4 ms·

There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Unless it’s some kind of foundation or non-profit with a sufficient endowment t

There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Unless it’s some kind of foundation or non-profit with a sufficient endowment to not need a business model. I’m no fan of Google, but—unless people really want browser subscriptions—I don’t see how you can have a browser company today. They exist better as a byproduct of some other business model.

CaffeineLD50 2y ago
Browsers aren't a product because massive companies give it away and destroy the market. If any product was given away by massively rich companies there would be "no market" for it, because it was destroyed.
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
  Well, I for one don't want to pay $15/mo for my browser: I'm happy for it to be the complement of some company's product.
  - CaffeineLD50 2y ago
    Yet you pay for Netflix and your internet and phone bill. But these could be given away by surveillance advertising firms to snoop your watching, surfing, and calling habits. As the saying goes, if the product is free, YOU are the product.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
      I think the saying is oversimplified (or else, chrome isn’t a product but a byproduct). It makes a company to make the complement of their product cheap or free so that people can use their product more effectively. Google Search and Ads rely on people having a browser. Similarly, Apple’s Phones and laptops are benefited by including a good first party browser. Imo, a lot of technologies are better as free byproducts of monetized technology than as being some company’s products: there are endless lists of great technologies that never found a market or disappeared post-acquisition.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - adrr 2y ago
      My ISP is selling my data as well. Netflix is snooping on what i watch for their ads. Chrome is free. Bigger fish to fry than my web browser snooping on me like your bank selling all credit card transactions your car snooping on your driving and your mobile carrier selling your location.
    - blfr 2y ago
      I don't pay for Netflix and a rival good (like ISP infra) is completely different from some compiled computer code (like a browser).
    - Mindwipe 2y ago
      Your phone provider does sell your information. The majority of Netflix users over the next few years will be advertising based users. That just doesn't bring in enough profit because people are not willing to pay enough subscription to cover what those things actually cost. Your hypothesis has a bit of a gaping hole where "real world user behaviour" sits.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > Yet you pay for Netflix and your internet and phone bill. But these could be given away by surveillance advertising firms to snoop your watching, surfing, and calling habits. You do know most of those companies do both charge you and sell your data? Almost the only companies that don't sell your data are big tech advertising companies. "When you don't pay you are the product" doesn't mean "If you pay you aren't the product", you still are the product the company is just double dipping.
      - thfuran 2y ago
        Right. The ISPs and cellphone providers and TV manufacturers are all in on the data collection game.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    I'm so confused when I read takes like that. The only way advertising can be sustainable under capitalism is if every $1 spent on advertising generates >= $1 of profit for advertisers, keeping in mind that ad networks take a share of revenue, say 30%. This means that you as a consumer have to spend at least $1 (likely more - profit not revenue) for every $0.70 of value you receive in "free" services. Being supportive of ad-supported services is therefore financially irrational.
    - arccy 2y ago
      They only need to make money in aggregate, they might make $0 out of you, but $2 out of someone else.
      - consteval 2y ago
        This is where tech arrogance comes in. We very much like to believe we’re the zero. Judging by how much hyper-consumerist behavior I see in myself and my coworkers, we’re not. Everyone is constantly buying shit they don’t need and then justifying it.
    - fooker 2y ago
      Reminder than when you use seemingly impeccable logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion, it's the logic that is wrong somewhere because of a missed assumption. No, people are not going to pay much for browsers and websites, that's why ad supported products and services exist. Otherwise someone would make better software and charge for it. The only way this works is government intervention, which is what's happening here.
      - thfuran 2y ago
        No, people mostly won't pay because ad-supported free alternatives exist.
        fooker 2y ago
        Yes that is my point. If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.
- dave4420 2y ago
  Browsers shouldn’t be a product because any modern operating system that doesn’t come with a web browser is defective. A browser is an operating system feature. I mean, you can get alternative file manager programs. Pay for them, even. But most people will never bother.
  - jen20 2y ago
    > A browser is an operating system feature. Microsoft fought and (largely speaking) lost an entire case about that assertion [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
    - dave4420 2y ago
      Yeah. I think that was the wrong decision. The problem was introducing features between IE and IIS and using that to extend their end user OS monopoly into a server OS monopoly. MS should have been blocked from the server OS market instead (or maybe some some of consent decree, I’m sceptical it would have been appropriately enforced though).
      - tensility 2y ago
        That's more or less also what Google does with Chrome in order to force folks to use it and only it. I know that well because I have Chromium installed for this reason alone.
        nerdix 2y ago
        Its nothing like what Microsoft did with IE. There are a few features in Chrome which are mostly optional for the vast majority of web apps. And some of those features like WebUSB make things possible in web apps that wouldn't be possible otherwise. So the "problem" is that Chrome is moving too fast. IE had the opposite problem. Microsoft was moving too slow and was genuinely holding the web back. And obviously, that was intentional because Microsoft's business model at that time was entirely tied to locking users into Windows. Its never been easier to write cross browser web apps. Some companies choose not to because they don't care enough to test in other browsers. And even then, there are a lot of apps that just happen to work in all the major browsers by chance. It wasn't nearly as easy to build a cross browser app for the IE6 dominated web.
- protimewaster 2y ago
  Massive companies give away operating systems, but there seems to still be a market for them, so I don't think this statement is universally true.
the_other 2y ago
> There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. This isn’t relevant, from the perspective of the ruling. It might be relevant from the perspective of Chrome-the-business and from Chrome-users’ perspectives.
- burnerthrow008 2y ago
  It isn’t relevant that the thing you want to split off won’t be able to stand on its own two feet? Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply require Google to burn the source code? And what is the point of the breakup if everyone (including consumers/users) is worse off? Is the point of government to make people better off, or just to maximize the number of paperclips produced?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > And what is the point of the breakup if everyone (including consumers/users) is worse off? Is the point of government to make people better off, or just to maximize the number of paperclips produced? In this case this is pushed by other tech companies that want to buy data from Chrome, or they want to move users from the web to their apps where they can be more user hostile. This is what happens when the government is controlled by corporations.
chneu 2y ago
I would like to point out that your perception of what a browser can/should be is based on what Google has turned browsers into. What a browser is in 2025 is vastly different from what anyone thought they would ever be. There are major, major issues with the way web engines/web browsers function today and much of those issues stem from Google's near monopoly on browsers. There was a lot of very interesting and good discussion around this in some of the Mozilla/Firefox threads recently. Mostly about how browsers turned into something they were never meant to be, which has changed the way the internet works and how we interact with it.
- amrocha 2y ago
  What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to? The only thing that comes to mind is password management. But I would also argue that’s a boon for normal users and trust in the web.
  - darkwater 2y ago
    > What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to? For example, asking you straight on first launch to log into your Google account, for your "benefit".
    - amrocha 2y ago
      In a multi device world that makes sense though. If you save your passwords on your phone, you don’t want to lose them all if that phone breaks.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    Restrict extensions for "security" reasons. Which just killed most ad blockers in Chrome. Speed up the web with AMP that gives one company control over everything.
    - amrocha 2y ago
      I think security is within the purview of a browser. Even if I disagree with the implementation. And AMP is not a browser feature.
danaris 2y ago
If Chrome cannot succeed on its own, but under Google it is an oppressive force taking over the vast majority of web marketshare, that is a textbook case for antitrust action. That is Google using its dominance in one market (search, advertising) to expand into and dominate another market (web browsers). If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the browser to at least move in the direction of profitability, then they're hypothetically idiots.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the browser to at least move in the direction of profitability, then they're hypothetically idiots. Selling that data to the government and other corporations is user hostile though, and that is exactly what is going to happen when Google is forced to sell. I can see why the government would love this though so it makes sense they pursue this hard now,
  - danaris 2y ago
    I'm genuinely unsure whether it's better or worse now, with Google having the exclusive rights to that data and using it for its own purposes. (It's probably a bit better, assuming the hypothetical sale is to all comers, but still...)
snowwrestler 2y ago
> There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Yes there is, it is the same business model Chrome has now, but with overt pricing. In other words if you can understand why Chrome is valuable to Google now, then you can understand what Chrome-the-standalone-business would put a price tag on. Google benefits from the data that Chrome collects. So Chrome-the-business would collect the same data and charge Google for it. But it could also sell that data to other companies too. This would create competition which would lead to better pricing and more innovation. That is why it is a remedy for a monopoly. The history of antitrust is full of stuff like this. Standard Oil used to own all the gas stations in the country. AT&T used to be the only company that sold telephones.
solardev 2y ago
I really do want a browser subscription or purchase, so that its incentives are aligned with mine and not the advertisers'. Paid browsers used to be common in the past, and ones like Netcaptor gave us tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, etc. Opera was great too. Netscape itself used to be paid at first. It was big companies like Microsoft and Google tyring to EEE the web by giving away free browsers that killed the thriving browser marketplace and led to monopolies like the ones we have now. There very much can be a browser market and business model IF antitrust were actually enforced. Divest that shit yesterday.

CaffeineLD50 2y ago

Browsers aren't a product because massive companies give it away and destroy the market. If any product was given away by massively rich companies there would be "no market" for it, because it was destroyed.

fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
Well, I for one don't want to pay $15/mo for my browser: I'm happy for it to be the complement of some company's product.
- CaffeineLD50 2y ago
  Yet you pay for Netflix and your internet and phone bill. But these could be given away by surveillance advertising firms to snoop your watching, surfing, and calling habits. As the saying goes, if the product is free, YOU are the product.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
    I think the saying is oversimplified (or else, chrome isn’t a product but a byproduct). It makes a company to make the complement of their product cheap or free so that people can use their product more effectively. Google Search and Ads rely on people having a browser. Similarly, Apple’s Phones and laptops are benefited by including a good first party browser. Imo, a lot of technologies are better as free byproducts of monetized technology than as being some company’s products: there are endless lists of great technologies that never found a market or disappeared post-acquisition.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrr 2y ago
    My ISP is selling my data as well. Netflix is snooping on what i watch for their ads. Chrome is free. Bigger fish to fry than my web browser snooping on me like your bank selling all credit card transactions your car snooping on your driving and your mobile carrier selling your location.
  - blfr 2y ago
    I don't pay for Netflix and a rival good (like ISP infra) is completely different from some compiled computer code (like a browser).
  - Mindwipe 2y ago
    Your phone provider does sell your information. The majority of Netflix users over the next few years will be advertising based users. That just doesn't bring in enough profit because people are not willing to pay enough subscription to cover what those things actually cost. Your hypothesis has a bit of a gaping hole where "real world user behaviour" sits.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > Yet you pay for Netflix and your internet and phone bill. But these could be given away by surveillance advertising firms to snoop your watching, surfing, and calling habits. You do know most of those companies do both charge you and sell your data? Almost the only companies that don't sell your data are big tech advertising companies. "When you don't pay you are the product" doesn't mean "If you pay you aren't the product", you still are the product the company is just double dipping.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      Right. The ISPs and cellphone providers and TV manufacturers are all in on the data collection game.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  I'm so confused when I read takes like that. The only way advertising can be sustainable under capitalism is if every $1 spent on advertising generates >= $1 of profit for advertisers, keeping in mind that ad networks take a share of revenue, say 30%. This means that you as a consumer have to spend at least $1 (likely more - profit not revenue) for every $0.70 of value you receive in "free" services. Being supportive of ad-supported services is therefore financially irrational.
  - arccy 2y ago
    They only need to make money in aggregate, they might make $0 out of you, but $2 out of someone else.
    - consteval 2y ago
      This is where tech arrogance comes in. We very much like to believe we’re the zero. Judging by how much hyper-consumerist behavior I see in myself and my coworkers, we’re not. Everyone is constantly buying shit they don’t need and then justifying it.
  - fooker 2y ago
    Reminder than when you use seemingly impeccable logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion, it's the logic that is wrong somewhere because of a missed assumption. No, people are not going to pay much for browsers and websites, that's why ad supported products and services exist. Otherwise someone would make better software and charge for it. The only way this works is government intervention, which is what's happening here.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      No, people mostly won't pay because ad-supported free alternatives exist.
      - fooker 2y ago
        Yes that is my point. If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.
dave4420 2y ago
Browsers shouldn’t be a product because any modern operating system that doesn’t come with a web browser is defective. A browser is an operating system feature. I mean, you can get alternative file manager programs. Pay for them, even. But most people will never bother.
- jen20 2y ago
  > A browser is an operating system feature. Microsoft fought and (largely speaking) lost an entire case about that assertion [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - dave4420 2y ago
    Yeah. I think that was the wrong decision. The problem was introducing features between IE and IIS and using that to extend their end user OS monopoly into a server OS monopoly. MS should have been blocked from the server OS market instead (or maybe some some of consent decree, I’m sceptical it would have been appropriately enforced though).
    - tensility 2y ago
      That's more or less also what Google does with Chrome in order to force folks to use it and only it. I know that well because I have Chromium installed for this reason alone.
      - nerdix 2y ago
        Its nothing like what Microsoft did with IE. There are a few features in Chrome which are mostly optional for the vast majority of web apps. And some of those features like WebUSB make things possible in web apps that wouldn't be possible otherwise. So the "problem" is that Chrome is moving too fast. IE had the opposite problem. Microsoft was moving too slow and was genuinely holding the web back. And obviously, that was intentional because Microsoft's business model at that time was entirely tied to locking users into Windows. Its never been easier to write cross browser web apps. Some companies choose not to because they don't care enough to test in other browsers. And even then, there are a lot of apps that just happen to work in all the major browsers by chance. It wasn't nearly as easy to build a cross browser app for the IE6 dominated web.
protimewaster 2y ago
Massive companies give away operating systems, but there seems to still be a market for them, so I don't think this statement is universally true.

the_other 2y ago

> There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. This isn’t relevant, from the perspective of the ruling. It might be relevant from the perspective of Chrome-the-business and from Chrome-users’ perspectives.

burnerthrow008 2y ago
It isn’t relevant that the thing you want to split off won’t be able to stand on its own two feet? Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply require Google to burn the source code? And what is the point of the breakup if everyone (including consumers/users) is worse off? Is the point of government to make people better off, or just to maximize the number of paperclips produced?
- Jensson 2y ago
  > And what is the point of the breakup if everyone (including consumers/users) is worse off? Is the point of government to make people better off, or just to maximize the number of paperclips produced? In this case this is pushed by other tech companies that want to buy data from Chrome, or they want to move users from the web to their apps where they can be more user hostile. This is what happens when the government is controlled by corporations.

chneu 2y ago

I would like to point out that your perception of what a browser can/should be is based on what Google has turned browsers into. What a browser is in 2025 is vastly different from what anyone thought they would ever be. There are major, major issues with the way web engines/web browsers function today and much of those issues stem from Google's near monopoly on browsers. There was a lot of very interesting and good discussion around this in some of the Mozilla/Firefox threads recently. Mostly about how browsers turned into something they were never meant to be, which has changed the way the internet works and how we interact with it.

amrocha 2y ago
What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to? The only thing that comes to mind is password management. But I would also argue that’s a boon for normal users and trust in the web.
- darkwater 2y ago
  > What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to? For example, asking you straight on first launch to log into your Google account, for your "benefit".
  - amrocha 2y ago
    In a multi device world that makes sense though. If you save your passwords on your phone, you don’t want to lose them all if that phone breaks.
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  Restrict extensions for "security" reasons. Which just killed most ad blockers in Chrome. Speed up the web with AMP that gives one company control over everything.
  - amrocha 2y ago
    I think security is within the purview of a browser. Even if I disagree with the implementation. And AMP is not a browser feature.

danaris 2y ago

If Chrome cannot succeed on its own, but under Google it is an oppressive force taking over the vast majority of web marketshare, that is a textbook case for antitrust action. That is Google using its dominance in one market (search, advertising) to expand into and dominate another market (web browsers). If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the browser to at least move in the direction of profitability, then they're hypothetically idiots.

Jensson 2y ago
> If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the browser to at least move in the direction of profitability, then they're hypothetically idiots. Selling that data to the government and other corporations is user hostile though, and that is exactly what is going to happen when Google is forced to sell. I can see why the government would love this though so it makes sense they pursue this hard now,
- danaris 2y ago
  I'm genuinely unsure whether it's better or worse now, with Google having the exclusive rights to that data and using it for its own purposes. (It's probably a bit better, assuming the hypothetical sale is to all comers, but still...)

snowwrestler 2y ago

> There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Yes there is, it is the same business model Chrome has now, but with overt pricing. In other words if you can understand why Chrome is valuable to Google now, then you can understand what Chrome-the-standalone-business would put a price tag on. Google benefits from the data that Chrome collects. So Chrome-the-business would collect the same data and charge Google for it. But it could also sell that data to other companies too. This would create competition which would lead to better pricing and more innovation. That is why it is a remedy for a monopoly. The history of antitrust is full of stuff like this. Standard Oil used to own all the gas stations in the country. AT&T used to be the only company that sold telephones.

solardev 2y ago

I really do want a browser subscription or purchase, so that its incentives are aligned with mine and not the advertisers'. Paid browsers used to be common in the past, and ones like Netcaptor gave us tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, etc. Opera was great too. Netscape itself used to be paid at first. It was big companies like Microsoft and Google tyring to EEE the web by giving away free browsers that killed the thriving browser marketplace and led to monopolies like the ones we have now. There very much can be a browser market and business model IF antitrust were actually enforced. Divest that shit yesterday.