• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    Which is why Google’s next step is to effectively require chromium browsers for any websites wanting access to Google services and products.

    • ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      Feels bad but I can’t condone this behaviour anymore and I feel ashamed that I haven’t seen the greed Google is capable of doing.

      In the coming months I will do my best to migrate away from the Google system, even if I end up paying a tad more, maybe just in time to set up a home server for photos.

        • lamia@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, if you can live with the fact that you need to either use the webmailer, their mobile apps or the bridge on desktop to use standard mail/calendar/anything software. I tried for a few years to migrate to PM (with a paid plan) but failed :(

    • rifugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sounds like a good reason to stop using Google services and products. Some examples (note, I haven’t used some of these yet):

      Search - DuckDuckGo

      Email - ProtonMail

      Drive - Dropbox

      Sheets/Docs - Zoho

      Some of these examples may not the best for everyone, but my point is that we do not have to let Google continue to push us around.

      • grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        74
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it sounds like a good reason for anti-trust regulators to make an injunction to stop Google from doing it.

        It’s time for this fantasy bullshit notion that boycotts are worth a damn to end. In reality, it’s nothing but pro-corporate propaganda designed to make people think they’re “fighting the man” or whatever when they’re actually completely ineffective.

        Now, don’t get me wrong: by all means, please feel free to quit using Google’s shit! That’s 100% a good thing and I fully encourage it! Just don’t delude yourself into thinking it represents even the slightest shred of a solution to the systemic problem Google’s anticompetitive strategies represent.

        • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Regulars are too busy trying to get rid of encryption. A double edged sword in the situation with Google’s drm

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not you and me. It’s the websites. They’re not going to give up on having anyone with Chrome or using Google services from being able to access their sites. We’d end up with 2 Internets - one with Google and one without. And we all know that the one with Google will win.

    • Bloodyhog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, but it will not be GOOGLE’s next step. I dont think it is the goal anyway. They only need to help site owners to sign up to their WEI thing, and there will be oh so many incentives. Google will be happy to license it out, or even make the toolkit fully opensource, to whoever wants to implement it in their browser, regardless of the engine used. Their obvious ultimate goal is to show the ads with no interruptions, which also happens to be the desire of most of the websites. And many websites will willingly implement it on their side, they do not really need too much encouragement.

    • OfficerBribe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no way anything like this would ever go through. Google’s own lawyers would quickly put a stop at this. It is known that Google sometimes has used features that for Firefox is problematic at least for YouTube, but it eventually is resolved by changes in FF