Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. A cartel is an organization formed by producers to limit competition and increase prices by creating artificial shortages through low production quotas, stockpiling, and marketing quotas. Jurisdictions frequently consider cartelization to be anti-competitive behavior, leading them to outlaw cartel practices."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

I don't agree that the current situation in the browser market fits the definition of a Cartel, as I understand it! :-)



If the article is true, it would be worse than a cartel, it would be effectively a monopoly with a few sockpuppet competitors.

In an actual cartel or oligopoly, you'd expect at least the cartel members be relatively equal in power. But if the article is right, then Google has basically all the power to decide the course of web tech going forward, as the other browsers devs can't meaningfully deviate from whatever vision Google has for the web, without risking their funding.


The more appropriate term is an oligopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly


Or perhaps even racketeering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering


Of course it’s a cartel. They agree not to compete with each other in online search advertising, one company collects the monopoly profits and then distributes them to the other cartel members.

It’s textbook.


They don't agree to that though. Firefox took a deal from yahoo some years ago. They usually make deals with google because google pays the best.


Not sure I agree. The “price fixing” aspect could be about ads, after all- and none of the major browsers are neutral in this.

Manifest v3 for example, and various standards that make fingerprinting easier.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: