Google argues it's the only one capable of managing Chrome, because, of course

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Editor's take: Authorities in the US have officially labeled Google an unlawful online monopoly. As a judge prepares to decide how to dismantle Alphabet's empire, the company continues to resist efforts to loosen its hold on key software assets, including its flagship browser, Chrome.

Many companies would like the opportunity to buy Chrome, but Google claims no other firm could operate the web browser with the same level of features users currently enjoy. Chrome General Manager Parisa Tabriz says Chrome and Google have too many "interdependencies." She argues that dismantling the current structure would harm the greater good of online users.

Tabriz testified before Judge Amit Mehta in the ongoing case brought by the US Department of Justice against Google's online monopoly. Mountain View plans to overhaul its business and corporate structure, potentially being forced to sell Chrome or share its online search data with third-party vendors. Tabriz argued that Chrome is the product of 17 years of collaboration between the browser's team and the entire Google enterprise. She believes that no one could replicate its integration as well anytime soon.

Bloomberg cited Tabriz, stating that some of the browser's most outstanding features, such as safe browsing mode and notifications for compromised passwords, rely on the company's shared infrastructure. Tabriz emphasized that no one could replicate these features and noted that attempting to untangle the system would be unprecedented.

Chrome is by far the most popular web browser on the planet. The proprietary software uses the Chromium engine, an open-source project created by Google in 2008. While third-party browser makers like Microsoft Edge, Opera, and Samsung widely support Chromium, it lacks Chrome's proprietary features such as automatic updates, Widevine DRM support, data syncing, and media codecs.

Tabriz testified that Google invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Chromium, with around 1,000 engineers working on the project. More than 90 percent of Chromium's code comes from Google, and the company wants to ensure the codebase remains well-maintained. Tabriz dismissed contributions from other companies to Chromium as insignificant.

Google management is understandably opposing any attempt to separate Chrome from the company's other businesses, but people are already investigating the issue. Justice Department expert witness James Mickens testified that removing Chrome from Google's control is technically feasible. He added that transferring ownership of the browser to another company wouldn't cause significant disruption.

Permalink to story:

Google argues it's the only one capable of managing Chrome, because, of course

 

[toooooot]

It is very true. There is nobody who can tame this beast known as Chrome, except the most amazing, talented, and not evil corporation.

 

[mcnabney]

If not Google, who else could buy it? Facebook, Oracle, Microsoft, Musk, Apple? Alphabet is a better choice than any of the options.

 

[human7]

If they are forced to divest Chrome, I wonder if the judge will also force an asking price. It seems strange to me that the talk is about "selling Chrome" when this is intended as a remedy to a monopoly situation. Why would Alphabet be allowed to profit (to some extent) from such dismantling?

 

[Kirby1]

If not Google, who else could buy it? Facebook, Oracle, Microsoft, Musk, Apple? Alphabet is a better choice than any of the options.

No one has to buy it. The court can force Google to split into two companies.

Google is extremely anti competitive and monopolistic, and they are the worst choice for consumers by far. Anyone who has ever tried to advertise online knows how rediculous things have gotten with Google. That said, I don't really care about chrome. Google's search monopoly is the worst part because it mean they can set whatever price they want for businesses to advertise their existence, which mean the price is artificially high and many businesses that might be really great but don't want to spend thousands each month on Google ads just don't get seen.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

No one else can integrate our browser with our ad tracking and ad selling business! Where else will make the revenue to buy our monopoly in other areas?

Think of the advertisers judge!

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Here is my modest proposal: Chrome should be divested to a non-profit foundation, and its code made fully open source. Google should be force to pay a fine that goes to fund said non-profit (say $20 billion, same amount Google has been paying Apple annually to be the default search) - $20 billion invested @ 3% would give said non-profit a good $600 million a year to play around with, should be plenty to continue actually useful browser development.

Or even better, two or three non-profits get their own versions of Chrome, and how much they get annually from that fund is proportional to how much market share their flavor of Chrome has.

 

[SRB]

It's funny to read Google's reasons to the court by only shifting your perspective. "Google has 1000's of engineers and programmers constantly changing the code base so that no other browser will work as well! In addition, we've bought dozens of companies, re-capcha, widevine, DRM, all to keep them proprietary to Google and Chrome and make sure other browsers fail to operate on many sites."
"We've spent a fortune to build an entangled mess only we can operate!"

Yeah, they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, never mind all this integration with the web (read: our advertising arm) benefits the end user (more targeted advertising!). Who could ask for more?

 

[Burty117]

It’s taken a longtime to get here, but finally, Google are being classed as what they really are, a monopoly.

This Judge I truly hope breaks Google up, I’m surprised this is coming out of the US and not the EU, I legitimately thought the US liked monopolies the way they’ve let this go on for so long.

The EU must be either busy dealing with other bullsh*t (read: Apple) or has become as slow as the US.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

It will either fly or crash and burn in the hands of others.

If they are forced to divest Chrome, I wonder if the judge will also force an asking price. It seems strange to me that the talk is about "selling Chrome" when this is intended as a remedy to a monopoly situation. Why would Alphabet be allowed to profit (to some extent) from such dismantling?

Generally Judges do not set prices in Anti-trust cases but they will look for predatory pricing, price discrimination and monopolization.

 

[airbornex]

If Chrome is so tangled up in Google’s infrastructure that it can’t stand on its own, that almost proves the monopoly point better than any witness could. When a single company owns both the road and the cars, you don’t really have a free market anymore. The internet needs browsers that serve users first, not companies optimizing ad revenue behind the scenes.

 

[mcnabney]

No one has to buy it. The court can force Google to split into two companies.

Google is extremely anti competitive and monopolistic, and they are the worst choice for consumers by far. Anyone who has ever tried to advertise online knows how rediculous things have gotten with Google. That said, I don't really care about chrome. Google's search monopoly is the worst part because it mean they can set whatever price they want for businesses to advertise their existence, which mean the price is artificially high and many businesses that might be really great but don't want to spend thousands each month on Google ads just don't get seen.

An independent Chrome business wouldn't have much of a revenue stream and wouldn't be able to develop the platform. The only way for it to make money is to either charge for Chrome or to require telemetry and sell even more of your data. Chrome's value is in supporting Alphabet's other products. Why not break up Microsoft and Apple - both of which act far more as a monopoly?