• daggermoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    What company could actually afford to buy it other than Google, Meta, or Amazon? Unless they are forced to sell it at a loss, which is fine with me.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      By “sell,” they could also mean ending up having Chrome just split off from Google, as a new, independent entity that is its own company, without anybody needing to buy it in the first place.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        The judge would immediately shut that down for creative avoidance. This is an order to sell, not break up. The DOJ specifically indicated behavioural remedies in this case, meaning Google must not remain in control of Chrome.

        • underwire212@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Don’t ya love it when people comment saying something that they think must be true as if it were actually true, without having the slightest idea?

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          This is an order to sell, not break up.

          Currently, it’s still recommended actions to the court. Nothing has actually been finalized in terms of what they’re going to actually end up trying to make Google do.

          Google must not remain in control of Chrome.

          While divestiture is likely, they could also spin-off, split-off, or carve-out, which carry completely different implications for Google, but are still an option if they are unable to convince the court to make Google do their original preferred choice.

          A split-off could prevent Google from retaining shares in the new company without sacrificing shares in Google itself, and a carve-out could still allow them to “sell” it, but via shares sold in an IPO instead of having to get any actual buyout from another corporation.

  • 200ok@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker, says the DOJ is pushing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.”

    I’m honestly curious how this would “harm Americans”.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Google pretending they have any other nationality other then “the global internet” is cute in a disgusting way.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      The same ruling would ban Google from paying other browsers to make Google the default search engine.
      This would kill Firefox and make Chromium the only browser engine that’s left.

      • ferret@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It would leave the newly-split-off chrome in the same financial situation as firefox. Arguably a worse one.