>Having an ad monopoly also own the most popular browser is an awful state of affairs and I long to see it change.
Why is it "an awful state of affairs"? What are you comparing this to? Just to remind you, before Chrome took over as the most popular browser, we had years and years of IE6 hell, where lots of sites didn't work correctly (or at all!) on anything besides IE6, which was a big problem for people who didn't use Windows, not to mention legions of web developers who absolutely hated the thing because the dev tools were so bad and it didn't keep up with newer web standards, plus of course the users who had to suffer with the shittiness and stagnation of the browser.
Having an ad monopoly's browser take over was a huge relief, because it performed far better, it kept up with standards (and pushed new ones), had good tools for the devs, and most importantly had an open-source core and worked on every platform (either directly as Chrome, or with one of the projects based on it).
Sure, it would have been nice if Firefox had become the dominant browser, stayed neutral and uncontrolled by any one company, but that's unfortunately not the reality we got for multiple reasons.
Do you really want to go back to the days of Microsoft controlling the browser? Or Apple? I don't. I'd rather put up with Chome and its shitty MV3 dominating the web, and Firefox continuing to exist and provide a viable alternative. I really do NOT see how forcing Google to sell Chrome is going to make things for better for users at all: who's even going to buy the thing? Are they going to try to turn it proprietary and force everyone to buy subscriptions? Is MS or Apple going to buy it and then use it to force everyone to use their OS? How do you even make a profit with a browser anyway?
>Maybe a consortium of interested parties (Netflix, Amazon…?) could come together to find some kind of independent body that would own and operate Chrome?
You mean like how they're doing that today with Firefox? Oh wait, they're not, are they? If this idea could work, they would have been doing it already. Mozilla Corp would be happy to get funding from other companies instead of just Google.
>here’s plenty of business incentive in ensuring web browsers are viable software.
Yes, but the expense of developing and maintaining one is enormous, so it's basically a prisoner's dilemma. What company would want to take on this burden just so other companies can continue to profit? Google was able to do it because of being an ad empire, but these other companies aren't. MS was able to do it before, because they controlled the dominant platform and it helped them keep everyone on it. What business incentive is there for another company?