Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.The idea of carving up Google is back on the agenda. But if US antitrust cops really believe a break-up of parent company Alphabet is the answer, they might be asking the wrong question.The Department of Justice on Wednesday told a court that Google ought to be forced to split off its internet browser, Chrome, to help allay harms caused by the Silicon Valley giant’s internet search monopoly. It also wants Google to share search data with rivals, stop paying device-makers to be their default search engine, and restrain its artificial intelligence data gathering. But outright divestment is the bluntest of antitrust tools, and hence rarely used.It is a potent one, however. If the goal is to cut Google down to size, selling Chrome ticks the box. Some 40 per cent of all “general search” in the US — the market Google has basically cornered — either runs through Chrome or through a smartphone with Chrome pre-installed. Queries logged in Google’s browser by default route through its search engine. Google reaps usage data that then fuels its ad-selling business.The real goal should be not to hobble Google per se but to ensure consumers have choice. On that score, Judge Amit Mehta could opt for less severe measures. He could require Chrome to give users a selection of search providers on first use, as happens in Europe, or stop Google from insisting smartphone makers pre-install Chrome if they want to use its all-important app store.Forcing a sale of Chrome, built by Google from scratch 16 years ago, feels like overkill. So why demand it? One reason is a phrase that has recurred throughout Google’s antitrust tribulations: market reality. There is ample evidence that consumers continue to use Google, and Chrome, even when they have a choice not to. Introducing more market forces now might do next to nothing. Of course, Google’s government foes have another consideration: how to get the best outcome from a protracted legal tug of war against a company with near-limitless ability to fund legal fees? After all, Judge Mehta won’t make his decision until August. After that, Google is likely to appeal. It makes sense for the government’s lawyers to go big, knowing that whatever they demand now, they will end up with less.In the meantime, the awkward reality is that internet users and advertisers choose Google not just because it is dominant, but because it is better. It is now too late to work out which caused the other. The DoJ is therefore left posing an altogether trickier question: how to give internet users not what they actually want, but what the government wishes they wanted [email protected]
