[gatsby]

Almost every successful Google product over the last 15 years has been the result of acquiring an already-built product and marketing + distributing it well: Youtube, Nest, Waze, Doubleclick, Android.

Products that are organically created within Google (even Google Hire, created via acquihire) have a pretty awful track record.

[lquist]

Gmail? Google maps? Chrome?

[gatsby]

Gmail is 15 years old.

Maps is ~15 years old (and was the combination of several acquisitions in the maps space: Keyhole, Where2, Zipdash, etc.)

Chrome is 11 years old + extremely successful, but my point still stands.

[Iv]

Plus Chrome is not really a product as, to my knowledge, it generates zero income.

[wmf]

Firefox and Safari generate tons of money for Google via search referrals so Chrome would have billions in revenue if it was valued the same way.

[jldugger]

Indeed, when you value Chrome's market share in terms of traffic acquisition, it's pretty straightforward. Especially since they designed it from the ground up to do more searches.

[whatcd]

I believe it indirectly makes money as being a platform for Google's ecosystem, especially for their Enterprise Cloud apps suite or even Chromebooks.

[tonyedgecombe]

Chrome is an advert delivery mechanism, if you see it from that perspective it looks highly lucrative.