> Google only develop Android and Chrome to fuel their ad business, those two product can’t turn a profit on their own That's doubtful. > as proven by Mozilla

> Google only develop Android and Chrome to fuel their ad business, those two product can’t turn a profit on their own That's doubtful. > as proven by Mozilla Mozilla? You mean that one terrible company that only exists due to Google's pity? Or rather, Google's strategic philanthropy so that they can show regulators that they aren't a monopoly because Firefox exists. The reason we don't see other competitors in the space is because Google's (and Apple's on iOS) monopoly makes it extremely difficult to compete. I could totally see myself paying for a high quality, privacy-focused, cross-platform, ad-blocker-friendly web browser. I wouldn't pay Mozilla, I wouldn't pay Google, and I wouldn't pay Microsoft, Amazon, or Apple. But I would pay a small software company who isn't trying to exploit me at every turn in the pursuit of unsustainable growth (or LARPing in Mozilla's case). Maybe not everyone would agree with me, but I'm sure a lot of people would. Maybe enough to build a sustainable business. I feel like people are forgetting that a company doesn't need to be a Google-scale behemoth or monopoly in order to be successful and sustainable.