zlacker

I don't think you understand what a business is. Google pays Firefox a lot of money to be the default search which means there is a lot of money in browsers. Google Search conceptually pays Google Chrome to be the default Search engine on Chrome. Except since they're both under the same company they will never take an outside offer which is why it's a monopoly. No different from any other vertically integrated company.

>>marcin+(OP)
I understand that perfectly, how do you think the theoretical Chrome business would make money?

>>scarfa+D5
The same way the non-theoretical Firefox business makes money.

edit: Safari as well.

>>marcin+ma
By showing ads from the “AdSense Company” and sending your personal information to them?

Meet the new boss…

>>scarfa+6d
Sure, but on the positive side, the Chrome Company has its own incentives.

Today, Google can provide Chrome as a loss-leader, making up for the "free" browser with ad revenue.

The new Chrome Company can't operate that way. It needs to make money on its own. Perhaps MS Bing offers more money. Or they build their own ad system. Or pivot into some other business area.

Anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing Google/Alphabet must be broken up, only that it's a tool that's available in the US, should we (society) decide other regulation is insufficient.

>>alista+On
> Perhaps MS Bing offers more money.

> Or they build their own ad system.

And we still are being tracked by BigTech with the same business model that people object when Google does it.

> Or pivot into some other business area.

And what other method do you suggest for funding besides ads or people paying for the browser? The second option has never been a long term successful business for browsers?