I also do not see Google parting with something so critical to their advertising. With their own browser they control the full length of the wire between the ad-server and the user. Without it, they don't. Only way I could see this happening is if Google then released what they considered a better browser.
This is not really their choice at this point. They were already found to have abused their position so it's up to a judge to decide what Google has to to next. Google doesn't need "a browser", they need a tool that allows them to exercise more control and this whole court case is about preventing that.
OpenAI is just looking for new ways to funnel data into the training of their models. And I'm afraid so many people would eat it up as long as OpenAI gives them some AI candy in return.
They've already been convicted of anti-trust behavior for precisely this reason. Now the trial is in the remedy phase where the DOJ is asking that they be forced to divest ownership of Chrome and other properties.
Google will have no choice in the matter. It's entirely up to the judge at this point.
I had to run it for something the other day and immediately got nagged to remove uBlock Origin because they automatically disabled it. And I'm just thinking.. I will never, ever use this browser for anything other than light dev work if I really needed to.
Once the sale details are finalized, Google pushes out a final update that changes where the next update to Chrome would come from (and it would be a random selection from the list of buyers).
Having just closed a $40 billion USD funding round [1], OpenAI might actually be able to afford a fair price for Chrome (supposedly $15-20 billion USD [2]).
[1] There are some catches to that: https://www.investopedia.com/openai-closes-up-to-usd40b-fund...
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/01/the-great-goo...
The DOJ wants to break what it considers to be Google's monopoly, and Chrome is a prime target. The problem is that Chrome by itself is worse than worthless, it is a money sink and it only makes sense as a part of a system.
OpenAI is starting to feel the competition. ChatGPT is no longer the only game in town, DeepSeek happened, Google is becoming actually good, Claude is quite popular among coders, and Grok is not a joke anymore. They need something if they don't want to lose out, and buying the most popular browser to make it into a gateway into their service may be an option.
Where?
Or, just an out-there idea, what if the Chrome became property of the government instead? Forced to be FOSS, put into maintenance mode and offer it as a truly user-focused browser instead of driven by any for-profit company (which will eventually run it into the ground).
Or turn it into a tightly regulated natural monopoly, a la a public utility.
But I totally agree with you: some things should just be state-owned. We should put our energies into identifying those things and addressing any legitimate concerns (e.g. spying via requiring open source and reproducible builds) instead of trying to free market all the things.
The only part that isn't is the brand, and the ties with Google. And I am not a fan of the idea of a (foreign in my case) government browser, I'd rather have Google. At least, Google has a presence in my country and is bound by its laws,
That seems like a death sentence. The standards aren't stagnant.
Not sure how to extract that part from Google now. It would be difficult, but probably quite effective.
Google has a bunch of nice things (search, gmail, maps, ...) that cost money, and an advertising business that makes money, the former helping the latter. Split the two and the nice stuff will be without funding and die out, and only the "evil" part will survive. Or so I think. Splitting out Chrome will not change the face of the world, but Firefox has shown that an (somewhat) independent browser can work.
Not only. Google controls a lot of user attention. See how many services they link together to serve you ads .... erm .... recommendations to make browsing better or something: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1908951546869498085 And one of those services is Chrome
Welcome to the internet post-2008
I actually wonder what the price tag is for that, lol.
They’d be buying the user base.
Android and ChromeOS
> According to Turley, OpenAI would throw its proverbial hat in the ring if Google had to sell. When asked if OpenAI would want Chrome, he was unequivocal. "Yes, we would, as would many other parties," Turley said.
That's going to be difficult to maintain. If OpenAI takes over i expect Chrome and Chromium to go closed source.
So, chromium won't go away. Those 1000+ people are the main resource here. Effectively they work mostly on chromium and not on chrome. What happens to chromium if that stops?
My guess is MS might step up and hire people.
Sadly, it absolutely can go closed-source as it's licensed under BSD-3 clause, which is not a copyleft license.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/business/dealbook/china-o...
Easy to convince at least 10% of the users to sign in to their browser with a verified credit card to 'protect the children', and governments around the world would give you full support.
At that point, would be trivial for them to track browsing habits, and then to start offering personalised assistants which save you time and eventually cost money.
Pretty sure you could save money throuh having a huge botnet of computers to tap into, and a huge amount of data to help cache and standardise common requests.
ah nevermind, it's just billionaire pissing contest
Why not get the user to pay the energy and processing bill for subsequent rounds?
Being able to track the habits of 3.5 billion users at source is probably quite useful, too.
I think at the least I should be able to have Ai interact with anything on my screen. And beyond that it could even code interfaces on the fly depending on the task.
Not a new "AI phone", which has to gain traction, find users, convince people to switch, compete in highly competitive (hardware( and duopolized (OS, Software) landscape.
I won't be suprised if amongst Android users, Chrome is one of the most installed apps - if only because many phones have it locked (i.e. its really hard or impossible to remove).
Maybe "Google Assistant" is installed more than chrome, IDK. But Chrome has the additional benefit that it is also installed on many iPhones. Sou Chrome would be a gateway into "making your iPhone an AI phone" too.
I disabled most of it within a few days because it mostly gets in the way of normal basic things like taking screenshots or just reading my actual notifications in full.
The picture editing can be nice, but realistically there's just no need for most of its 'support', it's just clippy on your phone getting in the way.
/tinfoil
There are many names for this: co-opt, assimilate, bribing ...
A lot of times it is like when Tony Soprano offers you a deal, or like when the U.S. made the NAFTA deal with Canada and Mexico.
It feels good and awesome at the beginning but later on, when you become dependent on it, you'll have to pay an heavy price.
He contrasted that with someone like Jenson who pulled Nvidia off of a cliff more than once and so has the scartissue to limit his reach to keep focus on core business.
Do you mean no checks and balances? A check is a restriction or constraint.
I checked to see if that pun occurs elsewhere and didn't see it. Someone who doesn't have English as a first language may not know the more obscure usage of check since you don't use it much these days other than as part of phrases and idioms like "checks and balances", which is 18th century English
I got excited first thinking I’m starting my day off right by learning a new word, but nope :-)
OpenAI probably senses they're not making ASI anytime soon. They have enough money to will themselves into a FAANG by essentially minting consumer and enterprise products. That could secure their long term future and returns.
Mozilla response: mess around with Firefox's privacy notice in such a way that it generates _negative_ press
Potential future Chrome: gets bought by OpenAI
Estimated future Mozilla response: "every time a user installs Firefox, a healthy tree is chopped down, the wood is used to create bats with the user's name engraved on them, and the bats are used to hit endangered animals"
So I guess the last resort for people who don't want to surrender to the Big Tech will be niche hard forks of Firefox, of which there are 3 - Pale Moon, Basilisk and SeaMonkey.
By making search an AI first experience, both behemoths will signal the new dawn of AI is here.
Google’s greatest advantage is the use of AI in drive and docs and presentation and excel and cloud services.
OpenAI can't afford to buy Search.
The Chrome & derivatives mono-culture is going to become a problem down the line.
What would stop Google to build another browser say Information Explorer with the same engine and code? And market the hell out of it on its Web property?
Presumably they would be selling the IP rights, so at least some kind of rewrite would be required, possibly without utilizing staff who worked on Chrome.
It would be funny though if they hire different people to build another browser on top of webkit again XD.
The courts. The courts would stop them. The entire premise for Google selling-off Chrome is a mandate that they divest themselves from the business itself.
Probably a court order, no? If you’re ordered to sell something, can you just recreate it immediately?
But US? The place that is perhaps the most pro Business or capitalistic on earth?
It's the same data rush. Don't fr a second think that "AI" will be used for anything but ads and selling your data t the highest bidder
Is Apple a good buyer? Oracle? OpenAI? NVIDIA? The Saudis? (I think I’m kidding about that?)
Someone is going to buy this for $100B and find a way to make a (big) profit off of it. I’m not sure the new landlord is going to be less rapacious than the last one was.
Similar to the current antitrust case with Meta. The time to have tackled these problems was probably about a decade ago.
Only if you wait a few decades to break a monopoly up. This is the fall out of the lack of US government intervention in their megatech companies.
We see the EU trying to fight back, but really all of this is far too late. There will be significant fall out, I’m sure. The sale of Chrome could be an unmitigated disaster.
Eg. Google could become, Google Search (and AI), YouTube, and an independent ad tech company with the remnants of DoubleClick (maybe Google Ads moves into this group as well and has deals with the other two entities).
Best case scenario is this pisses off enough people to create a sea change toward alternative browsers.
After all, the new buyer gets value out of your loyalty in using their browser to view more pages than ever before, so that it can use that data to train its LLMs! People bouncing from pages due to ads just gets in the way. We will have freedom from online advertising, for the low, low cost of a Larry Ellison or Elon Musk-managed panopticon!
One more step, sama, and you too can have an advertising company.
Chrome (and control over Chromium) go to a newly formed, independent nonprofit. The nonprofit is not in any way under Google's control.
Google receives zero compensation. The nonprofit is funded by Google at say $250M/year for 20 years... by which I mean Google writes checks and gets absolutely nothing in exchange. The funding is conditional only on the nonprofit doing something that can be vaguely viewed as shipping a browser. Don't like that? Shoulda thought about it before you started getting all monopolistic.
The nonprofit is required to spend all its incoming funds, and forbidden to do anything but provide a browser. Just the browser. No services. All elements of the browser are AGPL. The nonprofit is forbidden to accept any offer that would put it under the control of any other entity. Every Chrome/Chromium user can become a member of the noprofit and then vote for the board. The board may not recommend its own candidates.
The browser isn't allowed to have a default search engine, LLM, "safe sites list", sync server, or whatever. In fact, it's not even allowed to provide a list to choose from. The user has to find them.
No, I don't know if that's feasible under applicable law, and honestly I doubt it is. But it'd be the right direction to go.
> It’d be the right direction to go
Putting the legality of this aside for a moment, the second order effects of the government seizing IP at this scale would cause a massive downscaling of R&D investment followed by IP rapidly fleeing the country.
Yep. Billions of dollars of capital knowingly invested in an illegal enterprise results in penalties. Film at 11.
The charges were against search and ads.
If the government made a decision like this it would discourage companies from trying to invest in OSS the way that Google has. Considering that this model has worked out amazingly well for the average person, that would be bad.
I'm not even taking Google's side on this, just cannot see that side of it where they were evil to get to that point with it. If anything, Chrome made monopoly go away from clutches of Microsoft and to an extent Apple.
As we know, communism has all kinds of unintended problems as a result of broken incentives. Even if it were legal, it’s unlikely to work.
Before Chrome, Google had an Internet Explorer plugin called Google Gears that enabled functionality like LocalStorage and Service Workers since those were not standard web features at the time. Eventually they made Chrome and only then were they able to push to make those things into web standards.
Apart from Google, Chrome can't survive in its current form. It's not profitable on its own, and any attempt to make it so will inevitably result in either huge cuts to development staff or some pretty intense enshitification, or both.
But my question is, do we need Chrome to actually continue in its current state?
Chromium could continue as open source with multiple companies contributing to it (and maybe it falls under the linux foundation to oversee it) then with companies like Microsoft making their own forks.
We have Safari, Edge, Firefox (which its future is also in question, but that's a separate topic). I guess Oprah is still kicking around.
When not under Google's control, what value does Chrome really serve beyond its existing install base (which not discounting, but that can change)
For you (and me), switching browsers is annoying but doable. There was a time when I used Firefox, and then a time when I used Chrome, and someday I'll use something else. But for the vast majority of the world, the idea of switching browsers feels like a big challenge.
A lot of the world needs Chrome to keep working well for them.
Beyond the old stereotype "grandparent thinks the E is the internet", there is not much of a difference in how each browser behaves. The UI's are shockingly similar.
If it was, I would not think that Google would be as successful as they are to push Chrome heavily. Users would not transition over.
I will admit that I do sometimes have a different view of technology than many people, I mean as it is I have multiple browsers running right now. And generally when I step back I can see, oh yeah this really may be a bigger deal for most people.
I am struggling to see it in this case, especially with every browser trying very hard to make it as easy as possible.
Wouldn't have been my first choice, but she's not the worst idea I've seen so far in this discussion.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bengoodger/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/darin-fisher-7059ab/
Chrome specifically hands a huge audience of tech laggards over to OpenAI very very quickly.
Momentum. Any change of direction they take after such a purchase is taken by a huge number of current users whether they like it or not (unless they dislike it enough to make the effort to switch their daily driver browser).
> They can just fork it.
That would result in much lower user numbers unless their changes are incredibly attractive. Most users will start where they are due, again, to product momentum.
In which case, what is the monetization model for the new owner of Chrome - other than just buying a daily portal where users go?
The DOJ doesn't require anything. They are the ones arguing for Chrome to be sold off. The federal court is the one that would require a particular remedy outcome to the anti-trust conviction.
> they would also not allow the new owner of Chrome to get revenue from search engines to be the default search engine
There would be no such mandate. Google will be allowed to pay the new company to be their default search provider. And other search providers can bid on that opportunity as well.
Google itself just cannot own the business end-to-end as it does now.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/internet-policy/google-r...
These days, OpenAI seems to be leaning more toward expending its business beyond AI. Not sure why, but they may have come across a roadblock that is holding them back from achieving AGI soon. The past few days we heard that they maybe in the process of building a social network [1] and the willingness to buy the AI IDE, Windsurf [2].
Also, from the article:
> Among the DOJ's witnesses on the second day of the trial was Nick Turley, head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI.
Perplexity has also been asked to testify in the Google DOJ case [3] and their opinion about Chrome was:
"Google should not be broken up. Chrome should remain within and continue to be run by Google. Google deserves a lot of credit for open-sourcing Chromium, which powers Microsoft's Edge and will also power Perplexity's Comet. Chrome has become the dominant browser due to incredible execution quality at the scale of billions of users"
_________________
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43694877
If the data collection is moved to the browser, though, then requiring a login would no longer be adequate protection. I'd have to also ban the use of Chrome itself. I'd have to seriously consider the possibility of just not having a web presence in any form.
traskjd•7h ago