[MBCook]

Google didn’t have to promote their browser to hell to ensure everyone was using it constantly. Tying is what got us here.

Open Gmail? Why not use Chrome?

Google chat? Tried Chrome?

Search Google? It’s better with Chrome!

Android phone within 1 mile of you? Use Chrome!

Breathing oxygen? Well…

This seems like using one monopoly (search) to create another (browser). Isn’t that exactly what anti-trust laws forbid? Let’s not forget not bothering very hard to make sure their stuff like Google Docs that you may be required to use at work work with other browsers. “Just use Chrome” they say.

[paintman252]

You’re seriously blaming company for trying to make their product popular. Even if we assume that current Chrome state violates the anti-trust legislation, that’s still a pretty silly moral condemnation.

[MBCook]

The law literally makes it illegal. No matter what you think. It’s in the tiny text of the law.

MS got hit. Apple is going to. Google should be too, but I doubt it will happen.

(I’d argue giving away Android is dumping and requiring Play is bundling, but that’s another rant)

[izacus]

This is some bizarre rewriting of history. We switched to Chrome because it was stupidly faster than competition and more responsive.

It's nasty to now rewrite history claiming it's some kind of conspiracy to make a browser that ran way better than IE and Mozilla one.

[MBCook]

I’m not saying that’s the only reason. Yes it was way better than IE. And FF of the time.

The definition of anti-competitive behavior doesn’t care. It doesn’t matter if 100% of people switched because it’s better and their friends told them and not a single one did it because of the ads. The ads were still illegal.