[xp84]

> If they do, what incentive does Google have to keep maintaining Chromium?

I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money" for the product they use all day every day. This money should go into paying to maintain it.

Anything else is perpetuating the Trash Web as it's come to be.

The only reason a "web browser" is "free" (as in beer) is because Microsoft in the 90s was (belatedly) very worried about a world where Netscape held a lot of power, and realized making and giving away a slightly better browser would neutralize this upstart. Everything flowed from that one tactical decision by a couple of execs at MS.

I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or be a paid product, but funding it with ad money from under the same corporate umbrella is a gross practice which promotes things like... Google nerfing adblocker plugins, and Google trying to kill cookies in favor of something only they control. (Although on that last one, by some miracle their hand was stayed and they backed down.)

Of course the DOJ can't ban the idea of a browser funded by ad money (and most are) but separating it from the other side of the business which should have zero say in how it's implemented, that's common sense to me.

[graemep]

> The only reason a "web browser" is "free" (as in beer) is because Microsoft in the 90s was (belatedly) very worried about a world where Netscape held a lot of power, and realized making and giving away a slightly better browser would neutralize this upstart. Everything flowed from that one tactical decision by a couple of execs at MS.

There were free as in beer browsers before IE (although many were free for non-commercial use only).

Chromium is a fork (well, a fork of a fork) of a FOSS browser specifically developed to be a FOSS browser for FOSS OSes (primarily Linux).

[anon-3988]

> Anything else is perpetuating the Trash Web as it's come to be.

unless you ban "Free" products, this is going to keep happening. People seems to think that just because something is "Free" it must therefore cost nothing to make. I mean, downloading Chrome takes 2 minutes max and seems trivial to me? Whats the problem?

People think Youtube should just allow them to watch videos without any ads nor paying any money. Clearly, the consumer is not rational.

[throwinothrside]

Android shares my location more than 14 times a day IIRC. They snoop through every single thing in my life. I can list a bizillion no. Of things. Zero damn given when they are horrible. Let them stop with dark patterns. Then I will start caring.

I pay for all my games, all good services which ainuse. I try and donate to open source project wherever and when I can. But I couldnt care less about FAANG like companies. If they want us to be good to them, let them be good first.

Hell, its just the other day we were talking about Youtube showing ads to paying customers. I really dont care whether a company is big or small. When companies are bad, they just are. That is it. I dont lose sleep over using FreeTube for watching youtube videos for free. Paying will solve issues, yeah right!

Edit: Language

[portaouflop]

Right but companies are perfectly rational actors /s

[runeks]

> I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money" for the product they use all day every day.

If getting people to pay for stuff they use were trivial then advertising wouldn't be as big as it is.

[HeavyStorm]

Yeah, OP is naive. Nobody ever paid for browsers, even before IE was a thing (well, nobody I know...).

We also don't pay for open TV which is ad supported.

This isn't a single decision that someone madennn it's actually very natural.

We don't pay for most of the web, not only browsers. Indirect monetization is great because making a consumer open his/her wallet takes a lot, no matter the price.

[paulryanrogers]

Netscape was sold at Babbages in my local mall. Plenty of people bought it. Just like my father bought Telix and Laplink and earlier communication software.

Not knowing anyone who admits to having done something, doesn't mean that thing never happens.

[DaiPlusPlus]

Netscape was free for non-business users before Internet Explorer existed. Netscape was competing with Mosaic, which was free, what with being a product of the NCSA (hence “Mozilla = Mosaic Killer”).

[Buttons840]

Could Chromium be made close source?

It's easy to just say "well, a company should charge money for a browser", but a company is free to write their own browser and charge for it right now. Chromium though, is bound by its open-source license and its copyright is owned by thousands of different contributors.

[pbmonster]

> Could Chromium be made close source?

Sure, it's BSD licensed, all future development could be done closed-source. Note that the name "Chromium" would need to stay with the open source side of the project, so it would be more like a closed fork than a re-licencing.

99% sure you could just keep using the name "Chrome", though, and stop releasing code into chromium instead.

[Buttons840]

So all companies can, right now, make a private fork and start selling it. There's no reason to pay for that right, everyone already has that right.

(I'm, of course, speaking in the context of xp84's suggestion that the browser should cost money. It's a fine idea, but I don't see how it applies here.)

[pbmonster]

You're essentially paying for control over the currently dominant web browser. You're paying for the existing Chrome installation base and to skip an absolute hell of a hiring process. Because forking Chromium and continuing development on your own needs over 100 of extremely narrowly specialized experts.

If you want your project to remain the currently dominant web browser, you better keep developing APIs people love, you better keep doing it faster than your competition can keep up with implementing them, and you better keep dominating the web standards committees.

Doing this from a position of a Chromium fork is orders of magnitude more difficult than just buying Chrome (and then keeping up pumping money into it at the rate Google has been doing).

[xp84]

> If you want your project to remain the currently dominant web browser, you better keep developing APIs people love, you better keep doing it faster than your competition can keep up with implementing them, and you better keep dominating the web standards committees.

Hey look, an incidental collision with my point!

I'd argue that Google specifically doesn't have nearly the obligation to keep doing these things as long as they are the ones who own Chrome, due to how many other things they can do to put their finger on the scales.

For instance, they could do things like:

- Show overwhelming amounts of ads in everyone's Gmail and say "Switch to Chrome for an ad-light experience."

- Or limit YouTube to 360p in non-Chrome browsers.

- Or only show the sponsored Google Search results (no organic) to non-Chrome browsers (let's be honest though, most non-nerds never click non-sponsored results anyway, and could scarcely find them even in the current Search UI).

- Or limit any new features on Google Workspace to Chrome browsers.

Google can maintain the Chrome near-monopoly using leverage from their other monopolies and near-monopolies. And they can use the Chrome near-monopoly to preserve and expand their marketshare of those other products. A very neat virtuous cycle (for Google). I don't think it promotes the health of free markets or consumer choice.

[Numerlor]

> Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money" for the product they use all day every day

How do you do this for something that's a basic necessity at this point? There must be a free browser because so many services depend on their user having access to them through one, and browsers aren't in the category of product where you can provide users a basic browser without features and then selling them a better version. If it's not Chrome that's free, any other free issue would inevitably run into the same issue. If not bankrolled by a company, browsers would need to be government funded

[a2800276]

> How do you do this for something that's a basic necessity at this point? ... If not bankrolled by a company, browsers would need to be government funded

You mean like government funded food, housing, health care and other basic necessities?

[creesch]

Exactly, many of which now need to be requested through online portals. I know that the US is oddly a bit backwards in that regard (even though it houses Silicon Valley) but in many other countries in the world they have moved many if not all of these services online.

Making browsers paid would create all sorts of problems for people with lower incomes if not properly considered. Note the last part of the sentence, thank you.

[a2800276]

I didn't make my point clear: that something is a necessity typically doesn't have the consequence that "government" has to provide it. In the general case, people are expected to buy food, pay rent, etc. These things are typically not provided for free or exchange for exposing your personal data. Only in exceptional cases does society step in to cover these expenses.

The argument that browsers somehow "need" to be free because they are a necessity makes little sense. Compare that phone or laptop the browser is running on is not provided free of charge either. A working automobile is arguably a necessity in large parts of the US and I don't see anyone handing out cars.

[creesch]

Yeah, I was afraid it would be replied to through a US pov. A lot of these essentials are actually "handed out" or at least subsidized to some degree for people with lower incomes in many countries.

Of course this could also be done for browser but still would leave people vulnerable.

To get back to the US. So you think it is a good idea to add yet another expense to vulnerable incomes in a country where there is much less of a safety net?

[a2800276]

Maybe you could be a little more concrete. So you're not taking a United States point of view, which point of view are you taking? I'm not aware of any country which provides "necessities" such as food and housing as the general case. Not anywhere in the EU, not in "communist" countries and outside of famines, certainly not in the third world. Of course there are food stamps and social housing projects for poor and elderly people, but I'm referring to the general case. Where do you see any significant necessities being provided to the general populace by the state? Which necessities?

Of course you can define "subsidies of some degree" to prove your point, but that doesn't change the fact that most people in the world generally have to pay for things, even necessities. The major exception being basic education which seems to be universally provided for free.

I have no idea what sort of a burden paying $5 for browser software would place on poor people, but I am sure that society would find a way, much like it does with other necessities. I also disagree that a browser financed by advertising is less of a burden to the vulnerable. The advertising revenue comes from the products they purchase.

[account42]

Sounds like the government should be funding a browser, at least a basic one.

[hk__2]

> How do you do this for something that's a basic necessity at this point?

The response is further in OP’s comment:

> I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or be a paid product

[Numerlor]

Part of the OS is basically free and the same situation as Chrome, and you can't do paid because basic necessities are done through the browser

[creesch]

> I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or be a paid product

I am getting Microsoft flashbacks now. There is no way that bundling browsers with OSes and making all the others paid will have negative side effects! Oh wait... The 90s just called, it is Netscape and they would like to have a stern word.

[whywhywhywhy]

Would Google still be allowed to fund Mozilla if ad funded browsers are an issue.

[chipdart]

> I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money" for the product they use all day every day.

What a brain-dead idea. Having to pay for something does not affect the openness of a platform. You just create a de-facto tax that benefits no one at all.