• Ferk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    True. Same for Android. I feel some form of that should be part of the approach. Splitting it carelessly would likely either:

    A) result in no real change: ie. instead of allocating budgets within Google, they’ll just exchange money through deals and partnerships, as separate companies, but still having pretty much the same relationship between projects and level of control (Android & Chrome would continue favoring Google interests, even as independent companies), and they’ll keep being monopolies each within their own fields (I don’t see how that’s being addressed with the split).

    B) result in independent projects that push for monetization and shady schemes to try and be profitable on their own (although, to be honest Mozilla has proven that being non-profit is not a shield against this either). This actually might be a good thing if the enshittification manages to get people to switch away from Chrome to a better alternative… but I wouldn’t be so sure of that (both that they would move, or that they’d choose a better one …as opposed to say MS Edge which has just as bad of a ruler).

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I agree, the way governance is set up is very important, and even non profits can susceptible to perverse incentives as we see with Mozilla. Ideally, it would be something close to the way Linux Foundation is set up.