own on Bing before search...

> so if this isn't abuse of market power then I don't know what.

Abuse of market power would be preventing the mention of any other browser when using search and Google has never done that.

Or how about a better example: Apple actively preventing any third party web browsers on iOS, then later only allowing third party web browsers to use the Safari Engine. THAT is anticompetitive.

Google simply has the better product in this case.

[skinkestek]

Thanks for explaining your position. I'll try to explain in some more detail why this is a problem and how governments has stepped in before:

> Abuse of market power would be preventing the mention of any other browser when using search and Google has never done that.

Another way to abuse market power is to use ones dominance in one maket to crush competition in another market.

Microsoft was punished for this after they bundled IE with Windows back in the day. Google has gone extremely much further down the road of abusing market dominance in one market (search, ads) to crush competition in browsers.

Also: did you forget my point about how Google web properties work better if you fake the headers and pretend to be Chrome?

> Or how about a better example: Apple actively preventing any third party web browsers on iOS, then later only allowing third party web browsers to use the Safari Engine. THAT is anticompetitive.

The value is not in the engine. The engine is something you make to get an advantage in customers mind. Many browsers, both historic and present are just skins on top of other browser engines.

> Google simply has the better product in this case.

So you say Tree Style Tabs work in Chrome now and it doesn't eat memory for breakfast, lunch and dinner? That's news to me ;-)

[tentacleuno]

I tried one of the Tree Style Tabs extensions. It acted like it was embedding the tab sidebar into the actual page. That's one of the things I actually like about Firefox: sidebars have an API.

[techrat]

The point with my reply is that you have enough to point out about the Chrome situation without having to resort to tenuous claims or outright falsehoods.

Google had to have had the better product otherwise you wouldn't have been introduced to Chrome by using their search engine.

[skinkestek]

> without having to resort to tenuous claims or outright falsehoods.

Do you mean that tree style tabs now works on Chrome or that everyone agrees that Chromes memory issues have been sorted? Or something else?

> Google had to have had the better product otherwise you wouldn't have been introduced to Chrome by using their search engine.

Maybe ten or fifteen years ago this was true.

These days it is so broken you can search for a literal term and get all spam and no ham.

Also ads are exempt from that anyway and these ads in particular were probably hard coded since no other ads has ever been shown in that spot.

Edit, some more details:

The reason Chrome leads is kind of the same as why IE dominated the marked for years:

- a generally good browser (IE was best for a long time)

- strategic incompatibility on core web assets: MSDN for Microsoft (worked nicely if you changes request headers in Opera to simulate IE), various web properties for Google

- enough non standard hacks that people who just slap together code and only test in IE/Chrome might easily include some IE/Chrome-specific hack

- carpet bombing of the market: In Microsofts case by bundling it with all new PCs, in Googles case by massive ad campaigns, including smothering the otherwise always clean and minimal front page(!) with Chrome ads.

- Also by adding it to shareware/freeware installers

- In Microsofts case also by shadyd deals with others about not including competing browsers. (Not confirmed in Googles case, yet ;-)

There is a reason why we old timers say "Chrome is the new IE".

[techrat]

Funny how you say 'we old timers' when you remind me exactly of the same sniveling types who whined about everything "Micro$uck" etc... on Slashdot back in the day... It's tiresome and doesn't contribute one bit when you defeat any points you may legitimately have with all that griping. What's the point in tossing out the age card here? Being smug is a sign of immaturity, not wisdom. So you may call yourself an old timer here but it seems you haven't grown up, either.

A company putting an ad on their own website for their own product isn't an abuse of market position. That's the falsehood I'm referring to.

Everything else that you keep tossing back in as "do you mean..." is an attempt to evade that point that I made and to put words in my mouth.

Don't trust Google? Don't like Chrome? Don't use it. It's not like we've only got one bundled browser to work with these days. Even if it's crypotrash mining and referral link hijacking software like Brave. That's better, right? Or Apple's stagnant Safari. Or... Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in Lynx or Mosaic. They work as well now as they used to then.

So. Yeah. Chrome has market share because it continues to remain better than the alternatives. Not really that difficult of a concept, methinks.

The difference between then (IE/Windows Bundling) and now (Chrome/Google Advertising Might) is that we still get everything Google releases as open source. Use de-Googled Chromium and move then fuck on with your life.

Get off my lawn, punk.

[skinkestek]

> A company putting an ad on their own website for their own product isn't an abuse of market position. That's the falsehood I'm referring to.

In that case bundling IE with Windows definitely isn't abuse of market power either.

> It's tiresome and doesn't contribute one bit when you defeat any points you may legitimately have with all that griping. What's the point in tossing out the age card here?

First time I've heard anyone at HN indicating age is an advantage.

I put that there for humorous effect, a self depreciating joke in between the serious comparison of two abusing monopolies.

> Everything else that you keep tossing back in as "do you mean..." is an attempt to evade that point that I made and to put words in my mouth.

So tell me what you mean then.

[kaba0]

> The difference between then (IE/Windows Bundling) and now (Chrome/Google Advertising Might) is that we still get everything Google releases as open source. Use de-Googled Chromium and move then fuck on with your life.

Except that having only one implementation of the web will make it into a closed ecosystem. The current few (partial) implementations are a very weak state and firefox should be kept alive for this reason alone.

And with the grossly huge scope of web browsers, creating a new one is basically impossible to even large players.