More choice, more innovation: A Chrome sell-off could be good for users

Last month, the US Department of Justice proposed that Google should sell its Chrome web browser to address concerns over its monopoly status, which was applied to it by the District Court of Columbia in August.

With a worldwide browser market share of over 67%, well ahead of its closest competitor Safari at just 18%, I plan to lay out why Google being forced to sell Chrome could be a win for users and the internet.

Google Chrome launched as a beta product in September 2008 before graduating to its 1.0 release in December of the same year. This was when Internet Explorer (a reviled web browser at the time) and Firefox dominated the desktop browser space (mobile browsers weren't that popular yet).

Both of those browsers had years of code built up in them making them a bit clunky, so when Google launched its barebones Chrome browser, which was blazing fast, it started to win over users. With the Android 4 series, Google put Chrome front-and-center in its mobile operating system as the default browser, it was then that it overtook Internet Explorer.

While it's true that Google Chrome is generally a good, easy-to-use browser that delivers seamless syncing between devices, it's also a nightmare for competition. Google controls the world's largest search engine which pushes people to get Chrome if they do not have it and, as mentioned, it comes out of the box on Android.

With Chrome's simplicity and its largely out-of-the-box availability, many people simply stick with Google's browser. This is reflected in the latest desktop browser market share data which shows that Chrome is at 66.31%, Edge is at 12.87%, Safari is at 9.13%, Firefox is at 6.45%, and Opera is at 2.81%.

What's troubling in those stats is that the top three browsers are from Google, Microsoft, and Apple which all have platforms to shove their browsers in the faces of users. Meanwhile, companies that are dedicated to making browsers like Mozilla and Opera are being squeezed out of the market, not because they're not innovative or because users don't want to use them, but because it's more of a hassle to download them.

While Microsoft and Apple also have concerning levels of power, Google stands out as the chief monopolist, as reflected in the market share data. While Microsoft does control the desktop operating system landscape, it lacks when it comes to the increasingly popular mobile space and its Bing search is way less popular so it can't use that too much to push Edge.

Similarly, with Apple, Safari is the default on Macs, iPhones, and iPads but it is also not available on Windows and Android, making it less of a concern. Google, though, has its browser on every platform, is trying to take over the desktop with Chrome OS, controls the mobile landscape in many countries, and can push Chrome in the search domain.

Google's dominant position means that it can push sub-standard features such as Chrome's Reader mode which barely works, and even when it does, only appears in a sidebar, forcing you to look at the website's ads. It has also started hobbling ad blockers with its switch to Manifest V3 - a move it can only make due to its monopolistic position in the market.

The Monopoly Problem

Due to the complexity of the legal system, actions by the government to clamp down on monopolistic actors tend to come long after the damage has been done to the competition. The biggest loser in Google's meteoric rise was Mozilla with its Firefox web browser.

Around December 2009, Firefox was doing pretty well with about 31.56% of the total browser market share, then along came Chrome which sharply dragged down Firefox's market share in the following years. Firefox tried to respond by launching several iterations of its mobile browser and doing UI revamps of its desktop browser but it continued to hemorrhage users until today where it sits a 2.59% of the market share. It's fair to say Mozilla also made missteps such as making unpopular changes.

Google was the main beneficiary of this rising from 5.38% market share in December 2009 to 67.53% in November 2024. Thanks to its dominant position, Google can clamp down on browser extensions that interfere with its ad business, it can push its search engine and vast array of other online services, and it can greatly shape web standards as seen with Manifest V3 and its attempt to kill cookies in favor of FLoC which it later rebranded as the Topics API after competitors criticized FLoC as being anti-competitive.

The two biggest enablers of Chrome's dominance have been Google's search and mobile operating system dominance. According to November 2024 Statcounter data, Google search holds a massive 89.98% of the market share. On mobile devices, Android also holds a respectable 71.77% of the global market share.

For years after its launch, going to Google Search in a non-Chrome browser would result in users seeing a prompt to install Chrome. As the owner of Google Search, it also doesn't cost the company anything to place Chrome ads above search results compared to rival browsers who have to pay for the same privilege.

With regards to Android, things get a little more direct. Ever since the Android 4 series, Chrome has been shipped as the default web browser, making users more likely to begin using and sticking with it, instead of going to the Play Store to find an alternative. On Pixel devices, Google features are even more deeply entrenched which makes switching browsers less appealing to users.

Another way in which Google has used its position to its advantage is through its online services and their compatibility with other web browsers. Several years ago, a former Mozilla executive criticized Google for continually breaking its services when accessed through Firefox. The former exec said that Google would continually apologize and say a fix is on the way but in the meantime, users would switch over to Google's browser to "fix" the issues.

By pushing out the competition, it means that Google can rest on its laurels without the need to continually stay feature competitive with other browsers. History has already shown us what happens when one company has too much power and that was Microsoft with Internet Explorer 6. That browser launched with Windows XP in 2001 and wasn't replaced until 2006 when Microsoft finally came out with Internet Explorer 7. Microsoft had stagnated for so long that people had started switching to Firefox which was innovating with features like browser tabs.

Things are a bit different in the case of Chrome which is still getting some good new features, the main concerns are the efforts Google is making to corner the browser market and its clampdown on extensions it doesn't like such as ad blockers. If Google ever did completely control the browser market, then it could go like Microsoft and scale back the development of innovative features.

One of the main considerations on mobile devices today is the amount of storage space being taken up by applications. With Chrome as the default browser in Android, it is generally not possible to uninstall it which means if you opt for another browser then you'll be taking up roughly twice the space than if you choose to stick with Chrome. This is one way that Google limits consumer choice when it comes to web browsers.

Another issue, which has now thankfully been fixed, was the matter of exporting passwords and bookmarks. For a decent length of time over recent years, it was impossible to export passwords from Chrome on Linux if you wanted to switch to Firefox or another browser. As a Linux user, I faced this issue and to get around it I had to install Windows on a virtual machine, switch browsers there, and then sync to the browser on my Linux install.

I'm technically savvy so this wasn't an issue for me but the average user could have been locked into Chrome, ultimately restricting their choices because they couldn't export their passwords. Thankfully, this issue has been resolved since Google launched the new Password Manager.

One area where Google has complete market dominance is with YouTube - sure there are platforms like TikTok but that has a different primary focus. What we've seen with YouTube over the last couple of years is a serious ramping up in advertisements. The website is now showing more unskippable ads and longer ads than ever before and users can't do anything about it, there's no alternative to go to as content creators don't put their YouTube content elsewhere.

This makes you wonder what could happen if Google ever dominated the browser market. Might we get ads baked into the browser or subscriptions for premium features? Right now, these actions aren't feasible thanks to competition but could be if the competition was eliminated.

Legal Precedents and Regulatory Actions

This case is going to be groundbreaking because if the judge does ultimately decide to make Google sell off Chrome, it would be the first time that a tech company has been forced to sell off a web browser after investing considerable sums developing it and establishing it as the dominant player in the market.

One high-profile case similar to this is when the DOJ deemed Microsoft to be engaging in anti-competitive practices a quarter of a century ago. It said the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows was anti-competitive and forced the company to make APIs available to other companies so they could compete effectively. Even in this case, Microsoft was not made to sell its browser.

Microsoft and Apple with their Edge and Safari browsers will surely be watching this case keenly so that they can adapt and ensure they don't get hit by the DOJ for pushing their browsers via their platforms.

As we have seen from the whole episode where Microsoft was trying to buy Blizzard, regulators in the US and Europe are upping their scrutiny over tech giants.

While Microsoft did ultimately manage to assuage the regulators, there have been cases where companies have not been so lucky such as when Adobe tried to buy Figma but had to back out when the companies couldn't see a way past UK and EU competition regulators.

In August, a document released by the District Court of Columbia stated that after weighing up the facts presented by the DOJ and Google, the decision was made that Google is a monopolist and has acted in ways to maintain its monopoly. The court said that Section 2 of the Sherman Act had been violated.

No matter what the outcome of this case against Google is, it will set a precedent for future cases.

The DOJ and several US states brought an antitrust case against Google alleging that the firm engaged in monopolistic practices related to general search services and search text advertising markets. The court, as mentioned earlier, found Google guilty of this.

In response, the DOJ set out remedies including structural and conduct-based remedies. The divestiture of Chrome, and optionally Android, are part of the structural remedies.

One of the main conduct-based remedies is that Google will be required to include choice screens on various devices with options to choose their preferred search engine. Another notable remedy would prevent Google from offering Apple anything of value if it prevented the iPhone maker from getting into the search or search advertising markets.

Other remedies suggested by the DOJ would require Google to share certain data with qualified competitors such as user-side data and ads data. The DOJ also proposed that qualified competitors should be able to use Google's search results and Search Text ads.

Of course, Google isn't happy about this in the slightest and has penned at least two blog posts here and here claiming that the remedies would be bad for everybody, but of course it would say this, wouldn't it?

The Benefits of Divestiture

By forcing Google to sell off its Chrome browser, Google wouldn't have a reason to aggressively push the browser on everyone anymore. This could give other browser makers more room to grow their market share. As competitors see more room to expand the usage of their products, they will try to make their offering the best, leading to more innovation.

With a more equal playing field, this could also make the ads market better with reduced costs for advertisers and result in better deals for publishers.

Another impact of a more equal playing field in the browser market is that we may see a move away from Google's search engine if browsers decide to use different defaults. Many would indeed stick with Google Search but without Google forcing it on people then we could see others go with Bing, Brave Search, DuckDuckGo, Ecosia, or another search engine.

If Chrome's sale does lead to Edge and Safari dominating, then we could potentially see more action from the DOJ against Apple and Microsoft.

One of the most innovative browsers on the market right now with quite minuscule market share is Vivaldi. It has lots of unique features such as split screen, tab stacking, and much more but hardly anybody uses it. For this reason, if Chrome is made to operate separately from Google and other browsers gain market share, Vivaldi could become more used, and other browsers will copy the best features or work on their own to try and surpass Vivaldi.

All this could lead to a better browsing experience than we have now. In Chrome under Google, we mainly get discrete changes like tab groups and tab suspension which are pretty nice but they are only small things. Most browsers have come with a Reader mode for many years but Google has only recently added that feature.

As Google is an ad company, the Reader mode has posed a problem because the idea is that all content except the text and images are stripped out, including ads. As a compromise, Chrome has this strange sidebar reader mode that frequently doesn't provide the full text and you're still seeing distracting ads on the rest of the display outside of the sidebar.

Without Google aggressively pushing Chrome, it should make the browser market fairer for companies like Firefox, Vivaldi, and Brave who do not have other products like operating systems or search engines to further push their browsers. It's quite difficult to see how a fair playing field could be established without a sell-off of Chrome or some stringent rules being put in place around Google's practices in pushing its browser.

Potential Challenges and Counterarguments

Google has outlined several concerns about the proposed remedies set out by the DOJ. They can be summarized as follows:

1. Forcing Google to share user data, clicks, and results with qualified competitors could compromise user privacy and security.
2. Google suggests that the restrictions the DOJ is seeking will harm AI innovation and affect the US technological leadership.
3. By breaking up Chrome and Android, their development could be harmed, there could be increased costs for users, and the broader tech ecosystem could be negatively affected.
4. Changes to online advertising could harm small businesses and publishers and reduce the effectiveness of online advertising.
5. Restricting how Google promotes its search engine could cause friction for users and harm businesses that rely on Google ad revenue.

Of course, while Google raises some interesting arguments, I would argue against them in the following ways:

1. The first concern about the privacy and security of users can easily be addressed by requiring Google to share data that has been aggregated and anonymized. This would still give competitors insight into preferences allowing them to develop better products and services.
2. The concern that the remedies would hinder AI innovation is a bit bizarre. In response to the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, Google and a plethora of other companies developed large language models. Among these was a generation of new search engines like Perplexity, Dexa, and You.com. Under the DOJ's remedies, Google would simply be prevented from acquiring companies like these without permission to prevent it from eliminating nascent competitors. Google would also have to allow publishers, websites, and content creators to opt out of having their data used for AI training, it's probably not happy about this either.
3. The point about Chrome and Android development being harmed if they were snatched away from Google is a bit contentious. Whoever was to buy Chrome could either keep Chrome simple to use like it is now or go the feature-heavy route like Vivaldi has done. There are many companies out there capable of developing a browser, so I'm not sure why it would inherently get worse. As for Android, Google will probably keep hold of this as the DOJ doesn't seem to be pushing as hard for it to be sold.
4. On the point of advertising, it seems very unlikely that online advertising would be harmed as a result of the DOJs actions. If the DOJ creates a more dynamic ad market, it would lead to a more cutthroat environment where firms are not so focused on profit-making, but offering the best deals for advertisers and publishers.
5. On the final point, there should be less friction as users would have more freedom to choose their search engine. In some Android devices, for example, the Google Search bar is unremovable on the home screen and there are no options to change to another search engine. So you may use Bing in Chrome but that Google Search bar will remain on the home screen. Google would have a harder time doing this under the DOJ rules and users could use their preferred search engine on the home screen as well as in the browser. As for businesses harmed by reduced Google ad revenue, they should also have more choices as the ad market gets more dynamic.

Conclusion

As demonstrated through this editorial, Google is very reluctant to give up its web browser as part of the DOJ remedies, however, it doesn't offer up the most compelling arguments as to why it shouldn't be forced to sell off Chrome.

Google is dominating the web browser space, especially on Android where it pushes its browser as the default, and it has significant power in the ad market. By taking action, the DOJ could help boost innovation by allowing other browsers to thrive and create a better ad market that provides better deals.

While I'm largely in favor of the remedies being proposed and believe they would be quite effective, they must be implemented intelligently. Most people agree in principle that users should know about cookie tracking. In practice, having every website you visit make you accept cookies is very poor design - the DOJ remedies shouldn't lead to anything that creates this kind of disruption.

In conclusion, the remedies set out by the DOJ still need to be examined by the court and some may be rejected as going too far, but it seems as though they could lead to a more competitive browser market that gives end users more control over the browser and search engine they want to use.

Regulators also need to keep an eye, especially on Microsoft, so that it doesn't try to fill the vacuum left by Google. It already uses its position as a leader in the desktop space to aggressively push Edge and if Bing ever becomes more widely used as a result of action against Google then it could use that to push Edge even more.