15 ms·

First I don't believe this is an effective remedy to break up a Google monopoly, but I have no influence on the DOJ. I'm curious though, if Google can no longe

First I don't believe this is an effective remedy to break up a Google monopoly, but I have no influence on the DOJ. I'm curious though, if Google can no longer pay browsers for search engine traffic what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space? How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? What happens to all the applications that rely on Chrome extensions? As much as I dislike Google behavior, I don't see this as being a good thing.

geor9e 2y ago
You call them Chrome extensions, but they're really Chromium extensions that work on Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Arc, etc. Those teams contribute code to the Chromium open source project too. Sure, whoever takes over Chrome won't have Googles juggernaut team pushing Chromium development forward, and maybe that will lead to degradation over time, but it's not like it would cause immediate ecosystem collapse. For all my psychic prediction powers know, getting rid of the monopoly could lead to a renaissance in browser tech via stronger competition. This could go either way.
- nfw2 2y ago
  In the past, too many competing browsers resulted in a frustrating experience for web application developers. Does Google have undue influence now? Sure. But I’m not so sanguine about the alternatives either.
  - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
    It was more than just too many competing browsers, from what I understand. It was a few competing browsers that interpreted standards completely different, and a standards body that was slow enough to be completely ineffective. I'd argue that the main problem was not too much competition, but effective anti-competitive behavior (and simple laziness) from Microsoft in particular. The frustrating experience was primarily caused by Internet Explorer.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      We will move back to a worse version of that when Microsoft buys Chrome, since now Google aren't allowed to compete in this space.
hysan 2y ago
> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? As much as I loved Chrome when it first came out, I’ve also been well aware that Google’s backing of Chrome (and Chromium) has given it undue advantages in the browser market by effectively making everyone else compete with a loss leader. If Chrome itself cannot sustain its pace of development or even stay alive without the unlimited funding by Google, then I think that is a good thing and proof that it acting as a monopoly. Forcing Chrome to balance product velocity with revenue constraints evens the field amongst all browsers. (edit: If Google killing competition by injecting unlimited funding into a project without needing to make a profit sounds familiar, it’s because they’ve done this for a long time. The often cited example being Google Reader.)
- cvhc 2y ago
  > Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? What would this business model be like, if, say, Google Chrome is eliminated? As a reference, in China, very few people use Chrome because Google services are blocked. There are tons of third-party or vendor preinstalled browsers that bundles with bloatwares, put ads/clickbaits on every new tab, and spy on users. I'm pretty sure they are more sustainable than Firefox, former Opera, etc. But that's certainly a privacy dystopia :)
  - rootsudo 2y ago
    That's how it used to be, or did everyone forget Google Toolbar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Toolbar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Toolbar It sucked in IE days. But, it also goes back to browsers being built by the operating system, that was also a no-no, e.g. MSFT / IE. Browsers then shouldn't be a profit center, but ironically google starting chrome made it one and then defined web standards. IE afaik wasn't a profit center, and MSFT hedged outsourcing all dev costs to practically google and forking it offically to Edge, lol.
  - bluebarbet 2y ago
robotnikman 2y ago
At the same time though, being developed under a company which derives most of its revenue from ads seems to be a big conflict of interest to a free and open web. We have already seen this conflict of interest with Manifest V3, which takes away freedom from the users, and almost with remote web attestation before Google held off it's development due to the backlash (but I can see them trying to implement it again while Chrome is still under control of Google/Alphabet.) It also doesn't help that Chrome and the underlying browser engine powers just about every major browser other than Firefox, which is struggling. So what will sustain the development of browsers like Chrome or Firefox? Well that's the big question... Maybe they will downsize and become a non-profit similar to the Linux Foundation, and receive funding similar to how they do? I can see this have the affect of greatly slowing down the development of various web standards, but would that be such a bad thing?
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space? Imagine buying a browser
- john_the_writer 2y ago
  I imagine paying a monthly subscription to a browser company. Browser365 anyone?
notatoad 2y ago
in a simple world, a web browser is a tool that is used by an end-user, and so end-users should be the ones paying for it. whether that's directly as paid software, or indirectly as part of purchasing a device that has the software installed on it.
- john_the_writer 2y ago
  gha.. Another subscription based app. I can see it now: 2.99/month. Also we already have browsers pre-installed. Safari and IE(or what ever it's called these days) There's no call to advance these though. Chrome has profiles. That alone makes it a winner for my use case.
  - wyre 2y ago
    Safari also has profiles…
  - adrianmonk 2y ago
    I don't want another subscription-based app, but out of all the software that brings me actual significant value on a daily basis, a web browser is very near the top of the list. Even though getting it free (as I do right now) is nice, $36/year seems justifiable.
  - notatoad 2y ago
    The alternative to paying for things is that giant megacorporations who have interests in opposition to yours are the ones paying for things…
  - sethammons 2y ago
    I loath chrome profiles. I use two accounts at the same time in the same window, different tabs. I don't want two windows. Every.F*cking.Day: "which profile do you want to load?". Neither! Leave me alone!
  - criddell 2y ago
    I'm always a little surprised how we (HN readers) are so against paying for software. If any group understands the work that goes into major software packages and the value we derive from it, it should be us. Who do you think should pay for it? What is the value to them? Do their incentives align well with yours?
bagels 2y ago
Ads!
surajrmal 2y ago
Get ready for having your data sold to everyone. Rather than just a few major players having access, anyone willing to pay will get the raw data rather than something obfuscated through an ads platform.
- AJ007 2y ago
  There are companies who have actually done this, like the whole Avast Jumpshot debacle. They aren't the only ones.
stainablesteel 2y ago
is there a better way of breaking up the google monopoly?
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  First I'd separate Google Search from everything else. Then the ad marketplace business. Then YouTube. The others are weak enough they could coexist in one organization IMO.
colinplamondon 2y ago
- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. - A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point. - As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare? This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up. Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves. My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acq
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  > - Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. Actually, this is hardly healthy. Firefox feel this single source of can be deprived anytime that they tried many other alternative -- like VPN, partnership with pockets, some sponsor ad on tab selection, and even selling some data Other browsers go even further..
- BearOso 2y ago
  > Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status I'm thinking 500M/year is enough to pay for a lot more developers than they currently have. Even half that should be enough to do more than they are. Where is all this money going?
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    It's going towards a lot of controversial things unrelated to Firefox development or any open source software development by any reasonable standard. Here's one attempt at breaking down their finances: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
colinplamondon 2y ago
- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. - A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point. - As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare on the SEM clicks themselves? This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up. Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves. My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acquiring the Browser Company would make a lot of sense.
- burnerthrow008 2y ago
  Ok, but if Google is not allowed to pay Apple for search referrals, how exactly will it be legal for Google to pay not-Google-Chrome for search referrals? Chrome's non-iOS market share is probably larger than Safari's market share, so any monopoly considerations about Safari apply equally to Chrome.
  - 3vidence 2y ago
    Quick answer it won't be. Google will be barred from paying to be default.
    - burnerthrow008 2y ago
      Yea, that’s what I thought. So let’s take this one step further. If google can’t pay Chrome, how does Chrome hire developers to continue the product?
- NoahZuniga 2y ago
  > Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. Google gets other value with this besides being the default search engine. Keeping Firefox alive makes it so that Chrome is less of a monopoly. > and an aggressive fork at some point Maintaining a browser engine is a lot of work. With no clear upside, no one would invest the work in maintaining a fork. Related to this, Microsoft gave up maintaining a (partially) separate browser engine for Edge, and now just uses Chromium
EE84M3i 2y ago
Google already monitizes Chrome with chrome enterprise (premium) and similar offerings for education where Chrome OS is used extensively. Schools and enterprises have little choice but to buy these to use chrome securely, and they could easily move even more of the management features behind these paid plans. They also already charge to be an extension developer and could easily charge much more.
- ok123456 2y ago
  Chrome for Enterprise is an add-on for Google Workspaces. How does that work if the companies are separate?
  - EE84M3i 2y ago
    That's true but most of the features are for the chrome management panel or client side, which would all presumably be separated from workspace and inherited by the new company. They could then move features from the free tier into the premium tier to put pressure on enterprises and schools to pay. There are some cross-cutting server side features for context aware access for google workspace and google cloud, which were inherited from beyondcorp enterprise, so those would presumably stay with the real google of course.
ls612 2y ago
The same way Linux does. By being an independent nonprofit that all the big players in the web space fund because it is in all of their interests to do so. Whether such a model can work without a man like Linus Torvalds though is an open question.
cavisne 2y ago
Chrome could probably make a huge amount of money by doing what people assume Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history. Google uses a complex anonymization/privacy framework to collect some aggregate signals from website visits, but they don't use it directly. Regulators don't understand this, and technologists who do tend to distrust Google anyway and think they might secretly be using it. There are all sort so other sketchy things, like what Edge does injecting itself into websites so Microsoft collects affiliate revenue. There are countries where this wouldn't be allowed, but Google is largely self regulating in its biggest market. All this would lose Chrome some market share but they are starting from a very dominant position, and for the general public it wouldnt be a big deal - people are already convinced that iOS and android devices are listening to them at all times for ad targeting!
- xvector 2y ago
  > All this would lose Chrome some market share but they are starting from a very dominant position, and for the general public it wouldnt be a big deal - people are already convinced that iOS and android devices are listening to them at all times for ad targeting! IMO, journalists are to blame for this perception. All the journalists that pushed this false narrative should be banned from the field. This is what happens when an "anything for clicks" mentality takes over and directly harms society.
- owebmaster 2y ago
  > Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history Doing that would make Google lose money, not make money. It is much more useful to be sole owner of this data.
- kandesbunzler 2y ago
  [dead]
grishka 2y ago
Unironically, the world be better off if the "advancement" in the space of web browsers comes to an end. This ever-expanding scope of what a web browser is "supposed" to do and be is good for no one. When it's finite, it's much easier to build a new browser engine from scratch. Which is something we should be doing much more as a society. To that end, I'm really excited about Ladybird. So, like, let's pick a set of criteria where web standards are considered complete, and move towards that. And when we do reach it, just stop.
nuker 2y ago
> what is the business model that will sustain [Chrome] development Separate Search + Google Ads platform as company A, Android + Chrome + Gmail as company B. It will choke the user-data flow that Google Ads platform is feeding on. This opens doors to new competing search engines! Android + Chrome + Gmail needs to be bundled with hardware purchases, licensed by HW vendors. Like Apple does with Safari + iCloud. This will create incentive to make them actually privacy focused, and could be its selling point.
fny 2y ago
They should have split up ads. Going after Chrome does near nothing especially when it’s already open source.
xdennis 2y ago
> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? You're literally pointing out the unfair advantage. The better question is how can all of the competitors manage? The answer is they can't very well because of the unfair advantage which Chrome has. If Chrome was split from Google (and Edge from Microsoft) browsers would be on a more equal playing field.

geor9e 2y ago

You call them Chrome extensions, but they're really Chromium extensions that work on Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Arc, etc. Those teams contribute code to the Chromium open source project too. Sure, whoever takes over Chrome won't have Googles juggernaut team pushing Chromium development forward, and maybe that will lead to degradation over time, but it's not like it would cause immediate ecosystem collapse. For all my psychic prediction powers know, getting rid of the monopoly could lead to a renaissance in browser tech via stronger competition. This could go either way.

nfw2 2y ago
In the past, too many competing browsers resulted in a frustrating experience for web application developers. Does Google have undue influence now? Sure. But I’m not so sanguine about the alternatives either.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  It was more than just too many competing browsers, from what I understand. It was a few competing browsers that interpreted standards completely different, and a standards body that was slow enough to be completely ineffective. I'd argue that the main problem was not too much competition, but effective anti-competitive behavior (and simple laziness) from Microsoft in particular. The frustrating experience was primarily caused by Internet Explorer.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    We will move back to a worse version of that when Microsoft buys Chrome, since now Google aren't allowed to compete in this space.

hysan 2y ago

> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? As much as I loved Chrome when it first came out, I’ve also been well aware that Google’s backing of Chrome (and Chromium) has given it undue advantages in the browser market by effectively making everyone else compete with a loss leader. If Chrome itself cannot sustain its pace of development or even stay alive without the unlimited funding by Google, then I think that is a good thing and proof that it acting as a monopoly. Forcing Chrome to balance product velocity with revenue constraints evens the field amongst all browsers. (edit: If Google killing competition by injecting unlimited funding into a project without needing to make a profit sounds familiar, it’s because they’ve done this for a long time. The often cited example being Google Reader.)

cvhc 2y ago
> Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? What would this business model be like, if, say, Google Chrome is eliminated? As a reference, in China, very few people use Chrome because Google services are blocked. There are tons of third-party or vendor preinstalled browsers that bundles with bloatwares, put ads/clickbaits on every new tab, and spy on users. I'm pretty sure they are more sustainable than Firefox, former Opera, etc. But that's certainly a privacy dystopia :)
- rootsudo 2y ago
  That's how it used to be, or did everyone forget Google Toolbar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Toolbar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Toolbar It sucked in IE days. But, it also goes back to browsers being built by the operating system, that was also a no-no, e.g. MSFT / IE. Browsers then shouldn't be a profit center, but ironically google starting chrome made it one and then defined web standards. IE afaik wasn't a profit center, and MSFT hedged outsourcing all dev costs to practically google and forking it offically to Edge, lol.
- bluebarbet 2y ago

robotnikman 2y ago

At the same time though, being developed under a company which derives most of its revenue from ads seems to be a big conflict of interest to a free and open web. We have already seen this conflict of interest with Manifest V3, which takes away freedom from the users, and almost with remote web attestation before Google held off it's development due to the backlash (but I can see them trying to implement it again while Chrome is still under control of Google/Alphabet.) It also doesn't help that Chrome and the underlying browser engine powers just about every major browser other than Firefox, which is struggling. So what will sustain the development of browsers like Chrome or Firefox? Well that's the big question... Maybe they will downsize and become a non-profit similar to the Linux Foundation, and receive funding similar to how they do? I can see this have the affect of greatly slowing down the development of various web standards, but would that be such a bad thing?

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space? Imagine buying a browser

john_the_writer 2y ago
I imagine paying a monthly subscription to a browser company. Browser365 anyone?

notatoad 2y ago

in a simple world, a web browser is a tool that is used by an end-user, and so end-users should be the ones paying for it. whether that's directly as paid software, or indirectly as part of purchasing a device that has the software installed on it.

john_the_writer 2y ago
gha.. Another subscription based app. I can see it now: 2.99/month. Also we already have browsers pre-installed. Safari and IE(or what ever it's called these days) There's no call to advance these though. Chrome has profiles. That alone makes it a winner for my use case.
- wyre 2y ago
  Safari also has profiles…
- adrianmonk 2y ago
  I don't want another subscription-based app, but out of all the software that brings me actual significant value on a daily basis, a web browser is very near the top of the list. Even though getting it free (as I do right now) is nice, $36/year seems justifiable.
- notatoad 2y ago
  The alternative to paying for things is that giant megacorporations who have interests in opposition to yours are the ones paying for things…
- sethammons 2y ago
  I loath chrome profiles. I use two accounts at the same time in the same window, different tabs. I don't want two windows. Every.F*cking.Day: "which profile do you want to load?". Neither! Leave me alone!
- criddell 2y ago
  I'm always a little surprised how we (HN readers) are so against paying for software. If any group understands the work that goes into major software packages and the value we derive from it, it should be us. Who do you think should pay for it? What is the value to them? Do their incentives align well with yours?

bagels 2y ago

Ads!

surajrmal 2y ago

Get ready for having your data sold to everyone. Rather than just a few major players having access, anyone willing to pay will get the raw data rather than something obfuscated through an ads platform.

AJ007 2y ago
There are companies who have actually done this, like the whole Avast Jumpshot debacle. They aren't the only ones.

stainablesteel 2y ago

is there a better way of breaking up the google monopoly?

paulryanrogers 2y ago
First I'd separate Google Search from everything else. Then the ad marketplace business. Then YouTube. The others are weak enough they could coexist in one organization IMO.

colinplamondon 2y ago

- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. - A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point. - As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare? This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up. Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves. My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acq

j16sdiz 2y ago
> - Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. Actually, this is hardly healthy. Firefox feel this single source of can be deprived anytime that they tried many other alternative -- like VPN, partnership with pockets, some sponsor ad on tab selection, and even selling some data Other browsers go even further..
BearOso 2y ago
> Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status I'm thinking 500M/year is enough to pay for a lot more developers than they currently have. Even half that should be enough to do more than they are. Where is all this money going?
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  It's going towards a lot of controversial things unrelated to Firefox development or any open source software development by any reasonable standard. Here's one attempt at breaking down their finances: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...

colinplamondon 2y ago

- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. - A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point. - As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare on the SEM clicks themselves? This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up. Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves. My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acquiring the Browser Company would make a lot of sense.

burnerthrow008 2y ago
Ok, but if Google is not allowed to pay Apple for search referrals, how exactly will it be legal for Google to pay not-Google-Chrome for search referrals? Chrome's non-iOS market share is probably larger than Safari's market share, so any monopoly considerations about Safari apply equally to Chrome.
- 3vidence 2y ago
  Quick answer it won't be. Google will be barred from paying to be default.
  - burnerthrow008 2y ago
    Yea, that’s what I thought. So let’s take this one step further. If google can’t pay Chrome, how does Chrome hire developers to continue the product?
NoahZuniga 2y ago
> Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. Google gets other value with this besides being the default search engine. Keeping Firefox alive makes it so that Chrome is less of a monopoly. > and an aggressive fork at some point Maintaining a browser engine is a lot of work. With no clear upside, no one would invest the work in maintaining a fork. Related to this, Microsoft gave up maintaining a (partially) separate browser engine for Edge, and now just uses Chromium

EE84M3i 2y ago

Google already monitizes Chrome with chrome enterprise (premium) and similar offerings for education where Chrome OS is used extensively. Schools and enterprises have little choice but to buy these to use chrome securely, and they could easily move even more of the management features behind these paid plans. They also already charge to be an extension developer and could easily charge much more.

ok123456 2y ago
Chrome for Enterprise is an add-on for Google Workspaces. How does that work if the companies are separate?
- EE84M3i 2y ago
  That's true but most of the features are for the chrome management panel or client side, which would all presumably be separated from workspace and inherited by the new company. They could then move features from the free tier into the premium tier to put pressure on enterprises and schools to pay. There are some cross-cutting server side features for context aware access for google workspace and google cloud, which were inherited from beyondcorp enterprise, so those would presumably stay with the real google of course.

ls612 2y ago

The same way Linux does. By being an independent nonprofit that all the big players in the web space fund because it is in all of their interests to do so. Whether such a model can work without a man like Linus Torvalds though is an open question.

cavisne 2y ago

Chrome could probably make a huge amount of money by doing what people assume Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history. Google uses a complex anonymization/privacy framework to collect some aggregate signals from website visits, but they don't use it directly. Regulators don't understand this, and technologists who do tend to distrust Google anyway and think they might secretly be using it. There are all sort so other sketchy things, like what Edge does injecting itself into websites so Microsoft collects affiliate revenue. There are countries where this wouldn't be allowed, but Google is largely self regulating in its biggest market. All this would lose Chrome some market share but they are starting from a very dominant position, and for the general public it wouldnt be a big deal - people are already convinced that iOS and android devices are listening to them at all times for ad targeting!

xvector 2y ago
> All this would lose Chrome some market share but they are starting from a very dominant position, and for the general public it wouldnt be a big deal - people are already convinced that iOS and android devices are listening to them at all times for ad targeting! IMO, journalists are to blame for this perception. All the journalists that pushed this false narrative should be banned from the field. This is what happens when an "anything for clicks" mentality takes over and directly harms society.
owebmaster 2y ago
> Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history Doing that would make Google lose money, not make money. It is much more useful to be sole owner of this data.
kandesbunzler 2y ago
[dead]

grishka 2y ago

Unironically, the world be better off if the "advancement" in the space of web browsers comes to an end. This ever-expanding scope of what a web browser is "supposed" to do and be is good for no one. When it's finite, it's much easier to build a new browser engine from scratch. Which is something we should be doing much more as a society. To that end, I'm really excited about Ladybird. So, like, let's pick a set of criteria where web standards are considered complete, and move towards that. And when we do reach it, just stop.

nuker 2y ago

> what is the business model that will sustain [Chrome] development Separate Search + Google Ads platform as company A, Android + Chrome + Gmail as company B. It will choke the user-data flow that Google Ads platform is feeding on. This opens doors to new competing search engines! Android + Chrome + Gmail needs to be bundled with hardware purchases, licensed by HW vendors. Like Apple does with Safari + iCloud. This will create incentive to make them actually privacy focused, and could be its selling point.

fny 2y ago

They should have split up ads. Going after Chrome does near nothing especially when it’s already open source.

xdennis 2y ago

> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? You're literally pointing out the unfair advantage. The better question is how can all of the competitors manage? The answer is they can't very well because of the unfair advantage which Chrome has. If Chrome was split from Google (and Edge from Microsoft) browsers would be on a more equal playing field.