5 ms·

Breaking up their individual businesses can cause each business to have incentives that line up better with their customers / users. Example: if Chrome was sepa

Breaking up their individual businesses can cause each business to have incentives that line up better with their customers / users. Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers with things like Manifest V3. Or include APIs that are only available to google websites (Which it has! https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018 https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018)

shadowgovt 2y ago
It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's entirely possible that separated from Google, Chrome is either not a viable business model (browsers don't make money on their own) or is incentivized to get into bed with some other ad company to make money, to effectively the same result.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Aren't you pointing out the exact problem with Google? If Chrome wasn't a viable business without Google's ads subsidizing it, isn't its existence in its current form exactly the kind of anti-competitive outcome we would be better off without? Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge, with more vendors investing more effort into competing for users, without having to compete against one of the richest companies in the world that sees its browser as a loss-leader for its ad business, has the ability to dump infinite money into its product, and can advertise it on the one website that 90% of people regularly visit?
  - sdenton4 2y ago
    I dunno, man - a competitive market for browsers likely involves the browser itself inserting a bunch of ads all over the place. It becomes another axis for enshittification, rather than a mostly-neutral window into the web. It's not enough to hope that a business model appears... Ask any journalist.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    What possible browser competition can exist? The market price for a browser from a consumer perspective is $0. I will never pay for a browser. All that will happen is new ad placements from smaller companies, directly in the browser.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > All that will happen is new ad placements from smaller companies, directly in the browser. I don't think this is going to be the case. This seems like an extreme conclusion with virtually no precedent. Since an ad browser is such an important piece of software, I imagine it will receive many donations. The reason Chrome doesn't is because it doesn't need them. I think that will change. Also, I think it's possible you will pay for a browser at some point. Ultimately software costs money to make and we've become desensitized to that because we've exchanged that cost for advertising. But advertising sucks. For example, I pay double for HBO Max just so I don't see ads, and I'm not alone in that.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        The precedent is that every browser out there currently has one of: - integration to ad infrastructure - integration to the vendor's other service infrastructure - a cost of more than $0 Given that the market is full of people who will only bear $0, the likely conclusion is that a Chrome separated from the ability to integrate to vendor infrastructure will turn to integrating to someone's ad infrastructure (more poorly and less securely than Chrome currently integrates to Google's infra).
        b112 2y ago
        No one pays $0. All that slurping of user data is used by other corps to maximize their profits. They're paying for that data, and then believe they're making more from consumers as a result. But no matter what, the cost of collecting that data, the infra, and then corp x or y buying it, comes out of the bottom line. It's like points credit cards. Where does that cash back come from, magical fairies? It comes from retailers' bottom lines, eg from you.
  - Chabsff 2y ago
    The original value-proposal for Chrome was: The more people browse the web in general, the more Google profits. So the mere existence of a good free, fast, and safe browser would inherently benefit Google at large in general. And that rationale is why we get to have Chromium at all. Obviously things have evolved quite a bit since then, but I think the general pitch that Chrome is primarily a value-multiplier for the org at large, rather than a direct value generator is still broadly the case, and it's really not clear to me that it can exist as anything else without a fundamental reassessment of what it's trying to accomplish.
    - graeme 2y ago
      That's likely not the real rationale. If people browse with Chrome, then google is the default. That is immensely valuable to google, as google's payments to apple, mozilla and android manufacturer's show. In theory Chrome could exist as an independent business if it were allowed to take bids for search default from google. But if the US govt broke up google they would likely also ban the sort of deal that would let Chrome be a viable business on its own.
      - hbn 2y ago
        By the time Chrome came out Google already was in the position where everyone knew to set their default homepage to Google in IE in the same way they automatically go to install Chrome now. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the pseudo-control Chrome gives them over web standards. They can implement experimental APIs in Chrome and immediately use them in their webapps.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        Correct. Google's real concern was not that people wouldn't use them as their favorite search engine; it was that relying on Apple and Microsoft to be stewards of access to the web was a huge business risk because, hypothetically, if Apple or Microsoft decided to block google.com at the browser level (or pick your favorite equivalent scenario, like failing to implement a standard that Google absolutely was going to be relying upon to provide service), Google was screwed. Chrome was a business risk mitigation move.
  - nox101 2y ago
    > Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge Without Chrome there will be only be Safari and Edge
    - MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
      I don't that Edge would survive without Chrome. I think it would be more fair to say that without Chrome, there will only be Safari, Firefox, Ladybird, and Verso. Yes, the latter two aren't ready yet, but I get they would gain fast traction in Chrome's absence.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        An unfortunate additional consequence of this antitrust lawsuit is that it is likely it will end The Google payments to Mozilla every year. That's 80% of the revenue, so the odds of them being a viable business afterwards are low. So I think we can cross that off the list as well and conclude that in the short to medium term, if Chrome went away it would mean simple web hegemony for Apple.
        MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
        I'm a bit more hopeful about Mozilla. I think there would be a collapse of the business without the Google cash flow, but expect the browser itself would be continued by the community for its importance.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        I have about as much faith in the open source community maintaining a machine as complicated as a full browser without significant corporate backing as I have in OpenOffice displacing Microsoft Office in my lifetime, but hope springs eternal.
        MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
        Consider that KHTML, the grandfather of just about every modern engine that isn't Gecko, was a fairly small open source project. Ladybird is open source and surprisingly usable for its youth and single developer. Speaking from personal experience, I write my best code when I'm frustrated by the absence of something I need. I'm sure many others here are the same way. If a sufficient fire is lit under the community to make the web continue to work in the absence of the old guard, I'm pretty sure it'll happen.
- maeil 2y ago
  > It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's entirely possible that separated from Google, Chrome is either not a viable business model (browsers don't make money on their own) No, that's not possible. Google pays $20 billion to Safari to be the default search engine. Imagine how much they would pay an independent Chrome, which has many multiples of Safari's market share. That alone guarantees it would be an incredibly viable business model.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Would they be allowed, or would that be more anti-competitive behavior?
  - labcomputer 2y ago
    But Google isn’t allowed to pay to be the default search engine anymore. So that revenue stream is gone.
    - ttoinou 2y ago
      It still shows the market value of browsers, even if unrealized or illegal this value could be exploited differently
    - asadotzler 2y ago
      You're imagining things. Google hasn't been prevented from that at all, yet, and may not be. We are discussing remedies here that have not happened yet. You cannot discount one possible remedy because of the existence of another possible remedy.
- epolanski 2y ago
  The more I think about your example the more it is a viable business model as you have the incentive to make people bid for the data, rather than defaulting it to Google, which is the point of the monopoly issue.
IX-103 2y ago
I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. It would be better to point out that Chrome is the only browser not getting rid of third party cookies. Chrome promised to, but then has reneged on that promise in favor of "user choice". I don't for a second think Chrome would have kept then around if they weren't tied to an advertising company.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. That is certainly the excuse given, but that doesn't mean it's the reason. > Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. Note that this makes them less effective at blocking ads. And speaking as a former uMatrix user, filtering/blocking the network traffic is a lot of the point.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. They used the “improved security” as an excuse while leaving other just as big holes in their security. Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2
  - nolist_policy 2y ago
    > Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2 They didn't, but other malicious extensions did.
    - aembleton 2y ago
      In that case, it should be a permission thing that a user can switch on for certain extensions.
nox101 2y ago
Users are not Chrome's customers. Even if Chrome is separated into a separate company that would still be true. Users are unlikely to pay for a browser when every OS comes with a free one. Some companies that want to be the default search (unless the gov bans that) or, some companies that want to be the default new tab page, would likely be the actual customers An exception might be Chromebook users. It's not clear how that would break out. Especially in light of ChromeOS being cancelled for Android
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Right now the main paying user of Chrome is Google as a tool to deliver product integrations and guarantee browser based ad delivery. It's just that all of that is seen as internal expense in developing Chrome instead of an external source of revenue from Chrome. If Chrome were split off the main paying user of Chrome would probably be large enterprises and educational institutions - that'd be a massive change. I'm not sure it'd really make sense to split Chrome off on its own or not though. Maybe Chrome/ChromeOS/Android as a base software platform for consumers, businesses, and schools.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 2y ago
    Can you explain what large enterprises and educational institutions would be paying Chrome for?
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      Chrome Enterprise Premium and ChromeOS/Chromebooks are existing paid offerings. They could probably squeeze a few more things out of the enterprise management toolset too though.
- linotype 2y ago
  Every OS coming with a browser bundled for free is part of the problem.
spankalee 2y ago
Manifest v3 exists to increase security and privacy, not to break ad blockers. I suspect that an independent Chrome would implement it even faster because they don't have to worry about the perception that they're doing it for ads.
Ferret7446 2y ago
> Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers I think your example is completely wrong. Chrome has no source of funding. If separated from Google, they will have a massively magnified incentive to cater to the whims of advertisers because they would be completely subservient to them for funding. My understanding is that Chrome provides value to Google through intangible means like brand association and thus Chrome does not have to 100% justify its existence by enabling ads for Google, meaning that it has some funding to just be a good browser for consumers.
- 3000browsers 2y ago
  Also, websearch would equally not be able to survive on its own. We know it from the fact that the competitors in the search field that put quality over ads, are doing it as a paid service. That would be a paid service that the majority of people would not be okay with, and even if google search did an enshittification pass trying to create a crowd that would. Users would still jump ship to the next search that is still provided for free.
- cududa 2y ago
  This is insane you're getting downvoted. Someone needs to pay for the development of Chrome. That's just the reality. How is Chrome going to make money as a standalone company? I have no idea, but it probably aligns with your guess
- mulmen 2y ago
  The “intangibles” you reference have a name. It’s called vertical integration. Boeing used to own an oil company, engine manufacturer, airline, and airplane manufacturing. The US government broke them up because nobody can compete with that vertical integration. This is a common issue addressed by strong anti-trust regulations. If Google (or any online business) is prevented from owning a web browser then the browsers compete on merit. Consumers choose what is actually good for them. Google has no incentive to make a good browser for consumers. They only have incentive to make one that is good enough for consumers to behave in Google’s interest. And if nobody can compete then that bar is low. Consumers don’t know what they are missing. Nobody does because we haven’t had a competitive browser market in close to three decades.

shadowgovt 2y ago

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's entirely possible that separated from Google, Chrome is either not a viable business model (browsers don't make money on their own) or is incentivized to get into bed with some other ad company to make money, to effectively the same result.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Aren't you pointing out the exact problem with Google? If Chrome wasn't a viable business without Google's ads subsidizing it, isn't its existence in its current form exactly the kind of anti-competitive outcome we would be better off without? Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge, with more vendors investing more effort into competing for users, without having to compete against one of the richest companies in the world that sees its browser as a loss-leader for its ad business, has the ability to dump infinite money into its product, and can advertise it on the one website that 90% of people regularly visit?
- sdenton4 2y ago
  I dunno, man - a competitive market for browsers likely involves the browser itself inserting a bunch of ads all over the place. It becomes another axis for enshittification, rather than a mostly-neutral window into the web. It's not enough to hope that a business model appears... Ask any journalist.
- abduhl 2y ago
  What possible browser competition can exist? The market price for a browser from a consumer perspective is $0. I will never pay for a browser. All that will happen is new ad placements from smaller companies, directly in the browser.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > All that will happen is new ad placements from smaller companies, directly in the browser. I don't think this is going to be the case. This seems like an extreme conclusion with virtually no precedent. Since an ad browser is such an important piece of software, I imagine it will receive many donations. The reason Chrome doesn't is because it doesn't need them. I think that will change. Also, I think it's possible you will pay for a browser at some point. Ultimately software costs money to make and we've become desensitized to that because we've exchanged that cost for advertising. But advertising sucks. For example, I pay double for HBO Max just so I don't see ads, and I'm not alone in that.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      The precedent is that every browser out there currently has one of: - integration to ad infrastructure - integration to the vendor's other service infrastructure - a cost of more than $0 Given that the market is full of people who will only bear $0, the likely conclusion is that a Chrome separated from the ability to integrate to vendor infrastructure will turn to integrating to someone's ad infrastructure (more poorly and less securely than Chrome currently integrates to Google's infra).
      - b112 2y ago
        No one pays $0. All that slurping of user data is used by other corps to maximize their profits. They're paying for that data, and then believe they're making more from consumers as a result. But no matter what, the cost of collecting that data, the infra, and then corp x or y buying it, comes out of the bottom line. It's like points credit cards. Where does that cash back come from, magical fairies? It comes from retailers' bottom lines, eg from you.
- Chabsff 2y ago
  The original value-proposal for Chrome was: The more people browse the web in general, the more Google profits. So the mere existence of a good free, fast, and safe browser would inherently benefit Google at large in general. And that rationale is why we get to have Chromium at all. Obviously things have evolved quite a bit since then, but I think the general pitch that Chrome is primarily a value-multiplier for the org at large, rather than a direct value generator is still broadly the case, and it's really not clear to me that it can exist as anything else without a fundamental reassessment of what it's trying to accomplish.
  - graeme 2y ago
    That's likely not the real rationale. If people browse with Chrome, then google is the default. That is immensely valuable to google, as google's payments to apple, mozilla and android manufacturer's show. In theory Chrome could exist as an independent business if it were allowed to take bids for search default from google. But if the US govt broke up google they would likely also ban the sort of deal that would let Chrome be a viable business on its own.
    - hbn 2y ago
      By the time Chrome came out Google already was in the position where everyone knew to set their default homepage to Google in IE in the same way they automatically go to install Chrome now. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the pseudo-control Chrome gives them over web standards. They can implement experimental APIs in Chrome and immediately use them in their webapps.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Correct. Google's real concern was not that people wouldn't use them as their favorite search engine; it was that relying on Apple and Microsoft to be stewards of access to the web was a huge business risk because, hypothetically, if Apple or Microsoft decided to block google.com at the browser level (or pick your favorite equivalent scenario, like failing to implement a standard that Google absolutely was going to be relying upon to provide service), Google was screwed. Chrome was a business risk mitigation move.
- nox101 2y ago
  > Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge Without Chrome there will be only be Safari and Edge
  - MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
    I don't that Edge would survive without Chrome. I think it would be more fair to say that without Chrome, there will only be Safari, Firefox, Ladybird, and Verso. Yes, the latter two aren't ready yet, but I get they would gain fast traction in Chrome's absence.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      An unfortunate additional consequence of this antitrust lawsuit is that it is likely it will end The Google payments to Mozilla every year. That's 80% of the revenue, so the odds of them being a viable business afterwards are low. So I think we can cross that off the list as well and conclude that in the short to medium term, if Chrome went away it would mean simple web hegemony for Apple.
      - MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
        I'm a bit more hopeful about Mozilla. I think there would be a collapse of the business without the Google cash flow, but expect the browser itself would be continued by the community for its importance.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        I have about as much faith in the open source community maintaining a machine as complicated as a full browser without significant corporate backing as I have in OpenOffice displacing Microsoft Office in my lifetime, but hope springs eternal.
        MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
        Consider that KHTML, the grandfather of just about every modern engine that isn't Gecko, was a fairly small open source project. Ladybird is open source and surprisingly usable for its youth and single developer. Speaking from personal experience, I write my best code when I'm frustrated by the absence of something I need. I'm sure many others here are the same way. If a sufficient fire is lit under the community to make the web continue to work in the absence of the old guard, I'm pretty sure it'll happen.
maeil 2y ago
> It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's entirely possible that separated from Google, Chrome is either not a viable business model (browsers don't make money on their own) No, that's not possible. Google pays $20 billion to Safari to be the default search engine. Imagine how much they would pay an independent Chrome, which has many multiples of Safari's market share. That alone guarantees it would be an incredibly viable business model.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Would they be allowed, or would that be more anti-competitive behavior?
- labcomputer 2y ago
  But Google isn’t allowed to pay to be the default search engine anymore. So that revenue stream is gone.
  - ttoinou 2y ago
    It still shows the market value of browsers, even if unrealized or illegal this value could be exploited differently
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    You're imagining things. Google hasn't been prevented from that at all, yet, and may not be. We are discussing remedies here that have not happened yet. You cannot discount one possible remedy because of the existence of another possible remedy.
epolanski 2y ago
The more I think about your example the more it is a viable business model as you have the incentive to make people bid for the data, rather than defaulting it to Google, which is the point of the monopoly issue.

IX-103 2y ago

I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. It would be better to point out that Chrome is the only browser not getting rid of third party cookies. Chrome promised to, but then has reneged on that promise in favor of "user choice". I don't for a second think Chrome would have kept then around if they weren't tied to an advertising company.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. That is certainly the excuse given, but that doesn't mean it's the reason. > Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. Note that this makes them less effective at blocking ads. And speaking as a former uMatrix user, filtering/blocking the network traffic is a lot of the point.
EasyMark 2y ago
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. They used the “improved security” as an excuse while leaving other just as big holes in their security. Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  > Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2 They didn't, but other malicious extensions did.
  - aembleton 2y ago
    In that case, it should be a permission thing that a user can switch on for certain extensions.

nox101 2y ago

Users are not Chrome's customers. Even if Chrome is separated into a separate company that would still be true. Users are unlikely to pay for a browser when every OS comes with a free one. Some companies that want to be the default search (unless the gov bans that) or, some companies that want to be the default new tab page, would likely be the actual customers An exception might be Chromebook users. It's not clear how that would break out. Especially in light of ChromeOS being cancelled for Android

zamadatix 2y ago
Right now the main paying user of Chrome is Google as a tool to deliver product integrations and guarantee browser based ad delivery. It's just that all of that is seen as internal expense in developing Chrome instead of an external source of revenue from Chrome. If Chrome were split off the main paying user of Chrome would probably be large enterprises and educational institutions - that'd be a massive change. I'm not sure it'd really make sense to split Chrome off on its own or not though. Maybe Chrome/ChromeOS/Android as a base software platform for consumers, businesses, and schools.
- KaoruAoiShiho 2y ago
  Can you explain what large enterprises and educational institutions would be paying Chrome for?
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Chrome Enterprise Premium and ChromeOS/Chromebooks are existing paid offerings. They could probably squeeze a few more things out of the enterprise management toolset too though.
linotype 2y ago
Every OS coming with a browser bundled for free is part of the problem.

spankalee 2y ago

Manifest v3 exists to increase security and privacy, not to break ad blockers. I suspect that an independent Chrome would implement it even faster because they don't have to worry about the perception that they're doing it for ads.

Ferret7446 2y ago

> Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers I think your example is completely wrong. Chrome has no source of funding. If separated from Google, they will have a massively magnified incentive to cater to the whims of advertisers because they would be completely subservient to them for funding. My understanding is that Chrome provides value to Google through intangible means like brand association and thus Chrome does not have to 100% justify its existence by enabling ads for Google, meaning that it has some funding to just be a good browser for consumers.

3000browsers 2y ago
Also, websearch would equally not be able to survive on its own. We know it from the fact that the competitors in the search field that put quality over ads, are doing it as a paid service. That would be a paid service that the majority of people would not be okay with, and even if google search did an enshittification pass trying to create a crowd that would. Users would still jump ship to the next search that is still provided for free.
cududa 2y ago
This is insane you're getting downvoted. Someone needs to pay for the development of Chrome. That's just the reality. How is Chrome going to make money as a standalone company? I have no idea, but it probably aligns with your guess
mulmen 2y ago
The “intangibles” you reference have a name. It’s called vertical integration. Boeing used to own an oil company, engine manufacturer, airline, and airplane manufacturing. The US government broke them up because nobody can compete with that vertical integration. This is a common issue addressed by strong anti-trust regulations. If Google (or any online business) is prevented from owning a web browser then the browsers compete on merit. Consumers choose what is actually good for them. Google has no incentive to make a good browser for consumers. They only have incentive to make one that is good enough for consumers to behave in Google’s interest. And if nobody can compete then that bar is low. Consumers don’t know what they are missing. Nobody does because we haven’t had a competitive browser market in close to three decades.