4 ms·

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,

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.
- ygjb 6y ago
  at the very least, Google could pay to be the default search provider... it works for Mozilla, so far, and if Google had to , even at arms length, separate Chrome from the rest of Google, it would strengthen, not weaken, the case for Google's investment in paying Apple and Mozilla for top placement, helping to reinforce competition on both the mobile and browser fronts.
- dylan604 6y ago
  It's data collection is in Chrome's DNA. They could just continue to collect data on browser usage, and then "sell" that data to Google. No need for sites to install Analytics into their website when they can get 100% of all site analytics viewed from within their browser.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    A key difference here is that Chrome could sell aggregated analytics data for performance testing and such, but not allow the ad company to get user-targeting quality data. With them in the same company, this is a nearly impossible barrier to achieve.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I'll bite: why is this nearly impossible to achieve? It may be nearly impossible to prove to you, but what makes it impossible, or even particularly difficult, to achieve if the company is interested in doing it?
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. They do? Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS. Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS). Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium. The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source. Chrome can't really be sold. What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make money?
- syshum 6y ago
  >> Chrome can't really be sold. Chrome can not be sold for many reasons, being open source is not one of them, nothing prevents the selling of open source software, one just has to include the source or make the source available Finding someone willing to buy chrome would be a harder problem
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Indeed, especially when you have an official/trustworthy solution. For example, you could gate off value-adds for paying customers, whilst still making them open source. Sure, users can remove the "paid user" aspect and either compile it themselves or entrust that process to a third party. But the majority of users would not do so because of the effort or trust involved. (This is similar to movie piracy. Sure, it's trivial to pirate movies and music, but the majority of people pay for them.)
- gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
  > Chrome can't really be sold. Right. Now try to use that top right "user" icon on your chrome window to log in as a user that is not from a google account.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    No idea what icon you are speaking of. I don't use Chrome much and don't log into it when I do. I certainly don't think anyone is going to pay for the privilege.
bagacrap 6y ago
limitless options? you mean ads. I don't think they can start charging users money. And if Chrome is forced to start directly monetizing, I can't see that ending well for the product. Any way they could possibly extract money from me would require it to do something I don't want, such as interjecting itself between me and an online merchant, or between me and content, or via integrations with partners I don't want (maybe even Google, which would defeat the purpose of the proposed split), or by selling a "premium" feature set. If Chrome had to make money it would suck as a product and everyone would move to safari/edge/etc bc they don't have the same pressure.

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.
ygjb 6y ago
at the very least, Google could pay to be the default search provider... it works for Mozilla, so far, and if Google had to , even at arms length, separate Chrome from the rest of Google, it would strengthen, not weaken, the case for Google's investment in paying Apple and Mozilla for top placement, helping to reinforce competition on both the mobile and browser fronts.
dylan604 6y ago
It's data collection is in Chrome's DNA. They could just continue to collect data on browser usage, and then "sell" that data to Google. No need for sites to install Analytics into their website when they can get 100% of all site analytics viewed from within their browser.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  A key difference here is that Chrome could sell aggregated analytics data for performance testing and such, but not allow the ad company to get user-targeting quality data. With them in the same company, this is a nearly impossible barrier to achieve.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I'll bite: why is this nearly impossible to achieve? It may be nearly impossible to prove to you, but what makes it impossible, or even particularly difficult, to achieve if the company is interested in doing it?

ogre_codes 6y ago

> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. They do? Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS. Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS). Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium. The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source. Chrome can't really be sold. What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make money?

syshum 6y ago
>> Chrome can't really be sold. Chrome can not be sold for many reasons, being open source is not one of them, nothing prevents the selling of open source software, one just has to include the source or make the source available Finding someone willing to buy chrome would be a harder problem
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Indeed, especially when you have an official/trustworthy solution. For example, you could gate off value-adds for paying customers, whilst still making them open source. Sure, users can remove the "paid user" aspect and either compile it themselves or entrust that process to a third party. But the majority of users would not do so because of the effort or trust involved. (This is similar to movie piracy. Sure, it's trivial to pirate movies and music, but the majority of people pay for them.)
gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
> Chrome can't really be sold. Right. Now try to use that top right "user" icon on your chrome window to log in as a user that is not from a google account.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  No idea what icon you are speaking of. I don't use Chrome much and don't log into it when I do. I certainly don't think anyone is going to pay for the privilege.

bagacrap 6y ago

limitless options? you mean ads. I don't think they can start charging users money. And if Chrome is forced to start directly monetizing, I can't see that ending well for the product. Any way they could possibly extract money from me would require it to do something I don't want, such as interjecting itself between me and an online merchant, or between me and content, or via integrations with partners I don't want (maybe even Google, which would defeat the purpose of the proposed split), or by selling a "premium" feature set. If Chrome had to make money it would suck as a product and everyone would move to safari/edge/etc bc they don't have the same pressure.