Note: Original report by Bloomberg, article by Reuters proxied by Neuters to bypass paywall.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    And whoever buys it won’t also have some kind of ulterior motive? Chrome isn’t likely to be a money-maker on its own. If it were, Firefox would have less trouble staying afloat. Anyone who buys Chrome most likely will have plans for it that are no more in the end-user’s best interest than Google’s.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It’s not about dispelling any ulterior motive. The idea of anti-monopoly enforcement actions is that if the “business ecosystem” is good and healthy, then other companies who don’t own Chrome will be able to compete with whoever owns Chrome, giving the consumer choice that people who like the free market say will reduce consumer exploitation. (If you can’t tell from my tone, I am dubious, at best, of this logic)

      • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yeah any company controlled by the rich will act immorally

        We can at least make sure it’s multiple companies who will fight each other instead of one supreme leader megacorp