MThe Browser Company is killing Arc on December 22nd.
CWhat? Arc is dead?
MTechCrunch is reporting it. The company is doubling down on Dia, their new browser.
CArc had a cult following. People obsessed over its design.
MIt was beloved by a niche group, sure. But TechCrunch says it never became the mass-market Chrome alternative they wanted.
CI mean, that makes sense. Most people don't switch browsers. Chrome is just... there.
MHere's my issue. They're not just stopping development, they're sunsetting it. December 22nd.
CSo what happens to the people who built their workflow around it?
MThey're supposed to move to Dia. A product most of them probably didn't ask for.
CBut that's the classic pivot, right? If Arc isn't growing, you have to bet on the next thing.
MThere's a difference between pivoting and abandoning your most loyal users.
CThey're not a charity. If the numbers don't work, the numbers don't work.
MOh, come on. The cost of keeping Arc running is a rounding error for them.
CThat's not the point! The point is focus. You can't build the next thing if you're maintaining the old thing.
MI get focus. But this feels like a slap in the face to the people who evangelized Arc for years.
CAnd what did that evangelism get them? A browser with a tiny market share.
MIt got them a community. Which, apparently, doesn't matter as much as chasing the next shiny object.
CYou know what they say. The users giveth, and the users get left behind when the strategic direction changeth.
MVery profound, Chris.
CI'm just saying. This happens in tech all the time. Google Reader, anyone?
MAnd people STILL complain about Google Reader. That's my point. You break trust.
CTrust doesn't pay the bills. Growth does.
MBut you can't have growth without trust! It's a cycle!
CAlright, look. I'll concede this: it's a messy breakup. They should have handled it better.
MThat's all I'm asking for. A little respect for the people who believed in you.
CMaybe Dia will be so good that everyone forgets Arc ever existed.
MI'll believe it when I see it. Anyway, a much weirder story is coming out of the defense tech world.
CWeirder than a browser dying? Do tell.
MTechCrunch says a company called Warhound just raised 200 million dollars. To genetically engineer dogs.
CI'm sorry, what? Dogs?
MFor military and law enforcement. They're from Ben Lamm and Palmer Luckey.
CPalmer Luckey? The Oculus guy?
MThe very same. He's deep in the defense world now with Anduril.
CI know. I just... I need a second. Genetically engineered war dogs?
MCanine super soldiers. Or maybe just dogs with better hips. The article is light on details.
CSo they're going to make a super-German Shepherd?
MI'm imagining a dog with a heads-up display. Sniffing for bombs AND displaying threat levels.
CDon't give them ideas. But seriously, this is a huge ethical gray area.
MAbsolutely. We're talking about designing an animal for a specific, violent purpose.
CBut we've been breeding dogs for work for thousands of years. This is just... faster.
MFaster and more precise. It feels different when you're editing genes in a lab.
CI think the big question is whether this is a good idea at all.
MLet's get back to the ethics, Chris.
CThe ethical question is whether we should create a creature whose entire existence is defined by war.
MI'd argue that's not a new question. We do that with humans.
CBut they can consent. A dog can't.
MA good point. But we're not done with awkward corporate moves. Meta's catching heat over a new stock plan.
CTechCrunch says it's partly designed to help Zuckerberg pay a possible 'billionaire tax' without losing control of Meta.
MCalifornia's proposing a wealth tax. This new stock class would let him sell shares for cash, supposedly for taxes, while keeping voting power.
CSo he gets liquidity without dilution of control. It's a classic founder move.
MBut it's a bit on the nose, isn't it? The world's fourth-richest man engineering a workaround for a wealth tax.
CWould you rather he sell his voting shares and lose control of the company?
MI'd rather he pay his taxes like everyone else.
CHe's not saying he won't pay them. He's just changing how he gets the money.
MIt's a shell game, Chris. A very sophisticated, billion-dollar shell game.
CI think it's rational self-interest. He built the company. He wants to keep building it.
MThe rest of us are just trying to figure out if we can afford a new browser.