Comment by hysan

1 year 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.)

24 comments

hysan

Reply
Ferret7446  1 year ago

> Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers?

There is no such business model. Chromium development is almost entirely funded by Google. Other Chromium based browser rely on this humonguous investment of development resources; they would not have a "business model" without this "free handout", except perhaps Microsoft and Edge, who might be able to fund it by doing basically what Google is doing.

  • Spivak  1 year ago

    Good? I think sucking the air out of the browser ecosystem might be a good thing so they slow their roll. The breakneck speed Chrome adds features and devs adopt them is part of what makes it so damn expensive to keep up.

    • leetnewb  1 year ago

      I think this could be a double edged sword. Slowing down new browser feature/"standards" could allow browser competition, yes. On the other hand, people don't explicitly need a web browser in 2025 like they did in 2015 - many operate mobile-only. Let's say browser features additions fall drastically behind native mobile, and content publishers progressively limit access to native clients only. The web browser market might be more free/open/competitive, but it doesn't mean much if the market just moves beyond the web.

      Does the concept of an interoperable world wide web fade into obscurity? In other words, does separating Chrome from Google make the web better, or is Google's investment in the web holding back the death of the web?

  • hysan  1 year ago

    Not sure how Chromium development relates to the order of divesting *Chrome* from Google. AFAICT, Google can continue pouring resources into Chromium. Was this an unintentional mixup in your comment?

cvhc  1 year 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  1 year ago

    That's how it used to be, or did everyone forget 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  1 year ago

    In China, the vast majority of people are exclusively on mobile, where they use neither browsers nor even Android apps but rather manifold applets that are installed on top of a handful of nightmare spyware super-apps like WeChat.

    • bsoft16385  1 year ago

      Incidentally, WeChat mini apps (and the equivalents in AliPay and other services) are essentially specialized websites.

      WeChat itself on Android bundles a Chromium-based engine to run these mini apps.

      Most people in China are using Chromium frequently, even if they don't think of it as a browser.

cowl  1 year ago

we will end up again with edge being dominant just because it's the default one installed by Windows.

what you say is nice in theory but you already have the Microsoft backed Edge and Apple backed Safari that are not hamppered by the "need to find a support model" and "not be a loss leader"

And I am not looking forward again to a world where Microsoft disctates web development because for all privacy problems peaople have or think to have with Google, Microsoft ha proven that does way worse and doesn't even care for the image.

All in All Chrome being a loss leader backed by Google has been a good thing for all involved. Developers, Users and 3-rd parties. without it you woudn't have all those 3rd party chrome based browsers.

  • philistine  1 year ago

    The point is simple: Google has a monopoly in search and has used its control of Chrome to maintain that monopoly. There is no monopoly in browsers, and the DOJ has evaluated that selling off Chrome will not adversely affect the browser market. If we go from Chrome having 66% market share to Edge having 66%, but in the interim the search market has seen more entrants competing fairly, wouldn't that be a benefit?

    • 3vidence  1 year ago

      Then a year later Microsoft will be sued for anti competitive practices involving edge.

      If we just keep selling the browser market to the next trillion dollar company that's not going to fix anything

      1 reply →

nfw2  1 year ago

Most of these business models you refer to rely on some combination of:

1. funding from Google (Firefox)

2. engineering from Google (Chromium)

3. tech giant bundling (Safari, Edge)

  • hysan  1 year ago

    I’m a bit confused by this comment. I didn’t mention any of those and didn’t callout any specific business models for browsers. Just that Chrome would need to figure out how to monetize itself like how other browsers are trying to do. Diving into the different business models that other browsers are trying is a very different conversation that needs nuance. For example, how would Brave and Orion fit into your remark?