> “If we grab a few percentage points of the browser market, then maybe we can be paid by Google. That’s a long shot, but that’s the thing I’m hoping for.”
A well capitalized competitor who only aspires to reach a strong enough position to eventually be paid by the dominant player. This clear and irrefutable evidence of a severely unhealthy market and a textbook case of the impact of monopoly power on consumers. Where's the choice if pretty much all the competitors are aiming to attract Google's business and comply with their vision for the internet?
This is like university CS courses where they tell you that anyone can be the next Google or Amazon
Statistically, you won't. You're quite likely to be a small to medium sized business owner, or a decently paid independent developer, and that's perfectly fine. But there's no need to convince people to aim for the top and nothing else
It doesn’t seem like that. Related your example to their comment, the very presence of Google is causally linked to the tiny chance of being the next Google Chrome, because Google has monopoly power in search and is leveraging that to power in browser competition. ‘Winner takes all’ markets are created, and can be disassembled.
The OP comment is pointing out that to survive and thrive in the browser market an entrant has to seek revenue from its dominant competitor. That is not simply a reality of some businesses being big and some businesses being large. That is anti-competitive.
A well capitalized competitor who only aspires to reach a strong enough position to eventually be paid by the dominant player. This clear and irrefutable evidence of a severely unhealthy market and a textbook case of the impact of monopoly power on consumers. Where's the choice if pretty much all the competitors are aiming to attract Google's business and comply with their vision for the internet?