4 ms·

> Break off Chrome into its own company that can serve it's own interests in making a good browser that serves the user That’s nice in theory, but historicall

> Break off Chrome into its own company that can serve it's own interests in making a good browser that serves the user That’s nice in theory, but historically, browser only companies haven’t been very successful in the market. No one wants to pay for a browser and monetizing one is a full of a big pool of dark patterns. The most successful browser engines have always been those that we tied to another source of income, namely, the OS or search. Doesn’t Firefox still get the bulk of its funding from Google? Even as a separate company, Chrome would be beholden to some external entity (likely Google search) for money, and that still carries with it the same risks as now, just formalized with contracts.

palata 3y ago
> and that still carries with it the same risks as now Would it, though? Paying to be the default search engine is not the same as controlling the whole stack.
- throwaway45680 3y ago
  It's pretty clear that's not enough to succeed. Written from Firefox.
  - palata 3y ago
    But isn't that how Firefox survives?
    - throwaway45680 3y ago
      Yeah indeed, it just barely survives. Few years ago they had to shed all non-essential development (such as Servo).
      - palata 3y ago
        > Yeah indeed, it just barely survives. In a world where everybody uses Chromium, which is paid by surveillance capitalism. I really don't know, but I could imagine a world where some people would pay for their browser (many would use the "community edition", probably), and where search engines would pay to be the default. Google would probably still contribute to Chromium, they would just not directly have control over its governance. Maybe overall the web tech would move slower, but I don't think that would necessarily be bad.
        throwaway45680 3y ago
        In my world, people use whatever spying piece of crap browser a random app installed as a default for them. I really don't think anybody except a few enthusiasts would pay for a browser.
        palata 3y ago
        Yeah, I guess. Not sure if that's a reason for not considering splitting a company that's obviously too big, though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

palata 3y ago

> and that still carries with it the same risks as now Would it, though? Paying to be the default search engine is not the same as controlling the whole stack.

throwaway45680 3y ago
It's pretty clear that's not enough to succeed. Written from Firefox.
- palata 3y ago
  But isn't that how Firefox survives?
  - throwaway45680 3y ago
    Yeah indeed, it just barely survives. Few years ago they had to shed all non-essential development (such as Servo).
    - palata 3y ago
      > Yeah indeed, it just barely survives. In a world where everybody uses Chromium, which is paid by surveillance capitalism. I really don't know, but I could imagine a world where some people would pay for their browser (many would use the "community edition", probably), and where search engines would pay to be the default. Google would probably still contribute to Chromium, they would just not directly have control over its governance. Maybe overall the web tech would move slower, but I don't think that would necessarily be bad.
      - throwaway45680 3y ago
        In my world, people use whatever spying piece of crap browser a random app installed as a default for them. I really don't think anybody except a few enthusiasts would pay for a browser.
        palata 3y ago
        Yeah, I guess. Not sure if that's a reason for not considering splitting a company that's obviously too big, though.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]