Google breakup

Ars Technica reports Welcome to Google’s nightmare: US reveals plan to destroy search monopoly:

Late yesterday, the US Department of Justice filed its proposed final judgment, officially recommending a broad range of remedies to end Google’s search monopoly.

Google has been found guilty of search monopoly¹ and the US Department of Justice want as a remedy to do a few things:

• Have Google sell off Chrome
• Ban paying for placement of Google search
• Maybe spinning off Android
• Various other things, including overseeing them

Of course, Google doesn’t like it. They love Government intervention to regulate their competition (raising the barriers of entry in market, blocking foreign competitors like TikTok) or do give them juicy contracts or subsidies / tax cuts. But definitely not prevent them from maximising profits, or they get all uppity about it.

Selling off Chrome

That one is a bit weird: what sale value does have Chrome? It has no direct revenue. Most Chrome clones (reskin) just integrate the Chromium open source code and they don’t need to pay anyone for that, just focus some engineering resources on it, including contributing. Maybe acqui-hiring some of the team to fill the gap in producrt development? Google has already done so with Firefox developers that got laid-off from Mozilla, so there is expertise to be had.

Developing a web browser engine is expensive. Even Microsoft decided back then it was too much of a cost to develop a web browser engine as they abandonned EdgeHTML to switch to Chromium, handing over the market to their main competitor.² And Opera also decided to drop their and switch to Chromium.

Chrome is definitely in conflict with open market and helps consolidate Google monopoly. So it’s understandable that the DOJ would want them to divest.

Could Microsoft decide they have to buy Chrome? Not a good outlook.³

1. That would be ironic. I have been saying for quite a while that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer, this would be going full circle
2. Microsoft is also a monopolist. It would be kind of counter productive to let them have it again. Internet Explorer was the subject of antitrust action decades ago.
3. They could just hire key people on the team and fork-off to continue maintaining Edge while Chrome uncertainty unravels. No need to buy the whole thing.
4. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Who else would be interested? I don’t think any of the others reskinners have pockets big enough, some having gone through down sizing and other difficulties. And Apple doesn’t need it. After all Chrome was created off Apple own WebKit, and when Google and Apple ended up conflicting on the direction of WebKit, Google created Blink so the could continue to leverage implementing what they want.

Maybe they (Microsoft, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera) could all pool together and create some industry association (foundation) to develop Chromium independently. They could buy the infra and the developers (hires) and setup stewardship of the project that would fit to their interest.

All I know is that if Google as to rid of Chrome, the cost to those Chrome skins vendors would be quite significant. And to be honest I wouldn’t shed a tear about it as they have helped getting into that situation. Instead they could have looked at promoting a more open web by, for example, adopting something based off Firefox.⁴

Search placement

Search placement is basically Google giving away billions (26 of them) annually to be the default search engine in web browser and other product. Apple is known to be getting 36% of these billions so that Safari and iOS user get sent to Google for searches. And Mozilla is mostly funded by this too, in 2021 Google payment represented 83% of its revenue.

So while Apple can surely live without the cash, Mozilla is could be a huge collateral damage as there don’t seem to be an alternative to Google load of cash. Mozilla web browser engine is essential to help keeping the web open, even though some of their latest moves have been heavily criticised. This remedy could cause even more damage to competition, a Chrome cartel monopoly would still be a monopoly.

Also what about alternative search engine? The only other alternative is Bing, and it’s not great. Everything else, luck DuckDuckGo is just a frontend to it. Non-withstanding that Google search has enshittified. So this remedy might end up being a bargain for Google. “Sorry we can’t pay you for placement. But it’s okay you can still put us by default, what else is there?”

Divesting Android

That one has been a key strategic element of Google monopolisation. Forcing OEM to ship Chrome and Play Store for basic features is kind of the same strategy that Microsoft took with Internet Explorer. While, unlike Apple, third-party web engines can be shipped on Android, only Mozilla does so with Firefox and it has remained an uphill battle between default placement and compatibility with the New Internet Explorer. Developers of mobile websites are unlikely (unwilling?) to test on anything but the default browsers.⁵

Conclusion

I’m not sure what the best remedy is, but several of them have a heavy collateral damage that is not Google. Also many of the things they’d want Google to get rid of are only profitable because of Google business. They are what we call a loss-leaders: used to sell the main business which is ads. Both Chrome and Android are a vehicle to sell more ads and invade privacy. They are a mean to an end.

Getting rid of Android and dissociating from Chrome could have a positive impact, causing maybe more investment from all the Chrome reskins vendors. But would they have the open web at heart? Then maybe just would put aside the web monopoly problem which is not the core of the judgement that is about search engine.

But then Google leadership folded into the ranks by congratulating the election of the convicted felon (34 counts), possibly to court him for favours from the oval office; in addition to the billions they sunk into the super PAC to bribe. I can foresee the whole thing being slid under the rug as “unfair” by the next US administration before it even takes off. This wouldn’t be the first time such level of corruption would protect a corporation. I don’t feel optimistic the US do anything, so maybe Europe will have some remedies. After all with the DMA they seem to want to tame Apple lock-in on iOS.