While the EU has recently forced Microsoft to allow users to uninstall pre-installed crapware, Google is apparently unhindered in their ongoing (and succeeding) mission to take control of all layers of the consumer-facing internet.
Google is working on making a premium internet based on their services that permeate the whole web which they plan to serve only to "trusted devices" running Chrome - I do not think this is going to work out well for them.
Eventually users will realise this, and advertisers will see negative returns, and Google will lose money. But chances are they'll find another way to keep advertisers paying.
and i also don’t see how they can really do this at least in EU, at least not for long until the regulators catch wind.
Ensuring you only use the OEM's recommended browser looks like the endgame of the internet.
It's truly profound how split-second loading delays contribute to a negative impression about digital products. I guess we're all worn out from using our devices. Most of us just want "thing" ASAP, and we'll compulsively click 'agree' to anything that happens to stand in the way of it.
'Why don't you switch to Chrome, it works better/faster.' is not the sort of social pressure I can quickly respond to with my privacy concerns. And it's not like I'm not going to get an eye-roll or tin-foil-man comments from the mom-pop-type people in my life.
Just like MS was always seen in Europe as well, outside (parts of) the tech-workers bubble. Governments in every single country at every level never had any problem mandating proprietary softwares and formats to their citizens for many, many years.
That's why you don't start with the nerd explanation of the privacy issues, you just tell them Firefox is way better. You install FF + uBlock (since presumably they don't even have an adblocker on Chrome if they're anything like my parents), and tell them "Look ma, no ads!". Not even people who don't care about ads that much and just ignore them will go back to seeing them if they see the option of no ads existing. And if you handle all their bookmark imports and account logins for them so they don't have to, they won't even feel the difference from a UI/UX point of view (sans a few microscopic differences that nobody notices).
As for these artificial speedbumps, I think that statistic about every 100ms of page load decreases visitor time is true to an extent, but at least if I look at the way my parents use websites, even 5kb plaintext ones take like 3s to load since they have unfathomably slow internet and ancient devices, so it doesn't really factor in for them if they click on a video on youtube they wanna watch.
Honestly, um, no. Like I get where you’re coming from and I used to consider it good advice. But my approach these days is to just keep my mouth shut.
I’d never dream of changing browsers because some video site (mostly full of low-effort distracting silliness), didn’t work well in mine.
It’s an extremely delicate task for the EU, easy to sabotage.
Ever talk to someone random about Google's privacy bullshit and why Chrome is not a great browser? Nobody cares, and they think you're an idiot.
So, Google will carry on until it's too late.
Chrome has high but not massive usage, and it hasn’t stagnated. It has a separate problem though: the lack of stagnation is actually a drive towards Google’s somewhat unhealthy vision for the web.
And what's better for distributing ads on the internet then controlling the software people use to view said ads - the browser.
I also don't understand what this law has to do with the topic.
My point in highlighting it is that I think there is a lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws and/or a lack of laws that would prevent Google behaving in this way, since I think it is so much worse than what Microsoft has been doing with Windows not allowing users to uninstall crapware.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
Furthermore, are we talking about the same Microsoft that:
1. forced usage of Microsoft Edge, while also actively blocking circumvention mechanisms;
2. that keeps hijacking searches for Chrome, or Firefox;
3. that has telemetry in Edge that can't be disabled;
4. and that, upon first opening Edge, it asks you to agree to data sharing with the entire advertising industry?
---
You basically assert that Google is receiving preferential treatment from the EU, yet provided absolutely no evidence for it.
Maybe the absence of evidence is the evidence in this case. (No lawsuits)