Hacker News Reader

Comment by tmgldn | Hacker News Reader

This point would be far more credible if browsers weren't in business to do what you claimed extensions are there to do.

I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.

View on HN

Right, basically no web browser has a profitable business model except through licensing or being subsidized through some other branch of the business.

The best pure browser company in history was Opera, and they didn't fail because they weren't innovating. It is simply not a survivable model. People don't remember anything, but during Google's recent anti trust case, one floated "solution" was to spin Chrome off as a separate company, but that was regarded as unrealistic partly because such a company would not have a credible path to profitability separate from Google.

I happen to disagree, they could have collected a search licensing fee just like Firefox but that model is already being regarded as monopoly adjacent.

FYI, Opera didn't fail as much as they sold out. It was still sustainable, but the former founder/CEO left over this spat and formed Vivaldi over it.

Thanks, that's good info. I found this thread from an ex Opera employee and to your point, they could have kept on with Presto, but didn't [1]. What remains true is that bad management chased profits and found a better path to more revenue by caving to webkit and Chromium. So it wasn't strictly unsustainable so much as outcompeted by better economics that came from abandoning Presto. I consider the soul of Opera to be gone at this point and the amount of personal integrity and vision it takes to swim against the current of short term revenue is another manifestation of unfavourable browser economics for sustaining an independent engine.

1. https://old.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/3jxud3/exoper...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com