4 ms·

You raise some very important points. Specifically, this one: > browsers aren't really a self funding product I feel the same. I also feel the same abou

by throwaway2037 2y ago

You raise some very important points. Specifically, this one: > browsers aren't really a self funding product I feel the same. I also feel the same about a modern C library and C compiler (and C++, if you like). They are essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products. What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome?

criddell 2y ago
> What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome? The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid.
- polishTar 2y ago
  Oracle Chrome, Ha! I wouldn't even be surprised if that's exactly how it plays out.
  - docmars 2y ago
    God help us, haha!
  - fragmede 2y ago
    I'm sure Meta is doing some math on what they can afford.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid. We're in the worst timeline, so I could see that happening.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    Elon buys it to "preserve free speech everywhere" then turns it into the same swamp twitter is. So you know, could be worse.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Oracle Chrome would remain free at first, but one year down the road all new versions would become free for home use but $50 per seat yearly for commercial use, with a clause that allows Oracle to enter your offices to audit your compliance at any time
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  If the choice is no internet, forever, or giving Oracle money, I'm gonna live in 1990 from here on out.
  - hypercube33 2y ago
    Return to Konqueror Browser from KDE - the grandfather webkit browser. In all seriousness, I kind of wish that someone could build a sustained non profit like apache to take over chromium - if Google or Microsoft or others want to custom roll their own flavor fine, but Google being for-profit has been making decisions against the best for everyone browsing the web (such as the new plugin stuff around adblocks) (conflict of interest)
  - boppo1 2y ago
    What did Oracle do?
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      The Chief Legal Officer is probably the most powerful person at Oracle after Larry the Lawnmower.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      Besides gutting my former employer so that Larry can have even more money than he could hope to spend in a human lifetime?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- niutech 2y ago
  Did you know that Oracle used to have its own web browser PowerBrowser? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_PowerBrowser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_PowerBrowser
- more_corn 2y ago
  This sounds surprisingly likely.
wongarsu 2y ago
Netscape used to cost the equivalent of $100 inflation-adjusted dollars and was only forced to go free to compete with Internet Explorer. Now the genie can't be put back in the bottle, and anyone trying to sell you a browser would become irrelevant the same way Delphi's paid compiler lost out to free C compilers. Maybe you could carve out a niche that's willing to pay, the same way C# did before dotnet core. But for a mass product the best-case scenario would be something similar to today's Opera. However what it would do is open up the market to competition. Right now Google is spending a lot on Chrome development and Chrome advertisement. Opera and Edge both have given up on their own engines because they couldn't keep pace with Chrome development, and Firefox kept its engine but can't compete with Chrome's ad spend. If Chrome had to compete on a more even playing field there would be more room for diversity and competition. That could be a net positive, even if it makes Chrome worse.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  There was never a time that you as individual couldn’t use an ftp client back in the day and download a free version of Netscape. So who would buy “Chrome” when they can get Chromium for free and fork it?
  - redblacktree 2y ago
    I am confused by this comment too. I don't recall ever being asked to pay for Netscape. (not that I would have, at 12ish)
    - throwaway888889 2y ago
      I remember it was originally paid for (i vaguely remember seeing an ad in a pc mag) but by 1996 I got it for free
    - gbeeson 2y ago
      I clearly remember it being boxed and on a shelf along side Internet Explorer for like $40 at CompUSA. Nearly an entire isle for browsers.
baq 2y ago
> They are essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products. so, an utility. create a (partially?) state-owned steward with a legislated mandate to develop the browser, self-funded via extra tax on digital goods and services.
- changoplatanero 2y ago
  Currently, talented engineers flock to google to contribute their skills to making the best web browser. My concern for a publicly owned utility is that the top talent won't want to work there.
  - astrange 2y ago
    Many of them have left Google (and competitors) and work for a consulting firm called Igalia that contributes to all browser engines. https://www.igalia.com/technology/browsers https://www.igalia.com/technology/browsers
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > Currently, talented engineers flock to google to contribute their skills to making the best web browser. I don’t think these engineers have the right incentives, and their interest is not aligned with mine. I don’t really care what they do to Chrome and their efforts benefit me only indirectly. I am also not convinced by the "best browser" thing, even using it every day on my office computer. So, meh. I don’t care too much either way but I won’t lose anything if Google has to spin it off.
    - neodymiumphish 2y ago
      Agreed! I was on Arc for a while and really enjoyed it (obviously Chromium-based), but have found that both Orion and Safari are phenomenal choices! I don’t see any reason to switch back, although I will admit that I keep Chrome around in case I need/want to cast content to a Chromecast-enabled device (until I find an inexpensive alternative to that).
  - 2y ago
niutech 2y ago
Browsers can be profitable, see Opera: https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-details/opera-reports-fourth-quarter-ahead-expectations-concluding-year/ https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-detail... But not everything must be for-profit. Free/Libre/Open Source Software is a prime example. Projects like GNU, Linux, GNOME, KDE, WebKitGTK, LibreOffice are sustainable for a long time.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  I guess its easy to be a profitable company when you're getting into predatory payday loans! https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-android-apps-after-accusation-of-predatory-lending/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-android-a...
- dismalaf 2y ago
  Every browser also gets a significant amount of money from Google. Mozilla is profitable too. But when Google is forced to stop paying browsers to use their search, it'll put Apple and Microsoft at an even wider advantage since they're the ones that can afford to push their own browsers at a loss...
  - niutech 2y ago
    Not every web browser gets money from Google - Brave, Vivaldi, Pale Moon, Konqueror, Epiphany, Ladybird, Servo, to name a few.
    - dismalaf 2y ago
      Vivaldi's business model is primarily revenue from deals with search providers. they don't exclusively get money from Google, they get money from all their search partners, including Google. Brave is into crypto scams and advertising scams, so I guess you're right there. Their revenue is also tiny. The rest aren't what I'd call "real" browsers, most don't have the same level of functionality and compatibility as Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge... Servo for example is literally just the rendering engine Firefox gave up on.
rileyphone 2y ago
Firefox has made Mozilla billions over its lifetime by selling the default search engine rights to Yahoo and Google. Chrome, having a much greater user base, would demand a correspondingly higher fee (probably around $10b a year). Now, the other problem is there is no other search engine to compete with Google at that level, but that might change with independence of Chrome.
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  Google's payment to be the default search engine was ruled anti-competitive though. https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-potential-loser-google-antitrust-search-ruling/ https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-poten...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Great, but now what? What should fund Mozilla?

criddell 2y ago

> What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome? The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid.

polishTar 2y ago
Oracle Chrome, Ha! I wouldn't even be surprised if that's exactly how it plays out.
- docmars 2y ago
  God help us, haha!
- fragmede 2y ago
  I'm sure Meta is doing some math on what they can afford.
Suppafly 2y ago
>The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid. We're in the worst timeline, so I could see that happening.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Elon buys it to "preserve free speech everywhere" then turns it into the same swamp twitter is. So you know, could be worse.
wongarsu 2y ago
Oracle Chrome would remain free at first, but one year down the road all new versions would become free for home use but $50 per seat yearly for commercial use, with a clause that allows Oracle to enter your offices to audit your compliance at any time
lenerdenator 2y ago
If the choice is no internet, forever, or giving Oracle money, I'm gonna live in 1990 from here on out.
- hypercube33 2y ago
  Return to Konqueror Browser from KDE - the grandfather webkit browser. In all seriousness, I kind of wish that someone could build a sustained non profit like apache to take over chromium - if Google or Microsoft or others want to custom roll their own flavor fine, but Google being for-profit has been making decisions against the best for everyone browsing the web (such as the new plugin stuff around adblocks) (conflict of interest)
- boppo1 2y ago
  What did Oracle do?
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    The Chief Legal Officer is probably the most powerful person at Oracle after Larry the Lawnmower.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Besides gutting my former employer so that Larry can have even more money than he could hope to spend in a human lifetime?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
niutech 2y ago
Did you know that Oracle used to have its own web browser PowerBrowser? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_PowerBrowser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_PowerBrowser
more_corn 2y ago
This sounds surprisingly likely.

wongarsu 2y ago

Netscape used to cost the equivalent of $100 inflation-adjusted dollars and was only forced to go free to compete with Internet Explorer. Now the genie can't be put back in the bottle, and anyone trying to sell you a browser would become irrelevant the same way Delphi's paid compiler lost out to free C compilers. Maybe you could carve out a niche that's willing to pay, the same way C# did before dotnet core. But for a mass product the best-case scenario would be something similar to today's Opera. However what it would do is open up the market to competition. Right now Google is spending a lot on Chrome development and Chrome advertisement. Opera and Edge both have given up on their own engines because they couldn't keep pace with Chrome development, and Firefox kept its engine but can't compete with Chrome's ad spend. If Chrome had to compete on a more even playing field there would be more room for diversity and competition. That could be a net positive, even if it makes Chrome worse.

scarface_74 2y ago
There was never a time that you as individual couldn’t use an ftp client back in the day and download a free version of Netscape. So who would buy “Chrome” when they can get Chromium for free and fork it?
- redblacktree 2y ago
  I am confused by this comment too. I don't recall ever being asked to pay for Netscape. (not that I would have, at 12ish)
  - throwaway888889 2y ago
    I remember it was originally paid for (i vaguely remember seeing an ad in a pc mag) but by 1996 I got it for free
  - gbeeson 2y ago
    I clearly remember it being boxed and on a shelf along side Internet Explorer for like $40 at CompUSA. Nearly an entire isle for browsers.

baq 2y ago

> They are essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products. so, an utility. create a (partially?) state-owned steward with a legislated mandate to develop the browser, self-funded via extra tax on digital goods and services.

changoplatanero 2y ago
Currently, talented engineers flock to google to contribute their skills to making the best web browser. My concern for a publicly owned utility is that the top talent won't want to work there.
- astrange 2y ago
  Many of them have left Google (and competitors) and work for a consulting firm called Igalia that contributes to all browser engines. https://www.igalia.com/technology/browsers https://www.igalia.com/technology/browsers
- kergonath 2y ago
  > Currently, talented engineers flock to google to contribute their skills to making the best web browser. I don’t think these engineers have the right incentives, and their interest is not aligned with mine. I don’t really care what they do to Chrome and their efforts benefit me only indirectly. I am also not convinced by the "best browser" thing, even using it every day on my office computer. So, meh. I don’t care too much either way but I won’t lose anything if Google has to spin it off.
  - neodymiumphish 2y ago
    Agreed! I was on Arc for a while and really enjoyed it (obviously Chromium-based), but have found that both Orion and Safari are phenomenal choices! I don’t see any reason to switch back, although I will admit that I keep Chrome around in case I need/want to cast content to a Chromecast-enabled device (until I find an inexpensive alternative to that).
- 2y ago

niutech 2y ago

Browsers can be profitable, see Opera: https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-details/opera-reports-fourth-quarter-ahead-expectations-concluding-year/ https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-detail... But not everything must be for-profit. Free/Libre/Open Source Software is a prime example. Projects like GNU, Linux, GNOME, KDE, WebKitGTK, LibreOffice are sustainable for a long time.

madeofpalk 2y ago
I guess its easy to be a profitable company when you're getting into predatory payday loans! https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-android-apps-after-accusation-of-predatory-lending/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-android-a...
dismalaf 2y ago
Every browser also gets a significant amount of money from Google. Mozilla is profitable too. But when Google is forced to stop paying browsers to use their search, it'll put Apple and Microsoft at an even wider advantage since they're the ones that can afford to push their own browsers at a loss...
- niutech 2y ago
  Not every web browser gets money from Google - Brave, Vivaldi, Pale Moon, Konqueror, Epiphany, Ladybird, Servo, to name a few.
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    Vivaldi's business model is primarily revenue from deals with search providers. they don't exclusively get money from Google, they get money from all their search partners, including Google. Brave is into crypto scams and advertising scams, so I guess you're right there. Their revenue is also tiny. The rest aren't what I'd call "real" browsers, most don't have the same level of functionality and compatibility as Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge... Servo for example is literally just the rendering engine Firefox gave up on.

rileyphone 2y ago

Firefox has made Mozilla billions over its lifetime by selling the default search engine rights to Yahoo and Google. Chrome, having a much greater user base, would demand a correspondingly higher fee (probably around $10b a year). Now, the other problem is there is no other search engine to compete with Google at that level, but that might change with independence of Chrome.

nolist_policy 2y ago
Google's payment to be the default search engine was ruled anti-competitive though. https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-potential-loser-google-antitrust-search-ruling/ https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-poten...
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Great, but now what? What should fund Mozilla?