3 ms·

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

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.

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.