[T-Winsnes]

I think you underestimate the value of controlling the platform that you base all your revenue from. Chrome controls the internet and android has a huge market share on mobile.

The latest changes to chrome that breaks plugins like ublock origin allows them to keep maximising their advertising revenue.

I think these two being open source is a major reason why they have been so successfully adopted. It isn’t direct revenue, but the control and indirect revenue that comes from that which is the driver

[hzia]

I think you are drastically overestimating the revenue gain from ad blockers

But I agree that default search with being Google must have heavily blocked competition.

Comparing how much they pay Mozilla and Apple to maintain search, it would be reasonable to estimate Chrome’s implementation to save them $1b a year

But I highly doubt they make any back given > 1k people work on it

[thayne]

Possibly a greater benefit to Google is the influence it gives them over web standards.

For example, if google didn't control the most popular browser, they probably would have had to say goodbye to third party cookies a long time ago, but since they do they've been able to delay it for quite a while, at least for a considerable portion of users.

[SR2Z]

Google is the group pushing hardest for the removal of third party cookies; they don't need them because they get your data from other sources.

It's everyone else who wants to keep them around.

[thayne]

Firefox and Safari have disabled third party cookies years ago, but chromium based browsers still have them on.

And then look at Google's "privacy sandbox proposals, that aim to replace third party cookie functionality. They have largely been rejected by Mozilla and Apple, over privacy concerns.

[paulryanrogers]

Firefox still accepts 3rd party cookies by default. They've made some moves to reduce reliance on them. Sadly privacy zealous prefer the perfect over the good, so won't get either.

[Kbelicius]

> I think you are drastically overestimating the revenue gain from ad blockers

I think you are underestimating it. There must be a reason why google is trying to work around ad blockers on their platforms.

> But I highly doubt they make any back given > 1k people work on it

Where did you find that number? I highly doubt it. Maybe if you are counting contributors to chromium.

[lolinder]

What you're describing is why Google is willing to sink money into Chrome, and you're right. But that doesn't mean that Chrome can become a viable independent company.

Chrome synergizes with the rest of Google's portfolio.

[shiroiushi]

>android has a huge market share on mobile.

Not in the US they don't; it's a minority share, split across many different manufacturers who all have their own flavor of Android, their own (crappy) app stores and pre-loaded crapware apps, etc. Apple has a clear majority of the US smartphone market (and it's a vertical monopoly, with Apple controlling the phone hardware and the app store and not allowing any alternatives), but no one's looking at breaking them up.

>I think these two being open source is a major reason why they have been so successfully adopted.

iOS isn't open-source, and it has a commanding majority of the US smartphone market.

[sciurus]

If these measurements are correct, iOS has about 11% more of the US market share than Android.

This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-s...

[shiroiushi]

>This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more.'

This case is about US antitrust law, so what happens outside US borders isn't really that important, except as far as it affects the companies' revenues and profits. Supposedly, the actions of any antitrust action are to protect consumers/the general public, but what that really means is consumers in the US. Consumers outside the US are irrelevant. And the simple fact is that, by your own numbers, consumers in the US are mostly using iOS, not Android.

[kelnos]

If anti-trust action in the US results in the break-up of Google, it affects users worldwide, not just in the US.

Regardless, 42% (in the US) is still a huge market share. Huge doesn't have to mean majority or even plurality.

[dimitrios1]

Correct. "Huge" in the case of antitrust matters is big enough to act anti-competitively. It's much more broad than you think, and it sees a lion share of litigation done by the Feds.

For example, there's currently an ongoing anti trust case against "Al’s Asphalt Paving Company"

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-als-asphalt-paving-com...

[close04]

> "Huge" in the case of antitrust matters is big enough to act anti-competitively.

With the extra clarification that just the size of the company or its market share aren't in and of themselves enough to constitute a crime. It's how the company acts once it has that power that constitutes the crime.

You could be a huge company, or dominate a market and still not run afoul of anti-competitive laws because you didn't abuse the position [0]. The abuse of position particularly (or only, depending on jurisdiction probably) if it brings harm to consumers is what lands a company in hot water.

[0] https://thehustle.co/originals/the-worlds-cutest-monopoly

[hzia]

Majority of revenue base lives on iOS globally (due to being a monopoly in the US)

That's why Apple has higher profits than all other mobile operators combined!

[bryanrasmussen]

I thought the higher revenue was because Apple charges more for everything, and the people who buy Apple products are also more likely to purchase other things, driving product for app store etc. (based on some study I saw many years back that is probably out of date by now)

[briandear]

iOS isn’t a monopoly.

[kelnos]

> Not in the US they don't

I'm not sure in what world 42% isn't huge when it comes to market share. iOS having a majority isn't really relevant to this point.

And regardless, GP didn't say "in the US"; globally, they are far ahead of iOS. Sure, this anti-trust action is a US matter, but a break-up would absolutely affect Google globally.

[briandear]

Windows isn’t open source. Perhaps Office and Windows should be broken up? They have far more market share comparatively speaking. The fact that most of the enterprise run on Microsoft could be more concerning than an consumer App Store.

[shiroiushi]

That would have been nice 20+ years ago, back when the US tried it, but the government shut it down just as soon as Bush took office.

[IX-103]

People keep bringing up Manifest v3 like it's some evil plot to show people ads. Nevermind that Chrome already ships with its own adblocker which blocks bad ads.

The fact is that with the Spectre mitigations added to Chrome, the performance of networking with manifest v2 was bad. Having to keep sending every network request through 3 different processes just in case there is a plugin (uses by the minority of users) that wants to filter the requests before they are made.

Of course, blocking resource fetches like that could have easily been detected by any server that cares about it, and the interaction with service workers was...weird.

With manifest v3 you can still block ads. You can remove them from the DOM, you can make them invisible, you can replace them. You just can't programmatically decide which resources to filter - only a declarative model for resource filtering is supported.

[kelnos]

> Chrome already ships with its own adblocker which blocks bad ads.

No it doesn't, because I define all ads as bad, so Chrome's ad "blocker" is does not even remotely meet my needs.

> You just can't programmatically decide which resources to filter

That "just" is doing a ton of work there. Declarative ad blockers aren't terrible, but they're not great either. And I don't want my browser fetching ads (which could also be malware) at all. Downloading them and then hiding them is insufficient.

[rockskon]

Bad ads?

No, that is horseshit.

The goal of blocking ads isn't to only allow in "good ads".

It's to block ads. Not some ads. Not a few ads. Not just malware delivered via ads. Not just Google's competitors.

It's to block ads. All of them. To stop the relentless harassment of the advertising industry claiming other peoples' screens and time as their own.

[Workaccount2]

At least be intellectually honest here

Ads might suck a lot, but you are also not entitled to free content.

[mission_failed]

Ads force you to pay for some thing

Actually no, it's worse. Ad companies take everything they can from you using any method they can including monitoring everything you browse or watch on TV or say near your phone or TV or in your car or what you look at in every shop or what you buy or who you chat to, compile massive secret databases and sell 'you' to anyone willing to pay, regardless of what the information is used for.

[Workaccount2]

I mean, every other business I am aware of forces you to pay for something too?

I don't see what is confusing here. Consumers love the ad-model because they can get things "free". If the real cost of ad-supported products is too much for you, then its too expensive for you to use.

Like someone found the backdoor to the movie theater, and people just go in that way rather than pay for a ticket, and then these same people go on rants about how movie tickets are a rip-off and they make you watch 30 mins of ads before the movie, and candy is 5x overpriced, and proudly declaring "I will never pay for a movie ticket again!", as if they are some righteous moral champion standing against the greed of people wanting to get paid for their work.

Straighten out your head, then come back and make an argument.

[Trompair]

Not paying for a movie ticket is a crime. Blocking ads is not. They're not equivalent.

Also, if the industry actually did something, anything to address the grievances of ad block users (a lot of whom I'm willing to bet aren't inherently against advertising and fully understand it funds the content they consume and enjoy), it might be less of, if not a complete non-issue. But no, ads are still distracting, still heavily affect page load speed, still track every little thing visitors do, and still infect millions of peoples' systems with malware every year, and the industry just collectively shrugs and ploughs on towards maximum profit at any cost.

[CAPSLOCKSSTUCK]

I completely agree. These discussions are so frustrating because the "ads are evil!" people never acknowledge that they're consuming ad-supported content. "If you don't like ads, stop watching YouTube, or pay for the ad-free version" just gets met with "well they show ads even on the paid version", totally sidestepping the point with BS.

[rockskon]

And you are not entitled to kill off your competitors by operating at a loss until they're dead and then raise your price (e.g. amount of time you demand from people for them to see ads, amount of personal data you collect, and all but hiding content that isn't up to the standards you present to advertisers) to ridiculous levels.

You don't like it? Go out of business and have companies that are able to operate at the price consumers are willing to pay rise up in your place.

[mossTechnician]

Likewise, no third party is entitled to loading resources on my computer or displaying content on my screen without my permission.

[Workaccount2]

So the people who view the ads and make it possible for you to load just the content are suckers for doing so?

[consteval]

I'm not concerned with the business' model or how they plan to make a revenue. That's the CEO decision and he's smarter than me.

I'd be happy to pay for no ads, and I have before for streaming services. But as time goes on it gets harder and harder. Often the only choice is ads, at which point I block or move on to a different service.

Ads use up my time and attention. Which, to me, is much more valuable than a small amount of money.

[lupusreal]

Websites aren't forced to send me their content even though I use an adblocker. If they do, then the "" harm"" to their business is Not My Problem.

[freeone3000]

And yet, people put out tons of free content all the time! Clip out the ad and it’s right there.

[Workaccount2]

It's not free, the people who view the ads are covering the cost for those who don't.

[lupusreal]

All ads are psychological warfare being waged by corporations against the public. They ruthlessly exploit human psychology to sell product.

[andriesm]

People are mindless pawns? People are not free to say no thanks, ignore or tune out? That's what I do my entire life. And I actually appreciate and value highly targeted marketing messages that show me things I'm interested in and WANT to buy. Really good targeted marketing is a win-win, it helps consumers find stuff they want and it helps the companies generate profits. (which in turns pays salaries to employees) I don't have a solution for weakminded and vulnerable people, but perhaps such people should be under parental supervision.

[lupusreal]

Your ability to say no to an ad does not in any way negate the point that ads are psychologically abusive. Why are you so keen to simp for the interests of corporations anyway? The ads have effected you more than you admit.

[ledauphin]

it's at the very least an evil plot to stop users (and extension authors) from _making their own decisions_ about the efficiency trade-off.

which is really just absurd when you think about it. I don't care about another hour of battery life, but even if I did, I'd be perfectly happy if Chrome just told me "hey these extensions aren't very battery-efficient!" and I got to make my own decision about that.

[shiroiushi]

>I don't care about another hour of battery life

If you're stuck having to run a ton of shitty JS code with ad malware in it, because your web browser doesn't allow you to effectively block it, that's probably going to cost you more in battery life than the overhead needed by MV2 to block that stuff.

[mvkel]

This just sounds like Hobson's choice. There's only one right answer, and Google is making it on behalf of the user. Fine.