Nov 19, 2024

Chrome Alone

If Google were to sell off Chrome, who would benefit? Anyone?

The idea that Google would be broken up as a result of their loss in the antitrust trial against their Search monopoly was never going to happen. Instead, as I wrote last month, it was more like Negotiating 101. Start by putting the biggest ask out there, see how the market (including, notably, Google) reacts and go from there. Having read that particular room, it seems like the DoJ is now closing in on their actual opening proposal. As Leah Nylen and Josh Sisco report for Bloomberg:

Top Justice Department antitrust officials have decided to ask a judge to force Alphabet Inc.’s Google to sell off its Chrome browser in what would be a historic crackdown on one of the world’s biggest tech companies.

This is still a tall ask, but it's one I guessed may come after that opening salvo:

Perhaps they kill the revenue sharing entirely, but that hurts Apple – and really, Mozilla – more than Google. Certainly default payments are dead, and likely any sort of contracts as well beyond perhaps simple revenue share agreements. But would that be enough? For the DoJ, certainly not. But that will come down to the judge. I suspect anything touching AI will be a bridge too far as the entire space is too chaotic and unclear at the moment. Microsoft and OpenAI really help Google here. Android is under attack in the other case. Chrome may be the most vulnerable other option here. But who knows.

Chrome it is. Or at least it is a second idea being floated out there. And while this is hardly a criminal case, and we're not looking for a perpetrator, it is interesting to think about the notion of "cui bono?" from the other end. That is, "to whose benefit?" If Google was forced to sell Chrome, who does that help?

The government would argue that consumers will benefit as they'll no longer be as locked into Google Search – especially if this is coupled with an order to end any default search agreements with other browser makers. But unless those other browser makers choose another search engine as the default, it feels like Google Search will not be impacted very much. It is interesting to think if that would impact the uptake and growth of Gemini and a few other Google products, such as their payment services, but that's not what is on trial here.

It's not clear who could pay what for Chrome. Bloomberg throws out the notion of OpenAI being one potential home, but would the government really want that? That would risk anointing – well, really entrenching – a king in a new field. OpenAI's main benefactor, Microsoft could acquire it, especially now that their own Edge browser is all-in on Chromium. But they would probably just use it to bolster not just Bing by also their own AI products and services. And that would be extremely awkward for the government as well.

Apple wouldn't want Chrome and shouldn't be allowed to buy it for obvious reasons. Mozilla has built Firefox on completely different technologies, but with that company in some amount of peril, perhaps it would be worth the "hail mary" – but could they possibly afford it? And honestly, what would they really do with it? They famously don't have their own search engine. And their AI work is nascent at best. So they buy Chrome and strike a deal with Bing or DuckDuckGo? Does anyone want such a Frankenstein product? Same story with Opera, etc.

Such a move would help Arc, the browser that I happen to use. And they have made it clear that they think it's basically impossible to compete with Chrome right now. But it's also built on top of Chromium, and without Google Chrome feeding that ecosystem, does that project start to fade or degrade? Dual-edged sword, it is. Certainly, Arc couldn't afford to buy Chrome; it's a startup. That would be fun though.

Maybe Meta? But again, does the government really want to hand a web browser to a company with 3 billion active users of their services? One that is trying to bolster its own AI? Maybe Amazon? Honestly, probably not. I'm just throwing out names at this point. The most likely buyer might be private equity, which would be amazing and what could possibly go wrong there?

On mobile, all of this would be even more awkward. Chrome is obviously an integral part of Android. If it's owned by someone else, is Google allowed to have any browser option that they do own? Would they have to use just a generic, open-source browser? The best of those are built on Chromium. Maybe they could build one and call it 'Chrome 2'?

The end of Google Chrome on mobile certainly would further bolster Apple's Safari. And it may also help the iPhone itself.

Also, what about ChromeOS? Selling off Chrome would certainly mean the end of that operating system.¹ Who benefits there? Microsoft and to a lesser extent, Apple. Again, not great options and optics for the government.

It's just hard to see this happening because it's hard to see how it possibly works. It's something that sounds good on paper, but would be extremely messy, if not impossible to execute. And that, I suspect, is why other options are being floated alongside this one. Back to Nylen and Sisco:

Antitrust officials, along with states that have joined the case, also plan to recommend Wednesday that federal judge Amit Mehta impose data licensing requirements, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.

...

The agency and the states have settled on recommending that Google be required to license the results and data from its popular search engine and give websites more options to prevent their content from being used by Google’s artificial intelligence products, said the people.

Google will complain and contest, but those are less extreme options than selling Chrome, of course. A bit more hard to swallow:

The antitrust enforcers are set to propose that Google uncouple its Android smartphone operating system from its other products, including search and its Google Play mobile app store, which are now sold as a bundle, the people said. They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share more information with advertisers and give them more control over where their ads appear.

Harsher, but again, still more viable than selling off Chrome. And that doesn't feel like an accident – it feels like their giving the judge options here:

The government has the option to decide whether a Chrome sale is necessary at a later date if some of the other aspects of the remedy create a more competitive market, the people added. The Chrome browser controls about 61% of the market in the US, according to StatCounter, a web traffic analytics service.

Anyway, the reality of any of this happening remains fairly small at the moment. And in any sort of short term, it's nonexistent. Appeals and lawsuits will bog all of this down for years. The only way something gets done faster is if there's an option that Google calculates is worth negotiating to make this all go away. To me, that still feels like the default search payments – in particular because that probably hurts Apple (and Mozilla) more than it hurts Google.

The government must know that as well though. So round and round we'll go, whittling down options and severity in proposals until it's "final offer" time next year. I'm guessing Chrome isn't on the table by then.