Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Will Implement a Microsoft-Style Browser Picker For EU Android Devices (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the take-your-pick dept.

Back in 2009, the EU's European Commission said Microsoft was harming competition by bundling its browser -- Internet Explorer -- with Windows. Eventually Microsoft and the European Commission settled on the "browser ballot," a screen that would pop up and give users a choice of browsers. Almost 10 years later, the tech industry is going through this again, this time with Google and the EU. After receiving "feedback" from the European Commission, Google announced last night that it would offer Android users in the EU a choice of browsers and search engines. Ars Technica reports: In July, the European Commission found Google had violated the EU's antitrust rules by bundling Google Chrome and Google Search with Android, punishing manufacturers that shipped Android forks, and paying manufacturers for exclusively pre-installing Google Search. Google was fined a whopping $5.05 billion (which it is appealing) and then the concessions started. Google said its bundling of Search and Chrome funded the development and free distribution of Android, so any manufacturer looking to ship Android with unbundled Google apps would now be charged a fee. Reports later pegged this amount as up to $40 per handset.

We don't have many details on exactly how Google's new search and browser picker will work; there's just a single paragraph in the company's blog post. Google says it will "do more to ensure that Android phone owners know about the wide choice of browsers and search engines available to download to their phones. This will involve asking users of existing and new Android devices in Europe which browser and search apps they would like to use."

59 comments

  1. Re: More EU regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Safari duh no extensions, no blockers, no logging into an account, no dns hijacking by some chrome api doesn't it go without saying? Who cares Google would never follow through its a ploy to avoid eu sanctions

  2. Re: More EU regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today's Europeans are the descendants of those who were left behind a few hundred years ago. I'm afraid sitting out on progress is just their nature.

  3. Re:More EU regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regulations that limit how much businesses can screw people. Regulations that help the people.

    It's like you hate people and love corporations.

  4. Your security matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.

    Please... enough... please stop... I can't take anymore.

    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends usin chr0me.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chr0me.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chr0me.
    Google recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.

    There.... are..... FFFOOOOOOUUUUURRR LIGHTS !!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!

    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends usin chrome.
    G00gle recommends using chr0me.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    G00gle recommends usin chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.
    Google recommends using chrome.

    I don't want to switch to a "fast and secure browser" loaded with Google malware. Really I don't. Not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow... not ever.

    THE ENTIRE INTERNET feels the same way. Government goons while you are at it. We might even vote for U if you make it happen. THANK U

  5. Fine is too small ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fine should be the totality of WorldWide Revenue every day, each day, until compliance is achieved.

    1. Re: Fine is too small ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BDS

    2. Re: Fine is too small ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HWQ? LOL! GJXR!

  6. But i will not help very much by xack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back when Microsoft had to do it we still had 4 major browser engines. Now we are down to 2 and most browsers are Chrome skins. What should really happen is that Chromium and Blink get spun off into a non Google controlled organization so we can have healthy competition on the mobile web. Plus iOS and the remains of Windows mobile should also have browser choices.

    1. Re:But i will not help very much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any entity/group/person can form a group and fok the chromium source code to make a non google controlled engine. It doesnt need the government to do that and there is nothing stopping that from happening now. The fact that nobody is, means that nobody wants to so government intervention isnt going to help here.

    2. Re:But i will not help very much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when Microsoft had to do it we still had 4 major browser engines. Now we are down to 2 and most browsers are Chrome skins.

      Crazy stupid revisionist history right there. Google didn't write a browser themselves they simply used webkit and added their own "chrome". Google's contribution is literally the name of their browser.

    3. Re:But i will not help very much by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No-one is stopping you forking Chromium... But the reality is that a modern browser needs a huge amount of work to keep it competitive, and all the ones that are not supported by corporations or well-funded non-profits are dead or dying.

      In other words if you want it to happen then the challenge is to build a non-profit with enough resources to hire devs to work on the problem.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:But i will not help very much by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      Back when Microsoft had to do it we still had 4 major browser engines. Now we are down to 2 and most browsers are Chrome skins.

      Crazy stupid revisionist history right there. Google didn't write a browser themselves they simply used webkit and added their own "chrome". Google's contribution is literally the name of their browser.

      Chrome forked off of Webkit to make Blink back in 2013, so there has been quite a bit of work done since Chrome's initial release. If you want to discount all the work that goes into something that was a fork of something else, well then I guess all the work on WebKt doesn't count as it was forked from KHTML.

    5. Re:But i will not help very much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of COURSE it would help here. The cost of entry for the browser market is enormous, AND it should clearly not be controlled by a single corporation. In a situation like this it is entirely reasonable for the government to act. Lasseiz faire free market capitalism is not a magic wand you can wave over the economy to solve every problem. Sometimes we really do need appropriate regulation to protect the interests of consumers over those of massive corporations and to suggest otherwise is to ignore many decades of evidence.

  7. I guess it was too hard? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    A 3 step process already - settings, basics, search engine. Done.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:I guess it was too hard? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I guess it was too hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're too stupid if you think browser is the same as the "search engine". But then, yes, you are.

    3. Re:I guess it was too hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phones have a google search bar on the home screen managed by the OS, and your link is about changing the search engine used in the google chrome application.

      Can you change the search engine used by that Android search bar?
      Last time I check you couldn't, but that was years ago.
      This search bar is mandated by Google through their dominant position unless the manufacturer relishes the authorization to bundle the Google Play app store, youtube, gmail.

    4. Re:I guess it was too hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *relinquishes

      I thought "relish" sounded good, so it had to be right ?!

    5. Re:I guess it was too hard? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A 3 step process already - settings, basics, search engine. Done.

      Changing the search engine in Chrome does nothing other than change the search engine in Chrome. Hit the search button at the top of the home screen? Well you're back to Google. Using the Assistant? Google. Is Firefox your default browser but you use Bixby or your feral "assistant" of choice to open a link, guess where it opens ... did you guess Firefox? You're wrong. Google.

      So yes, it's to hard. It's not a 3 step process. On many devices it's simply not possible to *not* use Google Search or *not* use Chrome. And why would it be easy? The reason they got fined $5bn in the first place is because they specifically asked manufacturers to make it hard in order to get the Play Store.

    6. Re:I guess it was too hard? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Go to play.google.com. Type in "browser". You can now install a dozen different browsers. On Samsung phones at least, you can use Samsung's built-in assistant instead of OK Google; but you can always use Alexa on your Android phone if you like - and avoid OK Google. And at least on my Note 8, using Bixby (which I just re-enabled to check - and have now turned back off) will launch my default browser (just installed Opera, set to default, tried, and then removed). Also can have it default to the Samsung browser if I like, too...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:I guess it was too hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trully stupid.

    8. Re:I guess it was too hard? by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.

      wrong. Most people don't care. They want to USE their device, not spend time setting it up and configuring it. So even one step that IS in their face is too many.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  8. but not apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thank god

  9. Re: More EU regulations by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    There isn't even a Windows installer for Safari anymore, let alone one for most of the mobile devices out there.

  10. Re:SHOULD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Engine development isn't easy job. You don't just demand more people to join.

  11. what about non-EU countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the browzer selection option will not be available to nonEU. Ok we will also fine google for another billion

  12. Even with Microsoft's desire and money by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Microsoft sure wanted to have the dominant browser.
    They have a hundred BILLION dollars.
    Still, didn't make sense. They're using the Chrome engine.

  13. So with Microsofts biased random function? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsofts browser picker had the convenient feature to "randomly" choose IE as first browser in the list around 90% of the time. Will that feature also be present with Googles implementation?

    1. Re:So with Microsofts biased random function? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will also complain loudly and often afterwards, that "are you really sure you are still not using Edge, the competitors are bad and every time you use non-edge browser a kitten dies." Actually this might be a good thing if Google did the same, as constant whining and harassment might have contributed greatly to the death of Edge.

  14. Are you always this wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at name. Yes, yes you are. Carry on.

  15. How is Android a monopoly? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    When Microsoft got hit by the EU with the whole browser choice thing etc, they had a near-monopoly on desktop operating systems (in terms of the percentage of desktop computers that were running Windows as compared to Linux or OSX or other things).

    Google on the other hand does NOT have a monopoly in the mobile OS space (unless the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there as well as those like the Kindle devices running a non-Google fork of Android without all the Google bits and the few others still running things like Windows or Blackberry all dont count).

    1. Re: How is Android a monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple market share is down to 13ish percent now.

    2. Re:How is Android a monopoly? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      What has a monopoly got to do with anything? Are you under the impression that you need a monopoly in order to abuse your power? Are you under the impression that antitrust laws only applies to monopolies?

      Let me help you: No.

      As to Google's market power, there are several hundred million smartphones shipped every year. Some 75-80% of those globally run Android, some 50-70% of those fall under the Google certification scheme. So a fair chunk of the entire market was restricted due to a bundling practice that prevented competition on an open use platform. That is called abuse of market power and it has directly affected hundreds of millions of people regardless of your definition of monopoly.

      unless the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there as well as those like the Kindle devices running a non-Google fork of Android without all the Google bits and the few others still running things like Windows or Blackberry all dont count

      You're conflating two different things there. The presence of a completely different platform does not absolve Google from control over a platform. Just because there's lots of iPhones or iPads out there doesn't mean Google isn't abusing its market power controlling Android. As to the Kindle devices and others ... well that is exactly the point. These have been intentionally limited by a company with large market power precisely due to being customised. Critical core features have been locked out of these devices, their market share has reflected this accordingly, and that is precisely what the fine is all about.

    3. Re:How is Android a monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android has around 85% - 90% marketshare, that's not really far off where Microsoft was when they were hit by both their anti-trust cases. Simply saying there are millions of iOS devices out there is insufficient, there were also millions of Macs out there when Microsoft was taken to court for monopoly abuse, but millions doesn't help when up against billions of Android devices, or in Microsoft's case at the time, Windows devices. Interestingly there are other clear parallels between Microsoft's anti-trust case and Google, Microsoft also was forcing hardware vendors to bundle Windows or risk losing other valuable commercial access; Google has done the exact same by saying exclusively bundle Google's flavour of Android, or lose access to the Google Play Store and Google Maps etc.

      I also think this is legitimate, I think Google is clearly engaging in monopoly abuse. They make it way too difficult to use ad-blockers on Android devices and as a result users devices end up suffering from significant battery drain, worse performance, and greater risk to malware all so Google can sell more ads.

      So fingers crossed, this will make it easier to keep ads off of Android mobile devices, wasting less power, giving more performance, and reducing the chance of malware. This is a really good move tbh and will benefit users no end. This is perfectly legitimate as Google's actions with Android have almost exactly mirrored Microsoft's with Windows in terms of monopoly abuse. Google learnt from the best.

  16. $40 extra per device.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to de-google android? that's a fucking bargain. where do i sign up?

  17. There should be a choice of maps by short · · Score: 0

    Normal people do not want non-Google browsers and search engines. But one should be able to choose different map engine embedded in all the Android apps rather than the only provided Google Maps. There are various other ones with much better map data + primarily map rendering such as https://en.mapy.cz/ and obviously https://www.openstreetmap.org/ .

    1. Re: There should be a choice of maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Normal people do not want non-Google browsers and search engines.
      [citation required]

    2. Re: There should be a choice of maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try talking to people.

    3. Re:There should be a choice of maps by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Normal people don't give a shit what browser they use. The world has conclusively shown the power of defaults matter. Now as for search engine, yes the vast majority will try to pick the household name.

    4. Re:There should be a choice of maps by short · · Score: 1

      > Normal people don't give a shit what browser they use. The world has conclusively shown the power of defaults matter.

      On MS-Windows the default is MSIE while 95% (or how much) of MS-Windows users immediately install Chrome.

  18. Microsoft browser ballot by Mr_Silver · · Score: 3, Informative

    When Microsoft implemented the browser ballot, the NY Times reported the following (emphasis mine):

    Rivals of Microsoft's market-leading Web browser have attracted a flurry of interest since the company, fulfilling a regulatory requirement, started making it easier for European users of its Windows operating system to switch.

    Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is the strongest competitor to Microsoft's Internet Explorer worldwide, said that more than 50,000 people had downloaded Firefox via a "choice screen" that has been popping up on Windows-equipped computers in Europe since the end of last month. The screen displays links to a dozen browsers, including Explorer, Firefox, Google's Chrome, Apple's Safari and Opera.

    Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear.

    It'll be interesting to see what happens.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Microsoft browser ballot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 X 1 is still only 3.

  19. Money and Google giving a fuck by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Also, back then Microsoft made money by selling the OS and thus needed to keep users in the walled garden they were creating with incompatible IE. They needed users defaulting to IE, so the users get used to a world that runs on MS' ActiveX component and uses MS' specific HTML quircks and looks broken on any other browser, so the users will insist on having IE, and thus the users (or the companies they work in) will need to buy MS-Windows.

    TL;DR: Microsoft's quasy-monopoly leveraged to give more money to Microsoft.

    -----

    Whereas today:

    Google absolutely doesn't give a flying fuck about *what browser* you happen to be using.
    Remember, they pour money both into the development of their own in-house browser (Chrome - whose engine is nowadays behind nearly all browsers) *AND* pay money to the Mozilla foundation (to develop Firefox. Nowadays the only barely significant browser with a different engine).

    As browser are more or less standard compliant, you're not locked into using one due to technology (everybody uses Javascript and webassembly instead of MS ActiveX) or incompatible HTML (everybody strives for HTML5 standard). The DRM plugins for EME (e.g.: Widevine CDM) are about the only proprietary shit on the internet and even that is following some form of standard and available on both engines (but only for a limited amound of CPU architecture. Too bad is you want to use some opensource RISC-V or SH-2/J2, instead of the provided ARM and x86/64)

    As long as you use *a* browser to go to the internet Google is happy. Because then they can subject your eyeballs to a *deluge of Ads* and monetize the shit out of your online behaviour : They have a giant chunk of the advertising market (Adwords, etc.). And of the tracking infrastructure (Analytics, Tagmanager, etc.). And have a near-monopoly to see your search-requests. With only a few relevant competitor (Facebook, Amazon, etc.).

    Noticed how at least their own mobile browser doesn't provide plug-in ? Thus making impossible to install uBlock on your smartphone (but need to fumble around with hosts or blocking VPN plugins) Or how they have a very limited form of web extension API preventing stuff like NoScript? (which relies on API extensions that only Firefox provides)
    No surprise here: they *need* the users as likely as possible to run into ads and trackers once on the net.

    ie.: Google doesn't need Chrome, it only needs people on the Internet (where Google can make money out of them).

    Requiring Google to support multiple browser would have been like requiring Microsoft to support multiple firmwares (BIOS, UEFI, OpenFirmware, coreboot) - wouldn't have mattered to Microsoft as long as the users ends up where Microsoft makes money.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  20. Google doesn't think neither. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser).

    On the other hand, Google doesn't think about what browser people use neither.
    They don't give a damn.

    They only give a damn if people go online on the internet.
    Because *then* Google will make gobs of money by marketing the shit out of there (Google has an appallingly large market share in the advertisement and analytics businesses).

    That's why Google Chrome is free and available on multiple platforms, and why Google is also financing Mozilla Foundation.
    It's not to appease anti-trust inquiries (though it helps and it's an added bonus). It's because they absolutely need as many people as possible online with standard-compliant browser to earn money (and investing into Firefox is giving Google additional ways to bring people online where Google will get money).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Google doesn't think neither. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Google totally cares. Chrome has allowed them to push for more control over the internet and they like it. For instance, unilaterally rolling out AMP in Chrome made it a new standard. Or Chrome making JS faster, because people were disabling it (and Google's tracking).

      Frankly, you're crazy naive. If Google didn't care, it wouldn't have taken a 5 billion dollar fine to get them to do this. They would have done it when they got the eaerlier 1.7 billion dollar fine. How much is Chrome's monopoly in the the EU worth to Google? Between 1.7 billion and 5 billion every few years.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  21. Money is the key. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's business was selling OS to desktop users (or computer manufacturer).

    Google's business is not Android and is not Chrome.
    They don't make money by selling Android (AOSP is even free and opensource), they don't make money by selling browsers (Chrome is free and opensource, and provided on multiple platforms).

    They make money by :

      - Regarding browsers:
    having as many people as possible on the internet, when then Google can subsequently market the shit out of them.
    Remember, Google has a frighteningly large market share of the advertisement *and* analytics businesses (and of the searching business, which itself doesn't bring money, but is a place where they can display ads, gather user behaviour/analytics looking at their request, and leverage the same technology that gives the most perfect match between a user and the page they want to find to also find the most perfect match with the ads that marketeer are paying google to display).

    Google doesn't make a cent on browsers. But browsers are the tool that bring users to the internet *where* Google makes "uncle-scoorg"-sized pools of money.

    Notice how google isn't only developing their own in-house browser, they also pay money to Mozilla to make Firefox? It's not the browser, it's bringing people online.

      - Regarding android:
    they make money from the users by taking a levy on any monetary transaction, be it buying paid-for apps, or the payment platform used by microtransactions in freemium apps. (Also, ads displayed in free apps. See preceding comment about browsers and ads, for similar conclusions)
    the also make money from the manufacturer by licensing their Google/Android experience, which includes blobs and services that are required to access Google's play store (where most of the apps are, which has the best of apps, and where they are better currated. I don't hate Aptoid, I actually use it, but you have to conceed that it sometime doesn't look as polished) and is also required by lot of apps (e.g.: lots of apps such as vehicle sharing apps, require the Google Maps Services for location and maps - to help you find your ride.)

    Google doesn't make any cent from *Android*, but just like browser are the things that bring people to the *internet* where google makes money, android is the tool that brings people to the *play store* where google will be making gobs of money.

    Notice how google hasn't shut down or even prevented any attempt to bring android app compatibility? andbox, alien-dalvik, etc.
    (Whereas Microsoft is constantly playing cat-and-mouse with Wine).
    Notice also how google is making easy for an end-user to obtain a license freely to get access to PlayStore? And isn't actually banning users that try to install aftermarket Google Play Services and Play Store (think opengapps)?

    Metaphorically, you can thing of them as transportation services.

    Microsoft make money by selling bus ticket and they want to be the monopoly to shut down any competitor to avoid losing money to other transportation services. Trying to get to sell you a bus ticket as soon as you leave the house and before you even reach a train is in their interest. Forcing them to sell train ticket at your door too is a way to break the monopoly.

    Google are all for public free transportation, develop their own fleet of free buses, but also pay Mozilla to make free metros. Because that means more people using the transportation to get down town... and Google owns nearly all shopping centre where people will spend money once down town.
    If you ask Google to also hand out free train ticker in addition to free bus ticket, they'll happily oblige.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  22. Re: More EU regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the ones who left were considered "extremists" even by the Inquisition.

  23. Re:iPhones only have one browser by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    Even if they chose another it wouldn't matter. Any browser on iOS must use the same engine has Safari. Chrome et al on iOS? Basically just skins.

  24. Re:More EU regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut the bullshit. Basically you think consumer choice is bad and you should eat whatever corporate dogfood you're given like a good little sheep.

  25. Required standards vs fluff by DrYak · · Score: 1

    For instance, unilaterally rolling out AMP in Chrome made it a new standard.

    What the fuck is even AMP ?! I haven't heard about it much, and I can still function without major problems without it. Just shows how important this thing is... or not.
    If you use web browsers complying to W3C HTML standrd, you're still okay.

    As opposed to...

    Or Chrome making JS faster, because people were disabling it (and Google's tracking).

    Try disabling javascript nowadays. Just try it.
    You'll see that half of the web doesn't display correctly.

    Making JS faster has little to do with the tracking specifically (though faster JS in general means that tracking specific JS could do a little bit more).
    It has more to do with the fact that most web developers are considering the browser as an operating system and even a simple static pages requires gobs of third party libraries fetched from all over the web.

    That's why people aren't disabling JS and why all browser makers (including Mozilla) need to make it faster:
    every single page requires to download more javascript code than the whole needed to fit id's Doom back in the 90s.

    If your page weights 10 megabytes worth of javascript fetched from 15 different servers, the fact that 1-2k of them fetched from google is used to track is barely noticeable.

    And switching to Firefox won't change a thing to this: webpages are still going to require dozens of megabyte's worth of javascript, and firefox' javascript engine will be just as well leveraged to run(*) the tiny part that relates to tracking as chrome's.

    If your web browser doesn't follow modern Javascript standards, you won't be able to display significant parts of the web.
    If your web browser features a javascript engine, it will run(*) the tracking javascript.

    ---

    (*) unless you install some whitelisting solution like NoScript which at least is an option on Firefox (requires more than basic WebExtension API, so only works with Firefox, not on Chrome) or uBlock (Firefox supports webextensions on mobile browsers too, Chrome doesn't - uBlock is desktop-only there).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  26. You're as clueless as WindBourne... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get between a user and an innovative US brand they selected and wanted to use. People all over the EU want the freedom to select the US products they want to use.

    Nothing is stopping them from choosing. The rules just stop companies being anti-competitive.

    Thats the freedom they should have as users and consumers.

    They still have the freedom. With the rules now companies also have the freedom to compete.

    Their own computer. Their ISP. Their US software and US services to use. People in the EU like the freedom of innovative and productive US brands. What can the EU nations and their gov do? Let your people select the computer products they want.

    Here is where you lost what little part of the plot you had. Nothing is stopping EU people from using Google if that is what they choose.

    Want powerful and new EU brands to be competitive and interesting? Allow them to grow and be productive. Leas tax, less censorship. Less EU gov control. People might then consider trying an EU brand. EU laws, taxes and rules do not make for fun new products and services.

    And then you go completely off the rails.
    That's the opposite of what the rules will do. It allows EU brands to compete on a level playing field. Allows them to grow and innovate and be productive. It stops a slow lazy behemoth of a company using its dominance in one area to extinguish competition in another.

    You truly are as much of a troll as WindBourne.

    1. Re:You're as clueless as WindBourne... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC when a big gov steps in to alter a product its not a level playing field.
      Let people all over the EU enjoy their US brand computer OS and browser without a government adding layers of extra complexity.
      Any EU OS product should have the branding and staff ability to be part of a free and open marketplace without needing extra EU gov support.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  27. Dear WindBourne level moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WindBourne level moron, when a massive company uses it's leverage/dominance in one area to dominate a second area, it is not a level playing field.
    Regulations to stop that (which most sensible countries have, not just the EU) is helping to level the field and promoting innovation and freedom.

    1. Re:Dear WindBourne level moron... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "helping to level the field and promoting innovation and freedom"?
      By placing and promoting products and services inside another brands services?
      What next AC? Subsidies? Grants? To allow gov approved competition to grow?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  28. You are full WindBourne retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WindBourne level moron, when a massive company uses it's leverage/dominance in one area to dominate a second area, it is not a level playing field.
    Regulations to stop that (which most sensible countries have, not just the EU) is helping to level the field and promoting innovation and freedom.