Kasspian’s honest read
A Chrome extension is cheap to build with real built-in store distribution, but you're entirely at Google's mercy and easy to clone — it works as a wedge or feature, rarely as a whole company on its own.
Who actually pays
People with a specific browser-based pain — productivity, shopping, research, workflow — who'll pay for a tool that lives where they already work.
Riskiest assumption
That you can build a durable business on a platform you don't control. A policy change, a store removal, or Google shipping your feature natively can end it overnight.
Cheapest test first
Ship a free version and see if you can get genuine organic installs and retention before adding paid tiers. Distribution and stickiness are the real questions; building is the easy part.
Extensions are appealing because the build is small, the Chrome Web Store gives you discovery, and you insert your product directly into the user's existing workflow where adoption friction is low. For a tightly-scoped tool that removes a real browser annoyance, you can get to users fast and cheaply, and some extensions do earn solid recurring revenue.
The risks are structural: total platform dependency (Google can change rules or remove you), trivial cloning of anything popular, and the constant threat of the browser or a big app simply absorbing your feature. The extensions that become real businesses use the extension as the wedge into a broader product or a subscription with switching costs, build an audience, and don't bet everything on a single store listing. As a lean entry point with eyes open to the platform risk, it's viable; as your entire moat, it's fragile.
This is the read on the category. Your version isn’t the average — get the honest call on your exact idea, with live market data, in about 90 seconds.