Is Chrome Even a Sellable Asset?

[dead]

> The article ignores Firefox switched the contract to Yahoo as the default search provider from 2014-2017

I worked at Mozilla when this deal was struck. The deal with Yahoo did require Yahoo be the default for Firefox, I'm not sure what you mean by "absence of any requirement"?

Mozilla broke that contract with Yahoo (there was a clause allowing them to do so without repercussion and keep the money, if they deemed it better for the users, wild contract) less than 3 years later because users hated Yahoo so much, and went back to Google.

Google is dominant because it just _is_ the best search engine.

> One of the biggest differences between Google selling Chrome and any old chromium fork is precisely that the "other" browsers no longer have to try to compete with Google's own browser to get users to monetize.

Isn't that literally anti-competitive? The DoJ is saying Google search is dominant partially because of Chrome pushing users to Google.

You're saying Chrome is dominant because users like it too much, and other browsers can't compete? Tough, that's the users' choice, though.

> Google users rely on Chrome to use Google

I don't. Some times I google things because asking chatgpt will take longer, if openai buys it, problem fixed.

The point is precisely that being super fixated on Microsoft as a monopoly producing relatively trash-quality products is a static worldview. It is the case that Microsoft monopoly did not in any shape or form preclude a measly search startup and a beleaguered Cupertino company from surpassing it to the slightest (mind you, Windows is still the dominant desktop OS, which compared to what it meant in the 90s is immaterial; people rarely think about writing Windows apps anymore: they write web, iOS and Android apps.) This is the whole point of Thiel's thesis. The contemporary version of this world transition we are witnessing is from search to chatbot. Meanwhile Microsoft by pushing the "trash" products actually served the industry at large well in other ways: it provided a consistent standard base to widely deploy PCs and applications.

Aside: the "competition is for losers" tagline is not from Thiel himself: apparently the publisher came up with a punchy line, and I think that refers to his broader ideology. What I brought up is a very specific observation in his thesis that high margin monopolies are actually good from the perspective of society in a dynamic world where it does not merely translate rent-seeking long-term.

> I worked at Mozilla when this deal was struck. The deal with Yahoo did require Yahoo be the default for Firefox, I'm not sure what you mean by "absence of any requirement"?

Absence of any requirement to not choose Google (as the article argues would be the only possibility the choice would ever be made), not absence of some requirement in the specific contract itself.

> Mozilla broke that contract with Yahoo (there was a clause allowing them to do so without repercussion and keep the money, if they deemed it better for the users, wild contract) less than 3 years later because users hated Yahoo so much, and went back to Google.

Yes, 2014-2017, as was originally stated. This has two implications: first, Firefox was able to monetize the (much smaller) user base for $375,000,000/y for 3 years at the time using a non-Google search deal. Second, such deals still didn't make sense when you could get the same or more from Google and users would like it. The latter is not really a damnation blocking such action from Google would fail, it's just repeating the problems with Google's dominance in the space. Barring blocking, there is still clear leverage to get money out of the deal from Google without allowing Google to cross-influence markets.

A potential 3rd implication is Google search is (probably) still the favorite of users today and, if allowed, Google would have to fairly bid this deal to a 3rd party rather than operate the browser under fully in-house control.

> Isn't that literally anti-competitive? The DoJ is saying Google search is dominant partially because of Chrome pushing users to Google.

Companies found to be abusing operating a monopoly in an area generally have legal repercussions applied which would normally be considered unfair in order to restore balance to the market they were found to abuse. Maybe you don't like that, I can't argue that, but actions to break up an existing monopoly being unfair are not supported by the same arguments as why as actions of a company abusing a monopoly are unfair so disallowing one does not inherently negate the other.

> You're saying Chrome is dominant because users like it too much, and other browsers can't compete? Tough, that's the users' choice, though.

I don't recall saying that, no. Google Search and Chrome are dominant because exclusive agreements and many acts of attacking competition across markets by leveraging popularity in one area to unfairly stifle competition in another. To be the most liked/popular is orthogonal to these problems. A popular service is not inherently anti-competitive, but Google didn't keep ending up in court solely because it's popular.