One of the browsers that is most closely associated with the Google brand is Chrome, thus you can see the company’s influence on all of its products. If we’ve learned anything from history, it’s that having such a close association on a Big Tech platform only hurts the competitors and, consequently, the typical user. Due to competition issues and the fact that Chrome was contributing to the creation of a monopoly in the search and advertising industries, the U.S. Department of Justice wants Google to split Chrome into a distinct company.
Experts are scrambling to identify parallels between the historic Microsoft antitrust case from more than 20 years ago and the current legal battle involving Google. A close example is the protracted antitrust case between the United States and Microsoft, in which Internet Explorer was at the heart. But since Internet Explorer’s prime, the internet has advanced significantly, and browsers are now used for more than just browsing the web. They serve as the hub of a more intricate network that connects targeted advertising and user activity tracking.
Therefore, if Google is compelled to sell the browser business, it is not surprising that Chrome may fetch up to $20 billion. Even though a final decision isn’t anticipated until the second half of 2025, August 2024 has already made it apparent that Google is thought to be a monopoly in the online search and advertising industry. Therefore, we may anticipate some significant changes in Google’s future strategy for Chrome and the surrounding ecosystem, even in the event that a sale does not happen.
Without Google, can Chrome continue to be free?
Chrome alone has a billion-dollar value, but it also provides unrestricted access to Google’s search engine. The buyer may perhaps search for a quick means to get a return on their large investment if they were to spend an estimated $20 billion for Chrome, which is undoubtedly the most sophisticated browser available on both desktop and mobile platforms. Only a few methods exist for doing such on a large scale. The first is charging for Chrome, which would significantly reduce its allure given that Google has provided it for free up until this point.
Another choice is to make money off of it in some way. This will unavoidably intertwine Chrome with Google Search, which is by far the most popular search engine. Chrome’s easy access to Google Search or its ad network may be hindered or forced behind a premium if it were owned by another company. Either way, there will be overhead expenses, and any business that spends billions of dollars on Chrome will find it difficult to recover from them. Thus, we must start over.
And lastly, the problem of technical advancement. Google is in a unique position to continue developing Chrome. Most likely, a buyer won’t follow the same guidelines. Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Google Lee-Anne Mulholland observes, “Very few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do.”
Will Chrome be able to function without Google?
There would be an existential risk if Chrome were sold. Oddly enough, it brings to mind the “browser wars” period once more, when Microsoft introduced Internet Explorer as a free program, destroying Netscape and compelling the latter to make its code publicly available. Mozilla sprang from the ashes, eventually giving rise to the modern Firefox browser. Notably, even though Firefox is a rival to Chrome, its very existence depends on the money it receives from Google. This is due to reports that Google pays Mozilla half a billion dollars annually to maintain Google Search as the default search engine. In a study on Chrome’s particular antitrust dilemma, a group of researchers brought attention to the same dilemma. “The precedent set by Mozilla’s financial dependence on Google highlights potential challenges for Chrome in maintaining its operations without similar support,” according to the study. The study also argues for the opposite, claiming that Chrome provides Google with the motivation to continue spending billions of dollars on its development, meaning that a buyer or buyers would probably shell out cash to reap the rewards.
However, the buyer must have substantial funds, ideally from the Big Tech pool. However, antitrust concerns would once more be raised by such a trade. However, Google already offers browsing benefits through its own app. Making it the next method of accessing its search engine and other services won’t take the business long.
RELATED POST-A significant disruption occurred in Sora and ChatGPT
More options at the expense of a worse experience?
The largest issue for whoever manages to acquire Chrome would be to maintain its competitiveness in terms of both functionality and ease of use. At the moment, Chrome serves as a direct portal to Google Search as well as other Google services, including Gmail, Maps, the full Workspace suite, the Gemini chatbot, and AI-powered search results. Buyers may be put off if the Google productivity suite is separated from Chrome and its smooth interaction.
All of these services are provided by default to consumers, and unless there is a compelling reason to search elsewhere, consumer psychology prefers to stick with the defaults. An entire part of the court’s decision in the antitrust case is devoted to “The Power of Defaults,” pointing out that a significant percentage of search queries come via default access points like Chrome and Android OS.
The open-source Chromium project, which powers Chrome, as well as a number of other browsers including Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi, would still depend on Google’s development efforts even if Google were compelled to sell Chrome. “If they’re really just saying, ‘Give up Chrome,’ that would be very weird because Google would still control all the underlying technology and they could just tank anyone who would try to do stuff with it, including anyone who ends up owning Chrome,” says Christo Wilson, a Northeastern University computer science professor.
Then there’s the issue of how to profit from the significant investment in Chrome. In the short run, a return-focused approach would also result in smaller development margins and functional downgrades for users.
The major privacy hazard
Google Search would be the largest gainer (or loser) if the DOJ’s attempt to spin Chrome off of Google’s conglomerate is successful. A few of the antitrust testimony provides a clear view of how the business erected a barrier around Google Search and the potential consequences.
According to U.S. judge Amit Mehta, who cited testimony from Dr. Sridhar Ramaswamy, a Google Search veteran and former Senior Vice President of Ads and Commerce at Google, “when the court asked why Google pays billions in revenue share when it already has the best search engine, he answered that the payments “provide an incredibly strong incentive for the ecosystem to not do anything”; they “effectively make the ecosystem exceptionally resist[ant] to change”; and their “net effect ․ [is to] basically freeze the ecosystem in place[.]”The DOJ has asked Google to begin sharing ad data with rivals for free in order to address the problematic behavior. It has also asked Google to do the same for user data and access to the Search Index, which includes data from Google-owned sites like YouTube. The goal of the remedy is to exchange the data while implementing “suitable security and privacy safeguards.” Google claims that doing so would expose users to “major privacy and security risks,” pointing to AOL’s inadvertent disclosure of more than half a million users’ search data. If the search and ad data end up in the wrong hands, the results could include profiling, spying, targeted harassment, doxxing, and aggressive ad targeting by third parties.