

Google may face antitrust challenge on Chrome - parenthesis
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-may-face-antitrust-challenge-on-chrome-917260.html

======
halo
Dramatic headline with little-to-no information. Sounds like utter
scaremongering.

I don't really see how Google can face an antitrust challenge over Chrome:
they don't dominate the browser space, they aren't product-tying or doing
anything that could be construed as abusive, they don't even force you to use
their search engine within Chrome, and the entire source is offered
permissively and they've encouraged other vendors to use it in their products.
If anything they are /encouraging/ competition in the browser space.

~~~
netcan
I can't say that I understand the subtleties, but I imagine the case would
need to be built on Google's monopoly in the search engine market, not the
browser market.

~~~
aardvarkious
I don't see how they have a monopoly on the search engine market. It is
definitely the most popular and probably the best search engine, but there is
definitely no limit on other adequate alternatives. A monopoly occurs when a
company controls a product or service significantly enough to significantly
control the terms people must follow access it. Google hardly does this. Most
people might choose them, but they don't need to in order to access a search
engine. For example, if tomorrow Google decided to start charging a buck a
search, 99.9% of their users would instantly switch search engines with very
little ill effects.

~~~
gaius
Heh, try this for size: "I don't see how they have a monopoly on the
_operating system_ market. It is definitely the most popular and probably the
best _operating system_ , but there is definitely no limit on other adequate
alternatives"

Microsoft got into trouble because they leveraged the popularity of one
product (Windows) to push another (IE). Google will be fine provided they
never release a feature on their website that _requires_ Chrome. At that
point, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

~~~
PieSquared
Google wouldn't make a Chrome-only feature, simply because then it wouldn't be
available to the massive user base which _doesn't_ use Chrome. Which is most
people right now, and will probably continue to be most people.

~~~
netcan
I think that depends. If Chrome actually enabled features otherwise
impossible, they might. At least they'd have a rational reason too (as would
all developers). Maybe Gears is more of a candidate for this.

------
pg
It would be the final admission of failure for Microsoft to attack competitors
on antitrust grounds.

------
YogSothoth
Three prisoners were sitting in a U.S. jail, found guilty of "economic crimes"
and were also comparing stories. The first one said, "I charged higher prices
than my competitors, and I was found guilty of profiteering, monopolizing and
exploiting consumers." The second one said, "I charged lower prices than my
competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing, cutthroat competing
and under-charging." The third prisoner said, "I charged the same prices as my
competitors, and I was found guilty of collusion, price leadership and
cartelization."

------
vaksel
good, the last thing we need to do is give Google more power in the internet
space

