False equivalency as chrome doesn’t host the websites.

Neither does Apple. Beyond providing initial download the apps run on phones paid for by users and any back end runs on servers paid for by developer.

Apple hosts the apps binaries and provides the services for reviews and payments.

If they don’t like it they can focus on Android, and if iPhone users don’t like apple’s policies they can switch to android or pine phones as well.

I assume you’d feel the same way if your cellular networks or internet provider started charging fees for all purchases using their networks. How about a refrigerator monopoly charging for food you put in your refrigerator?

Not really the same. It’s be more like complaining that you have to pay to put your games on the PlayStation store or sell them at Walmart.

Terrible comparison and a lack of intellectual honesty

I wouldn't be okay with that, but it wouldn't be completely unjustified either.

Google has put an incredible amount of effort into creating the delivery channel for websites/webapps. Not just as in "let's make a good browser", but "let's have feature parity with the OS, while still having the security and ease of use that the OS can't match". (There was a giant Chromium team googlesheet somewhere tracking which features are still missing, but I can't find it at the moment.)

For example: let's say you're selling stuff online. How does Chrome help you?

* HTTP/3 makes your site load faster. HTTP/3 stems from QUIC, which was a Google thing.

* CSS improvements mean that you can make it prettier. Google works on pushing new features into CSS.

* Advanced video/image codecs mean that you can show higher-quality pictures to your customers (assuming constant bandwidth). Google works on codecs.

* The very concept of evergreen browsers (I think Google has also put a lot of effort into making into happen?) means that you can save your money developing the website.

* At the checkout, Chrome autofills the card and/or lets the customer use Google Pay. The card is synced between the customer's devices, using Google's servers. This is good for you. Easier payments = better conversion rate for you.

* If the customer creates an account (which will help you sell them more things later), they might be logging in via Google. Or they might be using a password, which Google also autosyncs. Both options are good for you. It's you who derives extra money from the customer being able to easily log into their account and buy shoes etc.

* Finally, if the web was insecure, people would be more hesitant to use it to buy stuff. Google works on making the web more secure (Google Project Zero and just in general a ton of security work being put into Chromium).

This is not counting stuff that is Google and not Chrome per se.

I'm not going to say that you have to pay Google for simultaneously working on 10–20 different areas of infrastructure that enables you to sell things and services to people. And heck, they also benefit from it (because ads). But if tomorrow Google said "everybody who makes money on the internet have to give us a cut", I would feel like they actually have a good case for it, having contributed to very large chunks of the infrastructure that enables me to do business on the internet.

We do need common grounds to function as a society, I don’t understand why some people like to look at companies like they are some Gods to us. Roads, railroads, electricity cables, etc are probably a better analogy to this whole ordeal.

True. Imagine if John Deere was a monopoly and insisted upon 30% of all crops that are harvested using their machines. Or if AT&T insisted on 30% cut of all sales performed on their phone network. Or an innovative prosthetic developed by a medical company insisted on 30% of income generated when using the prosthetic. Should this be allowed and does this damage the economy in general allowing for these companies to suck money out of transactions when using their devices?