Here’s why Google still has a monopoly without Chrome

The last few months have been difficult for Google. After a judge ruled the company was illegally monopolizing online search. Ministry of Justice proposed remediesThey include forcing Google to sell its Chrome web browser, banning exclusive search engine licensing deals and self-selection, compelling the company to license its data and web index more broadly, and limiting its control over the burgeoning artificial intelligence industry.

Google may complain that these remedies are excessive and “anti-innovative.” But forward-looking, pro-public technology innovation requires more than a slap on the wrist. It requires taking advantage of this opportunity to create a digital environment ecosystem that actually fosters innovation and protects the public interest. This is a role that antitrust enforcement often plays, as in previous actions involving AT&T and Microsoft.

The United States is good at creating new innovations, but is sometimes less good at allowing them to scale in ways that displace incumbent firms and deliver decentralized public benefits and shared growth. Instead, yesterday’s innovators have become today’s entrenched monopolies, freezing out smaller competitors and extracting value from customers. In fact, economists say that American companies Harm economic growth by using their financial resources to consolidate their dominanceInstead of pursuing true innovation and risk-taking.

The US federal court found Google guilty in its decision last August. Google pays rivals like Apple and Samsung enormous sums to collaborate rather than compete, and uses its scale and control over distribution channels (like Chrome and Android) to favor its own products. According to a former Google executive, this means: “basically freeze the ecosystem in place” Around Google as the dominant internet search engine. This allows Google to extract value from its customers by lowering its quality and increasing its prices.

Distribution channels are important to Google’s business, as is having enough data and web indexes and attracting advertisers. Any startup looking to innovate in search needs access to these capabilities to get started.

Strong innovation ecosystem Search will allow potential innovators to access these capabilities and open the market to newcomers. This is the purpose of the solutions proposed by the Ministry of Justice.

As the Justice Department has acknowledged, remedies need to go beyond banning Google from payments to its competitors. Prohibition of these payments, incentives It will allow distribution partners such as Apple and Samsung to compete with Google, but will not allow newcomers access to distribution channels and other access. abilities they actually need to innovate. Apple and Samsung could create their own search engines or license Bing instead of Google, but small startups still failed to break into the market. Maybe there is more competition, but there is still a club-like oligopoly of the big tech platforms.

The Justice Department’s “break-out” proposal to force Google to sell Chrome is attracting the most attention. Available in Chrome two-thirds of the world browser market. Google uses Chrome to favor both its core search product and its new product AI toolsPerplexity is leveraging its control over distribution to freeze out AI innovators like Claude and ChatGPT. Opening up the Chrome platform is crucial to distributing innovation capabilities to a wider audience of hungry new participants.

The DOJ’s proposal to force Google to sell Chrome is a promising step in the right direction, although the details need to be worked out. A court order to sell Chrome to the highest bidder without other protections could have the unintended effect of pushing it into the hands of today’s big tech platforms and AI barons; because a buyer who attracts more public attention probably wouldn’t be able to pay that much.

But to fully bring innovation back to search, Chrome and other web browsers need a business model that allows them to serve the needs of their users rather than serving their corporate backers. Technology platforms currently subsidize the development of their browsers as a means to distribute their other products, and independent browsers (like Firefox) generate revenue from technology platforms that pay them for preferential distribution. Being aware of the natural monopoly characteristics, A proposal to turn search into a public service business intriguing – but this may be beyond the control of the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary.

At this stage of the technology innovation cycle, what’s good for Google is probably not good for the United States. The company had a good time and developed lasting innovations. But skinny outside start-ups are better at innovating because they lack the bureaucracy, power structures and vested interests of a large organization.

This moment isn’t just about reining in a company, it’s about reclaiming the digital economy that serves us all. The DOJ’s proposed solutions are logical steps toward fostering a supportive innovation ecosystem by ensuring newcomers have access to the capabilities they need to innovate.