U.S. DoJ Again Calls for Google to Sell Chrome

[mikebenton]

I'm not sure selling Chrome is the key to resolving concerns over Google's monopoly. Google is the largest data collector by far. Google is tracking so much activity for much of the population - through Android and phone apps on iPhone, its search engine, IoT devices, and even many vehicles are sold with integrated Google services. Most folks hit 'ok' to all the data sharing options and never read the pages-long agreements. I'm more concerned about all the data (that should be private) Google collects versus their search of the data (web crawler activity). I know many folks state they aren't concerned about the invasion of privacy because 'they have nothing to hide'. Google is making billions of this data....and its consumers are freely handing it over. There needs to be greater restrictions on data collection, not just transparency. For a company to put in their EULA they collect location data is their version of transparency....buried down on page 47. All this collection needs to end.

 

[webkit]

As of October 2024 Chrome had 79.4% market share on desktop and 68% on mobile, according to Wikipedia via Chat-GPT. And that doesn’t include Chromium-based browsers.

The DOJ would/should be focusing on market share in the U.S. more than globally as its decision would technically only apply to the U.S. market. It gets complicated when you are talking about products that are so widely used globally. According to Statcounter, Chrome's current U.S. share across all platforms (desktop, mobile, tablet) is around 53%. Globally, it's around 66%.

However, this is more of a remedy to address Google's dominance in search and taking away the "power" of Google search being the pre-set default search on Chrome. The buyer of Chrome may have their owner search engine or partner with another and use that as the pre-set default instead of Google.

 

[webkit]

To be true, I don't understand why DOJ should force Google to sell Chrome. Google invested a lot of money to make Chrome what it is now, they have made Chromium as open source. If they didn't want competition, they could make an Internet Explorer or Safari. People are using Chrome as their favorit browser is their choice. Why should google sell away for it?

This is more of a remedy to address Google's dominance in search and taking away the "power" of Google search being the pre-set default search on Chrome. The buyer of Chrome may have their owner search engine or partner with another and use that as the pre-set default instead of Google.

In future, DOJ will force Apple to sell off iPhone as Apple has monopoly on that device!

Monopolies are about how much share (and it doesn't have to be 100%) a company/product has of an overall market, not how much share a company has of its own device. In these situations, you wouldn't say Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone but you might theoretically say Apple's iPhone has a monopoly in the smartphone market or the premium/performance smartphone market.

 

[webkit]

I don’t see who would even want to buy a web browser from Google if it doesn’t come with access to their ad network.

The problem isn’t Google being made to divest chrome, but that said purchase would be useless to basically everyone else.

It would be to get Chrome's large user base. If, for example, Microsoft bought Chrome they could make Bing the default search and drive much of that new (to them) Chrome traffic to Bing.

 

[webkit]

If Google is forced to sell Chrome. There is no reason Chrome would stay the most popular Chromium browser.

Why wouldn't it? People tend to stick with the (main) browser they've been using. While it may depend on who buys it and what they do with it, I don't necessarily think there would be a notable drop in usage just because Google sold the browser to someone else.

 

[bbeagle]

Not too sure I like how this could play out against other companies. You develop an OS and you develop a browser- so you are potentially a target for DoJ to ‘ask’ you to sell.

You develop a monopoly OS and a monopoly browser, then yes - you're the target of the DOJ. But if your OS and browser aren't huge (like say a Nintendo Switch with a Nintendo Switch browser), there is nothing for the DOJ to do.

I’m kinda surprised- Trump & Gov. hadn’t put this to rest.

He's too concerned with his current pet project - tarrifs - to be concerned about anything else.

 

[webkit]

I'm not sure selling Chrome is the key to resolving concerns over Google's monopoly.

It's just one remedy. Chrome drives a lot of traffic to Google search and requiring Google to sell Chrome means they will likely lose at least some of that search traffic. Other remedies could include banning Google search default agreements with other browsers including (and most notably) Safari, divesting Android, splitting up Google's ad and search businesses, etc.

 

[SanderEvers]

Why wouldn't it? People tend to stick with the (main) browser they've been using. While it may depend on who buys it and what they do with it, I don't necessarily think there would be a notable drop in usage just because Google sold the browser to someone else.

Most likely the browser wouldn't be able to remain free. Or there would be a lot of ads added. Since this buyer would need to make money somehow.

No matter how you look at this, this isn't going to be good for the consumer.

 

[webkit]

Most likely the browser wouldn't be able to remain free. Or there would be a lot of ads added. Since this buyer would need to make money somehow.

Rumors and concerns about browsers no longer being "free" have been circulating for years. Right now, browsers are largely supported one way other another by search/ad revenue. If a browser company doesn't have its own search engine or can't partner with other search engines, they will have to find or increase other ways of making money from the browser and yes, one of those ways could be some sort of pay or freemium model. Presumably, it wouldn’t be as expensive as what browsers like Netscape Navigator ($39 or around $82 in today’s dollars) or Opera ($30 or around $63 in today’s dollars) could cost for one version 30 years ago.

No matter how you look at this, this isn't going to be good for the consumer.

No matter what happens, there will be people who won’t like it. Some already complain about the advertising, tracking, etc. aspects of "free" software and would rather pay while others are ok with ads, tracking, etc. if they don't have to pay.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[ThailandToo]

Not like Apple that acts like a truly anticompetitive market dominator of its ecosystem. I prefer making Apple allow us to have the same privileges as EU Apple users.

Surprised all the haters here. I mean we buy the stuff we should be able to choose where and what we do with it. If you want to keep using Apple for everything you vote with your dollars my point is they shouldn’t have to follow some ethical moral code which Google is being told they aren’t following. I feel like Apple if far more evil as everything they do they justify with marketing oh it’s secure. It’s safe. It’s all truly lies. Any real law enforcement can get your data from your Apple devices the same as they can from Android - it’s just easier in Apple than Android. And anything else you have heard is wrong marketing speak.

 

[Mousse]

Any real law enforcement can get your data from your Apple devices the same as they can from Android - it’s just easier in Apple than Android.

Exactly. They can get a judge to issue a warrant.🤨 Apple has to comply with a legal warrant.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Controlling ownership is what matters so a subsidiary wouldn't cut it.

Then sell it to the Google CEO for $1 and he can let Google use it how they want.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Not like Apple that acts like a truly anticompetitive market dominator of its ecosystem. I prefer making Apple allow us to have the same privileges as EU Apple users.

Imagine that, dominating your own ecosystem. How wild.

 

[jwdsail]

There is a good chance that Google will be forced to sell off its Chrome browser, as the U.S. Department of Justice under Donald Trump is continuing to call for Google to divest the browser.

On Friday, the DoJ sent a new proposal [PDF] to the court in its ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Google, and the updated document still recommends that Google sell Chrome. Last year, Google was found to have a search monopoly, and antitrust regulators have since been deciding on the actions that should be taken to address Google's anticompetitive practices.

The DoJ first asked the court to force the sale of Chrome back in November, under the Biden administration. Google donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund, and Google leadership heaped praise on Trump, perhaps in the hope that the Trump administration would scale back on its recommendations, but that does not appear to have happened.

The latest DoJ filing refers to Google's "unlawful and unchecked, monopolistic conduct" that has led to people being reliant on the Google search engine, calling Google an "economic goliath."
The DoJ says that "Google must divest the Chrome browser" to provide the opportunity for another company to "operate a significant gateway to search the internet" without Google's control.

In addition to divesting Chrome, the DoJ is also recommending that Google be barred from entering into search engine agreements with Apple, which would put an end to the payments that Google makes to Apple to be the default search engine on iPhones, iPads, and Macs, but the DoJ does allow for Google to pay Apple for services that don't have to do with search.

The DoJ says that it would also recommend the divestiture of Android if the proposed remedies do not go far enough to keep Google from "improperly leveraging" Android to its advantage, or if Google attempts to circumvent the remedies put in place by the court, but it has backed off of an imminent Android sale. Google is also not being required to divest all of its AI investments.

Google and the DoJ will be back in court in April where the judge overseeing the case will decide on remedies.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: U.S. DoJ Again Calls for Google to Sell Chrome

Huh.

I guess $2 mil (between Google and Apple) in .. "donations".. doesn't buy you as much as it used to?

Great work, no notes.

And, as I've mentioned before re: the DoJ actions on Google... it's skating to where the puck was *ten years ago*... this is too late, and by the time anything actually happens, Google will have moved on to the next money making scheme with AI... or, have fallen way behind and become the next Alta Vista.. This is nothing more than theater.. and not even good theater.. it's a bunch of meth-heads above a bowling area ... theater..


Sigh

 

[jwdsail]

Hmmm does Chrome really give Google such a big advantage? There are several web browsers that get a decent share of the market. I like Google for a number of things but I don't use Chrome (anymore). Switching browsers was easy.

Most of my Windows clients are on Firefox, Brave or DDG?

The DoJ is ten years late to the party...

 

[I7guy]

Surprised all the haters here. I mean we buy the stuff we should be able to choose where and what we do with it. If you want to keep using Apple for everything you vote with your dollars my point is they shouldn’t have to follow some ethical moral code which Google is being told they aren’t following. I feel like Apple if far more evil as everything they do they justify with marketing oh it’s secure. It’s safe. It’s all truly lies. Any real law enforcement can get your data from your Apple devices the same as they can from Android - it’s just easier in Apple than Android. And anything else you have heard is wrong marketing speak.

Ah so now we’re “hearing it wrong?” Got some citations to back up your claim that it’s easier in Apple than android?

 

[webkit]

Then sell it to the Google CEO for $1 and he can let Google use it how they want.

Direct association (e.g., Google CEO owning Chrome) would be highly and justifiably scrutinized given the goal of the ruling/remedy. Any buyer would have to be approved by the DOJ and/or court and they would never go for it.

 

[webkit]

Most of my Windows clients are on Firefox, Brave or DDG?

The DoJ is ten years late to the party...

It's not unusual for the DOJ to be slow to react and move in these situations. However, in this case, Chrome currently has around 62% share of the desktop browser market in the U.S. (according to Statcounter) which is notably higher than it was ten years ago. Another source (Similarweb) puts Chrome's current U.S. desktop share at around 64%.

 

[jwdsail]

It's not unusual for the DOJ to be slow to react and move in these situations. However, in this case, Chrome currently has around 62% share of the desktop browser market in the U.S. (according to Statcounter) which is notably higher than it was ten years ago. Another source (Similarweb) puts Chrome's current U.S. desktop share at around 64%.

But the main issue is their *search* dominance and the leveraging of the browser to extend that dominance.

But, google search is a hot mess right now, and getting worse by the day. It's become pretty much useless.

And, while they flounder.. AI competition is taking over.. is about to eat their (search) lunch.

Chrome could have 99% share, and it doesn't matter if Google fails to adapt to the new realities facing it's search business.

So, yeah. Ten years too late.

 

[webkit]

But the main issue is their *search* dominance and the leveraging of the browser to extend that dominance.

But, google search is a hot mess right now, and getting worse by the day. It's become pretty much useless.

And, while they flounder.. AI competition is taking over.. is about to eat their (search) lunch.

Chrome could have 99% share, and it doesn't matter if Google fails to adapt to the new realities facing it's search business.

So, yeah. Ten years too late.

The main issue is indeed Google's search and search advertising dominance, and one of the various potential remedies would be to require Google to sell off an asset (Chrome) which helps feed that dominance.

According to Statcounter, Google's U.S. search market share is currently around 87% overall which is higher than it was ten years ago.

 

[jfreedle2]

There is a good chance that Google will be forced to sell off its Chrome browser, as the U.S. Department of Justice under Donald Trump is continuing to call for Google to divest the browser.

On Friday, the DoJ sent a new proposal [PDF] to the court in its ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Google, and the updated document still recommends that Google sell Chrome. Last year, Google was found to have a search monopoly, and antitrust regulators have since been deciding on the actions that should be taken to address Google's anticompetitive practices.

The DoJ first asked the court to force the sale of Chrome back in November, under the Biden administration. Google donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund, and Google leadership heaped praise on Trump, perhaps in the hope that the Trump administration would scale back on its recommendations, but that does not appear to have happened.

The latest DoJ filing refers to Google's "unlawful and unchecked, monopolistic conduct" that has led to people being reliant on the Google search engine, calling Google an "economic goliath."
The DoJ says that "Google must divest the Chrome browser" to provide the opportunity for another company to "operate a significant gateway to search the internet" without Google's control.

In addition to divesting Chrome, the DoJ is also recommending that Google be barred from entering into search engine agreements with Apple, which would put an end to the payments that Google makes to Apple to be the default search engine on iPhones, iPads, and Macs, but the DoJ does allow for Google to pay Apple for services that don't have to do with search.

The DoJ says that it would also recommend the divestiture of Android if the proposed remedies do not go far enough to keep Google from "improperly leveraging" Android to its advantage, or if Google attempts to circumvent the remedies put in place by the court, but it has backed off of an imminent Android sale. Google is also not being required to divest all of its AI investments.

Google and the DoJ will be back in court in April where the judge overseeing the case will decide on remedies.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: U.S. DoJ Again Calls for Google to Sell Chrome

I think that they really should break up Google and force them to be completely separated.

 

[jfreedle2]

Agree. If Apple gave the users a list of search engines to set as default I suspect 90%+ would select Google.

They already give the users a choice of search engines to use, and of course I was smart and avoided using Google. A majority of users do not bother changing the setting because they really do not care.

 

[JohnC1959]

They already give the users a choice of search engines to use, and of course I was smart and avoided using Google. A majority of users do not bother changing the setting because they really do not care.

What did you select? I haven't had much luck finding something truly better for most searches.

 

[ThailandToo]

Ah so now we’re “hearing it wrong?” Got some citations to back up your claim that it’s easier in Apple than android?

Do a web search and find out yourself. Any info I tell you won’t be good enough.

 

[I7guy]

Do a web search and find out yourself. Any info I tell you won’t be good enough.

Thanks for the advice. But I’ll pass this time around. 👍