DOJ Wants Google to Sell Chrome and De-Google Android

"why not address them directly?" - Monopolistic advantage and practices are realistically inevitable once a business becomes this dominant, and in Google's case are also a direct result of the intimate interlinking of various branches of its business. So how could this be addressed more directly than by imposing a forced separation of aspects of the business? Can you give an example of what you mean?

"This was stupid when they tried to do this to Microsoft 25 years ago"

No, what the government did back then worked. That's the opposite of stupid.

"If Google were forced to sell Chrome, who’d make the default web browser for Android?"

Optimally, there would be no default browser.

"Android can’t ship without a default browser"

Yes, it can.

"This proposal is kind of nuts since the only business model for web browsers is revenue share from search results"

Because of predatory pricing! That's the whole problem! This is like the cops trying to rescue a hostage, and the hostage refusing to be rescued because "I can't be free because I'm a hostage, and hostages are not free by definition!"

Yeah, but if you just come with us, you're not a hostage any longer, are you? If we go after the companies that give away browsers for free in order to manipulate the browser market, then maybe browsers won't be free anymore, and there will be an actual market?

But this whole discussion is pointless. None of this is going to happen. As soon as Trump takes over, all of this antitrust stuff is going to be over, and the attention is going to shift drastically.

Trump has already named Brendan Carr to head the FCC, which tells us what the focus is going to be. Think changes to Section 230, no more net neutrality, "TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE" because Trump doesn't like what they broadcast, etc. That's the kind of stuff his administration will focus on. Not antitrust. Bye bye Lina Khan, it was nice while it lasted.

@Graham I don’t have a specific example handy, but my recollection is that the main problem was around search and ads and with certain anti-competitive ads behaviors. I don’t see how selling Chrome addresses any of this. Google essentially had a monopoly before Chrome even existed.

@Plume How would divesting Google of Chrome or not having a default browser change any of that? The other browsers would still have the same business models. So would Chrome developed under a separate organization. I don’t see how any of this would lead to a market of non-free browsers.

"The other browsers would still have the same business models"

The other browser have that business model because there are subsidized free browsers from monopolists on the market. There used to be paid browsers before all the platform holders decided that they wanted to own that platform, and started giving away free browsers.

@Plume I bought iCab and OmniWeb, but there was never a time, even before Google existed, when paid browsers had meaningful marketshare. I don’t think that would change unless Apple, Microsoft, etc. are also forbidden from offering free browsers, which is never going to happen.

"there was never a time, even before Google existed, when paid browsers had meaningful marketshare"

Netscape Navigator was a paid browser. Opera was a paid browser. OmniWeb was a paid browser (and basically supported that whole company until Safari killed it). Mosaic, a free browser, lost market share to Netscape, a paid browser.

All of these companies had business plans that were based on selling software licenses to customers. Even later, when some of these companies started offering free non-commercial licenses, they still made money from business licenses.

It was only when the free browsers from platform owners came out that the paid browser market collapsed.

Though, to be fair, people generally did not actually buy a browser. Their ISPs made a bundling deal with Netscape or Microsoft, and you got the browser on an ISP-shipped CD.

Regardless, this meant that Netscape’s business was in selling software licenses, not in creeping on users.

@Plume Yes, there were paid browsers, but I don’t think most people used them. Netscape was free for non-commercial use, and probably many ignored that restriction. I’m not even sure these were self-supporting, as Netscape was selling server products, Omni was selling consulting and other apps, etc.

>Netscape was free for non-commercial use

I don’t believe that’s true. Netscape simply wasn’t usually bought in retail because your ISP gave you a copy.

"Netscape was free for non-commercial use"

It became free for non-commercial use, but was not originally. But even after it became free for non-commercial use, their business was selling software licenses, as Sören says. Only the free browsers from platform owners destroyed that market.

@Plume

Wikipedia:

Netscape announced in its first press release (October 13, 1994) that it would make Navigator available without charge to all non-commercial users, and beta versions of version 1.0 and 1.1 were freely downloadable in November 1994 and March 1995, with the full version 1.0 available in December 1994.

[…]

The “N” evaluation versions were identical to the commercial versions; the letter was intended as a reminder to people to pay for the browser once they felt they had tried it long enough and were satisfied with it. This distinction was formally dropped within a year of the initial release, and the full version of the browser continued to be made available for free online, with boxed versions available on floppy disks (and later CDs) in stores along with a period of phone support.

"The first few releases of the product were made available in "commercial" and "evaluation" versions; for example, version "1.0" and version "1.0N". The "N" evaluation versions were identical to the commercial versions; the letter was intended as a reminder to people to pay for the browser once they felt they had tried it long enough and were satisfied with it."

I think the "is the browser commercial or not" discussion is missing the key point. Google owning Chrome allows it to implant itself as default search engine, which is an essential factor in allowing it to then exploit that position to feed its ad business via control of both acquiring the valuable user data and then by a major channel of delivery of its (very commercial and monopolistic) ads.

Paying attention Cook at co? Let me sumarize. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

@Graham Surely it helps, but I don’t see it as an essential factor. Google rose to search/ad dominance without Chrome, and it’s the default search engine in Safari and Firefox despite not owning them.