Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google


  • Vivaldi Team

    The lawsuit against Google in the US court is a major step — but how does it impact consumers around the world?

    Click here to see the full blog post



  • Proudly first 😎🍁⚡


  • - Ambassador -

    An excellent article and perspective. Five Stars. 👍 @Tatsuki

    One (or four for that matter) company(ies) should not have control over the entire internet in any country or the world (if we add Apple, MS, Twitter).
    To have a private company control and store such things as scientific data, medical records, educational data, some corporate data of other companies, the list runs on... is unconscionable, to me anyway.



  • It would be ideal if this US court would manage to separate Chromium from Google, so that Chromium would become a real open source project.



  • Compare this in-depth, well-written article by Tatsuki Tomita with that of Opera...

    Just sad to say the least, unthinkable a few years ago.

    Mozilla's stance few days ago, "kick Google all you like, Mozilla tells US government, so long as we keep getting our Google-bucks" was not unexpected either, but not in this magnitude of the full canonization of St. Google by Opera.

    Sad, pitiful and disgraceful for both.



  • everyone who dislike the situation has to create his own company and compete with G.
    there's nothing to do for lawyers.
    nothing personal, just business.



  • @Vladimyr said in Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google:

    everyone who dislike the situation has to create his own company and compete with G.

    Did you read the article at all, or that is what you make up from it?


  • Vivaldi Team

    Thank you, everyone for your comments and supporting Vivaldi. Much appreciated!


  • - Ambassador -

    George Orwell was still very naive

    @tatsuki, thanks to you and the team for your work in this great browser..



  • @npro said in Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google:

    with that of Opera...

    Ugh, that article made me cranky!

    This year, we celebrated Opera’s 25 year anniversary.

    What a fraudulent deceptive misleading boast. This is a different company with a different ethos. This is not "our" Opera, it's just a bunch of different people using a different technology informed by a completely different philosophy, who happen to have legal protection to use the same name. Rank hypocrisy / dishonesty in this statement.

    Twenty years ago, Opera was among the first web browsers to have an integrated search experience.

    Clearly that sentence is defective, so here i have helpfully fixed it for them...

    Twenty years ago, Opera was an ethical innovative trendsetting company which developed & pioneered numerous new browser capabilities. Along the way a commercial & ethical sellout occurred, such that today we merely trade-off the good name of Opera whilst possessing none of their original hallmarks. Twenty years ago, users' data was the users'. Today, we assist gargle to own the users. Our mums would be so proud... not.



    As to the substance of the Vivaldi article, i'm afraid that i am extremely hard-hearted about this area. IMO gargle rose to dominance on the back of lazy ignorant &/or stupid users, so part of me laughs at the fact that these very same users are now the ones being manifestly damaged by the monster they created.

    Ironically it is that self-same laziness, ignorance or stupidity now keeping so many of these people either clueless about or uncaring of the fact that they are nothing but data-pwned commodified money-trees. That said, i do hope DoJ rips gargle to shreds... only i do not expect anything like that outcome, sadly.



  • This one goes to 11
    I helped Opera in the past test the browser.js file as Google's Gmail was sending Opera users broken code, Google still does that to non Chrome browsers years later across their different sites.


  • Moderator

    @tatsuki A big Thanks for this article 🙂



  • I have been essentially Google-free for 12 years now. I never really used them that much, but they were still horrifying me even back then. I say "essentially", because I do have a gmail account. It was one of the first ones, before gmail's full public release, back when it was just an invite-only experiment. I use it as a spambox when I simply have to give a genuine email address, but that's it. Nothing stays signed-in to that account for anything more than the 1 or 2 minutes it takes to check what's in there.

    I am now having a lot of trouble accessing my gmail account, as it seems to require me to verify myself with a security question, a code to an alternative email address, and a text message, every time I sign in - so I will shortly be deleting this account. I know Google want everyone to stay signed-in so they can track you, but until recently they didn't make it difficult to use their email like a normal mail-service.

    I use a dumbphone, and although I am an Android user (I have an Android tab), I use AOSP or LineageOS on it, with no Google play services or Google apps on it at all. Everything I need (apart from Vivaldi) is in the F-droid store. I briefly used a smartphone, but it was a Fairphone 2, which can be flashed with a de-Googled, open-source (and officially-supported) version of Fairphone's Android-based OS. Unfortunately, I couldn't live with constantly having to charge it (anything from 2 - 5 times a week - how do people put up with this?), and the Fairphone hardware itself was extremely fragile and unreliable.

    When I started using ixquick/startpage (now owned by advertisers) and then DuckDuckGo, I never noticed any decrease in search result quality over google's results. I find it odd when people tell me that they "tried" Qwant, DDG, or others, but "the results aren't as good as google". It's almost like people have "baby-duck syndrome" and aren't willing to give a non-google service a chance. The first time they don't get the answers they're looking for, they write-off the whole service for ever. Or perhaps, they don't give it chance to build up the same profile Google has built-up. They also don't realise that 99% of their queries can be answered by any search engine, such as "who was the 3rd president of the USA" or "when was Edward Elgar born".

    It's entirely possible to live without Google becuase there are perfectly-usable alternatives to all of their services. People just stick with them or use them because they're widely-known, and also for the illusion of convenience. They assume it will be "more effort" or "hard work" to use an alternative service - or they can't be bothered to learn a slightly different interface etc.

    I wouldn't have a problem with Google being the dominant search/email/maps/etc platform if they weren't evil. I don't think it's going against a fair market to rein-in companies like Google when they abuse us and their competitors. I see helping Google's competitors and penalising Google much the same as I view the regulations that protect food or vehicle-safety.

    As an analogy: If one company can make lovely, sweet-tasting wine very cheaply by sweetening it with lead-compounds, then gets a monopoly and uses that monopoly to keep more-ethical wine-producers out of the market, they deserve to be regulated. That's less "interfering with a fair and free market" than "protecting consumers". IMHO with their tracking-based, invasive advertising-model, Google (and many others) are like the wine-producer who sweetens their wine with lead. It has a higher profit-margin and tastes sweet right now, but poisons you in the long-run. Suggesting it's unfair to penalise Google for being evil is like suggesting it's unfair to ban lead as a food ingredient.

    In short, the digital and tech markets need regulation to protect our digital safety. It's especially important as most consumers can't see the negative effects of what they do and buy, because these effects are gradual over time, and cleverly masked by the instant gratification provided by those services/devices.



  • ...and I'm not even arguing for people to avoid google either. If you weigh up the pros and cons of using google, you may decide the pros outweigh the cons.

    For the same reason, some people still smoke, even though it's widely accepted that it's bad for you. Some people just relish and enjoy smoking, and the all the social interactions it seems to facilitate. Of course some will get lung-cancer, but not all of them - and for those that do, it will usually be many, many years down the line anyway. Maybe that's an extreme and slightly skewed example, but you get my point. Maybe replace my "cigarettes" example here with "hamburgers" and it's probably closer to the choice you make when using G services.



  • @jamesbeardmore: The issue you're describing is similar to the zombies that insist on using Microsoft Windows. There isn't a known computer user that couldn't benefit from a Linux installation. The added security, reliability and speed obtained from using Linux is undeniable. But, as you suggest, they pretend they can't deal with a different interface or method of accomplishing the same thing Windows offers.

    I've long given up on the human race. Stupidity is just built in to the human algorithm. Some people are more open to new methods while others are so close-minded and have a limited capacity to learn something new. Believe me, the Linux learning curve is pretty flat. Especially for normal users. If my wife and two sisters can use it, anyone can.



  • @npro: yes, the article is also about vivaldi position and threat to privacy (the last time I saw the privacy on the internet was 1990 or so) etc.
    that was my opinion not about entire text, just about G's monopoly.


  • - Ambassador -

    @jamesbeardmore , one thing is the undoubted quality of Google's services, which no one denies and which in some services is very difficult to replace or only poorly.
    But the price is high, when instead there is a BigBrother on the net and protects the movements of users, which in searches shows me first what it considers relevant to me, not what is really relevant (Filter Bubble), which makes it difficult or even prevents blocking ads when it suits him, which makes it difficult for other manufacturers to create alternative products (see why they had Vivaldi disguised as Chrome).
    A monopoly too often incites abuse and Google is no exception to this rule, they commit a direct attack on a free internet, making it their own and the user a merchant.



  • Pretty certain I may be part of the problem, identify with the simplicity of the Google ecosystem minus the advertising side of their business model which is what provided the rise to being the juggernaut they are now. Can see why DOJ would take issue with them now. Presence is almost everywhere.



  • @jamesbeardmore said in Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google:

    when was Edward Elgar born

    Gargle: give me all your personal data now & forever, then maybe i'll tell you. Muhahahahaha... you are mine [& mined].
    DDG: 2 June 1857, quack.
    Qwant: would you like some cheese?
    Mojeek: would you like to see some third-order differential equations?


    @devoman said in Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google:

    I've long given up on the human race. Stupidity is just built in to the human algorithm. Some people are more open to new methods while others are so close-minded and have a limited capacity to learn something new

    👍 👍 👍


  • - Ambassador -

    @npro said in Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google:

    Compare this in-depth, well-written article by Tatsuki Tomita with that of Opera...

    😞

    @npro said in Vivaldi’s take on the antitrust case against Google:

    Mozilla's stance few days ago

    Again 😞


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.