7 ms·

Who would possibly buy Chrome? Letting any of the large tech companies purchase it (the only possible buyers) would just give someone else monopolistic power.

Who would possibly buy Chrome? Letting any of the large tech companies purchase it (the only possible buyers) would just give someone else monopolistic power. Chrome can’t exist as a standalone business without being even more consumer hostile.

bityard 2y ago
In the most chaotic alternate reality possible: Mozilla
- JadoJodo 2y ago
  In that same alternate reality: WPEngine is given control of Automattic/WordPress as a result of the lawsuits.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Firefox is sponsored primary by Google. WPEngine is not. It would be like Automattic giving control to Wordpress foundation.
    - JadoJodo 2y ago
      My intention was to emphasize the irony, not so much the relationship between them. :)
- micahdeath 2y ago
  na... Oracle.
  - Narishma 2y ago
    Broadcom.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Having it owned by a non-profit foundation would make a huge amount of sense, especially if that foundation was then immediately funded by a variety of companies rather than just one big advertising company. The obvious test for whether the browser is actually independent: what is the response to "let's add an ad-blocker by default".
  - behnamoh 2y ago
    > Having it owned by a non-profit foundation would make a huge amount of sense,... OpenAI joined the chat...
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      There would be few incentives to try and pull off something like that if nobody had any faith in the product every becoming extremely profitable though.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      Isn't openapi pro-profit? Or at least I thought it was.
  - whiplash451 2y ago
    This is wishful thinking. Non-profits that don’t turn into for-profit turn into a shitshow of incompetence instead.
    - niutech 2y ago
      Not necessarily, see The Linux Foundation Europe competently maintains Servo.
      - whiplash451 2y ago
        My comment could rub tech people in the wrong way (for a good reason). I meant incompetence at the company governance level, not technical. There's massive technical competence in non-profits. This brilliance is just wasted by leaders who sacrifice business acumen over the mission.
- mrandish 2y ago
  With Mozilla becoming so hostile to their power users in recent years (or any user who just wants to customize the interface or core functionality), I'm not sure it would make much difference.
  - AyyEye 2y ago
    They'll do what their benefactor (Goog) wants whether they own chrome or not.
- somethoughts 2y ago
  Interestingly if I recall correctly a lot of the original talent for Chrome/Chromium originally worked at Mozilla and were poached by Google. [1] [1] https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome.html#team https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome.html...
  - oars 2y ago
    This is such a valuable article from 2008. I've archived it here: https://archive.is/hVove https://archive.is/hVove
- underlipton 2y ago
  That's just a different kind of monopoly.
rty32 2y ago
Very few companies would be able to manage a gigantic project like Chromium. I happen to be poking around the Chromium codebase the last few days. The size of the codebase itself is at the same level as all of our company's code. Something as important and critical as GPU rendering is only a small part of the entire project. You also have v8, ChromeOS, ANGLE etc to worry about, all requiring experts in those areas. Not to mention things like Widevine and other proprietary technology surrounding Chrome.
- aeonik 2y ago
  I'll do it, if they agree to sell it to me, I'll run it. I have a few hundred bucks that I'm willing to put into the pie, but based on the financials, it's probably going to go bankrupt pretty quick.
  - DimuP 2y ago
    Yeah, probably not worth the money
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > based on the financials, it's probably going to go bankrupt pretty quick. Stage 1: Buy Chrome from Google, with its 65% browser market share. Stage 2: Tell Google you'll keep them as default search provider for $5 billion per year. Stage 3: Profit
    - mrweasel 2y ago
      But didn't Firefox run into funding issues because they can't sell Google the privilege of being the default search?
      - gorbypark 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure they can, and do. The vast majority of Mozillas revenues come from Google for being the default search provider. The fact that Google pays Mozilla, Apple and Samsung (among others) to be the default search provider has been an issue with regulators, but as far as I know there has been no rulings on it (yet?).
wumeow 2y ago
ByteDance, or another Chinese company.
- dbmnt 2y ago
  Given the current political climate, this is incredibly unlikely. Reference the situation with TikTok and the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act" which became US law earlier this year.
lofenfew 2y ago
firefox gets along fine how it could exist without getting money for setting the default search engine is certainly a question though
- gkoberger 2y ago
  Firefox gets along... with money from Google. And I think a good portion of the $$ that Google pays Mozilla, in their mind, isn't to be the default search engine... it's to keep competition alive in order to avoid this situation.
winterbloom 2y ago
How would they even sell it, chrome is based off of chromium. What is there to sell exactly? You can already fork chromium
- bogwog 2y ago
  > What is there to sell exactly? The user base
  - tedunangst 2y ago
    And what do I, the new owner of this user base, do with it?
    - vivekd 2y ago
      1. make your search engine the default 2. make your website the default 3. make it easier to access your suite of web services Eg. imagine instead of defaulting to google everything you typed in the search bar defaulted to chatgpt. Imagine open AI could buy that at a discount
      - jonhohle 2y ago
        Or the triumphant return of Yahoo!? (hypothetical, not interrobang)
      - tedunangst 2y ago
        So basically invite the DOJ to immediately take it away again?
        vivekd 2y ago
        probably not going to be a popular take on this forum, but to me it looks like anti trust and securities laws are enforced almost randomly. Is Google a monopoly using its control to limit competition - yes but so is pretty much all of FANG and many successful businesses for that matter. Anti trust activities are not about any one act (such as routing browsers to your site), it's more about whether the fates choose your company to end up in the DOJs roulette wheel.
rahidz 2y ago
A consortium of various tech companies, plus non-profits? Instead of it being in one corporate hand. One can dream of the EFF and Mozilla plus a bunch of other stakeholders owning it.
- gerash 2y ago
  Is Chrome being run so bad that we need even more committees, councils and bureaucrats to implement every single feature ? Microsoft is already using the Chromium and changing the default search engine to Bing and shipping it as Edge. What else is needed? This DOJ looks like they just want to pad their resumes with some grandiose case which might be bad for everyone else.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    Chrome isn't being run bad because of committee, it's being run bad because it's used by Google as part of their web advertising empire.
    - concinds 2y ago
      Notice how their web advertising empire, which they do have a monopoly on (unlike Chrome), is not being broken up?
      - shadowfacts 2y ago
        There is a separate, ongoing antitrust lawsuit over Google’s adtech business. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Nov. 25, next week: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/technology/google-antitrust-case-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/technology/google-antitru...
  - StrauXX 2y ago
    Chrome is not run badly at all. But in its current state it gives Google the ability to singlehandedly dictate webstandards. Thats an issue.
fooey 2y ago
The full circle of course is MS will end up acquiring it.
- vermilingua 2y ago
  This is surely the only real possibility, and puts Edge's shift to Chromium in a new light; could MS have predicted/lobbied for this push?
  - dangsux 2y ago
    [dead]
  - preommr 2y ago
    If this actually happens, I think it would turn perception of Nadella from good CEO that got lucky with OpenAI to a certified shadow master that's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.
  - sensanaty 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure M$ just shifted to edge because they didn't want to invest the money into catching up with chromium, since explorer was a pile of shit and was losing anyway
  - tombert 2y ago
    How is this the only possibility? What about Opera or something?
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      "Opera or somethings" tend to be too small. E.g. Google paid 20 billion just to be the default search in Safari, i.e. for a default seat in a significantly less popular browser. Opera's total assets are ~1 billion. But say it was forced to sell for peanuts because any large company proposal was denied by antitrust review itself, a forced sale of a US company's business to a non-US company under ownership by Chinese investors would likely not be allowed go through in the current environment either. Maybe some other "or something" at this point but it feels a bit like asking for a wildcard play from a very methodical and slow process.
ninth_ant 2y ago
It doesn’t matter if no one buys it, or if it doesn’t even continue to exist as a standalone business. That’s preferable. The important part is ending the egregious conflict of interest where an advertising behemoth controls access to the internet. Ideal result is that Chrome ceases to exist and Chromium continues as an independent open source project controlled by a nonprofit. Even if Google is one of the contributors, so long as they don’t control the product they will exert a lot less control over the web and how people access it. TLDR just be like Mozilla
- catlover76 2y ago
  [dead]
- adamc 2y ago
  To the users who use chrome, it will matter. Not clear to me how strong Chromium will be if the Google efforts for Chrome go away.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > TLDR just be like Mozilla Mozilla is rapidly deciding they want to be an advertising and AI company at the expense of their primary product. So, tl;dr: be like Mozilla used to be, not like they are now.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    I don't like Mozilla's advertising strategy either. But their primary product can't sustain itself.
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      I desperately wish they'd give me the option to pay for Firefox Sync. I would, genuinely, pay for that every month. I get a massive amount of value from being able to throw tabs from my laptop to my phone and vice versa, and have everything synchronized, in a way I trust.
jsyang00 2y ago
What about X (the everything app)? Could happen under Trump...
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Chrome can’t exist as a standalone business without being even more consumer hostile Why not? Chrome's team isn't as prone to distracting itself as Mozilla. But there is still a lot of ancillary nonsense they get up to that wouldn't be necessary if it weren't in Google. Starting, for example, with not giving a fuck about how their product impacts ad sales.
- equestria 2y ago
  Because you need to pay something like 1,000 engineers - and not just any engineers, but engineers used to Alphabet's SF Bay Area salaries and equity packages. This quickly adds up to billions of dollars. You have the option to massively downsize, likely sacrificing product quality; or to sell something very valuable to a business-mined buyer. And there's really nothing a browser vendor can sell that isn't bad news for the users. About the best option would be for Chrome to be spun off and then for Google to keep paying them for being the default search engine.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you need to pay something like 1,000 engineers - and not just any engineers, but engineers used to Alphabet's SF Bay Area salaries and equity packages Why? I'm arguing you can downsize the portfolio without sacrificing product quality for most users. That should let one get by with fewer engineers and/or ones in lower-cost areas.
    - equestria 2y ago
      Mozilla has ~700 employees just to keep an ailing browser on life support. Brave has ~250 employees, but they're building largely on Google's core engine, so they're getting a ton of engineering for free. Browsers are massive. I'm pretty sure the complexity is exceeding the complexity of the Linux kernel. You can pull off heroics with fewer people, but if you want to build a company that brings in revenue, has a security team and a privacy team... all of sudden, it's a pretty big enterprise.
  - jonhohle 2y ago
legitster 2y ago
> They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share more information with advertisers and give them more control over where their ads appear. Seems like the DOJ is angling that Chrome should be spun off as an advertising platform of some kind. Seems so, so much worse.
hilbert42 2y ago
"Who would possibly buy Chrome?" This is illustrates the extent and magnitude of the problem to fix the internet. That regulators failed to give enough oversight of the internet and to regulate its monopolistic players several decades ago when these problems first became obvious has meant that they are now almost insurmountable. Ideally, Google would be forced to divest itself of Chrome and that Chrome would become an open source project a la Linux. Clearly, that's very unlikely to happen. For those who'd argue that Chrome would have no funding to further develop I'd respond by saying that it already works well as a browser and from observation that Google is channeling most of Chrome's development funds into anti-features that are hostile to users. As an open source project that level of funding would be no longer necessary and its future development could progress at a slower pace.
- liopleurodon 2y ago
  may as well just discontinue it then and let Chromium take its place
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    Yeah, but if Google were forced to divest Chrome then parts of its proprietary code would have to be open-sourced and integrated into Chromium to minimize disruption to users. Alternatively, Google would have to make its services more interoperable.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      Or bundle all the prop code and services into a plugin for chromium.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > Ideally, Google would be forced to divest itself of Chrome and that Chrome would become an open source project a la Linux. Clearly, that's very unlikely to happen. Chrome's upstream (Chromium) is already open source. If Google is forbidden from sponsoring Chromium's development, and that of its proprietary downstream distribution (Chrome) who's going to fund Chromium's development? Even if forced to divest, Google will always have an outsized sway on any open source browser due to the engineer-hours they can spend on contributions. If they are blocked from even that, then the whole exercise would be anti-consumer IMO.
kylehotchkiss 2y ago
IBM? Amazon (that sounds worse)
Despegar 2y ago
No one should. It should get an IPO. Chrome will make a lot of money from Google, Bing, ChatGPT, etc by selling default search.
bufferoverflow 2y ago
Who would like to own the #1 most popular browser in the world? How is that even a question. It's worth billions. User data, ability to inject ads, ability to drive the future of web and web-based apps.
- SirHumphrey 2y ago
  It’s an open source project that can be forked - especially when google is not behind it to protect the market share, with users that don’t expect to pay and microsoft also involved with their own version. Currently it’s probably worth bilingual because Google owns it. I expect it to rapidly lose value should that change.
mrweasel 2y ago
Probably MicroFocus, they seem to buy everything and not do anything with it. There is no potential buyers for Chrome that are serious and trustworthy. Chrome is not a profit center. Mozilla can't make money on Firefox and seems to be losing interest in the project, probably for the same reason. There's no reason to think that anyone would buy Chrome, keep it freely available and make money on the product. Worst case is that some one will buy it, slap ads on it or turn it into a subscription service. Still I don't see that being enough to fund the Chromium/Blink development. While I do think the adding of features to the web could do with a slowdown, we're talking Internet Explorer 6 levels of stagnation if Chrome is sold of to the wrong entity.
whiplash451 2y ago
They don’t have to sell it. They have to spin it off. Which means an independent company with a C suite, RSUs and a P&L. There’s probably a number of talented people out there who would love to drive that truck.
- forgotoldacc 2y ago
  If the pool they're looking at is "talented people" looking to run a company, it'll be someone who's currently the CEO of 7 other companies and successfully driven each of them into the ground for short term profits, unfortunately.
  - ycombinatrix 2y ago
    I love capitalism
niutech 2y ago
Maybe Opera would buy it?
0xmarcin 2y ago
Let's hope it won't be Oracle. ehm... jokes aside. I think a more reasonable way is to setup a foundation, composed of biggest players in tech, also companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Mozilla Foundation, Linux Foundation, Apple and EFF. The foundation should steer the further development of Chrome. In that way Chrome will be owned by community just like e.g. Linux Kernel or standards like C++ lang spec. If Chrome would be bought by a private entity, that entity would probably start milking the current user base straight away. Expect adds in bookmarks bar, more address bar spyware (e.g. sending all phrases to the cloud) and paid extensions web store. The most used and advanced browser that we have today must stay open source. It is more than a program, it is part of global internet infrastructure. We should not destroy it by a foolish political decision.
- SirHumphrey 2y ago
  I doubt Mozilla would like to be part of a foundation owning another browser.
- nl 2y ago
  Oracle was the front-runner for buying TikTok last time they were under pressure to sell: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54148474 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54148474 They were the first company I thought of.
slightwinder 2y ago
Mozilla exist standalone, even if technically it depends on Googles money. They do the same, push Chrome to a separate Company, independent of Google, but getting money from who ever pays them the most for integrations and search engine-placments. It would need some additional constraints, but could position it on a more fair situation where there is not this harmful lock-in to google-services, but instead support for all services & companies equally. Just reducing the direct influence from one company would already be beneficial for the market. And maybe Mozilla and other browser will get something out of it too.
galkk 2y ago
> Who would possibly buy Chrome? Somehow I think that if they will decide to stay in their niche, Cloudflare might be a good fit for Chrome
Ancalagon 2y ago
I'll buy it for $5, final offer.
devnullbrain 2y ago
The argument that something is untouchable because it can't continue as a going concern without continuing user-hostile behaviours is unconvincing. It's not our fault Google chose this business model, just as it's not a coincidence Google made it difficult to break up and just distinct enough to be (supposedly, formerly) legally sound.
jldugger 2y ago
Would you buy an IPO of Chrome? The key supplier of like half of Google's searches? Seems like a no brainer.

bityard 2y ago

In the most chaotic alternate reality possible: Mozilla

JadoJodo 2y ago
In that same alternate reality: WPEngine is given control of Automattic/WordPress as a result of the lawsuits.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Firefox is sponsored primary by Google. WPEngine is not. It would be like Automattic giving control to Wordpress foundation.
  - JadoJodo 2y ago
    My intention was to emphasize the irony, not so much the relationship between them. :)
micahdeath 2y ago
na... Oracle.
- Narishma 2y ago
  Broadcom.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
Having it owned by a non-profit foundation would make a huge amount of sense, especially if that foundation was then immediately funded by a variety of companies rather than just one big advertising company. The obvious test for whether the browser is actually independent: what is the response to "let's add an ad-blocker by default".
- behnamoh 2y ago
  > Having it owned by a non-profit foundation would make a huge amount of sense,... OpenAI joined the chat...
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    There would be few incentives to try and pull off something like that if nobody had any faith in the product every becoming extremely profitable though.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    Isn't openapi pro-profit? Or at least I thought it was.
- whiplash451 2y ago
  This is wishful thinking. Non-profits that don’t turn into for-profit turn into a shitshow of incompetence instead.
  - niutech 2y ago
    Not necessarily, see The Linux Foundation Europe competently maintains Servo.
    - whiplash451 2y ago
      My comment could rub tech people in the wrong way (for a good reason). I meant incompetence at the company governance level, not technical. There's massive technical competence in non-profits. This brilliance is just wasted by leaders who sacrifice business acumen over the mission.
mrandish 2y ago
With Mozilla becoming so hostile to their power users in recent years (or any user who just wants to customize the interface or core functionality), I'm not sure it would make much difference.
- AyyEye 2y ago
  They'll do what their benefactor (Goog) wants whether they own chrome or not.
somethoughts 2y ago
Interestingly if I recall correctly a lot of the original talent for Chrome/Chromium originally worked at Mozilla and were poached by Google. [1] [1] https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome.html#team https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome.html...
- oars 2y ago
  This is such a valuable article from 2008. I've archived it here: https://archive.is/hVove https://archive.is/hVove
underlipton 2y ago
That's just a different kind of monopoly.

rty32 2y ago

Very few companies would be able to manage a gigantic project like Chromium. I happen to be poking around the Chromium codebase the last few days. The size of the codebase itself is at the same level as all of our company's code. Something as important and critical as GPU rendering is only a small part of the entire project. You also have v8, ChromeOS, ANGLE etc to worry about, all requiring experts in those areas. Not to mention things like Widevine and other proprietary technology surrounding Chrome.

aeonik 2y ago
I'll do it, if they agree to sell it to me, I'll run it. I have a few hundred bucks that I'm willing to put into the pie, but based on the financials, it's probably going to go bankrupt pretty quick.
- DimuP 2y ago
  Yeah, probably not worth the money
- michaelt 2y ago
  > based on the financials, it's probably going to go bankrupt pretty quick. Stage 1: Buy Chrome from Google, with its 65% browser market share. Stage 2: Tell Google you'll keep them as default search provider for $5 billion per year. Stage 3: Profit
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    But didn't Firefox run into funding issues because they can't sell Google the privilege of being the default search?
    - gorbypark 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure they can, and do. The vast majority of Mozillas revenues come from Google for being the default search provider. The fact that Google pays Mozilla, Apple and Samsung (among others) to be the default search provider has been an issue with regulators, but as far as I know there has been no rulings on it (yet?).

wumeow 2y ago

ByteDance, or another Chinese company.

dbmnt 2y ago
Given the current political climate, this is incredibly unlikely. Reference the situation with TikTok and the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act" which became US law earlier this year.

lofenfew 2y ago

firefox gets along fine how it could exist without getting money for setting the default search engine is certainly a question though

gkoberger 2y ago
Firefox gets along... with money from Google. And I think a good portion of the $$ that Google pays Mozilla, in their mind, isn't to be the default search engine... it's to keep competition alive in order to avoid this situation.

winterbloom 2y ago

How would they even sell it, chrome is based off of chromium. What is there to sell exactly? You can already fork chromium

bogwog 2y ago
> What is there to sell exactly? The user base
- tedunangst 2y ago
  And what do I, the new owner of this user base, do with it?
  - vivekd 2y ago
    1. make your search engine the default 2. make your website the default 3. make it easier to access your suite of web services Eg. imagine instead of defaulting to google everything you typed in the search bar defaulted to chatgpt. Imagine open AI could buy that at a discount
    - jonhohle 2y ago
      Or the triumphant return of Yahoo!? (hypothetical, not interrobang)
    - tedunangst 2y ago
      So basically invite the DOJ to immediately take it away again?
      - vivekd 2y ago
        probably not going to be a popular take on this forum, but to me it looks like anti trust and securities laws are enforced almost randomly. Is Google a monopoly using its control to limit competition - yes but so is pretty much all of FANG and many successful businesses for that matter. Anti trust activities are not about any one act (such as routing browsers to your site), it's more about whether the fates choose your company to end up in the DOJs roulette wheel.

rahidz 2y ago

A consortium of various tech companies, plus non-profits? Instead of it being in one corporate hand. One can dream of the EFF and Mozilla plus a bunch of other stakeholders owning it.

gerash 2y ago
Is Chrome being run so bad that we need even more committees, councils and bureaucrats to implement every single feature ? Microsoft is already using the Chromium and changing the default search engine to Bing and shipping it as Edge. What else is needed? This DOJ looks like they just want to pad their resumes with some grandiose case which might be bad for everyone else.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  Chrome isn't being run bad because of committee, it's being run bad because it's used by Google as part of their web advertising empire.
  - concinds 2y ago
    Notice how their web advertising empire, which they do have a monopoly on (unlike Chrome), is not being broken up?
    - shadowfacts 2y ago
      There is a separate, ongoing antitrust lawsuit over Google’s adtech business. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Nov. 25, next week: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/technology/google-antitrust-case-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/technology/google-antitru...
- StrauXX 2y ago
  Chrome is not run badly at all. But in its current state it gives Google the ability to singlehandedly dictate webstandards. Thats an issue.

fooey 2y ago

The full circle of course is MS will end up acquiring it.

vermilingua 2y ago
This is surely the only real possibility, and puts Edge's shift to Chromium in a new light; could MS have predicted/lobbied for this push?
- dangsux 2y ago
  [dead]
- preommr 2y ago
  If this actually happens, I think it would turn perception of Nadella from good CEO that got lucky with OpenAI to a certified shadow master that's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.
- sensanaty 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure M$ just shifted to edge because they didn't want to invest the money into catching up with chromium, since explorer was a pile of shit and was losing anyway
- tombert 2y ago
  How is this the only possibility? What about Opera or something?
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    "Opera or somethings" tend to be too small. E.g. Google paid 20 billion just to be the default search in Safari, i.e. for a default seat in a significantly less popular browser. Opera's total assets are ~1 billion. But say it was forced to sell for peanuts because any large company proposal was denied by antitrust review itself, a forced sale of a US company's business to a non-US company under ownership by Chinese investors would likely not be allowed go through in the current environment either. Maybe some other "or something" at this point but it feels a bit like asking for a wildcard play from a very methodical and slow process.

ninth_ant 2y ago

It doesn’t matter if no one buys it, or if it doesn’t even continue to exist as a standalone business. That’s preferable. The important part is ending the egregious conflict of interest where an advertising behemoth controls access to the internet. Ideal result is that Chrome ceases to exist and Chromium continues as an independent open source project controlled by a nonprofit. Even if Google is one of the contributors, so long as they don’t control the product they will exert a lot less control over the web and how people access it. TLDR just be like Mozilla

catlover76 2y ago
[dead]
adamc 2y ago
To the users who use chrome, it will matter. Not clear to me how strong Chromium will be if the Google efforts for Chrome go away.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
> TLDR just be like Mozilla Mozilla is rapidly deciding they want to be an advertising and AI company at the expense of their primary product. So, tl;dr: be like Mozilla used to be, not like they are now.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  I don't like Mozilla's advertising strategy either. But their primary product can't sustain itself.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    I desperately wish they'd give me the option to pay for Firefox Sync. I would, genuinely, pay for that every month. I get a massive amount of value from being able to throw tabs from my laptop to my phone and vice versa, and have everything synchronized, in a way I trust.

jsyang00 2y ago

What about X (the everything app)? Could happen under Trump...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Chrome can’t exist as a standalone business without being even more consumer hostile Why not? Chrome's team isn't as prone to distracting itself as Mozilla. But there is still a lot of ancillary nonsense they get up to that wouldn't be necessary if it weren't in Google. Starting, for example, with not giving a fuck about how their product impacts ad sales.

equestria 2y ago
Because you need to pay something like 1,000 engineers - and not just any engineers, but engineers used to Alphabet's SF Bay Area salaries and equity packages. This quickly adds up to billions of dollars. You have the option to massively downsize, likely sacrificing product quality; or to sell something very valuable to a business-mined buyer. And there's really nothing a browser vendor can sell that isn't bad news for the users. About the best option would be for Chrome to be spun off and then for Google to keep paying them for being the default search engine.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you need to pay something like 1,000 engineers - and not just any engineers, but engineers used to Alphabet's SF Bay Area salaries and equity packages Why? I'm arguing you can downsize the portfolio without sacrificing product quality for most users. That should let one get by with fewer engineers and/or ones in lower-cost areas.
  - equestria 2y ago
    Mozilla has ~700 employees just to keep an ailing browser on life support. Brave has ~250 employees, but they're building largely on Google's core engine, so they're getting a ton of engineering for free. Browsers are massive. I'm pretty sure the complexity is exceeding the complexity of the Linux kernel. You can pull off heroics with fewer people, but if you want to build a company that brings in revenue, has a security team and a privacy team... all of sudden, it's a pretty big enterprise.
- jonhohle 2y ago

legitster 2y ago

> They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share more information with advertisers and give them more control over where their ads appear. Seems like the DOJ is angling that Chrome should be spun off as an advertising platform of some kind. Seems so, so much worse.

hilbert42 2y ago

"Who would possibly buy Chrome?" This is illustrates the extent and magnitude of the problem to fix the internet. That regulators failed to give enough oversight of the internet and to regulate its monopolistic players several decades ago when these problems first became obvious has meant that they are now almost insurmountable. Ideally, Google would be forced to divest itself of Chrome and that Chrome would become an open source project a la Linux. Clearly, that's very unlikely to happen. For those who'd argue that Chrome would have no funding to further develop I'd respond by saying that it already works well as a browser and from observation that Google is channeling most of Chrome's development funds into anti-features that are hostile to users. As an open source project that level of funding would be no longer necessary and its future development could progress at a slower pace.

liopleurodon 2y ago
may as well just discontinue it then and let Chromium take its place
- hilbert42 2y ago
  Yeah, but if Google were forced to divest Chrome then parts of its proprietary code would have to be open-sourced and integrated into Chromium to minimize disruption to users. Alternatively, Google would have to make its services more interoperable.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    Or bundle all the prop code and services into a plugin for chromium.
sangnoir 2y ago
> Ideally, Google would be forced to divest itself of Chrome and that Chrome would become an open source project a la Linux. Clearly, that's very unlikely to happen. Chrome's upstream (Chromium) is already open source. If Google is forbidden from sponsoring Chromium's development, and that of its proprietary downstream distribution (Chrome) who's going to fund Chromium's development? Even if forced to divest, Google will always have an outsized sway on any open source browser due to the engineer-hours they can spend on contributions. If they are blocked from even that, then the whole exercise would be anti-consumer IMO.

kylehotchkiss 2y ago

IBM? Amazon (that sounds worse)

Despegar 2y ago

No one should. It should get an IPO. Chrome will make a lot of money from Google, Bing, ChatGPT, etc by selling default search.

bufferoverflow 2y ago

Who would like to own the #1 most popular browser in the world? How is that even a question. It's worth billions. User data, ability to inject ads, ability to drive the future of web and web-based apps.

SirHumphrey 2y ago
It’s an open source project that can be forked - especially when google is not behind it to protect the market share, with users that don’t expect to pay and microsoft also involved with their own version. Currently it’s probably worth bilingual because Google owns it. I expect it to rapidly lose value should that change.

mrweasel 2y ago

Probably MicroFocus, they seem to buy everything and not do anything with it. There is no potential buyers for Chrome that are serious and trustworthy. Chrome is not a profit center. Mozilla can't make money on Firefox and seems to be losing interest in the project, probably for the same reason. There's no reason to think that anyone would buy Chrome, keep it freely available and make money on the product. Worst case is that some one will buy it, slap ads on it or turn it into a subscription service. Still I don't see that being enough to fund the Chromium/Blink development. While I do think the adding of features to the web could do with a slowdown, we're talking Internet Explorer 6 levels of stagnation if Chrome is sold of to the wrong entity.

whiplash451 2y ago

They don’t have to sell it. They have to spin it off. Which means an independent company with a C suite, RSUs and a P&L. There’s probably a number of talented people out there who would love to drive that truck.

forgotoldacc 2y ago
If the pool they're looking at is "talented people" looking to run a company, it'll be someone who's currently the CEO of 7 other companies and successfully driven each of them into the ground for short term profits, unfortunately.
- ycombinatrix 2y ago
  I love capitalism

niutech 2y ago

Maybe Opera would buy it?

0xmarcin 2y ago

Let's hope it won't be Oracle. ehm... jokes aside. I think a more reasonable way is to setup a foundation, composed of biggest players in tech, also companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Mozilla Foundation, Linux Foundation, Apple and EFF. The foundation should steer the further development of Chrome. In that way Chrome will be owned by community just like e.g. Linux Kernel or standards like C++ lang spec. If Chrome would be bought by a private entity, that entity would probably start milking the current user base straight away. Expect adds in bookmarks bar, more address bar spyware (e.g. sending all phrases to the cloud) and paid extensions web store. The most used and advanced browser that we have today must stay open source. It is more than a program, it is part of global internet infrastructure. We should not destroy it by a foolish political decision.

SirHumphrey 2y ago
I doubt Mozilla would like to be part of a foundation owning another browser.
nl 2y ago
Oracle was the front-runner for buying TikTok last time they were under pressure to sell: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54148474 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54148474 They were the first company I thought of.

slightwinder 2y ago

Mozilla exist standalone, even if technically it depends on Googles money. They do the same, push Chrome to a separate Company, independent of Google, but getting money from who ever pays them the most for integrations and search engine-placments. It would need some additional constraints, but could position it on a more fair situation where there is not this harmful lock-in to google-services, but instead support for all services & companies equally. Just reducing the direct influence from one company would already be beneficial for the market. And maybe Mozilla and other browser will get something out of it too.

galkk 2y ago

> Who would possibly buy Chrome? Somehow I think that if they will decide to stay in their niche, Cloudflare might be a good fit for Chrome

Ancalagon 2y ago

I'll buy it for $5, final offer.

devnullbrain 2y ago

The argument that something is untouchable because it can't continue as a going concern without continuing user-hostile behaviours is unconvincing. It's not our fault Google chose this business model, just as it's not a coincidence Google made it difficult to break up and just distinct enough to be (supposedly, formerly) legally sound.

jldugger 2y ago

Would you buy an IPO of Chrome? The key supplier of like half of Google's searches? Seems like a no brainer.