Google's Chrome Worth Up To $20 Billion If Judge Orders Sale (msn.com) 92
Alphabet's Chrome browser could go for as much as $20 billion if a judge agrees to a Justice Department proposal to sell the business, in what would be a historic crackdown on one of the world's biggest tech companies. From a report: The department will ask the judge, who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market, to require measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system, according to people familiar with the plans.
Find out phase (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only an idiot or China would pay $20B for Chrome. As soon as Chrome is sold the trust relationship with Google is broken. You do realize that you enter all of your passwords, banking info, etc into Chrome and Chrome is behind everyone's firewalls. I won't be using Chrome one second after it is sold.
Buying Chrome is a malicious actor's dream come true!
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if buying Chrome is a "malicious actor's dream come true" then $20B would be the deal of the century and your comment that "Only an idiot or China would pay $20B for Chrome" doesn't make sense
Re: (Score:2)
There are two potential customers, someone who will milk the product for all the cash they can get by coating it in unwanted ads. Or the second is an entity like China who doesn't care about cost recovery instead they are after the espionage angle. Google will obviously make a new browser using Chromium as the base.
Selling Chrome was obviously proposed by lawyers who have no clue have software works. Google is never going to pay some random purchaser of Chrome billions to forward search traffic. They will
Re: (Score:2)
Any change they propose to web standards for their own edification WILL be accepted
Why? Without Chrome, they have zero leverage.
Re: Find out phase (Score:2)
The judgement also says something like "cannot own a browser for 5 years", IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't have to own Chrome, it just need to ensure that it is a trustworthy vehicle. Google could fund a charitable Chromium foundation which gives Chrome browsers away for free as its charitable act.
The core problem with this search anti-trust case is that even though people may hate Google search most people think it is better than everything else. Google hasn't created the search monopoly via coercion, people are using it because they want to use it. Anyway, we are on the cusp of major disruption
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As soon as Chrome is sold the trust relationship with Google is broken. You do realize that you enter all of your passwords, banking info, etc into Chrome and Chrome is behind everyone's firewalls. I won't be using Chrome one second after it is sold.
You have a "trust relationship" with Google? You keep using Chrome because you know you can entrust Google with your passwords and banking information?
Don't worry then: if Chrome is sold, your personal information will be just as secure as it is now.
Re:Find out phase (Score:5, Interesting)
As soon as Chrome is sold the trust relationship with Google is broken. You do realize that you enter all of your passwords, banking info, etc into Chrome and Chrome is behind everyone's firewalls. I won't be using Chrome one second after it is sold.
You have a "trust relationship" with Google? You keep using Chrome because you know you can entrust Google with your passwords and banking information?
Honestly, yeah. Google might be an information sponge, but to date, they've never sold that information to others, they've never misused people's data in a way that flagrantly violates privacy, they've done a decent job fixing security holes to prevent user passwords from being exfiltrated, etc. They do use some of the data to serve ads more accurately, but as overlords go, that makes them relatively benevolent in a fairly predictable way.
Contrast that with, for example, Facebook, which has built up a social network filled with bots and fake accounts, causing people to inadvertently (and with alarming regularity) share personal information, photos, stories, etc. with random strangers in foreign countries posing as their friends and family, has a rate of bugs that is staggering, and pretty clearly can't be trusted to keep data safe, as evidenced by piles of historical evidence (e.g. Cambridge Analytica).
It's not that I trust Google completely, because I don't trust any company completely, but I trust them way more than a lot of the sorts of companies who would be most likely to want to buy Chrome. Anybody who could afford to own such a money pit (as web browsers invariably are) must have some way to make a *lot* of money off of owning the browser, which sets off all sorts of red flags for me. Basically, with the possible exception of Microsoft and Apple, anybody who could afford it is almost certainly not someone who could be trusted to own it, and Apple wouldn't want it, because they already have Safari, which broke from Chrome under the hood over fundamental philosophical differences.
That leaves exactly one plausible buyer: Microsoft. And you'd just be replacing one monopolist with another at that point, so why bother?
Re:Find out phase (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
Unlike data brokers out there, Google actually uses the data itself, but does not sell to third parties (at least so far).
When you sign up for a "loyalty card" from your groceries, connect to utilities, use your bank, or have a mobile phone, the companies will sell your data to third party brokers, which will then join these different sources to build profiles for you. At best, you get some mailers, worst, they are leaked, sold on black market, and leads to stolen identity.
Google, and maybe Microsoft and a few others, will exploit the data, that part is true. But they will keep it to themselves.
And that is a big difference.
Why?
Google is exploiting Chrome to sell search ads. That is how they make money (and the $20 billion value).
Your profile is kept internal.
But say...
If say a multi-national fund like Blackrock bought it. What would be their business model?
They will auction your browsing behavior to third parties, probably including Google (ironically) and any other highest bidder. They would have no infrastructure to use (exploit) the data, so instead of "you being the customer" (will you be paying $20 per year to use Chrome? of course not), you will be the "merchandise"
And that would be another failed, once popular browser (like Opera, or Brave which did these kind of things)
https://news.ycombinator.com/i... [ycombinator.com]:
https://www.reddit.com/r/priva... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
they've never sold that information to others
Yeah, apart when they give it away for free:
- https://techcrunch.com/2023/12... [techcrunch.com] (and before you say "Google stopped doing this", the point is that they did for years, and they might do it again)
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0... [nytimes.com]
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
Google is every bit as dangerous as data brokers, and in fact probably more so because they cozy up to authorities that are becoming more and more fascistic.
Re: Find out phase (Score:2)
Re:Find out phase (Score:5, Interesting)
The security aspect can't be overstated. Google has never had a major hack of user data, no "iCloud leaks" type event, nothing like that. Their multi factor security is excellent.
Nobody else seems to match that. I could run my own server for some of that stuff, but then I'd be responsible for the security and I'm not convinced I could do a better job.
Re: (Score:2)
The security aspect can't be overstated.
Interesting take. They can suck up your data like a sponge and there's nothing you can do to stop them, but at least they have excellent security and will keep your data safe!
Perhaps I'm just a moron, but I was under the impression that the only way to keep your data secure is to not give it to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just the US, because in Europe you have a lot of control over the data that Google keeps and how they use it. They are legally required to offer that.
They are actually reducing it now, in a way that is a bit of an issue for me. It used to be that you could opt in to location data collection and view it on Google Maps. Very handy for reviewing trips. From May it will only be stored on the device that collected it, with nothing sent to Google. So you can view it on your phone in Google Maps, but no
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, with the possible exception of Microsoft and Apple, anybody who could afford it is almost certainly not someone who could be trusted to own it, and Apple wouldn't want it, because they already have Safari, which broke from Chrome under the hood over fundamental philosophical differences.
That leaves exactly one plausible buyer: Microsoft. And you'd just be replacing one monopolist with another at that point, so why bother?
And after recent f* ups on ads, ignoring people preferences and downright in-the-face forced stuff in Edge, I would move away from Chrome if Microsoft starts managing it
Re: (Score:2)
You have a "trust relationship" with Google?
No, Alphabet is the "trust", in the sense of the Sherman act of 1890. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If you have an Android phone, you have a Google account so you entrust Google with at least a password and that password is the master key to your phone. If you use the default wallet app on your phone, you entrust Google with your banking info. My browser if Firefox everywhere (desktop, mobile) and still I have a ton of info entrusted to Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if google is actually incentivised to sell it to a bad actor. They will get the money either way, but if the buyer ruins it they can say "Twas the fault of those who tried to limit our monopoly, axtually monopoly is good. "
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever buys Chrome for $20 billion will make damn sure there are no ad blockers possible. You can be damn sure of that. So in the end let's see. Google gets $20 billion and consumers lose even more privacy. A win-win, for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Whatever wrongs Google may or may not be guilty of, I see no scenario (outside of some individual or non-profit with purely noble intentions putting up the $20B) where Chrome doesn't become a worse product in terms of privacy and security.
I'm open to argument but it seems that the cure here is worse than the disease they're trying to remove.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever buys Chrome for $20 billion will make damn sure there are no ad blockers possible.
I don't think anyone but Google can force this on people. If Chrome just another browser it will have to compete on its merits.
Re: (Score:2)
The US would never let China or any non US company buy it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was pleased with these things myself. It means that Google has taken the simple minded and obvious road to tracking, and all I need do is continue using a browser that isn't subject to it. While Google happily makes their billions from stupid people, my Chromium based browser has built-in ad blocking; no addons required. My browser disables FLoC by default. Google has no FLoC profile on me because I've never touched the web with a browser that supports FLoC.
Now I can't predict what will happen. Who
Re: (Score:1)
It's all big conspiracy by big Linux, who really secretly underlies Android and 96% of the world's top 1 million websites. They are using their illegal global dominance to crush those poor underdogs, Apple and Microsoft..
Re: (Score:2)
Who is forcing you to use Chrome? Take some responsibility for your voluntary decisions. Stupid socialist.
Good (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
replace webkit with blink
Re: (Score:1)
I call bullshit on this.
I choose to install Chrome and firefox on every Windows PC and Samsung phone (my preferred brand of phone) I buy. They come with Edge as default and Samsung's own browser by default.
In addition, there are multiple search engine choices easily available for anyone who cares to choose a different one, and I am pretty sure last time i installed Chrome, it asked me which engine to use.
I happened to choose google for Chrome, and duck duck go for Firefox.
The reason I have multiple browse
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit on this.
Oh? You're saying that they haven't abused their market position ... because ... you personally installed a different web browser and default search?
Are you a solipsist?
Re: (Score:2)
You're pointing out Microsoft's OS and browser bundling being monopolist behavior, which it is [wikipedia.org].
However, this case is about Google and Chrome. Neither are defaults when you buy a new computer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're pointing out Microsoft's OS and browser bundling being monopolist behavior
I never once mentioned Microsoft or their abusive behavior. Neither did the parent. Pay attention.
Neither are defaults when you buy a new computer.
You think that's the only way they a market position can be abused? Get a clue.
Google very aggressively pushed Chrome on search, to the degree that a surprisingly number of people today actually think that they need Chrome to use Google search or other Google services.
Google is also using their dominance in the browser market to maintain their dominance in search.
What could go wrong? (Score:2)
Right now you have a browser that has, what 75% marketshare, being abused by a company that sees it primarily as a vehicle to solidify its search and other online presence and to enforce its online dominance and privacy invasions. Now they want to hand the currently dominant browser to someone else who will abuse it for what it can be abused for solely on its own merits and who will then have access to all its privacy invasiveness themselves?
Sure. What can go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is, buying Chrome is a malicious actor's dream come true!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla made a ton of bad moves everyone wants to forget about now.
LOL! Let me guess. Changing their incredibly dated design to be more consistent with modern standards and the increasingly popular Chrome browser? Buying and integrating the most popular plugin by default? The only people who don't see those as good things are a few Slashdot nobodies who complain about every single change, regardless of merit.
Don't be stupid. What actually hurt Mozilla was appointing Eich as CEO, which alienated normal people, and Eich's resignation, which pissed off the loud-mouth bigo
Re: (Score:1)
This is beyond stupid (Score:2)
You can fork Chromium and rebuild the same surveillance platform that Chrome is based on it a hundred times over for $20bn.
How do I know? Microsoft did it and it's called Edge.
Why would anyone buy Chrome from Google?
Re: (Score:2)
The buyer gets a recognized brand and a huge customer base (and a revenue flow that is currently internal to Google). Real people outside of slashdot are not going to stop using Chrome because the owner company changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is never going to pay whoever buys Chrome for search traffic. They will just build another browser.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be unaware of the fact that Google doesn't pay any browsers for search traffic, and they make money off all browsers' search traffic, regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
Google pays Apple $20B a year and Mozilla too.
Re: (Score:2)
Google pays Apple $20B a year and Mozilla too.
You're both technically correct. Google doesn't pay for search traffic. It does pay to be the default search engine when you first install Safari and Firefox. That, in turn results in probably a bit more search traffic than would otherwise occur if you asked users to choose, though realistically probably not that much, because most people who want to use a different search site will do so, and most people, when you ask them what search engine to use, will pick the one they've heard of.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even need to build another web browser, just fork and customize WebKit again (or at least WebCore, which practically everyone uses). They could probably have a working browser in 3-4 months with all new optimized customizations.
Re:This is beyond stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Chrome on its own has no value. It's Google's way of enforcing web standards and choking out competition. Nobody will pay for Chrome as an end user, and it won't have anywhere near $20 billion in value as a source of in-browser ad revenue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is beyond stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome on its own has no value. It's Google's way of enforcing web standards and choking out competition.
So what you're saying is that Chrome has no value other than the ability to control the internet experience of enough people to the point where you gain defacto control over the standards for the internet?
You don't need users to pay for something for it to be valuable. See also: Literally every other browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of Google's hands, it loses all its value. It was worth it to Google to burn money on a free browser to bolster the rest of their business.
As a standone business unit, Chrome earns no money. Only another monopolist could benefit from it.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You can fork Chromium and rebuild the same surveillance platform"
Nobody can fork Chromium because nobody has the manpower or expertise to understand and maintain it and Google completely controls the original, so they still control what everything is based on and can (and will) make it "incompatible".
>"How do I know? Microsoft did it and it's called Edge."
Sorry, but you are wrong. Edge is not a "fork", it *is* Chromium with a different UI on it, just like all major multiplatform browsers that are n
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can fork Chromium because nobody has the manpower or expertise to understand and maintain it and Google completely controls the original
Did you miss the part where I said you can easily do that with a hundredth of $20bn? I guarantee you $200m will buy you the means to fully maintain and develop a Chromium fork for quite some time.
As for Google controlling the original, that doesn't stop Microsoft from trying to steal their crown. Throwing money at the problem is what's they're trying here. And if Google is ordered to give up Chrome, then the position for "default browser of the non-thinking internet user" will be up for grabs.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where I said you can easily do that with a hundredth of $20bn? I guarantee you $200m will buy you the means to fully maintain and develop a Chromium fork for quite some time.
It was reported that it costs Mozilla around $200M/yr for Firefox development/support. And if you can do it a lot lot lot cheaper go make it so for Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would anyone buy Chrome from Google?
Lots of companies would fall over themselves to have an install base of 3.5 billion users*. You get to push out an auto-update to all those people which contains any or all of the following:
- an advert for something or other. Being able to say "I can put your ad in front of 3.5 billion pairs of eyeballs" is a pretty compelling sales pitch to a lot of people.
- telemetry (over and above what's already there), then sell that information
- changes to the home page so
You fucking idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's think about this, you fuckers. If someone buys Chrome for $20 billion, how are they going to get their investment back? Logically, it has to be worse ways than Google. Because whoever buys it must have come up with ways to make at least $50 billion (most likely more than that) within a decade or so (WHY else would they buy it?). The greater the risk buying it, the more money the investors expect. I mean, you pay $1 for a lottery ticket not $1million because the probability of winning is so low. Therefore whoever's buying it must have a "surefire" way to make money. So how will they make money? Are they going to charge people money to use Chrome .. I dont think so, because nobody's going to pay. The only way they're getting their money back is by fucking you in the ass worse than Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Microsoft has thrown in-that-ballpark amount of money to OpenAI. I'm not convinced they'll get that kind of return on Bing. I wouldn't be surprised if they also get Chrome to solidify their position on the browser+search market. Sure, that would make a worse monopoly, but until they also get sued for monopoly I could very well see them going for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're confusing a product and an investment. The only value of a product is what it generates. The value of an investment includes the investment itself.
If I spend $20bn today on Chrome then tomorrow I still have a complete investment value of $20bn. There's nothing to get back. The only question is if the value goes down or up. The point of investments are not just to generate cash flow in the value of the investment.
This is why cars are called "a bad investment" since they lose value quickly. The
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing whomever modded me down is the type of person who thinks renting is better financially than paying off a mortgage. Please get some basic financial literacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Chrome might be worth $20 billion to Google, but not to anyone else. So either they force Google to sell it at a huge loss, or nobody buys it.
The only other companies that could make it worth $20bn to them are all monopolies anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good... (Score:2)
...something else for Elon to buy, "improve," and rename.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Leon spending $20B of Saudi and Russian money on Chrome to turn it into part of his X.com empire and then seeing its value drop off to zero as no one cares about it when it's not attached to Google would be lovely to watch. Him stuffing a bunch of cryptocurrency bullshit into it would really be the very best thing for Firefox.
That's crazy talk. (Score:3)
When chromium can be yours for the princely cost of forking it(or just building it with your logo on top and some light UI customizations; most of the chrome-alikes don't seem to have much interest in actually changing the browser's behavior much beyond some UI tweaks and changes to whose servers it talks to by default); the only people who would actually pay nontrivial amounts of money for it would either be ones that are basically in Google's position of wanting a pet browser to help cement the position of their legally-questionable core business, who you probably don't want to hand a pet browser to; and the sort of sleazy consumer malware vendors who can see the value in buying a recognized brand(and control of auto-update locations and signing keys) to ram the thing full of affiliate toolbars and gradually bleed it dry; who would definitely wouldn't want to hand the hapless users over to.
Reminds me a bit of the issue Softbank ran into when trying to unload ARM at a price that got even close to covering what they had overpaid for it: basically anyone who makes electronics found having ARM around to be at least modestly valuable(between the vendors that are ARM licensees themselves and the ones who buy finished microcontrollers and/or application processors from someone who is); but the only people willing to pay really significant amounts of money were those that had a strategic interest in ruining other licensees' days or some short-term gouging strategy to exploit anyone with limited options for switching in the short term.
The actual ongoing development of chromium-engine browsers is honest work and useful; but nobody pays you $20 billion to do useful honest work; they pay that much because they have plans that you probably don't want enacted.
Re: (Score:3)
>"When chromium can be yours for the princely cost of forking it"
No, it isn't yours, it would just be an impossible to maintain fork. Google controls Chromium completely- they control exactly what goes into it. Forking it doesn't give you that power. And nobody can fork it because nobody could possibly maintain it.
>"most of the chrome-alikes don't seem to have much interest in actually changing the browser's behavior much beyond some UI tweaks"
That is because, like I said, it would be impossible to
Re: (Score:2)
That is the value to Google.
But not to others. For any other buyer (maybe except Microsoft, which also has a competing search engine / ads platform), the value is ... zero.
Actually less than that.
Any other browser is either open source, tied to a single platform, or malware. I.e.: it's either a money / energy sink, or crap.
Since the NetScape / Opera days many have tried to monetize browsers and failed. They are basically public utilities at this point.
Why would anyone want to pay any money to Chrome? Especi
Such a deal (Score:2)
Half the sale price of a social media platform that formerly featured a blue bird, yet 10x the use base.
Broadcom?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is open source. It canâ(TM)t make money on its own.
Chromium is open source, Chrome not.
depends on what platform (Score:2)
most people want to be in control of their browsers, so i use alternative browsers on android and Bromide is a Chromium fork with adblocking baked right in
Anti Trust cases don't work (Score:2)
Worth what? (Score:2)
Whats the business case for it to be worth $20B?
Fill it full of advertising? As a browser monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
What about Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Waaaay worse than Google IMHO. They didn't get broken up into MS Windows and MS Office. Seems kinda unfair to me. And AFAICT their malpractice was way worse.
No it does not (Score:2)
Without Google it is worth much less. If they cannot cooperate to integrate their ads and search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
They can. But similar to Firefox, Google then has to pay for being the default search. And given the number of Chrome users, they will have to pay a lot more than they need to pay Mozilla.
Just because you have 3 billion users (Score:2)
3+ billion non-paying users isn't exactly a reliable source of income. Because users have little skin in the game can jump ship to another product or fork.
Targeting advertising, data collection, and strategic partnership contracts with an application with so many users is valuable of course. But a misstep can make that revenue evaporate. Chrome is really only worth $20B in the hands of Google. It's worth substantially less in incompetent hands. Possibly it's worth more in right hands, but I think Google is
Everyone suing Microsoft (Score:2)