My argument is that open source is what it is. Read the license and you'll find that there's nothing about free support; and if for some reason it breaks... you keep both pieces.
I know this puts distributions in a bad situation, but unless the users can force the upstream project to be more user friendly, I think the only option is to switch to a different software (hint: Firefox).
You seem to think I endorse Chrome team's behaviour on this, and I don't. That doesn't change reality though.
Open source is what it is, but not all open source is equal.
I often see versions of this argument more or less opposing complaints against open source products. It has some merit, depending on circumstances. Circumstances are important.
Chrome isn't some guy's spare time project, or something done by a team of corporate and personal volunteers. Chrome is a product. Looking for Google's valuation comes up with an analysis that it will likely be the first or second company to be valued at a trillion dollars. Chrome enjoys nearly a 50% browser market share. Google has one of the strongest hands in shaping technology today, and it seems they aren't always making the best decisions; not that one would expect such a large company to always make the best decisions (or that there would be a consensus on _what_ is the best decision).
I've never paid for anything made by Google, but I am a customer regardless; so are you. Money hasn't changed hands but they have certainly profited from the relationship, and so have I.
---
"If you don't like it, submit a pull request" -- that response always rubs me the wrong way. To be clear, some of the loudest complainers about open source projects are entirely too entitled, but those that aren't do have a point sometimes. I believe that whether you are a guy with a hobby making $0 or a company valued at $3.8 * 10^11, you owe it to yourself and your users to maintain a certain level of quality if you create a popular product. More of a personal philosophy than the expectation of a legal obligation of course, but I think just as valid.
I always have mixed feelings when Google has a project with two versions: the open source one and the binary only based on that one. Chrome and Chromium are not quite the same thing after all.
I don't know for sure, but for Google Chrome may be the product and Chromium just a convenient way to make it happen.
I know this puts distributions in a bad situation, but unless the users can force the upstream project to be more user friendly, I think the only option is to switch to a different software (hint: Firefox).
You seem to think I endorse Chrome team's behaviour on this, and I don't. That doesn't change reality though.