Chrome is worth around $50 billion, DuckDuckGo CEO guesstimates

[Skye Jacobs]

Big quote: The ongoing antitrust trial against Google has placed the search giant's Chrome web browser at the center of a heated debate over the future of internet search and competition. During testimony on Wednesday, Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of rival (but much smaller) search engine DuckDuckGo, told the court that Chrome could fetch a sale price of up to $50 billion if regulators force Google to divest the popular browser.

Weinberg described his estimate as a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, based on Chrome's vast user base and global reach – a figure that far exceeds previous estimates, such as the $20 billion valuation offered by Bloomberg analyst Mandeep Singh last November. Weinberg added that such a price tag would be well beyond DuckDuckGo's financial capabilities, remarking, "That's out of DuckDuckGo's price range."

Nevertheless, he confirmed that DuckDuckGo would be interested in acquiring Chrome if cost were not a barrier, underscoring the browser's strategic value in the search ecosystem.

The trial, overseen by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, follows his earlier ruling that Google illegally maintained a search monopoly – partly through default agreements and preferential payments to partners like Apple. The Department of Justice, joined by a coalition of states, is now seeking remedies that could include forcing Google to sell Chrome in order to foster greater competition in the search market.

Interest in Chrome extends beyond DuckDuckGo. Executives from OpenAI and Perplexity have also testified that they would consider acquiring the browser if it were put up for sale as a result of the court's decision.

Nick Turley, Head of Product at OpenAI, argued that deeper integration between Chrome and OpenAI's technology could create a more seamless, AI-first experience for users. Turley revealed that OpenAI had previously approached Google about a partnership to power ChatGPT with Google's search API, but the request was declined last August – leaving OpenAI to rely on Microsoft's Bing for search results.

Perplexity's Chief Business Officer, Dmitry Shevelenko, echoed the sentiment, stating that his company would be eager to enter into a distribution agreement or even acquire Chrome if it became independent from Google. He described the difficulties smaller companies face in competing with Google's entrenched distribution channels and revenue-sharing agreements, which he characterized as the "root cause" of Google's dominance.

As the trial continues, the future of Chrome remains uncertain. Google is not offering Chrome for sale voluntarily and is expected to appeal any ruling that mandates its divestment. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power in internet search, digital advertising, and the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence.

Permalink to story:

Chrome is worth around $50 billion, DuckDuckGo CEO guesstimates

 

[brucek]

I still can't wrap my head around how this actually works out in practice.

For reference consider Apple, a company that already owns a browser brand (I say brand because a lot of the core software is open source and in fact shared between Chrome and Safari); and sells lots of devices to include it in; and has no shortage of software and server developers. Despite these vast resources, what do they do with their ability to channel default searches however they please? They sell it to Google, because Google is best positioned to pay the most for it.

So if even Apple, a company that designed its own CPUs when that wasn't easy to do, sees no better alternative than to sell that traffic to Google, what is anyone else going to do?

If you want a second example, take Microsoft, who aggressively promotes Edge across a vast population of Windows devices. They own a search engine too (Bing) and are a big investor in OpenAI. So with their vast size and search service ambitions, are they retaining most of those users in their ecosystem? Nope, users go out of their way to install Chrome by something like 5:1, despite the fact that the raw client functionality of Edge and Chrome is very similar (again in fact some of the same code.)

The meaningful differences are all in the back-end ecosystem, which would not be part of this sale.

So I feel like whoever buys Chrome on day one, even if they start out with all those users, as soon as they do anything other than sell the traffic and connections back to Google, many of those users are liable to switch back to some other way of accessing the Google ecosystem, just like Microsoft's users do. And if they don't, nothing has really changed much, other than some financial engineering in Google getting an up front payment in exchange for yearly payments.

 

[VariableSpike]

I still can't wrap my head around how this actually works out in practice.

For reference consider Apple, a company that already owns a browser brand (I say brand because a lot of the core software is open source and in fact shared between Chrome and Safari); and sells lots of devices to include it in; and has no shortage of software and server developers. Despite these vast resources, what do they do with their ability to channel default searches however they please? They sell it to Google, because Google is best positioned to pay the most for it.

So if even Apple, a company that designed its own CPUs when that wasn't easy to do, sees no better alternative than to sell that traffic to Google, what is anyone else going to do?

If you want a second example, take Microsoft, who aggressively promotes Edge across a vast population of Windows devices. They own a search engine too (Bing) and are a big investor in OpenAI. So with their vast size and search service ambitions, are they retaining most of those users in their ecosystem? Nope, users go out of their way to install Chrome by something like 5:1, despite the fact that the raw client functionality of Edge and Chrome is very similar (again in fact some of the same code.)

The meaningful differences are all in the back-end ecosystem, which would not be part of this sale.

So I feel like whoever buys Chrome on day one, even if they start out with all those users, as soon as they do anything other than sell the traffic and connections back to Google, many of those users are liable to switch back to some other way of accessing the Google ecosystem, just like Microsoft's users do. And if they don't, nothing has really changed much, other than some financial engineering in Google getting an up front payment in exchange for yearly payments.

There is a reason why Google bothers to develop and try and keep everyone on Chrome, otherwise they would just happily sit on the browser integration payments and all the default search stuff, and that is data, which of course always feeds back into the ad machine, and its always much more difficult to grab data from another browser, especially an advertising competitor (bing / microsoft as an example) vs just sitting on it yourself, and that is the gist of why google is being made to divest it in the first place, apple has their own browser, but apple knows they'd have to invest tons and tons to try and rival google in the ad and search space because if the things they have to hand to give them an advantage, and its why this has been raised for anti trust

 

[guillejp]

I still can't wrap my head around how this actually works out in practice.

For reference consider Apple, ...

Apple could bank the big money of selling the navigation/tracking data they collect in "Apple Chrome". Could also insert their own homepage and hints in the UI to nudge you into using Apple services and products... Also push with even much bigger leverage for some web standards or media formats... and a few more nice tricks I can't think of. Ask ChatGPT for more.

Yet nah, I don't think Chrome will ever be sold. It would be too big a way to mess with too big and influential company. Not gonna happen.

 

[AnilD]

Weinberg’s $50B estimate might be high, but it underscores how valuable browser control is in the search war. We always talk about search engines competing on quality or privacy, but it’s really about who controls the front door to the internet. Whoever owns Chrome basically owns billions of those doors.

Smart of Google to outclass IE with Chrome 20 years ago and stupid of Microsoft for letting that war slip, although they had enough monopolistic-related concerns at the time.

 

[EdwardVilla]

I would have loved if Yahoo would purchase Google's Chrome and released a WhatsApp competitor as in Yahoo! Messenger 2025

Please do take note Yahoo and take the best from Yahoo Messenger , Whats App and MSN Live Messenger
Make Yahoo great again lol

Also make Chrome better than Edge in features and take a note from Mozilla's Firefox that I use as my main browser for many many years - Firefox has the best sync and bookmarks oh my goodness Firefox bookmark management of my favorite sites is just a part of my life . So easy to click on and access all my years upon years of saved favorites .

Firefox displays images renders them better than any browser which makes sense as in why I prefer Firefox by Mozilla . Even Thunderbird keeps me going back to them verses Outlook by Microsoft . But Outlook new performance is tantalizing I have both Thunderbird and Outlook 2025 installed to open on my whim preference of the day