Shots fired ๐ฅ
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
1142 points (96.2% liked)
Firefox
17938 readers
2 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A changelog is a changelog. If safari updates are in OS updates, then yeah that's where the changes will be listed.
In a completely different market.
At the time, browsers were sold as standalone software. MS including it was an unfair advantage in that context.
Nowadays browsers aren't distributed in that way, installing another browser takes seconds and they're free. It's nowhere near as anti-competitive.
Please don't distort my words. I never said that. You know exactly what I said and the meaning behind it.
Google using their position in Search and on YouTube and Gmail to push you to install Chrome is an abuse of market position.
I never said advertising is an abuse of monopolistic power and you know that.
I don't know why you're being so needlessly combative here?
I'm not trying to be combative, just wondering what the policy would look like.
Sure, and I would expect to see the Safari changelog when I launch Safari. But I get it when I upgrade my OS, and Safari (in my eyes) isn't an OS feature. I don't use Safari, so seeing Safari changelog is an ad. Likewise for Edge on Windows, I don't use Edge, so seeing an Edge changelog from an OS update is an ad (not sure if MS still does that, I haven't used Windows in years).
Google advertises its products on its search page. Microsoft advertises its products on its OS (initial run, pretty much every update). Apple does the same with macOS.
So what exactly is the proposed change? Do we block advertising for other products if you have a certain share of the market? Or does it come down to the manner of advertising?
In my mind, "monopolistic behavior" means doing something to undermine competition. If you're merely pushing your own services and not interfering with other options, I don't think that's anti-competitive. For example, is Valve's pushing of its Steam Deck on their store anti-competitive? Valve is dominant on the PC gaming market and I wouldn't be surprised if they're dominant in handheld PC gaming as well (e.g. compare to Ayaneo, Asus ROG Ally, etc). That sounds similar to how Google is dominant in both search and browser market share. I don't think Valve should be treated as a monopoly though since they're not really doing monopoly things (no exclusives except a handful of Valve-made titles, no special discount for using Steam Deck, etc).
I get it, Google is bad, but what exactly are they doing that's bad that should be restricted? What exactly should the law look like? We can't punish companies because we feel they're doing bad things, we need a system of laws that specifically lays out what's not okay. AFAIK, Google doesn't meet the current standard, so what exactly should that standard be?
But if its updates are packaged with the OS updates, it makes sense for its changelog to be shown alongside the rest of the OS update.
Yes. And the percentage of the market share is already defined in antitrust law.
Such as using your monopolistic position in Search to push your browser?
How isn't it? How is that fair competition?
Perhaps. But it's also worth remembering that Steam is literally Valve's store, of course they sell steam decks there.
People go to storefronts with the explicit intention of buying things. I don't go to a search engine or email client with the expectation of having popups telling me to install a browser.
If I went onto Google's storefront, I wouldn't be upset about them selling Pixel phones there. I'd expect that their store would have their products for sale.
Nonono. No. I know your angle here, and it's a clever one, but I'm not falling for it.
Don't attempt to reduce my argument against abuse of market position to being some kind of fanboyish "hur dur Google bad, amirite guys?" - that's not my argument. I've explained what my argument is.
As stated, they're abusing their monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage that cannot be achieved by their competitors.
The same as it is now, just actually enforced.
There you go again. Trying to reduce my argument to being reactionary and feelings-based. I've explained my view multiple times, and it has nothing to do with my feelings, and everything to do with abuse of market position.
They definitely do, and they've got in trouble in the EU over it multiple times. Laws aren't always followed, and they're not always actually acted on by governments. Warranty void if removed stickers aren't legal, yet pretty much all devices have them, for example.