Hacker News Reader

Comment by madeofpalk | Hacker News Reader

I don't disagree, but I'm also not sure what the alternative is.

Who's going to buy Chrome that also doesn't suffer from the same anti-trust problems? Who would want to buy Chrome? Who would want to fund Chrome?

What browser would Android ship? In one view I kind of like the idea that Google would have to shop around and 'buy' a browser for its OS (competition good!), but also that seems ridiculous and easy to fall right back into the same trap.

View on HN

> Who's going to buy Chrome that also doesn't suffer from the same anti-trust problems? Who would want to buy Chrome? Who would want to fund Chrome?

Hmm. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer. I think there's a compelling argument that the problem is the scale of the harm. That is, even if the new owner has the same problems, the new owner won't also be the largest web company. So the problem still exists, yes, but becomes smaller. In particular having the #1 web browser strongly tied to the #1 web company has a lot of problematic dynamics that the #1 web browser being owned by the #25 web company doesn't. Maybe that company would be more open to forming beneficial relationships with the #2 and #3 web companies, for example.

Google already funds Firefox and makes Chromium[0] as well, which seems like quite a lot of effort to go to as a single company in funding/enabling competition. Microsoft had to do far less to resolve their EU dispute: just give users other options for browsers on install of their OS.

[0] Unless if today you take Chromium and make your own browser, and it still has all the stuff in about logins and tracking.

When the DOJ asks to split off Chrome from Google, I presume that meant/included Chromium as well. They're basically the same thing.

Why would Google continue to fund Chromium development without Chrome?

I wasn't saying they would or should. I'm saying they already do more than anyone else to promote competition of their browser.

> Who would want to buy Chrome? Who would want to fund Chrome?

This is interesting question especially when companies are usually just use Chromium instead of creating new browser (not even making hard fork of Chromium).

Most Android devices ship Samsung Internet.

Chrome is only the default on Pixel devices...

>Chrome is only the default on Pixel devices...

WRONG

Before a couple of weeks ago where a Google Play Services update changed the first set-up process, almost all global (non-CN market) devices forced Chrome as default: Xiaomi, OnePlus, Realme, Motorola, Oukitel and whatever other weird brands there are left in the Android world. AKA anything other than Samsung

Open source browsers already exist though

Many forks of Chromium, yes. Most if the rest of them pass the “open source” test but would struggle on the “browser” side.

Zen Browser, Floorp, Mullvad Browser, Pale Moon, Epiphany aren't "browsers"?

Mullvad Browser is basically Tor Browser without the onion network which is itself based off Firefox

Don’t forget the most well-funded alternative, Edge!

We're talking about open source browsers.

Who pays for the development? Is the linux model viable for a browser?

Open source browsers are either bad and non-competitive, or they're Firefox and still get criticism for being in the pocket of Google.

Brave or Vivaldi aren't bad. They get money from partnerships, search deals and donations.

They also avoid actually paying for browser development. Could Brave or Vivaldi fund Chromium itself?

I don't know, but they already contribute patches to Chromium.

How about this: sell the browser to the entreprise [1] and use the profit to offer the browser to the public for free, which in turns helps you secure a user base.

[1] https://www.island.io/

Google already does sell Chrome to the enterprise at $6/user/month[1]. Disclosure: I work at Google.

[1] https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...

You raise an interesting point. Every job that I worked in the last 10 years offers "real" Google Chrome on a Windows PC. I never considered that they would pay Google for it, but I guess Google could add a bunch of nice admin and security features that would be useful to mega-corps but retail normies don't care about. That is probably well-worth the 6 USD per month per user. In a modern corporate workplace, a huge amount of your day is spent using web apps... running in Google Chrome (or Electron!). It like a WebVM that runs inside of Microsoft Windows (from the perspective of corporate IT folks).

Well, Island raised $3B for a reason [1]

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/enterpris...

The article you linked to says they raise $175mio at a _valuation_ of $3b

Oh my bad, thanks for catching this!

So the browser isn't open source then. Sounds like a net loss for the public good.

I watched their video: it's Chromium with specific modifications.

There doesn't have to be a buyer. They can spin it off as an independent company. Surely it can be a profitable enterprise on its own.

Surely? I can't imagine Chrome by itself is a very profitable company. Who knows.

An independent Chrome company will start with an established & proven product, huge userbase and a marketplace for extensions. That's a huge advantage (and liability too).

If FF can get millions for its default search option, Chrome can easily command more and if Mozilla can afford to venture into other product areas with their budget, it doesn't sound impossible to have a self-sustained chrome development once you eliminate all the non-essential feature work that helps only Google.

FF can't get millions for its default search option. Where's the other sellers lining up to give FF millions of dollars? Google gives it to Firefox out of "pity" and in an (unsuccessful) attempt to ward off anti-trust claims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com