Yes, Chrome Really Can Survive Without Google

Newsweek

2 days ago

An estimated 4 billion people around the world use Chrome. But what if Google didn't control the world's most-used web browser?
There's a chance this question might no longer be hypothetical. In the U.S. government's landmark antitrust case against Google for illegally monopolizing the online search market, one of the most consequential and hotly debated remedies on the table is the proposed spin-off of Chrome—a browser that drives more than a third of Google's search traffic and acts as a powerful gatekeeper to the internet.
In court, Google cast doubt on the idea that any other company could successfully run Chrome. But it's simply not true that Google alone is capable of running Chrome.
A new report from the Knight-Georgetown Institute (KGI)—co-authored by the two of us, KGI's executive director and Firefox web browser's former chief technology officer—shows that it is technically feasible for Chrome to be divested. Our report concludes that an independent Chrome browser could stand on its own without Google, and could still compete with rivals like Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari, and Mozilla Firefox.
Google Chrome logos are displayed on a cell phone.
Google Chrome logos are displayed on a cell phone.Let's start with the basics about Chrome. Chrome is built on Chromium, an open-source software project with 35 million lines of code that are publicly accessible. Any company or developer can build a functional browser from Chromium today—and many already do, including Microsoft, Brave, and Perplexity. The new owner of Chrome would build on the underlying Chromium code base.
If Chrome were spun off, the new owner would need to replace certain Google-owned components and services. Consider Safe Browsing, a feature that alerts users when they visit a suspicious website or encounter harmful downloads. It's run by Google, but it's also already used by competing browsers. Chrome's new owner could continue using it—and Google may well have reasons to continue running it—or adopt alternative approaches, like partnering with another company. Similarly, technical blueprints exist for how to run services like bookmark syncing and software updates.
However, we shouldn't expect the new owner to replicate or recreate everything Google does—nor should it. Any buyer willing to front the resources to buy Chrome is not likely to be interested in perfectly copying everything Google has done, and would rather compete on its own terms according to its own business interests.
It will be key for Chrome's new owner to recruit and retain the engineering talent needed to build and maintain Chrome. A well-resourced new owner—one committed to the future of an independent Chrome—could build a top-tier team with the right mission and incentives, drawing from a talent pool that exists both inside and outside of Google.
A successful divestiture would also require court-ordered guardrails and transitional support from Google. With the above in place, Chrome's 4 billion users should continue to enjoy the same high-quality browser experience they've come to expect from a major browser, and perhaps even benefit from new browser innovations that are no longer tied to Google's corporate priorities. Some features would surely change as the new owner crafts the product according to its own goals, but the key components of a fast, secure browsing experience are all within reach for an independently operated Chrome.
Concerns about the potential Chrome spin-off sometimes exhibit a sort of Stockholm syndrome: fear of a world without the monopolist's resources. We often get asked how an independent Chrome could possibly make money—as if a product with 4 billion global users would not be an attractive asset with many monetization options. Possible business models could draw on search, advertising, artificial intelligence (AI), enterprise use, and other services. If the court adopts some of the government's other proposed remedies as well—for example, requiring Google to syndicate its search results or search ads—many new potential business opportunities could open up.
Breaking Chrome away from Google wouldn't break the browser. An independent Chrome browser can successfully compete should Google be forced to sell off Chrome.
Alissa Cooper is executive director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute. She is a recognized leader in the development of global internet standards, policy, and governance. Prior to joining KGI, Alissa spent a decade at Cisco Systems in senior engineering and executive roles, including vice president of technology standards and vice president and chief technology officer for technology policy.
Eric Rescorla is a senior research fellow at the Knight-Georgetown Institute. He is the former chief technology officer, Firefox, at Mozilla, where he was responsible for setting the overall technical strategy for the Firefox browser. Eric has contributed extensively to many of the core security protocols used in the internet, including TLS, DTLS, WebRTC, ACME, and QUIC. Most recently, he served as chief technologist for the Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.