[strongpigeon]

Having just read the paper, I find their case for separating out Chrome pretty weak. A lot of their points have nothing to do with Chrome being part of Google really.

The failure of the (really weak) DNT standard had nothing to do with Chrome. While I get that Google is an advertiser, Chrome did implement DNT and wasn't even as big of a player back then.

Then they talk about Widevine DRM which, say what you want about DRMs, is something media platforms actively asked for due to their licensing. But in anycase, I don't see how this has anything to do with the fact that Google owns Chrome?

They also talk a lot about self-preferencing, meaning putting pop-ups to install Chrome on a bunch of Google properties (most notably on search). While I agree that this behavior should be condemned and is anti-trust related, it's mostly about Google leveraging their dominant position in search to gain an edge in the browser space, not the other way around... Barring Google from doing this is what needs to happen, not separating Chrome in a different company.

They talk a lot about how Chrome is strategically important for Google, which it is. Chrome is a pure strategy play from Google. But that doesn't mean the industry is suffering because of it (in fact I'd argue Chrome helped the industry tremendously). Until Google abuses their position with Chrome, which the authors haven't made a good case for, I don't see why Chrome should be the target they make it to be.

[fabrice_d]

Just to focus a bit on DRM/Widevine: the fact that Google decides who can use Widevine absolutely helps them to weaken competing platforms / OSes.

If you are an upcoming OS and want to get well known apps like Netflix and Spotify, you need to get Widevine support from Google. I'll let you imagine how that can go, from actual technical issues to bullshit reasons to slow down progress.

If we accept the idea that DRM is useful, at least the DRM vendors should be independent from OS vendors.

[izacus]

And before Chrome we (in streaming industry) had to negotiate and wait for the mercy of every single OS, set-top-box and mobile vendor specially and then cross negotiate with every single content provider (since they had to approve that DRM implementation for the platform is good enough for them).

It's indescribeable how better the current situation is for the state of the web and users themselves. There's a reason even Mozilla uses Widevine.

[strongpigeon]

That is an interesting and somewhat fair point. I guess the argument here is that because of Google's dominant share in Chrome with Widevine for DRM, they can harm competing platforms by blocking access to that tech. There might be something to that argument. I'm having a hard time steel-manning it, but I can see some points to be made through it after all.

[Mindwipe]

> Just to focus a bit on DRM/Widevine: the fact that Google decides who can use Widevine absolutely helps them to weaken competing platforms / OSes.

There are multiple other widely used DRM systems. PlayReady is very licensable (it's just not free), and used by many sites. Fairplay is also widely supported. Adobe would probably still sell someone Primetime if they could find someone to pay for it. Until very recently some of the largest pay TV operators in the world (Sky et al) didn't support Widevine and required installation of third party helper software from a different DRM provider.

[michaelt]

> Then they talk about Widevine DRM [...] I don't see how this has anything to do with the fact that Google owns Chrome?

1. Google brought DRM to the web. Before Widevine, DRMed video and audio had to rely on stuff like Adobe Flash (which was on its way out anyway). Google's large market share means they got to write the "standard" and provide the only implementation.

2. Safari can't play Spotify any more. Beers all round at the Google offices.

[adolph]

> 2. Safari can't play Spotify any more.

That is not what Spotify says: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/supported-devices-for...

[wbl]

Do you think Apple, the company that made iTunes, can't make DRM that's acceptable to the music industry?

[scarface_74]

I’m assuming you never read Steve Jobs’ “Thoughts on Music”

https://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_pos...

Short version:

The music industry wanted Apple to license FairPlay. SJ said no. But Apple will start selling interoperable DRM free music if the industry allows it.

One of the major labels and independents took them up on the offer and Apple did it. The other three labels wanted among other things - a royalty from each iPod sold and for Apple to basically post a bond against piracy.

Apple refused and it took until early 2009 for the rest of the labels to come on board.

[Mindwipe]

Jobs died a long time ago.

Apple do license Fairplay sometimes nowadays (especially the weaker music version), and all major music services absolutely support it.

[scarface_74]

This is absolutely completely wrong. No music service supports FairPlay aside from Apple Music. Why would they?

Music you buy from all services is DRM free and music you stream is only in the apps and have no need to support FairPlay. None of the music subscription services allow you to download music and use outside of the app.

Even the ability to play movies bought in one store and being available in another store as a purchased item is supported via MoviesAnywhere integration and not FairPlay.

[Mindwipe]

> This is absolutely completely wrong. No music service supports FairPlay aside from Apple Music. Why would they?

Because they want to support Safari and Homepods generally.

> Music you buy from all services is DRM free and music you stream is only in the apps and have no need to support FairPlay

Every significant music subscription service has web based playback, which will use a DRM system to protect those streams, and will use a multi-DRM system to support multiple browsers. Safari doesn't support Widevine, so if the service works in Safari that means the service also serves FairPlay Streaming licenses.

> Even the ability to play movies bought in one store and being available in another store as a purchased item is supported via MoviesAnywhere integration and not FairPlay.

Very difficult to see what this has to do with the topic at hand, but Fairplay is used to stream those titles to devices that support it. MoviesAnywhere is back end, not distribution. Fairplay has been ported to non-Apple devices too, at least the lower levels.

[izacus]

What are you going on about? Safari supports Apple DRM called FairPlay which "they brought to the web" like Google did.

[whimsicalism]

The FLoC (related to DNT) is absolutely Google leveraging their market position with Chrome to improve their advertising

[strongpigeon]

And it flopped. I don't think its replacement, "Topics" is much more likely to succeed either. That being said I think it's important to note that those are at least designed to work for the entire advertising industry, not just Google.

[josefx]

> And it flopped.

Their opt out header was adopted faster than "do not track". Nobody wanted anything to do with it.

> are at least designed to work for the entire advertising industry, not just Google.

It is an API where the entire data flow is controlled by Google and was meant as replacement for one that Google had no control over. Meanwhile Chrome has always shared additional data with a hardcoded list of Google services (officially for debbuging and A/B testing ) and provides direct integration with Google accounts and related tracking. FLoC and Topics exist for the advertising industry the same way an eviction notice exists for its recipient.

[Ferret7446]

> was meant as replacement for one that Google had no control over

That sounds like pure speculation. From what I've actually heard, it was meant to enable targeted advertising without exposing PII, because Google has a vested interest in both protecting user privacy and selling ads (because they suffer from eroding user trust).

[fumar]

FLoC is part of Google's Privacy Sandbox which is a multi-solution effort to improve consumer privacy on Chrome similar to Safari's ITP. I am curious how you perceive Safari's 1P and 3P cookie changes? And how would you respond to Safari's changes as a competing browser? Would you leave 3P cookies and avoid any privacy efforts?

[youngtaff]

I consider the Privacy Sandbox a dark pattern

A feature that records details of the types sites someone visitors and then shares them with any other site that asks isn’t really a privacy feature

[fumar]

Can you support your main claim? Privacy Sandbox has settings for publishers, SSPs, DSPs, and consumers to opt in/out of the solutions. It is not perfect. I would want zero tracking and zero advertising in an ideal world. Today, sandbox is in 1% of all browsers. Someone with Sandbox experience can correct me if I am wrong.

I am curious. How do you view 3P cookies from a consumer perspective? My mom would consider those a dark pattern without transparency or control for ads or general tracking. What about sharing your phone number with any entity? How do you feel about Apple's tracking transparency where it removes data from app developers but Apple retains data for itself or Apple's private click measurement?

[ndriscoll]

The dark pattern is claiming that something that shares your information is a privacy feature in order to trick people into turning it on. An actual privacy sandbox (like uBlock origin) just blocks things like malware scripts and tracking pixels with no concession to the people who are trying to track you. An actual privacy sandbox does not have features for publishers, SSPs, or DSPs. It--as part of the user's agent--has features for the user.

[youngtaff]

Users can opt out of the Privacy Sandbox features if they know they are there and they understand the options, IMV the settings for this are unclear at best almost to the point of being misleading.

We all know the power of defaults which is why users have to opt-out of participating in Topics rather than opting in.

The browser is supposed to be the users agent but for most people the Topics API isn’t acting in their interests. I suspect if you asked people whether they we happy for any site that asked to know the sorts of things they browsed the web for they’d say no.

As for 3rd-party cookies they should have been killed off long ago, the reason the death is delayed is because Google is primary an AdTech company and other adtech companies persuaded the UK competition authorities that Chrome killing them off without a suitable replacement would be anti-competitive hence misnamed ‘Privacy Sandbox APIs’

Apple has its own set of issues e.g. why can’t content blockers block in app ads but Apple’s issues are a separate conversation

[scarface_74]

Every company maintains data about your use on their platform. That’s expected. I don’t expect to go to Sears and shop for a refrigerator and see Sears ads on other pages advertising products I looked at specifically

[itopaloglu83]

This is an interesting point. Could you elaborate please?

[whimsicalism]

Google creates and implements its own privacy solution in its browser. Once released, other advertisers are behind and no longer have access to their tracking -> Google dominates the market because it delivers better ROI for advertisers because it knows how to track on Chrome because it built the privacy solution.

[fumar]

> while giving its own ad teams inside details & time to adapt to the new paradigm

I've worked in ad tech my entire career and many years competing against Google ad solutions. To my knowledge, Google strictly separates Chrome privacy efforts from Google Ads, and these work streams are part of the Consumer Markets Authority oversight. https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-googles-priv...

I highlight these nuances for readers who are not closely tracking ads and privacy efforts. It is easy to make claims like "giving its own ads teams inside details" without proof, but in ad tech we know Chrome is working with multiple testing companies. Some of us happen to work in ads, but we also believe in greater consumer privacy and are eager for an improved ads paradigm.

[whimsicalism]

i think it's worth noting that the 'CMA oversight' is the result of an investigation being initiated against Google for these exact anti-competitive practices and that Google has been forced to change their process by the CMA as a result of that investigation.

I don't think you work for Google or are a sock, but it is clear from your comment history that you are extremely supportive of Google and a considerable proportion of your comments on HN writ large are just defending Google across multiple different threads/issues.

[fumar]

My comment history probably makes it clear where I work (maybe years back) and it is not Google. I see my recent comments are reactively supporting specific Google products. I don’t have a strong stance for them at entity level and if anything I ding them for killing some of my favorite web tools. I earnestly believe that ad tech is fighting to maintain user level tracking with limited transparency, look at the efforts by LiveRamp and The Trade Desk. Those are overt efforts to use emails as currency where consumers would have limited control for relevant ads. I am surprised Google truly would eliminate 3p cookies in chrome and mobile IDs on android when both platforms benefited in ads revenue post Apple ATT and ITP. I support the privacy sandbox principles as an ad tech person and a regular consumer. I caveat that if new information comes to light regarding their intentions then I would change my mind.

I was fairly pro Apple until they half attempted to provide ads solutions in the wake of App tracking transparency and I realized their gain was on App Store ads revenue. Amazon wishes they had a browser but their stores and hardware provide sufficient ads signals. Meta has plenty of ads scandals over the years. It’s a messy landscape but only a few organizations are developing ad tech and consumer privacy solutions in the open.

[itopaloglu83]

Although I understand the sentiment of the Google’s ability to create better ad products in this area, I’m very consumer focused on the topic of privacy, and I want further restrictions and even incredible fines on ad companies that are focused on eliminating personal privacy rights.

That being said, I personally think that the Chrome team might be choosing solutions that better suits other Google products instead of ease of implementation and security/privacy in mind.

[ehhthing]

The Topics API doesn't seem to have any abuse opportunity since it's entirely enforced by the browser itself. There's nothing the JavaScript API can do that could give Google an advantage here given as far as I know there's only a single function that can be called in the first place.

I think more research would need to be conducted to see whether this change is actually anti-competitive or not.

[itopaloglu83]

Great feedback for the authors.

Most people confuse the success of a company and their monopolistic behavior with their competency on what they do.

Regardless, the internet might benefit from Chrome being an independent company of its own.

[strongpigeon]

> Regardless, the internet might benefit from Chrome being an independent company of its own.

I'd love to hear why you think that is. It feels to me that the web benefits and has benefitted a ton from Google's investment in Chrome and newer standards. Chrome itself doesn't make any money and so I fear to me that splitting it out would leave it scrambling for a revenue source and that there would be far less investment in it then there currently is.

It feels like keeping the threat of antitrust action on Chrome is a more effective way of keeping them in line. I don't see much abuse from their dominant position (in the browser space, search is another question) so far, but making it clear that regulators are watching them closely is IMO the best way to ensure interests align.

[itopaloglu83]

Here’s how I see it.

The web should rely on open standards to cultivate innovation and improvement. Having a separate entity would save the project from constant internal battles with other Google products and outside accusations of favoritism. My hope that being an independent entity, browser projects can push for further enhancements. For example, I’m very confused and frustrated about the fact that there is no standard to say “do not track me” that prevents those ugly popups. I already made my decision about ads, why should I repeat it for every website while the browser can enforce it. Just like the location preferences etc.

I do acknowledge however that like any other open source project, the funding would be a great issue.