Summary
- Google argues only they can run Chrome effectively due to complex service integration.
- Separating Chrome from Google servers could make features like safe browsing unusable.
- Despite Google’s argument, experts believe Chrome divestiture is technically feasible.
Back in August, we saw the US Supreme Court rule that Google was breaching antitrust law. Now, in a court case that began last Monday, the court had a new task: find out how to de-monopolize Google. Part of the process involves forcing the tech giant to sell some of its products off, and the first one on the docket is its browser, Chrome.
Chrome, being the most popular browser in the world, has had its fair share of interested parties all wanting to take the cake for themselves.
OpenAI
was the first to put their hat in the ring, and we even saw the old internet giant
Yahoo
wake up from its dormancy to express its own interest. With everyone hungrily eyeing the browser, Google has made its argument for keeping Chrome: if it had to sell it off, it would become a husk of the browser that everyone loves.
Related
I ditched Chrome years ago, here are 5 open-source browsers I recommend instead
There are better options out there
Only we can run Chrome the way it’s run argues Google
As reported by Bloomsburg, Google has made its argument as to why it should keep its hold of Chrome, and it’s actually a pretty good one. So far, we’ve imagined Chrome as its own individual package; if someone bought it, they would take ownership of all of it in one fell swoop. But Chrome actually contains a ton of services that heavily rely on Google’s servers to perform, and separating the browser from its parent company’s ties would be a nightmare:
“Chrome today represents 17 years of collaboration between the Chrome people” and the rest of Google, Parisa Tabriz, the browser’s general manager, said Friday as part of the Justice Department’s antitrust case in Washington federal court. “Trying to disentangle that is unprecedented.”
Tabriz explained that Chrome’s services, such as safe browsing and password breach identification, need Google’s blessings to work. If someone else bought Chrome and severed all ties to Google, those features would cease to function, Tabriz claimed.
However, James Mickens, a computer science expert for the Justice Department and professor at Harvard, believes it’ll be a lot easier than Google claims:
“The divestiture of Chrome is feasible from a technical perspective. It would be feasible to transfer ownership and not break too much.”
While Google does have a point that a lot of Chrome’s features rely on its other services, it’s hard to identify one service the company owns that doesn’t. At the end of the day, Google is likely going to need to sell something, so we’ll have to see how well this argument will hold up in the long run. Until then, we’ll just have to wait and see if the judge will order Google to sell Chrome, and which company will acquire it if so.
