4 ms·

What is the actual asset to buy precisely? The code is already mostly open. You'd be paying for a user base who could leave at any moment?

detourdog 2y ago
If that hadn't forked WebKit DOJ would have to prove collusion instead.
eviks 2y ago
Users could switch from Google search at any moment, would you say search is not an actual asset to buy?
- aurareturn 2y ago
  They can already do that. Chrome is funded by Google search. Why would anyone buy it without Google search?
  - eviks 2y ago
    Yes, they can, so it's not an asset??? The answer to your question is simple - because you can get funded by Google to keep its search the default
    - aurareturn 2y ago
      But as many have said repeatedly here, people use Chrome BECAUSE it has Google's integrations. They choose to use Chrome because of Google. So why would anyone buy Chrome that is devoid of anything Google? Further more, why would Google pay money to Chrome's buyer if they can simply spin up another browser used open source Chromium (which Google maintains), and start marketing that?
      - eviks 2y ago
        On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make? The other things are also simple: Saying things repeatedly doesn't make them universally true. You don't need to buy anything, it can continue to be free, why did you make it up??? Google would pay because they can't make another leader overnight. Also they might be banned from doing so.
        aurareturn 2y ago
        So basically, you think: 1. Google must sell Chrome 2. Google must continue to pay the new buyer tens of billions for the right to be default engine 3. Google is disallowed from making a browser ever again 4. Google must abandon Chromium, and their engineers should stop contributing to Chromium because of #3 I feel sorry for Google. The Biden administration is absolutely clueless on how tech works and the Trump administration will hate Google regardless.
        eviks 2y ago
        Basically, I think you're making more stuff up to substitute for the lack of argument in the previous stuff you've made up, which isn't related to the main point. So, no, of course you guessed wrong again in your 1-4
        aurareturn 2y ago
        On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make? This was your question right? I'd provide an argument if the question was more coherent.
        eviks 2y ago
        How would you provide an argument with such a level of comprehension? There are 3 identical questions you ignored, if you can't comprehend the third one you could fall back to the first two, which are phrased a bit simpler. But that's enough of your trolling for me, goodbye
- jiri 2y ago
  User has to choose search engine once. During every install of Chrome I see forced selection of search engine.
  - Shank 2y ago
    This is most likely an EU special, because Chrome doesn't even remotely do that in the US or Japan.
asadotzler 2y ago
The trademarks, the team, and the infrastructure. Mozilla spun out of Netscape exactly like that, with the trademarks, part of the team and part of the infra. The monetization is up to the spinoff or acquirer to figure out.
- andxor 2y ago
  The team would dismantle pretty quickly once they stop receiving Google stock grants.
devnullbrain 2y ago
For something supposedly valueless, Google are really interested in keeping it!

detourdog 2y ago

If that hadn't forked WebKit DOJ would have to prove collusion instead.

eviks 2y ago

Users could switch from Google search at any moment, would you say search is not an actual asset to buy?

aurareturn 2y ago
They can already do that. Chrome is funded by Google search. Why would anyone buy it without Google search?
- eviks 2y ago
  Yes, they can, so it's not an asset??? The answer to your question is simple - because you can get funded by Google to keep its search the default
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    But as many have said repeatedly here, people use Chrome BECAUSE it has Google's integrations. They choose to use Chrome because of Google. So why would anyone buy Chrome that is devoid of anything Google? Further more, why would Google pay money to Chrome's buyer if they can simply spin up another browser used open source Chromium (which Google maintains), and start marketing that?
    - eviks 2y ago
      On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make? The other things are also simple: Saying things repeatedly doesn't make them universally true. You don't need to buy anything, it can continue to be free, why did you make it up??? Google would pay because they can't make another leader overnight. Also they might be banned from doing so.
      - aurareturn 2y ago
        So basically, you think: 1. Google must sell Chrome 2. Google must continue to pay the new buyer tens of billions for the right to be default engine 3. Google is disallowed from making a browser ever again 4. Google must abandon Chromium, and their engineers should stop contributing to Chromium because of #3 I feel sorry for Google. The Biden administration is absolutely clueless on how tech works and the Trump administration will hate Google regardless.
        eviks 2y ago
        Basically, I think you're making more stuff up to substitute for the lack of argument in the previous stuff you've made up, which isn't related to the main point. So, no, of course you guessed wrong again in your 1-4
        aurareturn 2y ago
        On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make? This was your question right? I'd provide an argument if the question was more coherent.
        eviks 2y ago
        How would you provide an argument with such a level of comprehension? There are 3 identical questions you ignored, if you can't comprehend the third one you could fall back to the first two, which are phrased a bit simpler. But that's enough of your trolling for me, goodbye
jiri 2y ago
User has to choose search engine once. During every install of Chrome I see forced selection of search engine.
- Shank 2y ago
  This is most likely an EU special, because Chrome doesn't even remotely do that in the US or Japan.

asadotzler 2y ago

The trademarks, the team, and the infrastructure. Mozilla spun out of Netscape exactly like that, with the trademarks, part of the team and part of the infra. The monetization is up to the spinoff or acquirer to figure out.

andxor 2y ago
The team would dismantle pretty quickly once they stop receiving Google stock grants.

devnullbrain 2y ago

For something supposedly valueless, Google are really interested in keeping it!