The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
577 comments
·March 8, 2025kweingar
dfabulich
It's a common misconception that tons of users manually install Chrome, but Google just pays PC makers to make Chrome the default browser.
Chrome is the only browser with a business model that makes sense to do this. Microsoft just doesn't make enough money from Bing/Edge to pay PC makers to leave Edge as the default. Firefox makes no money at all, and makes 95% of its revenue from Google's payments to be the default search engine. Safari isn't even available on Windows, and even then, 99% of Safari's revenue is from Google.
(Safari was available on Windows from 2007-2012, but it never captured much market share, because Apple was never willing to pay PC makers to make Safari the default.)
Here's StatCounter's estimates of desktop browser market share. The overwhelming majority of users are using their computer's default browser.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
Chrome: 65.55%
Edge: 13.9%
Safari: 8.69%
Firefox: 6.36%
Opera: 2.9%
The only viable business model for a web browser, the one that literally all major browsers use, is to accept money from a search engine (Google, specifically) to be make them the default. Even Kagi makes its own Orion web browser, for exactly this reason.
How could Chrome make its owner any money at all if Chrome couldn't accept money from Google to be the default search engine? How could Chrome possibly do what Firefox and Safari can't?
magicalist
> It's a common misconception that tons of users manually install Chrome, but Google just pays PC makers to make Chrome the default browser
Maybe 10 years ago, but which ones do it now? thinkpads and HP machines, at least, ship with Edge as the default. Dell or something?
Windows is also _hyper_ aggressive about pushing Edge now too. Like it's nuts how hard it pushes it, to the point that it embarrasses people who do actually prefer Edge. "Recommending" at every turn that you not switch, having the edge browser itself warn against downloading Chrome, pushing edge into various OS-level browser launches even if it's not your default, and, of course, randomly resetting the browser default on various updates.
edit: at least from this page, it's edge by default on at least some dell machines too, but I haven't owned one in so long I won't say that for sure: https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000128257/how-to-ch...
It doesn't seem to be a default on PCs.
garyfirestorm
I don’t remember chrome being default anywhere. You always needed to open edge to download chrome and I have installed windows numerous times in past.
jimnotgym
Before Edge, everyone had to install Chrome because the web wouldn't work with IE. It is still the case that some major sites don't work with Firefox either. Edge is as close to a de-Googled Chrome as you can get to work properly. Unfortunately de-Googling meant re-Microsofting
gscott
If you buy a cheap computer with Windows S it is very hard to get out of the S configuration and in S configuration you can't install Chrome at all or Firefox.
derektank
I can confirm Dell's default for Windows devices is Edge. I believe Dell's Ubuntu laptops come with both Firefox and Chrome installed.
bo1024
Selling might not make business sense for Google or for Chrome, but it makes a ton of sense for the American public. Google is using Chrome to benefit advertisers, data brokers, and surveillance over users. Exhibit: the manifest v2 / Ublock Origin saga. And this is huge because so many other browsers use Chromium or its engine under the hood. Google can also use Chrome to push user-unfriendly web standards or de-facto standards.
Of course, this doesn't appear that related to the DOJ's reasoning.
bloppe
The problem is that it doesn't make business sense for anybody else to buy Chrome. Bare in mind that 99% of Chrome is the free Chromium open source project, so you're not buying any sort of technological asset. You're just buying a big pre-existing user base, which would be extremely difficult to monetize without making the product much worse, although I'm sure Microsoft or Facebook would be happy to give that a go. It certainly wouldn't make any sense to buy it without a sprawling advertisement business or some major conflicts of interest. But what's the point of selling it to someone else like that?
It's easy to say "just sell it" without thinking about the actual implications, but you're basically talking about destroying it. Maybe that's the point, but we should at least be honest about it.
abirch
I agree with you. Of all the remedies to address Google's "monopoly" this seems to the most bizarre.
My question is if Google has to divest from Chrome, would they be able to build a new web browser? In the article it said that they'd need approval for any new joint venture, collaboration, or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads.
It makes no mention of web browsers.
philistine
> My question is if Google has to divest from Chrome, would they be able to build a new web browser?
I'm not a lawyer, and didn't read the verdict, but your query is very Hacker News. Justice is not code. If Google is forced to divest from Chrome, it of course means it can't turn around and make the Google Dhrome browser. If Google did, they'd be sued for ignoring the verdict.
gscott
The only reason Google is trying to take away cookies is because they make you log into Chrome which gives you all their browsing data anyway and probably anything you type. So maybe not having a browser controlled by Google would be good.
aoeusnth1
Where on the statcounter page does it show that people are using their default browser? You're making a lot of claims about Chrome commonly being the default browser without linking to any evidence of your correction of this "common misconception" that people install chrome manually.
zimbatm
Since Chrome's engine is used by Edge, Opera, Brave, etc.. Probably the best move is to become a non-profit and have all those organizations chip in.
The main reason even Microsoft gave up and rebased their browser on top of Chrome is because of the breakneck speed at which Google introduces new standards and features to the ecosystem. Having them be forced to slow down might be a good thing for browser diversity and the future of the Internet.
foota
According to this maybe somewhat broken website (idk there's a warning that it's broken but it still seems to work) https://www.netmarketshare.com/, Chrome has 65% market share on OS X.
jader201
> Microsoft just doesn't make enough money from Bing/Edge to pay PC makers to leave Edge as the default.
Have you used a Windows PC lately? It seems like once a week I have to ignore/decline prompts to change my default browser to Edge.
I’m not sure PC makers have any say/control over this behavior.
gnabgib
I think you might be holding it wrong? I've only been asked once, I said no. Quite sternly. It apologised, we laughed about it. Now Edge has no internet access.
denismi
> The only viable business model for a web browser, the one that literally all major browsers use, is to accept money from a search engine (Google, specifically) to be make them the default. Even Kagi makes its own Orion web browser, for exactly this reason.
The only viable business model ... while the incumbent (IE, now Chrome) is allowed to give the product away for free in service of some other predatory agenda.
MR4D
That’s not the issue.
The problem is that Google owns both sides of the internet - the browser on your computer and the search engine to find everything.
As a result, they control your perception of the internet.
If a site doesn’t work, you as the user thinks the site doesn’t work. You don’t think oh, my browser is broken. Also, if you don’t find a site on Google the. To you, it doesn’t exist.
As a result, you have to bend your website to satisfy both Google search and Google chrome.
That’s why this is an issue. Because of those two things, Google effectively controls the internet, and you as a user or you as a website owner have essentially zero recourse when Google does something that harms you.
buu700
That framing of the issue makes a lot of sense. It might still be a reasonable middle ground if Google doesn't own Chrome itself, or control the proprietary bits or any related backend services, but still maintains leadership of Chromium development.
As a Firefox user, I also don't love the implications of forcing Google to end its default search engine deal with Firefox. If they changed course on that, then a similar deal with the hypothetical non-Google Chrome could be a viable way to maintain something like Chrome's current financial model without giving Google too much control over the web.
On the other hand, one might argue that Google's search business and that sector as a whole are already at a high enough risk right now without the courts throwing another wildcard into the mix. I'm not staking out a position on this one way or another, but I hope whatever decisions they land on are very carefully considered.
exodust
> if you don’t find a site on Google, to you, it doesn’t exist
What do you mean "find a site"? Are you saying the user has a website in mind they've visited before? Or are you saying the user doesn't have a website in mind, and is looking for "any website about XYZ?"
I don't think your claim is valid. At what point does the user conclude something "doesn't exist"? Users never reach such a conclusion, in part because Google results tell us "bro, your search returned 480 million results."
wruza
These result counts are known to be fake.
sweeter
How many people get past the first page? I'd wager a guess its under 3%. It could be 20 results or an infinite amount, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It is a fact that google gets to control who and what shows up in a search, and they put paying entries at the top. There are many problems with this. They have also de-listed websites from google search, and are at a high risk of complying with any government request to censor topics. Which, again, is not good for humanity.
chairhairair
Zero recourse other than using another browser or and/or another search engine.
Why bother having a discussion when you use “zero recourse” here. It comes off as totally absurd.
dcow
The actual issue is that Google pushes Chrome on its properties “this site renders better with Chrome download here” so it’s almost impossible for users to avoid it. Same issue with Edge. Once you switch off of Safari on macOS that’s the last you hear of it. If anything should be illegal it’s using your dominant position in one market to force users into a specific position in an adjacent one. MS got busted for it previously. Google under threat now. Apple has its own issues but it isn’t currently entirely owning a market. If Ape owned the phone market and the only App Store was Apple’s, I think the court would start ruling against Apple.
There’s also a clear conflict of interest having the advertising company own the user-agent.
snailmailman
This is definitely a huge part of it. My grandmother is not tech savy, and ended up with the google app installed on her phone. Because if she types anything into any of the search bars, google puts a big banner for the google app in the results page. She doesn't use safari for searching - she now goes to the google app.
Notably - it doesn't advertise chrome there? or maybe she just didn't see those. Most of her internet experience is through either the facebook app or the google app now
wruza
They not only officially own the user-agent which they made sure is the most installed.
They are gray cardinals of web standards which they bloated to the point of zero viable competition. And their only opponent lives on their couch.
eitland
In addition to bundling, Google has also been massively pushing it via ads.
As far as I know Chrome is the only thing that has been advertised on Googles famously clean "front page" before making a search.
That tells me something about how important it has been for them to push it.
There's also the way they've used deceptive ads ("download a better browser") to me and many other Firefox users over the years. (No, a browser that leaks my browsing habits to the worlds biggest advertising company while not supporting vertical tabs a decade after it entered the market certainly isn't best for me.)
ethbr1
> If you want to switch your search engine for Safari on iOS...
I can set Kagi as the default search engine on iOS?
Because last I checked, Apple hardcoded their list of options.
kweingar
That's a very good point. Mobile OS vendors should allow for user-defined search engines the way that desktop browsers do.
SllX
I haven’t opened Safari recently but I’m pretty sure Safari in general just doesn’t have user defined search engine lists at all on any platform and never has. There’s ways to hack it with extensions, but otherwise if you want to switch SEs, you can use one on Apple’s list or you switch to a browser with more flexibility on iPhone, Mac or iPad.
Of course since one of the options in Safari is DuckDuckGo, you can also use its extensive list of !bang operators.
grapesodaaaaa
In principle I agree, but there needs to be an “old person mode.” The number of times I’ve uninstalled malware on my relatives’ computers is astounding.
Terretta
> I can set Kagi as the default search engine on iOS? Because last I checked, Apple hardcoded their list of options.
Check again: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/kagi-for-safari/id1622835804
Works perfectly.
zacwest
This doesn't change the search engine, it attempts to redirect from whatever one is configured in the settings. It's very much an unreliable hack.
stickfigure
Sounds like an issue between Apple and Kagi?
wyre
You’re right, but there is a Safari extension to set Kagi as default search.
xiconfjs
Which is still a workound and sometimes buggy - it overwrites an existing search engine. In my case its google. But when I want to use google, I can’t - I have to switch to another browser or deactivate the kagi addon/plugin.
kortilla
The issue is that you don’t need to search for chrome. Google tried to force it down your throat when you visit their sites using any other browser
tester756
On Android Chrome is preinstalled and cannot be uninstalled
timeflex
On Windows 11, Edge is preinstalled and can't simply be removed either. Furthermore, it constantly bugs you about if you're sure you don't want to enable their recommended settings, which ends up re-enabling all the analytics/rewards/etc.
tsimionescu
In Europe, you can now fully remove Edge from Windows 11, and it doesn't come back (or at least hasn't so far). And it's not even hard, you just uninstall it like any other app. They do give some scary prompts, and it does disable all internet-based integrations in the start menu, but that's not even necessarily a bad thing.
makeitdouble
What it would take to get them punished again...
The edge situation is a mess for sure, and Microsoft seems to have such a perfect understanding of the current judiciary climate that they can't dance around the lines without any consequences.
mjevans
It makes sense why it can't be _removed_... it's required for core OS interaction features such as a known-working login portal framework and probably tons of other 'reuse the rendering engine from the browser to display stuff' portions of the shell and settings pages.
If you wanted to de-google your phone _that_ much it probably requires a custom firmware blob that's shipped with a different browser... if that's even possible / reasonable.
figmert
It's not really required. Android comes with a separate webview (that cannot be overridden). Sure it's based on Chromium but that means there should zero reliance on Chrome the product, and those known working login portals can continue working without Chrome.
It's well known that Google requires manufacturers to install their apps and requires it to be uninstallable. This includes Gmail, Google, and others.
dismalaf
Which ones? Samsung internet is the default for Samsung devices (which constitute the majority of Android devices in the west) and most (all?) of the Chinese OEMs have their own browser... The only Android devices I've ever had where the default is Chrome are Pixel devices...
Izkata
> Samsung internet is the default for Samsung devices (which constitute the majority of Android devices in the west)
I have a Samsung Galaxy S23 and it came with both Chrome and "Internet" which I guess is the Samsung one. I don't remember which was default or if it asked the first time something tried to open a webpage, but I didn't even notice the Samsung one was on here and I'd guess the Chrome brand name wins out for most people if it asks...
rudedogg
You get nagged to do it by the most popular website in the world (google.com) if you're using something else, which might be part of the problem.
maxclark
First I don't believe this is an effective remedy to break up a Google monopoly, but I have no influence on the DOJ.
I'm curious though, if Google can no longer pay browsers for search engine traffic what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space?
How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development?
What happens to all the applications that rely on Chrome extensions?
As much as I dislike Google behavior, I don't see this as being a good thing.
cavisne
Chrome could probably make a huge amount of money by doing what people assume Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history.
Google uses a complex anonymization/privacy framework to collect some aggregate signals from website visits, but they don't use it directly.
Regulators don't understand this, and technologists who do tend to distrust Google anyway and think they might secretly be using it.
There are all sort so other sketchy things, like what Edge does injecting itself into websites so Microsoft collects affiliate revenue.
There are countries where this wouldn't be allowed, but Google is largely self regulating in its biggest market.
All this would lose Chrome some market share but they are starting from a very dominant position, and for the general public it wouldnt be a big deal - people are already convinced that iOS and android devices are listening to them at all times for ad targeting!
robotnikman
At the same time though, being developed under a company which derives most of its revenue from ads seems to be a big conflict of interest to a free and open web. We have already seen this conflict of interest with Manifest V3, which takes away freedom from the users, and almost with remote web attestation before Google held off it's development due to the backlash (but I can see them trying to implement it again while Chrome is still under control of Google/Alphabet.) It also doesn't help that Chrome and the underlying browser engine powers just about every major browser other than Firefox, which is struggling.
So what will sustain the development of browsers like Chrome or Firefox? Well that's the big question... Maybe they will downsize and become a non-profit similar to the Linux Foundation, and receive funding similar to how they do? I can see this have the affect of greatly slowing down the development of various web standards, but would that be such a bad thing?
hysan
> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development?
Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers?
As much as I loved Chrome when it first came out, I’ve also been well aware that Google’s backing of Chrome (and Chromium) has given it undue advantages in the browser market by effectively making everyone else compete with a loss leader. If Chrome itself cannot sustain its pace of development or even stay alive without the unlimited funding by Google, then I think that is a good thing and proof that it acting as a monopoly. Forcing Chrome to balance product velocity with revenue constraints evens the field amongst all browsers.
(edit: If Google killing competition by injecting unlimited funding into a project without needing to make a profit sounds familiar, it’s because they’ve done this for a long time. The often cited example being Google Reader.)
Ferret7446
> Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers?
There is no such business model. Chromium development is almost entirely funded by Google. Other Chromium based browser rely on this humonguous investment of development resources; they would not have a "business model" without this "free handout", except perhaps Microsoft and Edge, who might be able to fund it by doing basically what Google is doing.
hysan
Not sure how Chromium development relates to the order of divesting *Chrome* from Google. AFAICT, Google can continue pouring resources into Chromium. Was this an unintentional mixup in your comment?
Spivak
Good? I think sucking the air out of the browser ecosystem might be a good thing so they slow their roll. The breakneck speed Chrome adds features and devs adopt them is part of what makes it so damn expensive to keep up.
cvhc
> Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers?
What would this business model be like, if, say, Google Chrome is eliminated?
As a reference, in China, very few people use Chrome because Google services are blocked. There are tons of third-party or vendor preinstalled browsers that bundles with bloatwares, put ads/clickbaits on every new tab, and spy on users. I'm pretty sure they are more sustainable than Firefox, former Opera, etc. But that's certainly a privacy dystopia :)
rootsudo
That's how it used to be, or did everyone forget Google Toolbar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Toolbar It sucked in IE days.
But, it also goes back to browsers being built by the operating system, that was also a no-no, e.g. MSFT / IE.
Browsers then shouldn't be a profit center, but ironically google starting chrome made it one and then defined web standards. IE afaik wasn't a profit center, and MSFT hedged outsourcing all dev costs to practically google and forking it offically to Edge, lol.
cowl
we will end up again with edge being dominant just because it's the default one installed by Windows.
what you say is nice in theory but you already have the Microsoft backed Edge and Apple backed Safari that are not hamppered by the "need to find a support model" and "not be a loss leader"
And I am not looking forward again to a world where Microsoft disctates web development because for all privacy problems peaople have or think to have with Google, Microsoft ha proven that does way worse and doesn't even care for the image.
All in All Chrome being a loss leader backed by Google has been a good thing for all involved. Developers, Users and 3-rd parties. without it you woudn't have all those 3rd party chrome based browsers.
philistine
The point is simple: Google has a monopoly in search and has used its control of Chrome to maintain that monopoly. There is no monopoly in browsers, and the DOJ has evaluated that selling off Chrome will not adversely affect the browser market. If we go from Chrome having 66% market share to Edge having 66%, but in the interim the search market has seen more entrants competing fairly, wouldn't that be a benefit?
TZubiri
But isn't edge built on chromium?
nfw2
Most of these business models you refer to rely on some combination of:
1. funding from Google (Firefox)
2. engineering from Google (Chromium)
3. tech giant bundling (Safari, Edge)
hysan
I’m a bit confused by this comment. I didn’t mention any of those and didn’t callout any specific business models for browsers. Just that Chrome would need to figure out how to monetize itself like how other browsers are trying to do. Diving into the different business models that other browsers are trying is a very different conversation that needs nuance. For example, how would Brave and Orion fit into your remark?
colinplamondon
- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.
- A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point.
- As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare on the SEM clicks themselves?
This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up.
Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves.
My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acquiring the Browser Company would make a lot of sense.
burnerthrow008
Ok, but if Google is not allowed to pay Apple for search referrals, how exactly will it be legal for Google to pay not-Google-Chrome for search referrals?
Chrome's non-iOS market share is probably larger than Safari's market share, so any monopoly considerations about Safari apply equally to Chrome.
3vidence
Quick answer it won't be. Google will be barred from paying to be default.
NoahZuniga
> Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.
Google gets other value with this besides being the default search engine. Keeping Firefox alive makes it so that Chrome is less of a monopoly.
> and an aggressive fork at some point
Maintaining a browser engine is a lot of work. With no clear upside, no one would invest the work in maintaining a fork. Related to this, Microsoft gave up maintaining a (partially) separate browser engine for Edge, and now just uses Chromium
surajrmal
Get ready for having your data sold to everyone. Rather than just a few major players having access, anyone willing to pay will get the raw data rather than something obfuscated through an ads platform.
AJ007
There are companies who have actually done this, like the whole Avast Jumpshot debacle. They aren't the only ones.
colinplamondon
- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.
- A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point.
- As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare?
This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up.
Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves.
My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acq
j16sdiz
> - Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.
Actually, this is hardly healthy. Firefox feel this single source of can be deprived anytime that they tried many other alternative -- like VPN, partnership with pockets, some sponsor ad on tab selection, and even selling some data
Other browsers go even further..
BearOso
> Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status
I'm thinking 500M/year is enough to pay for a lot more developers than they currently have. Even half that should be enough to do more than they are. Where is all this money going?
Ferret7446
It's going towards a lot of controversial things unrelated to Firefox development or any open source software development by any reasonable standard. Here's one attempt at breaking down their finances: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
notatoad
in a simple world, a web browser is a tool that is used by an end-user, and so end-users should be the ones paying for it.
whether that's directly as paid software, or indirectly as part of purchasing a device that has the software installed on it.
john_the_writer
gha.. Another subscription based app. I can see it now: 2.99/month.
Also we already have browsers pre-installed. Safari and IE(or what ever it's called these days)
There's no call to advance these though. Chrome has profiles. That alone makes it a winner for my use case.
adrianmonk
I don't want another subscription-based app, but out of all the software that brings me actual significant value on a daily basis, a web browser is very near the top of the list.
Even though getting it free (as I do right now) is nice, $36/year seems justifiable.
notatoad
The alternative to paying for things is that giant megacorporations who have interests in opposition to yours are the ones paying for things…
wyre
Safari also has profiles…
nuker
> what is the business model that will sustain [Chrome] development
Separate Search + Google Ads platform as company A, Android + Chrome + Gmail as company B.
It will choke the user-data flow that Google Ads platform is feeding on. This opens doors to new competing search engines!
Android + Chrome + Gmail needs to be bundled with hardware purchases, licensed by HW vendors. Like Apple does with Safari + iCloud. This will create incentive to make them actually privacy focused, and could be its selling point.
alwayslikethis
If Google sells Chrome keeps control over Chromium, I don't see this benefiting users. They'll continue with their anti-user efforts (Manifest V2 phaseout, Web Integrity), and the only difference is that the new Chrome will come with a new set of spyware, probably a worse one than Google because no one is in as good of a position to benefit from the lock-in as Google does, so they have to be more aggressive with their monetization, like with ads inserted into pages.
But at the same time maintaining Chromium is a pretty thankless endeavor and I don't see any entity with that capability. It's much bigger than Linux, and the developers are employees, not volunteers.
The best possible outcome I can imagine is if Google is required to spin off Chromium into a nonprofit that would be independent but they are required to fund it for many years. The nonprofit would need some kind of oversight from adversarial companies to avoid collusion with Google or any other company.
asdfman123
At this point, tech's major competitors are overseas. Never thought I'd be making this argument, but does breaking up the search monopoly help America or up and comers?
stuartjohnson12
There are certainly some short term consumer gains to be made in decoupling the oppressive monopoly of android, payments, chromium, search, and ads. If Google wants to send their search experience to shit that should probably be their right to mismanage, but the ramming home of Manifest v3 and Google Play Protect in the interest of nobody is beyond the pale.
a2128
Monopolies lead to no competition, leading to reduced innovation, economic stagnation, consolidation of wealth and power. That directly harms the American people and if left unchecked other countries may actually start to get ahead, especially if they maintain a fair market environment within their own country and ban American monopolies.
If the concern is that people will start using Baidu search, then the solution should be to ban Baidu search. It shouldn't be to let some monopolies run rampant with the hopes that other countries will never be able to compete, while forgetting that free market economy is what made America
username332211
> Monopolies lead to no competition, leading to reduced innovation, economic stagnation
That sounds smart, but is it actually true? How many of the things enabling the existence of this website are inventions made in the research institute of the Bell Telecom company.
On top of my head, there are transistors, C, Unix and a fair bit of cryptographical work. I'm sure others can add a lot more to the list.
Hell, this website recently carried an article that mentioned that the very financial concepts that enable companies like Y-combinator to exist were invented by a researcher at Bell labs.[1]
alwayslikethis
The main benefit of having US monopolies is the spying capabilities that it enables. No other country ever had such a global surveillance network.
For the average American, both the efficient parts of monopolies (reduced redundancy which means fewer well-paying jobs) as well as the inefficient parts (reduced competition, higher prices, reduced standards of living) are net negatives. The political influence inherent to monopolies are also a negative effect on democracy, whereas foreign monopolies tend to have a harder time maintaining political influence.
bearjaws
This is the same commentary we had around the time of the ATT break up, and it all worked out fine.
ThePowerOfDirge
It destroyed Bell Labs https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/realestate/severance-lumo...
karmasimida
On the other hand, keeping all eggs in one basket, which is Google, in this case, is unlikely to make it more competent against oversea competition anyway.
null
thrance
Does upholding monopolies help Americans at all? Do not conflate the ballooning wealth of billionaires with any kind of improvement in your material conditions.
loeg
Americans marginally benefit from American owned monopolies over Chinese owned monopolies.
Sloowms
It's weird to suggest another monopoly will be allowed to exist in a thread about breaking up an illegal monopoly.
bobthepanda
It’s not clear that Chinese owned monopolies are any good at breaking out. They seem to suffer from the same problem as Japan where their market is so unique and insular that a lot of products do not carry over all that well.
WeChat, for example, is the end all be all megaplatform in China but never took off with any Western consumers simply because they’re uninterested.
thrance
How so? They pay almost no taxes, they capture a huge share of the market, they stifle innovation, they regularly engage in anti-user practices...
The bottom 90% is owning an ever smaller share of the economy, while the real economy doesn't seem to grow that much.
rad_gruchalski
In what way, please explain. Both are monopolies.
ForTheKidz
[flagged]
Springtime
Regardless of what happens to Chrome per se it's who is involved with pushing for major controversial changes in Chromium that matters.
Manifest v3 and Web Integrity API are prominent examples of Google's team shaping how all Chromium based browsers will be, regardless of pushback (though they relented with the latter for now).
crop_rotation
Manifest v3 is not even breaking any standards. This is like saying Google should not make any changes to their browser as any forks will not be able to maintain any divergence. All forks are free to keep manifest v2. Off course maintaining a browser is expensive, but that doesn't mean Google has to foot the bill for everyone and everything.
cosmic_cheese
> All forks are free to keep manifest v2.
In theory, yes. In reality, the more diverged forks become from mainstream the more expensive they become to maintain, until eventually it becomes entirely unsustainable. With the sheer number of Chrome patches Google churns out, the level of divergence where maintainence becomes overwhelming is actually pretty low. It’s like trying to handle Niagara Falls with a Solo cup.
So in effect, what Google says goes.
crop_rotation
By that logic google can not make any changes to their browser unless all forks agree to it, as the forks will definitely not be able to continue maintenance for long. By this logic it makes more and more sense to not open source anything and keep your product as tightly closed as possible (what Apple/MSFT have been doing).
bo1024
Of course, we should ask why the web is in a place where building a browser is so massively complex and expensive that Google and Apple are the only entities in the world who can afford to do it.
HeatrayEnjoyer
The standards google bullies us into?
ttoinou
Can’t any motivated group of developers fork chromium and push their own agenda ?
asadotzler
No motivated group has the experts to maintain a modern rendering engine (tens of millions of lines of regularly evolving code) and Google can reject any upstream changes that group wants to make because Google engineers are the gatekeepers for 97.498% of Chromium code. So, if your agenda has anything to do with web content, you take what Google hands you. Of course, if you just want to diddle in the browser UI, sure fork it, that's the Brave and Opera approach, but hardly meaningful in scale.
hnfong
The big players have made the web so complicated that it's impossible to maintain one's own standards compliant browser without millions of investment, and you don't get a business model because everyone else is giving their out for "free".
This problem really needs to be fixed, though I have no idea how...
modulus1
A company owning a web browser isn't the problem. A company owning a web browser, OS and search engine shouldn't be a problem either. I don't know why the remedy can't actually address the problem, and the DOJ can't move more quickly to address antitrust across the industry. This feels like randomly cutting a baby in half, while the rest of the thieves, even those in the same family, are not deterred.
pclmulqdq
The problem is an ads company owning a web browser, OS, and search engine, and using that control over how users interact with the internet to outcompete everyone else. You left out Google's raison d'etre from your statement.
modulus1
MS and Apple have the same thing, they're just less successful. Just a browser and an OS was previously seen as antitrust (and it looks like MS is being anti-competitive in this space still). Just a browser and a search engine can allow anti-competitive behavior. Or just a search engine and an ads platform...
The problem is the anti-competitive behavior. Businesses are generally rational actors, so clearly our system isn't working. It's unclear what the boundaries are until years in court, and even then it only applies to a single company.
pclmulqdq
MS and Apple aren't companies who sell ads. MS and Apple are companies who sell tech products. Everyone analogizing the current situation with Google to Microsoft in 1999 is missing the core of the facts here. The Apple/Epic Games antitrust suits are much more similar to MS in 1999, but Google's antitrust issues are very different.
Google's product isn't its software, it's the attention of its users. Having this large and this dominant of a software/data platform attached to a company that sells attention is anti-competitive in the attention market.
scarface_74
The US never did anything about Microsoft owning a browser. There was never a browser choice screen in the US and Microsoft was never forced to sell Windows without a browser.
flanked-evergl
That is not what is happening. I use Android, Chrome, and Google Search because the alternatives are quite poor. All of those things work better with alternatives than any competition. Android is the most open mobile OS, Chrome is the most open and non-coercive browser, Google Search works great with all other OS's and browsers.
pclmulqdq
It doesn't matter why you use any of this software. What matters is what it does to the ads market. This is not 1999 and this is not Microsoft. Google's product isn't software. It's the attention of its users.
dathery
Isn't "monopolies suppress competition" one of the classic reasons people think they should be broken up? I'm not saying you have to agree with that theory, but just observing a current lack of competition doesn't by itself seem like an argument against breakup.
scarface_74
And we are already seeing that people are moving to both ChatGPT and perplexity for search. No one is forced to download Chrome or use Google for search.
Why is an ads company owning a browser any different than a phone company (Apple) or an operating system vendor?
bearjaws
Bingo, time and time again people miss this.
It's already bad enough they are removing ad block functionality and then a day later rolling out new ad-free plans for YouTube, what a cawinky dink
threeseed
> A company owning a web browser, OS and search engine shouldn't be a problem either
It is when Google compromises the privacy/security of Chrome because of their Ads/OS business.
For example, allowing first party cookies to be a maximum of 400 days versus Safari and Firefox where it is 7 days. These cookies are required by ads retargeting which is critical to effective ecommerce campaigns.
It also supports browser fingerprinting by advertisers which means that every random API Chrome adds (and they add a lot) directly improves their Ads revenue.
dehrmann
Who would even buy Chrome? No one's building new browsers, and MS even walked away from the browser game. Mozilla and Firefox haven't been relevant for a decade. The only buyer I can see is private equity, and that's sort of the big boy version of buying an abandoned browser plugin so it can track you and show more ads.
mmphosis
No one's building new browsers
Ladybird, servo, and Flow are new browsers currently being built. These new browsers are not derived from any of the big three browser engines: Google Chromium, Apple WebKit, and Mozilla Gecko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines
john_the_writer
Sure, but their standards, and what they support aren't even something you can look up. As a JS dev these are the stuff of nightmares.
inetknght
Learn to write native applications instead.
karmasimida
No one.
It will be a be new Chrome entity I guess, spun off the Google mothership. However, how does it make money is very unclear to me, like how? Selling the search bar to highest bidder, a.k.a Google still?
stock_toaster
> Who would even buy Chrome?
You mean.. who would want to buy an app that has 65% marketshare?
I just imagine some shady company (shadier than google at least) buying it to slap ads all over inside the browser itself.
karencarits
Re shady company: the possibility of some shady foreign governmental agency getting control of Chrome, through layers of shell companies, is terrifying to think about. This possibility hasn't been discussed much in this thread, perhaps surprisingly. The value of collecting data from or inserting backdoors into Chrome seems so massive that I find it hard to trust any but the existing large tech companies to have the skills and infrastructure to keep it safe (keeping the pager bombs story in mind)
jeroenhd
I can see a billionaire like Musk wasting some of their net worth to play some stupid political theatre.
null
delfinom
[flagged]
user3939382
If you look carefully at the Chromium project, it’s made up of teams that specialize in different components. The majority of the members of those teams are in turn Google employees. Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams. I don’t see how a DOJ decision against Google would change any of that. Ban Google employees from participating in the project? And then who would replace them?
theptip
But we are not discussing Chromium. Google’s browser is Chrome, and that product has search exclusivity deals that have been deemed monopolistic.
Google could divest the Chrome product and keep contributing to Chromium, but the value proposition is really unclear when that OSS investment doesn’t buy you billions of dollars of browser lock-in value.
bo1024
Forcing Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers to move to Manifest v3, i.e. deleting the ability from the browser to have good adblockers, is incredibly valuable to Google.
creato
I was just forced to switch from uBO to uBO lite because of this. I can't see any difference in behavior, and now the extension doesn't need unlimited permissions.
swat535
My question is, even if they do sell off Chrome, wouldn't Google just create another "Chrome" using the Chromium and use its monopolistic power to push it on everyone? What am I missing here?
It doesn't sound like this would solve the issue..
asadotzler
Are you assuming the people crafting remedies haven't thought of this? You should tell them immediately!!! LOL. of course they've thought through that and will have a "you can't just rebuild it" clause in the remedy. This isn't hard unless you're trying to make it hard and I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that except to side with Big Tech over consumers trying to muddy the waters and convince others it's all just too darned hard to do anything about so we should let our betters in Big Tech continue dictating our lives.
dehugger
Presumably part of the court order is that they can't just do the same thing again without suffering the same (or worse) consequences.
null
gjsman-1000
Thus why the Linux Foundation is gunning for Chromium. (When do we rename the Linux Foundation? Only 3.2% of their revenue goes to Linux development these days...)
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou...
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based...
rafram
> Several leading organizations have already pledged their support for the initiative, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera.
Doesn't read like a takeover attempt to me...
crote
Same way it worked in the past with monopolies like Ma Bell?
Those teams can keep working on Chrome, they'll just have to fall under some new kind of separate Chrome Inc. structure instead of under Google Inc., and Google will have to sell most of its shares of Chrome Inc. to third parties.
Splitting off Chrome really isn't the problem. Making the new Chrome Inc. profitable without accepting bribes from big tech, on the other hand...
loeg
Yes, that's sort of the problem. An independent Chrome probably wouldn't be profitable. This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers.
phkahler
Microsoft has a customized version of Chrome. Don't they already pay for it?
stefan_
I love how people in this thread just unilaterally declare and accept as fact that you can't possibly turn the monopolistic browser and browser engine powering millions of devices and with billions of users into a profitable business. Aim low I guess?
Clubber
>This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers.
To be fair, Google could reassign them to something else. Firing everybody will be Google's decision that wasn't forced on them.
realitysballs
Think about difference between Brave and Chrome. Both Chromium browsers but Brave is much less intrusive and exploitative of user data. More Brave and less Chrome would allow average user greater privacy and less reliance on large corporations perhaps
davidcbc
Not sure this is the company we want to put our trust in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...
creato
They also do really shady things with affiliate links and their scheme to hijack ad revenue from websites.
magicalist
Brave makes a profit because they don't pay for developing the browser.
cactusplant7374
I really doubt Brave is profitable. They have taken a lot of VC money.
wmf
All the people who work on Chrome would go with it.
crop_rotation
I am not sure why you are being downvoted. This just means existing OS monopolies of Apple and Microsoft are given entire control of their kingdoms with no web landscape to challenge them a teeny tiny bit.
timewizard
> Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams.
What exactly are "best qualifications?" More simply are you assuming that myself and Google share a definition of "best qualified?" I genuinely don't believe that we do.
> And then who would replace them?
People working for a different company. Is your case that without Google no one would make web browsers?
irrational
Firefox seems to do fine without Google employees.
ARandomerDude
Are they?
“When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”
no_wizard
How long is Firefox going to be held to a standard that none of the other vendors are realistically held to?
They change their ToS in an unfavorable way and yes I think it’s criticism they need to hear.
However, has Chrome, Brave (I don’t look favorably on their cryptocurrency initiatives) Edge , Safari etc. been held to the same, in practice? Why isn’t Chrome barraged with negative sentiment the same way? It has far worse ToS policies (which doesn’t make Firefox “right” or “just”)
Because if that is upsetting then using Chrome should be outright enraging, yet people hardly mention it’s consistent anti user behavior as often as people jump on Mozilla and a Firefox for anything they do that is seen as unfavorable
eCa
I believe that has been changed to something more like:
“You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.”
icehawk
What's the issue here?
loeg
Firefox has been in decline for many years, sadly.
moron4hire
Indeed, it has not had even one moment of market share growth since about 8 months after Google Chrome was first released.
Animats
Google can probably bribe its way out of this problem. [1][2] Might not even take money. Just favorable search result positioning.
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/188271/trump-profit-presiden...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/trump-b...
dgellow
The fact that has already been normalized is so fucking wild
blackd0g
Crazy to think that most users never change a single setting. They live in default mode. Which is the issue with how most software works. Even how browsers will try to get set as default.
YetAnotherNick
If the user doesn't change anything they wouldn't have downloaded, installed and set chrome as default browser.
null
BrenBarn
It's just nuts that the "penalty" for violating antitrust law is that the offender gets to sell part of themselves and receive compensation. Engaging in unfair competition or obtaining too large a market share should be punished with remedies that make the perpetrator worse off than it was before it began the offending behavior.
noobermin
Someone didn't send a large enough campaign contribution.
Here's something I don't understand.
If you want to switch your search engine for Safari on iOS, you open Settings, tap Safari, tap Search Engine, and tap your preferred search engine. Not many users do this, and the conclusion is that the default has an unfair advantage.
If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer, run the installer, open Chrome, and set it as the default browser. So many users do this that people conclude Chrome has an unfair advantage.