Yeah, have read the segment multiple times. Can not fathom a logical coherent meaning for that sentence.

The point I'm trying to make is that we've identified the prime customer of web browser development - it is Google.

That is like identifying the prime customers of a supermarket - people who live nearby.

Having customers who are particularly keen or invested for whatever reason does not make an enterprise a cartel.

What makes Google a cartel (or rather, monopoly) in this case is that they own > 80% of the browser market. Not that they pay other companies so that they appear as the default search engine.

I think that is a mistaken view, but rather than argue that I'll put a more interesting question. If you believe that there is a cartel here and the result is that we the plebs get high quality products for free, do you think cartels are a bad thing? Because it seems to be all upside for pretty much everyone. If this is a cartel (which, again, I don't see it), we should be looking to get cartels involved in food and housing.

Breaking up this 'cartel' is literally going to mean that the best 4 web browsers won't get quite as much development effort directed towards them. The plan seems to be to choke them of so much development that even dodgy hobbyist projects can complete. That is a low-quality bar.

But we don't get the high quality products for free. Google is using Chrome to strenghten their market dominance in other markets, such as advertising. Furthermore, they are using their market power in browsers to push through standards and protocols that mostly benefit them.

Just ask yourself this: Google is one of the largest and most profitable companies on Earth. They are a for-profit, capitalistic company. Legally, their main duty is to maximize shareholder profit. Why would they give away somehting for free, if in the end, it does not benefit them more than not giving it away for free?

Competition is always better for consumers, unless you believe in a "benevolent dictator" situation (which, as reality shows, also never ends well).

Nor does calling browsers dependent on Search funding a cartel.

People expect web browsers to be provided for free, which heavily complicates funding.

There is nothing stopping someone from making a new browser. The base of Chrome is open source, you don't even have to do the hard part. And distribution worldwide is relatively easy, if you can give people a reason to use your browser.