Comment by 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)

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?

  • Brave is built on chromium and thus is being subsidized by Google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)

    I think they used to have their own engine but like everyone else found it unprofitable to maintain.

    • Similarly, Orion is built on WebKit.

      Ladybird might be onto something with the sponsorship model, but we’ll have to see how it goes in the next couple of years.

    • I think this viewpoint is too simplistic in that the assumption is that if Google has to divest Chrome, then there is no benefit to investing in Chromium. I think that is too black and white (see my other comment on why - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43306985).

      Let’s do a thought experiment - If Google truly felt that Chromium has no benefit, then smaller players will drive the project and, as others have pointed out, new feature proposals/implementations will slow down. That isn’t a bad thing in my opinion because it allows other engines to not be stuck in catchup mode. The field will start to even out and innovations will start to come from alternative engines. With an even playing field, what was once an unprofitable endeavor can become a differentiator in the browser ecosystem.

      1 reply →

  • > like how other browsers are trying to do

    Who is the unsubsidized web browser?