[coremoff]

Something needs to be done; Google's mission is at odds to good browser development, and having an effective monopoly with the world using a single browser is not good for users even without the advertising conflict of interest.

[jfengel]

Who would be able to buy it in a way that did align with good browser development?

People really like getting their web browser for free. If they're not paying for it with money, the developers will have to recoup costs some other way. In general, that's not going to be something that benefits users.

I suppose they could set up a not-for-profit that takes donations. I think that's how Mozilla works, but I don't think it's working very well.

I'd love for there to be some other brilliant idea. But thus far, we've been stuck on "money, advertising, or your data" as the only ways to make revenue.

[tim333]

>effective monopoly with the world using a single browser

I've got at least five browsers on the laptop - chrome, firefox, safari, orion and edge. I alternate between firefox and chrome depending on which works best for that I'm doing. Not sure how that's a monopoly? I use chrome most because it works best. Choosing the best amongst competing options seems kind of the opposite to a monopoly.

The only place I feel monopolistic behaviour is on the phone where apple try to push me to use safari rather than chrome.