[hollerith]

I don't think that tells us anything.

Maintaining a web browser requires about 1000 full-time developers (about the size of the Chrome team at Google) i.e., about $400 million a year.

Why would Microsoft incur that cost when Chromium is available under a license that allows Microsoft to do whatever it wants with it?

[Eggpants]

You could say the same thing about all Microsoft products then. How many full time developers does it take to support Windows 11 when Linux is available, SqlServer when Postgres is available, Office when LibreOffice exists?

And so on all under licenses that allows Microsoft do whatever it wants with?

They should be embarrassed to do better, not spin it into a “wise business move” aka transfer that money into executive bonuses.

[hollerith]

Microsoft gets a lot of its revenue from the sale of licenses and subscriptions for Windows and Office. An unreliable source that gives fast answers to questions tells me that the segments responsible for those two softwares have revenue of about $13 and about 20 billion per quarter respectively.

In contrast, basically no one derives any significant revenue from the sale of licenses or subscriptions for web browsers. As long as Microsoft can modify Chromium to have Microsoft's branding, to nag the user into using Microsoft Copilot and to direct search queries to Bing instead of Google Search, why should Microsoft care about web browsers?

It gets worse. Any browser Microsoft offers needs to work well on almost any web site. These web sites (of which there are 100s of 1000s) in turn are maintained by developers (hi, web devs!) that tend to be eager to embrace any new technology Google puts into Chrome, with the result that Microsoft must responding by putting the same technological capabilities into its own web browser. Note that the same does not hold for Windows: there is no competitor to Microsoft offering a competitor to Windows that is constantly inducing the maintainers of Windows applications to embrace new technologies, requiring Microsoft to incur the expense of applying engineering pressure to Windows to keep up. This suggests to me that maintaining Windows is actually significantly cheaper than it would be to maintain an independent mainstream browser. An independent mainstream browser is probably the most expensive category of software to create and to maintain excepting only foundational AI models.

"Independent" here means "not a fork of Chromium or Firefox". "Mainstream" means "capable of correctly rendering the vast majority of web sites a typical person might want to visit".

[more_corn]

They did incur that cost… for decades. They were in a position where their customers were literally forced to use their product and they still couldn’t create something people wanted to use.

Potentially these last two points are related.

[saagarjha]

You don't need a Google-sized team to work on a browser. No other browser engine has a team that large.