4 ms·

It would be really cool for people to be able to make money in those markets. It's really lame right now to face competing with free offerings. We're in a post

It would be really cool for people to be able to make money in those markets. It's really lame right now to face competing with free offerings. We're in a post chat client scarcity world.

kanox 6y ago
Nobody has made serious money by selling browser because nobody is willing to pay for browsers. Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Maybe hardware manufacturers would pay to move Android forward as an open-source project but most likely outcome is a stagnant fragmented mess.
- criddell 6y ago
  > Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Why not just bundle it in with the cost of the hardware like Apple does?
- chx 6y ago
  > Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Microsoft would take over. They are in position already, contributing to Chromium.
- rvp-x 6y ago
  Microsoft used to have licensing deals with Android phone manufacturers for their use of FAT, it was just bundled in the cost of the phones sold. With the choice of Android effectively costing them $5-15 per device sold, manufacturers still chose it. https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
- simion314 6y ago
  >Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Some people would pay for a better browser. For example I pay for Intellij because for what I do is better then the free alternatives and honestly I am afraid if Microsoft would put them out of business with their free stuff we will get stagnation.
  - kanox 6y ago
    Opera tried that and never got beyond 5%.
    - simion314 6y ago
      But if it was profitable then it is enough, you don't have to kill the competition. The problem is when a corporation puts a lot of money and copies you then surpasses you and on top of the ton of developers Chrome had they used shitty tactics like promoting their browser on the google home page and bundling it with other programs. Opera is a good example. they did a lot of innovation a Google like tyrant is not needed.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        I actually think that that Chrome ad on the Google homepage was the most anti-competitive thing Google have ever done. Like, no-one else in the world could possibly have gained access to that ad-space (possibly the most impactful ad-space in the world), and yet no-one even covers this in the anti-trust/competition investigations. I got really sick of ignoring the constant prompts to install Chrome over the years (and I still use Firefox). Mind you, at least the EU took them to task for Android service bundling, should be interesting to see what comes of that.
- pirocks 6y ago
  I don't know about other people but I would have no problem with the web stagnating. We don't need yet more complex HTML features.

It would be really cool for people to be able to make money in those markets. It's really lame right now to face competing with free offerings. We're in a post chat client scarcity world.

kanox 6y ago

Nobody has made serious money by selling browser because nobody is willing to pay for browsers. Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Maybe hardware manufacturers would pay to move Android forward as an open-source project but most likely outcome is a stagnant fragmented mess.

criddell 6y ago
> Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Why not just bundle it in with the cost of the hardware like Apple does?
chx 6y ago
> Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Microsoft would take over. They are in position already, contributing to Chromium.
rvp-x 6y ago
Microsoft used to have licensing deals with Android phone manufacturers for their use of FAT, it was just bundled in the cost of the phones sold. With the choice of Android effectively costing them $5-15 per device sold, manufacturers still chose it. https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
simion314 6y ago
>Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Some people would pay for a better browser. For example I pay for Intellij because for what I do is better then the free alternatives and honestly I am afraid if Microsoft would put them out of business with their free stuff we will get stagnation.
- kanox 6y ago
  Opera tried that and never got beyond 5%.
  - simion314 6y ago
    But if it was profitable then it is enough, you don't have to kill the competition. The problem is when a corporation puts a lot of money and copies you then surpasses you and on top of the ton of developers Chrome had they used shitty tactics like promoting their browser on the google home page and bundling it with other programs. Opera is a good example. they did a lot of innovation a Google like tyrant is not needed.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      I actually think that that Chrome ad on the Google homepage was the most anti-competitive thing Google have ever done. Like, no-one else in the world could possibly have gained access to that ad-space (possibly the most impactful ad-space in the world), and yet no-one even covers this in the anti-trust/competition investigations. I got really sick of ignoring the constant prompts to install Chrome over the years (and I still use Firefox). Mind you, at least the EU took them to task for Android service bundling, should be interesting to see what comes of that.
pirocks 6y ago
I don't know about other people but I would have no problem with the web stagnating. We don't need yet more complex HTML features.