> They could stop giving their browser away and sell an "ad-free" version for $5, which bundles Adblock and blocks google ads.
Simply isn't enough to make up the difference and may even end them if they tried it. Paying for free features and inferior browsers? (Yes I use Firefox but also Chrome.) What is this, 1993?
For more thoughts on this topic, see http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/12/how-mozilla-could-impro...
Mozilla would switch away from Google in a heartbeat if the money was right.
Yep, Larry, Sergey, and Eric has dual-class stock AFAIK. I think the real problem with this comes from the greedy legacy MBAs who abuses this.
A massive percentage of the internet using population do not know what a search engine is. I've seen people put "www.facebook.com" into the google search bar. People do not know the difference between the google search bar and their address bar.
While I agree you can also look at this from a perspective of mutual benefit, it's certainly not an obvious open-and-shut deal, especially not with Chrome in the mix. It's simply a matter of priorities, and as I noted in the grandparent, it's easy to conceive a situation where this perspective may shift.
Also, I think that executives care about the opinions of shareholders about as much as Congresspeople care about the opinions of constituents, i.e., they don't care at all unless it looks like something will cause a major disruption to their continued employment.