851–860 of 1001 posts
Serious question: sell it to who? how the new owner will make money out of it?
Maybe Opera? They have profit from providing a web browser: https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t matter if no one buys it, or if it doesn’t even continue to exist as a standalone business. That’s preferable. The important part is ending the egregious conflict of interest where an advertising behemoth controls access to the internet. Ideal result is that Chrome ceases to exist and Chromium continues as an independent open source project controlled by a nonprofit. Even if Google is one of the contributo…
What would that even mean? Anyone can fork Chromium and do whatever they want including establishing a non-profit foundation to finance its development. Should Google be banned from forking an open source project and/or just developing any type of browser at all? The only reason Google "controls" Chromium is that they are spending the most money/development time on it.
It seems like you have no familiarity with any of this. If so, happy to help educate you. If I'm wrong and you're just trolling, it was hard to tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
So who would buy “Chrome” when they can get Chromium for free and fork it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will fix the internet for you : + No platform ever must include an Internet Brower by default. User must install one some way without anyone being suggested or hinted by platform. Platform can inform user an internet browser can be installed but not saying how. Platform owner can set a default anytime + No Internet Browser ever must default, or suggest or hint a search engine. The platform owner can always pick one…
How would new users install a browser without having a browser? The browser is where 99% of users spend 99% of their time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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.
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?
The monetization is up to the spinoff or acquirer to figure out.
> They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share more information with advertisers and give them more control over where their ads appear. I don't think Google are fully clean in all this by any stretch, but for all the people saying that Google is just privacy-violating data junkies, did you catch that aspect of the DOJ statement?? The DOJ wants the advertisers to have MORE information (about us). Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is this: - the browser is undeniably critical as everyone's window through which they view the online world; - the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc - browsers aren't really a self funding product - having a single for-profit US advertising company control everyone's view of the online world, however slightly (e.g. by obstructi…
How does splitting off Chrome as a separate company solve anything? They would still rely on Google for funding (like Mozilla) and being close friends they would do whatever Alphabet tells them to do. A better solution is to implement a bill like DMA in the EU to enforce competition among web browser vendors and fight monopolies.
The conflict of interest between owning search , being a provider of user identity/login , and effectively owning the entire internet ads marketplace , and being a provider of the "user agent" (remember when people thought of that way!?) is immense. This should have happened years ago. TBF, I worked in Chrome almost 7 years and I didn't see anything outright nefarious. I don't know how user-hostile decisions (like br…