← Back to context

Comment by throwaway2037

5 days ago

You raise some very important points.

Specifically, this one:

    > browsers aren't really a self funding product

I feel the same. I also feel the same about a modern C library and C compiler (and C++, if you like). They are essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products.

What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome?

56 comments

throwaway2037

Reply
wongarsu  5 days ago

Netscape used to cost the equivalent of $100 inflation-adjusted dollars and was only forced to go free to compete with Internet Explorer. Now the genie can't be put back in the bottle, and anyone trying to sell you a browser would become irrelevant the same way Delphi's paid compiler lost out to free C compilers.

Maybe you could carve out a niche that's willing to pay, the same way C# did before dotnet core. But for a mass product the best-case scenario would be something similar to today's Opera.

However what it would do is open up the market to competition. Right now Google is spending a lot on Chrome development and Chrome advertisement. Opera and Edge both have given up on their own engines because they couldn't keep pace with Chrome development, and Firefox kept its engine but can't compete with Chrome's ad spend. If Chrome had to compete on a more even playing field there would be more room for diversity and competition. That could be a net positive, even if it makes Chrome worse.

  • askvictor  5 days ago

    Windows is a paid-for product; either enterprise licenses or via the manufacturer. Yet few people (mainly those who build PCs themselves) realise this.

    What if the browser had a similar model? The manufacturer pays a certain 'browser development fee' into escrow, then on first boot, the copmuter shows a browser ballot, which gets set as the default, and the fee goes to the chosen browser developer? There's probably a bunch of problems with this approach, and, at least initially, wouldn't break the monoculture, but it might be a good starting point for how to fund browser development.

  • scarface_74  5 days ago

    There was never a time that you as individual couldn’t use an ftp client back in the day and download a free version of Netscape.

    So who would buy “Chrome” when they can get Chromium for free and fork it?

criddell  5 days ago

> What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome?

The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid.

  • wongarsu  5 days ago

    Oracle Chrome would remain free at first, but one year down the road all new versions would become free for home use but $50 per seat yearly for commercial use, with a clause that allows Oracle to enter your offices to audit your compliance at any time

  • lenerdenator  5 days ago

    If the choice is no internet, forever, or giving Oracle money, I'm gonna live in 1990 from here on out.

    • hypercube33  5 days ago

      Return to Konqueror Browser from KDE - the grandfather webkit browser.

      In all seriousness, I kind of wish that someone could build a sustained non profit like apache to take over chromium - if Google or Microsoft or others want to custom roll their own flavor fine, but Google being for-profit has been making decisions against the best for everyone browsing the web (such as the new plugin stuff around adblocks) (conflict of interest)

  • Suppafly  5 days ago

    >The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid.

    We're in the worst timeline, so I could see that happening.

    • gambiting  5 days ago

      Elon buys it to "preserve free speech everywhere" then turns it into the same swamp twitter is. So you know, could be worse.

rileyphone  5 days ago

Firefox has made Mozilla billions over its lifetime by selling the default search engine rights to Yahoo and Google. Chrome, having a much greater user base, would demand a correspondingly higher fee (probably around $10b a year). Now, the other problem is there is no other search engine to compete with Google at that level, but that might change with independence of Chrome.

niutech  5 days ago

Browsers can be profitable, see Opera: https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...

But not everything must be for-profit. Free/Libre/Open Source Software is a prime example. Projects like GNU, Linux, GNOME, KDE, WebKitGTK, LibreOffice are sustainable for a long time.

baq  5 days ago

> They are essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products.

so, an utility.

create a (partially?) state-owned steward with a legislated mandate to develop the browser, self-funded via extra tax on digital goods and services.

  • changoplatanero  5 days ago

    Currently, talented engineers flock to google to contribute their skills to making the best web browser. My concern for a publicly owned utility is that the top talent won't want to work there.

    • eqvinox  4 days ago

      This may have been the case 10 years ago; it isn't anymore. The writing's on the wall on Google going downhill pretty fast.

    • kergonath  5 days ago

      > Currently, talented engineers flock to google to contribute their skills to making the best web browser.

      I don’t think these engineers have the right incentives, and their interest is not aligned with mine. I don’t really care what they do to Chrome and their efforts benefit me only indirectly. I am also not convinced by the "best browser" thing, even using it every day on my office computer. So, meh. I don’t care too much either way but I won’t lose anything if Google has to spin it off.

      1 reply →

  • marcyb5st  5 days ago

    The way governments fuck up basically anything (with very few exceptions) IT related I would say no. Personal example: my name is Marcello and I had troubles applying for a permit online because names can't contain musical instruments (Cello in this case).

    Create a consortium or interested private entities but let's not give such an important piece of technology to governments where meritocracy is non-existent (also based on personal experiences).

    • baq  5 days ago

      I generally agree, I don't want this to be government-owned but since it can't be funded privately and is of great public value an utility-like contract would be in order. I don't see it happening with at least initially a stake from the government (maybe I'm wrong, will gladly be!)

      1 reply →

    • lenerdenator  5 days ago

      > The way governments fuck up basically anything (with very few exceptions) IT related I would say no.

      Just wait until you have to justify IT expenditure to a for-profit corporation that isn't solely focused on technology.

      Government screws things up because it's (by design) slow. Business screws things up because f*ck your needs, we need to get a check to a retiree who never even worked here.

      2 replies →