- The DOJ asked the judge in its antitrust case against Google to force the company to sell Chrome.
- Chrome is a key distribution method for Search, which provides crucial data for Google’s ads.
- A breakup would be a blow to Google and likely create opportunities for competitors.
A possible breakup of Google just became slightly more likely.
The Justice Department on Wednesday asked the judge in its antitrust case against Google to force the company to sell its Chrome browser.
That follows Judge Mehta’s ruling in August that Google maintains an illegal monopoly in search and advertising markets. Google will get to suggest its own remedies, likely in December, and the judge is expected to rule next year.
If Google ends up having to sell or spin off Chrome, it would be a blow to the company. Meanwhile, advertisers and search rivals would likely cheer the news, according to industry experts.
Separating Chrome from Google and preventing default search placement deals “would put Google Search into competition with other paths for advertisers to reach potential customers,” said John Kwoka, a professor of economics at Northeastern University. “Advertisers would find competitors for their business, rather than needing to pay a dominant search engine.”
Chrome is a hugely popular Google product that the company leans on to grow and maintain its search advertising empire. Chrome holds 61% of the US browser market share, according to StatCounter, while 20% of general search queries come through user-downloaded Chrome browsers, according to the August ruling from Judge Mehta.
Distribution and self-reinforcing data
Chrome is a valuable distribution mechanism for Google Search, and a portal into the searching habits of billions of users.
When you open Chrome and type something into the search bar at the top, these words are automatically transformed into a Google Search. On other browsers and non-Google devices, that’s not necessarily the case. With Windows devices, for instance, the main browser defaults to Microsoft’s Bing search engine. And when there’s an option for users, Google pays partners billions of dollars to set its search engine as the default.
Chrome avoids all these complications and costs because Google controls it and sets its own search engine as the default for free.
Once this important distribution tool is in place, Google collects mountains of user data from the browser, and from searches within the browser. This information goes into creating higher-value targeted advertising.
There’s an equally powerful benefit of Chrome: When people use it to search on the web, Google monitors what results they click on. It feeds these responses back into its Search engine and the product gets constantly better. For instance, if most people click on the third result, Google’s Search engine will likely adjust and rank that result higher in the future.
This self-reinforcing system — supported by Chrome — is very hard to compete against. One of the few ways to compete is to get more distribution than Google. If Chrome were an independent product, rival search engines might be able to get a piece of this distribution magic.
In 2011, venture capitalist Bill Gurley called Chrome and Android “very expensive and very aggressive ‘moats,’ funded by the height and magnitude of Google’s castle.”
Google has also tapped Chrome as a way to reach users with new AI products, including Lens, its image-recognition search feature, as it tries to fend off emerging rivals such as OpenAI.
The lesson of Neeva
Many have tried to take on Google in the browser market, and many have failed.
Neeva, a privacy-focused search engine, was created by Sridhar Ramaswamy, Google’s former ads boss, and other ex-Googlers. The startup not only had to develop a search engine from scratch but also had to create its own web browser to compete with Chrome, a major distribution source in the search industry. Despite lasting four years, Neeva eventually shut down. Google’s VP Criticizes DOJ’s ‘Radical Agenda’
In a recent statement, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, expressed strong criticism towards the Department of Justice (DOJ) for what she described as pushing “a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case.”
Impact on Consumers and Technological Leadership
Mulholland emphasized that the government’s actions could potentially harm consumers, developers, and American technological leadership at a critical juncture. She warned that such interference could have detrimental effects on these key stakeholders just when their support is most needed.
Call for Insight from Google Employees
Are you a current or former Google employee with more insight to share on this issue? You can reach out to reporter Hugh Langley via the encrypted messaging app Signal (+1 628-228-1836) or email ([email protected]) to contribute to the ongoing discussion.
This article presents the perspective of Google’s VP, shedding light on the company’s stance amidst the DOJ’s actions and highlighting the potential consequences for various parties involved.
