Why Google's Chrome monopoly won't crack anytime soon
- Reference: 1732365312
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/11/23/opinion_google_chrome/
- Source link:
Oh, right, it was the United States vs Microsoft, aka Netscape vs Internet, in 1998. This time around, it's the United States vs Google. Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court ruled that [1]Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by stifling advertising competition and arranging exclusive and restrictive contracts with other companies. To quote Mehta: " [2]Google is a monopolist , and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly."
In detail, Mehta found that Google's contracts with Apple, Samsung, other smartphone companies, and Mozilla required them to use Google as the default search engine. In return, Google reportedly paid Apple $18 billion annually to secure its position as the iPhone's default search engine. Other companies received over $8 billion a year to ensure that Google was their search engine of choice.
[3]
The judge determined that Google's practice of paying billions of dollars annually to device manufacturers and web browsers to set Google as the default search engine effectively blocked competitors from gaining market share.
[4]
[5]
I can't argue with that. Of course, Google can.
Google dismissed the ruling as nonsense. Global Affairs President Kent Walker said: "This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn't be allowed to make it easily available."
[6]
The DOJ is now asking the judge to force [7]Google to sell off the Chrome web browser .
If that reminds you of the US vs Microsoft case, it's for good reason. Back in 2000, the US District Court judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft had "placed an oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune." Therefore, [8]Microsoft was a monopoly that should be broken up into two companies . In his plan, there would be a Windows company and a Microsoft software company that would own such programs as Outlook, Internet Explorer, and Office. It never happened. That part of his decision was overturned.
Amusingly enough, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, borrowed some of Jackson's language: "The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers, and American technological leadership."
[9]
If the DOJ convinces Mehta that he should order Google to split Chrome off, I can't see it happening.
Why? First, Google will appeal. Indeed, Google has already appealed. We're years away from a final decision. The case has already taken years. It started under the first Trump administration and may not be settled by the end of Trump's next administration.
While Trump is seen as pro-business, he's anti-Google. As he ranted before the election, Google has been " [10]very bad to me . Very, very bad to me ... In other words, if I have 20 good stories and 20 bad stories, and everyone's entitled to that, you'll only see the 20 bad stories. I called the head of Google the other day and I said, 'I'm getting a lot of good stories lately, but you don't find them in Google.' I think it's a whole rigged deal. I think Google's rigged just like our government's rigged all over the place."
[11]The open secret of open washing – why companies pretend to be open source
[12]Begun, the open source AI wars have
[13]The Land Before Linux: Let's talk about the Unix desktops
[14]The battle between open source and 'sort of' open source is as old as software
On the other hand, Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai is making nice with Trump now. On X, Pichai congratulated: " [15]President @realDonaldTrump on his decisive victory . We are in a golden age of American innovation and are committed to working with his administration to help bring the benefits to everyone."
Since Trump's policies are really little more than how he feels at any given moment, I can easily see him ordering the DOJ to leave Google alone if the company is "nice" to him.
It's not just the US that dislikes Google's search dominance, though. The European Union's Court of Justice recently [16]rejected the company's appeal against a €2.4 billion antitrust fine .
Still, let's say the DOJ does go after Google. It's estimated that the most popular web browser in the world would bring in $20 billion in cool cash. That sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? It's not. In 2023, [17]Google made $237.86 billion from its Chrome-driven advertising . This also puts the EU fine into perspective. You and I would be bankrupt. For Google, that's less than a week's revenue.
So, I don't see Google being forced to drop Chrome.
As I look at Chrome, though, I do wonder if Google needs to keep it anyway. There's already an open source version of Chrome, [18]Chromium . Why not open source Chrome to stop the DOJ and other legal opponents in their tracks? I'm sure the Linux Foundation or the Apache Foundation would be happy to give it a home. ®
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/05/google_default_search_deals_violate/
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745-045110819896
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z0IKMUx1tDYrMVKhYc4kWAAAAQo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z0IKMUx1tDYrMVKhYc4kWAAAAQo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z0IKMUx1tDYrMVKhYc4kWAAAAQo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z0IKMUx1tDYrMVKhYc4kWAAAAQo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/21/usa_vs_google_full_filing/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2000/09/29/breakup_remedy_was_microsofts_own/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z0IKMUx1tDYrMVKhYc4kWAAAAQo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271297/google-donald-trump-bananas-breaking-up-bananas
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/14/opinion_column_osi/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/27/opinion_column/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/27/open_source_vs_sort_of_open_source/
[15] https://x.com/sundarpichai/status/1854207788290850888
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/10/eu_denies_google_shopping_appeal/
[17] https://www.statista.com/chart/33017/annual-advertising-revenue-of-selected-tech-companies-offering-search-solutions/
[18] https://www.chromium.org/
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Google Monopoly?
That's interesting, 'cos I've never seen 'no Chromium' mandated. Even when talking about the fully airgapped high protected network, where a browser can't get out anyway.
If anything it usually goes 'thou shalt use Edge, forsaking all others', which is based on... Chromium.
Chrome seems to have weekly MOD security update advisories so no-one can be bothered with the maintenance overhead of having it. Firefox derivatives and Opera don't usually get even a look at being used.
Re: Google Monopoly?
Anon for obvious reasons. I'll go further and point out that some of the tools we use within MoD don't work on Edge - so we have to use Chrome. It's right there by default next to Edge.
And many a self help note basically says "if it doesn't work in Edge, try Chrome".
But that's the least of things that concern me. The other day I came across a page where it said "we are committed to using the best Microsoft tools for the job" - not "best tools for the job", but best Microsoft tools. To bring up a dated metaphor, not only did they let the door slam shut when entering the MS walled garden, it looks like they've bricked it up and planted some creepers to hide the fact that there was ever a way out.
Indices
One of the other remediation options is for Google to provide access to its search index for 10 years. This is arguably a bigger part of the problem. Changing Chrome's market share is more a matter of convincing people to not use Chrome. Convincing people to not use Google's search index is a matter of convincing them to use Bing's search index or... Yandex? It's far less feasible for a competitor to build an index and make it competitive than to make a browser competitive.
In my opinion, all of the search indexes should be treated as utilities.
A decision that left me scratching my head
"Google made $237.86 billion from its Chrome-driven advertising"
I followed the link. It said Alphabet made $237.86 billion advertising sales. I see no evidence that such revenue is directly derived from the Chrome browser . It's driven by Goolge's search page, and all the advertising brokers they own that show adverts all over the web. I can't see that their earnings would be much reduced if all that happened was Chrome was cut off.
Ad blocking enabled by default in Chrome would really impact; but no new owner is going to do that because they would almost certainly have their fingers in the ad pie and so it would hit their revenues, too. And, as you point out, Chrome is already largely open source (Chrome is Chromium plus autoupdate, crash reporting, DRM and codecs) and such a huge cost that Google shares the burden with Microsoft and others. How does factoring out those few proprietary features of Chrome hurt Google? Would Google be banned from contributing to Chromium? The whole idea left you going "What?! Why?!"
Anyway, we can all agree it's not going to happen.
Non sequitur?
If the problem is one of defaulting opsyses to offer the Google web search page as the search engine, what's hiving off Chrome browser got to do with it?
No one else can afford to maintain Chrome
Even Microsoft gave up having a browser…
Maybe focus on the root cause ?
The sole reason chrome is a problem is because of the privacy issues.
The privacy issues relate to feeding the advertising arm with data.
Cut away the advert company so they have to use 3rd parties like everyone else (if we can make money by showing 3rd party ads, so can google).
Magically all that bonus telemetry in chrome won't be needed anymore because it won't be in googles direct interest.
Mehta vs Google
It's all very next level
Google Monopoly?
Google is banned in my company. No google product or app or service is allowed on our network. ALL chrome based browsers are prohibited. Why? Simple really, we do work for the MOD.
There is a separate 'open' network for visitors. It is air-gapped from our main network. The crap on the visitor network has to be seen to be believed.
GOOGLE IS EVIL