6 ms·

How would chrome survive as a business?

by albertgoeswoof 6y ago

tehlike 6y ago
By auctioning the default search engine slot.
- greatzebu 6y ago
  Wouldn't that make them entirely beholden to search engines that rely on ad revenue to pay Chrome? It doesn't seem to change the underlying incentives very much.
  - asiando 6y ago
    Doesn’t that already happen? Chrome currently survives thanks to advertising either way. Splitting Google would just make it a little more indirect.
  - rurp 6y ago
    I'd say there's a big difference between having one primary customer and literally being owned by that customer. I would bet that a significant part Chrome's development is built around feeding data to other parts of Google, which would be more difficult and less appealing as a separate company. Plus, there's no rule that says a browser has to get most of its revenue from selling Google Search placement. That just happens to be the case for the single independent browser that exists right now, one which isn't exactly renowned for great business leadership. I think if the Chrome team had a reason to explore self sustaining revenue models there's a good chance they would come up with some solid innovations.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    It currently is completelly owned by Google (Alphabet) so your comment would be more of a "there is a possibility that they would end up still relying on Google's ad revenue".
kevingadd 6y ago
How did Mozilla survive as a business? Why is Brave around?
- tehlike 6y ago
  Brave is terrible example. Brave is vc funded or ICO funded. Mozilla depends on donations and selling the search engine slot.
- izacus 6y ago
  Mozilla is financed directly by Google. Brave is injecting their own ads into websites. Not really the best examples.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    What's to prevent chrome from being financed by google the search engine the same way Firefox is financed by Google the search engine?
  - seaman1921 6y ago
    Honestly several of these guys just want to promote 'break google up' every chance they get just because it makes them feel good - without understanding how bad the consequences would be.
    - neolog 6y ago
      What would the bad consequences be?
      - sdenton4 6y ago
        One example: The road from security to revenue is a bit windy. So suppose chrome gets a revenue crunch after getting spun off, and lays off a bunch of the security group. Well, it turns out that security group is actually handling security for ALL of the browsers, because security is expensive, and none of the browsers are really making money, and chrome is open source. So now you've got reduced security in all of the browsers. Whoops?
josefx 6y ago
How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?
- geofft 6y ago
  Linux kernel development survives because its biggest users develop it. It's certainly possible for a browser to survive that way, but Konqueror doesn't seem to be terribly successful.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    It's also worth thinking that many of those big users are also the very adtech companies people are hating on here, but for some reason it's fine to fund kernels and not web browsers with ads.
    - josefx 6y ago
      It would be interesting to know if Google engineers regularly commit kernel patches breaking Microsoft's Azure integration while pushing people to Google cloud.
- ilammy 6y ago
  It survives because GPL forces it to be performed in the open, in a cooperative manner. This is not the case with browsers. Both Linux kernel and web browsers are arguably too huge now to be even maintained entirely by a single organization, let alone to be developed from scratch by one. Linux being under GPL kinda forces cooperation between businesses for their business needs, if they are going to tweak Linux. With browsers are you under impression that you can just fork Chromium maintained by someone else and then just add your business value for you alone to reap.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally, Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  So they’d be Firefox & wholly dependent on Google for search revenue money (I.e. ad money) anyway? Firefox already gets a lot of flack with their 3.65% & I don’t think that complaints about Chrome will stop if they’re still owning ~70% of browser market share with Google paying their bills. The only solution that would actually work is better regulation of the advertising space, but all advertisers (Google included) actively fight this. For example, ban governments from purchasing personal information without a warrant. Ban the sale of any/all personal information between companies - any personal information transferred should be gratis with at most nominal costs for the cost of the transfer itself. But then you might have to actually start paying for some services rather than everything being totally ad supported. Not to mention that governments, despite all their outcries about “privacy” and “evil corporations” love the status quo because of how easy it makes to invade your privacy without a warrant.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > So they’d be Firefox & wholly dependent on Google for search revenue money (I.e. ad money) anyway? Not necessarily, its engine is now what powers Edge. Microsoft might support it.
- johnmaguire2013 6y ago
  You mention nearly limitless options but fail to mention one. Can you give some examples?
  - throw_away 6y ago
    default search seems to be pretty lucrative.
  - 6y ago
mtnygard 6y ago
Could go the same path as Brave: be a conduit for funding between consumer (me) and creator... then take a small percentage for facilitating the transactions.
ljm 6y ago
Does it need to survive?
3np 6y ago
That it seems unlikely a browser that is not Chrome, vertically integrated by Google, could survive financially, is a good sign it need to happen imo
GlennS 6y ago
I guess ideally either Chrome or Firefox would be organized as a charitable trust with an endowment, its stated mission to service users of the web, and the EFF given a permanent seat on its board of directors. How to get from here to there, I don't know.
- jopsen 6y ago
  Firefox is owned by Mozilla Corp, owned by Mozilla Foundation, which is a non-profit -- and Mozilla has a sizable budget. > How to get from here to there, I don't know. You literally are there! Sure, it's easy to criticize Mozilla for having "wrong priorities", being "pragmatic about EME", Firefox OS, losing market share, etc. But simply saying a new board would fix things seems a bit naive.
gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
> How would chrome survive as a business? by doing *exactly* what Google sued microsoft for trying to do with IE in the 90s. Isn't it funny?

How would chrome survive as a business?

tehlike 6y ago

By auctioning the default search engine slot.

greatzebu 6y ago
Wouldn't that make them entirely beholden to search engines that rely on ad revenue to pay Chrome? It doesn't seem to change the underlying incentives very much.
- asiando 6y ago
  Doesn’t that already happen? Chrome currently survives thanks to advertising either way. Splitting Google would just make it a little more indirect.
- rurp 6y ago
  I'd say there's a big difference between having one primary customer and literally being owned by that customer. I would bet that a significant part Chrome's development is built around feeding data to other parts of Google, which would be more difficult and less appealing as a separate company. Plus, there's no rule that says a browser has to get most of its revenue from selling Google Search placement. That just happens to be the case for the single independent browser that exists right now, one which isn't exactly renowned for great business leadership. I think if the Chrome team had a reason to explore self sustaining revenue models there's a good chance they would come up with some solid innovations.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  It currently is completelly owned by Google (Alphabet) so your comment would be more of a "there is a possibility that they would end up still relying on Google's ad revenue".

kevingadd 6y ago

How did Mozilla survive as a business? Why is Brave around?

tehlike 6y ago
Brave is terrible example. Brave is vc funded or ICO funded. Mozilla depends on donations and selling the search engine slot.
izacus 6y ago
Mozilla is financed directly by Google. Brave is injecting their own ads into websites. Not really the best examples.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  What's to prevent chrome from being financed by google the search engine the same way Firefox is financed by Google the search engine?
- seaman1921 6y ago
  Honestly several of these guys just want to promote 'break google up' every chance they get just because it makes them feel good - without understanding how bad the consequences would be.
  - neolog 6y ago
    What would the bad consequences be?
    - sdenton4 6y ago
      One example: The road from security to revenue is a bit windy. So suppose chrome gets a revenue crunch after getting spun off, and lays off a bunch of the security group. Well, it turns out that security group is actually handling security for ALL of the browsers, because security is expensive, and none of the browsers are really making money, and chrome is open source. So now you've got reduced security in all of the browsers. Whoops?

josefx 6y ago

How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?

geofft 6y ago
Linux kernel development survives because its biggest users develop it. It's certainly possible for a browser to survive that way, but Konqueror doesn't seem to be terribly successful.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  It's also worth thinking that many of those big users are also the very adtech companies people are hating on here, but for some reason it's fine to fund kernels and not web browsers with ads.
  - josefx 6y ago
    It would be interesting to know if Google engineers regularly commit kernel patches breaking Microsoft's Azure integration while pushing people to Google cloud.
ilammy 6y ago
It survives because GPL forces it to be performed in the open, in a cooperative manner. This is not the case with browsers. Both Linux kernel and web browsers are arguably too huge now to be even maintained entirely by a single organization, let alone to be developed from scratch by one. Linux being under GPL kinda forces cooperation between businesses for their business needs, if they are going to tweak Linux. With browsers are you under impression that you can just fork Chromium maintained by someone else and then just add your business value for you alone to reap.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally, Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.

vlovich123 6y ago
So they’d be Firefox & wholly dependent on Google for search revenue money (I.e. ad money) anyway? Firefox already gets a lot of flack with their 3.65% & I don’t think that complaints about Chrome will stop if they’re still owning ~70% of browser market share with Google paying their bills. The only solution that would actually work is better regulation of the advertising space, but all advertisers (Google included) actively fight this. For example, ban governments from purchasing personal information without a warrant. Ban the sale of any/all personal information between companies - any personal information transferred should be gratis with at most nominal costs for the cost of the transfer itself. But then you might have to actually start paying for some services rather than everything being totally ad supported. Not to mention that governments, despite all their outcries about “privacy” and “evil corporations” love the status quo because of how easy it makes to invade your privacy without a warrant.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > So they’d be Firefox & wholly dependent on Google for search revenue money (I.e. ad money) anyway? Not necessarily, its engine is now what powers Edge. Microsoft might support it.
johnmaguire2013 6y ago
You mention nearly limitless options but fail to mention one. Can you give some examples?
- throw_away 6y ago
  default search seems to be pretty lucrative.
- 6y ago

mtnygard 6y ago

Could go the same path as Brave: be a conduit for funding between consumer (me) and creator... then take a small percentage for facilitating the transactions.

ljm 6y ago

Does it need to survive?

3np 6y ago

That it seems unlikely a browser that is not Chrome, vertically integrated by Google, could survive financially, is a good sign it need to happen imo

GlennS 6y ago

I guess ideally either Chrome or Firefox would be organized as a charitable trust with an endowment, its stated mission to service users of the web, and the EFF given a permanent seat on its board of directors. How to get from here to there, I don't know.

jopsen 6y ago
Firefox is owned by Mozilla Corp, owned by Mozilla Foundation, which is a non-profit -- and Mozilla has a sizable budget. > How to get from here to there, I don't know. You literally are there! Sure, it's easy to criticize Mozilla for having "wrong priorities", being "pragmatic about EME", Firefox OS, losing market share, etc. But simply saying a new board would fix things seems a bit naive.

gcblkjaidfj 6y ago

> How would chrome survive as a business? by doing *exactly* what Google sued microsoft for trying to do with IE in the 90s. Isn't it funny?