for sale: google chrome, never monetized

The DOJ is about to drop the biggest antitrust bomb since Microsoft's Internet Explorer case.

In the late '90s, bundling IE with Windows licenses played a big role in getting Microsoft labeled a monopoly and for good reason. IE's complete stranglehold peaked at ~95% market share (150M users). Today Chrome's "mere" 65% translates to 3+ billion users and gives Google far more control over the web than IE's team could dream of.

The DOJ's ideal solution? Make Google do what Microsoft probably should have done: spin off or sell off their browser.

But my question is: who on Earth could even buy it?

Leah Nylen and Josh Sisco, reporting for Bloomberg (November 18, 2024):

Top Justice Department antitrust officials have decided to ask a judge to force Alphabet Inc.’s Google to sell off its Chrome browser in what would be a historic crackdown on one of the world’s biggest tech companies.

A Fair Price

Leah Nylen, reporting for Bloomberg (November 19, 2024):

Should a sale proceed, Chrome would be worth “at least $15-$20 billion, given it has over 3 billion monthly active users,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh.

I think Chrome is worth way more than that. Consider that Google was paying Apple as much as $20B per year just to be Safari's default search engine (about 36% of what Google earned from Safari search advertising). And that was $20B annually for partial access to just Safari's 18% market share. Chrome has nearly four times Safari's user base. Add in that Chrome is also one of tech's most powerful consumer brands, has a massive app extension ecosystem and deep enterprise penetration... $15-20B almost feels laughably low.

Until, of course, you consider Chrome never had a business model and whoever buys it will just be burning money. That is, unless, they figure out how to make it profitable without completely angering its users. Google seemed to have that figured out with search ads, but that road now looks hazardous for others to follow.

The Likely Suspects

It begs the question, if Chrome gave Google too much power over search, who could run it without abusing some other kind of monopoly power? And what will a future owner do about search, especially since users genuinely prefer Google? It makes me wonder if Google is realistically punished by this, or if this is just the old joke about boats and the two happiest days of ownership? If Chrome sales, they get some money sure, but they also get to offload a massive expense while still likely holding onto their default search engine status with a lot less antitrust heat.

At a bare minimum, I can't imagine Apple or Microsoft, with their entenched investments into their own browsers and previous antitrust baggage, would even dare think about bidding for Chrome. And, any other big tech company with the cash, capacity or ambition to successfully run Chrome is realistically on list somewhere at the FTC or DOJ. Even if we still consider companies with pending or future anti-trust cases, it's a surprisingly small pool of potential buyers.

While I'm honestly not a gambling man, let's head over to my imaginary betting window while I set some completely arbitrary odds on potential buyers:

Meta – The Favorite (3:1)

I think Meta is a clear frontrunner should they want it. Zuckerberg has spent the last decade trying to escape the platform constraints that Apple and Google have placed on his empire and Chrome could finally give Meta what they've always wanted: unfettered access to users outside of their app.

The strategic fit is perfect. Meta's aggressive push into AI with their Llama models needs a direct consumer touchpoint, but while Meta AI keeps gaining users, its utility is constrained by Meta's apps. Building Meta AI-powered browsing assistants into Chrome could directly compete with Google’s Gemini and seriously enhance their AI’s relevance.

There's a hardware dimension too. While Meta's Quest headsets and Ray-Ban smart glasses show they're serious about owning new computing platforms, Chrome could give them an even stronger position in one of today's dominant platforms while they work on tomorrow's. And, if the company's metaverse vision ever materializes, controlling the world's dominant browser could be a crucial bridge between traditional computing and whatever comes next. Unlike their failed mobile efforts with Facebook Home, browser ownership is a much more achievable path to platform relevance.

But both of those are still not the biggest prize of this transaction. Chrome would give Meta something they've only dreamed of: a complete view of users' entire digital lives. The advertising implications are staggering, and instead of seeing only what users do inside Facebook and Instagram, they'd get insights into every website visit, every search, every purchase. For a company built on turning user data into advertising gold, that's worth almost any price.

But regulatory hurdles for Meta are quite real. Meta would probably face intense scrutiny, especially under a Trump Administration FTC and DOJ, but they might actually have an easier time than other tech giants precisely because they're not currently a browser or search player at all. By that token, DOJ might see Meta as a legitimate counterweight to both Google and Apple's browser dominance.

The price tag would be steep, but Meta's $70B cash pile and need for more desktop and enterprise reach make this their best shot for platform relevance. Also, don't bet against Zuck when user data is on the line.

Amazon – The Gift Horse (6:1)

Amazon's case for Chrome feels pretty obvious at first glance. Their advertising business is already a juggernaut spanning sponsored products, brand experiences, streaming TV, audio, display ads, and even physical packaging. But it's still largely confined to their own ecosystem. Chrome user data would dramatically change that equation, giving them insight into the entire consumer journey, not just what happens inside Amazon's walled garden. Combined with their existing retail, streaming, and device data, they'd have an even more powerful advertising powerhouse that could rival both Google and Meta. Heck, just adding one new Amazon ad to Chrome's new tab page could justify the purchase price.

Amazon's track record with platforms is pretty mixed. The Fire Phone flopped, their Fire OS is a weak Android fork for TVs and tablets, and the Chromium-based Silk browser struggles on Amazon's underpowered hardware. Yet Amazon has proven they can absorb and scale major acquisitions like Twitch, Ring, and Zappos. The problem is these acquisitions have plateaued a bit too. Twitch regularly loses top streamers to YouTube while Ring keeps delaying on promises like HomeKit support and their 2020 in-home security drone. Even Alexa, itself born from acquiring Polish startup Ivona Software, has lost its early voice AI lead to OpenAI and Google. This summer, The Wall Street Journal reported Amazon lost over $25 billion on Alexa devices between 2017-2021, selling half a billion units at razor-thin margins hoping to drive merchandise sales from users who treat them as fancy alarm clocks. Even now, as Amazon pushes hard on enterprise AI with AWS Bedrock and Q, they're still trailing in consumer AI. Chrome's billions of users are tempting, but Amazon's mixed record of strong integrations suggests this might be an expensive distraction rather than a strategic necessity.

But Amazon's biggest hurdle might be regulatory. They're already under intense antitrust scrutiny, with the FTC's lawsuit heading to trial in October 2026. That case focuses on Amazon's retail dominance and pricing algorithms like "Project Nessie" that allegedly extracted billions from consumers. Giving them control of the world's most popular browser could be a bridge too far for regulators. The DOJ's whole point is to reduce concentration of power but letting Amazon add Chrome to their arsenal might just be the opposite.

They're still a logical contender with clear advertising potential, but the limited hardware synergies and regulatory challenges make this feel more like a thought experiment than a realistic outcome.

Yahoo (Apollo Global Management) - The Dark Horse (20:1)

Apollo Global's Yahoo might seem like an unlikely Chrome suitor, but the private equity firm has shown a surprising amount of ambition since acquiring Yahoo from Verizon for $5B in 2021. While current CEO Jim Lanzone has successfully led content and advertising businesses at CBS and Ask.com, Chrome would demand something Yahoo currently lacks: a strong product and entrepreneurial leader who could transform the world's favorite free browser into an actual business. Given Chrome's role in cementing Google's search dominance, monetization was never the goal and turning Chrome from a cost center into a revenue generator, while maintaining its technical excellence, will require a unique kind of executive leader.

But Chrome would transform Yahoo's comeback story overnight. Instead of relying on a declining but substantial user base, they'd have access to billions of new users. The advertising and analytics potential would dwarf Yahoo's current reach, potentially justifying Apollo's purchase price and then some.

There's also a really fascinating regulatory angle. The DOJ's core complaint is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its search monopoly, but Yahoo licenses search results from Microsoft's Bing. If Yahoo owned Chrome and made Yahoo Search (powered by Bing) the default, it might actually help create the search competition the DOJ wants, if a bit indirectly. Microsoft would get the expanded user base they need to improve Bing without triggering the antitrust concerns of buying Chrome themselves. It's a potentially elegant, if still entirely implausible, way to boost search competition through the back door.

But there are two massive hurdles. First, this isn't the old Yahoo. Apollo's version is a much leaner operation focused on digital advertising and content. While they've shown promising signs under private equity ownership, maintaining and evolving Chrome's massively distributed codebase would require an enormous investment in engineering talent and R&D that Yahoo simply doesn't have right now. Even if they could attract the right people, building that capability would cost nearly as much as Chrome itself. Second, it's unclear if Apollo would be able to justify Chrome's price tag. While they have deep pockets, private equity typically looks for clear paths to profitability and monetizing something people have been getting for free for the past 16 years is not going to be easy.

So while Yahoo offers a uniquely clean regulatory path through its Bing partnership and search-neutral position, the odds remain quite long. Without the right product leadership and engineering muscle, Chrome's potential would wither in Yahoo's hands.

Oracle – Larry's Last Stand (25:1)

Oracle might seem like a dark horse for Chrome, but Larry Ellison has never met a Google fight (or big tech acquisition) he couldn’t resist. Oracle has the technical resources to maintain Chrome's codebase and deep enterprise relationships that could turn into real value. They've managed major open source projects before, though their handling of Java after acquiring Sun, and the aggressive licensing fees of the Google lawsuit might not inspire a lot of confidence.

I think an enterprise angle is pretty compelling. While consumers might balk at Oracle branded Chrome, business customers already pay Oracle billions for mission critical software. Chrome for Enterprise already exists with advanced security and management features and Google charges for it. Oracle's massive sales operation could bundle this into their existing packages, creating the kind of clear monetization path that could justify a massive acquisition price.

But the cultural mismatch is hard to ignore. Oracle excels at extracting maximum revenue from enterprise customers who have no choice but to pay up, while Chrome succeeded by being free, open, and beloved by everyday users and developers alike. Trying to combine these two would be like oil and water. The developer community, which has long viewed Oracle as hostile to open source, might just flee Chrome entirely.

So while the enterprise strategy is compelling, Oracle's DNA might be too fundamentally at odds with Chrome's to make it work. Then again, Larry Ellison is one of Trump's biggest backers, and with Trump's DOJ and FTC likely calling the antitrust shots when this all happens, regulatory approval might be more about political allegiance than consumer interest. After all, Oracle nearly landed TikTok in 2020 through Trump's direct intervention, a deal that made more political sense than technical sense. Stranger things have happened in tech M&A.

Other Long Shots

• Cloudflare: They'd be a strong values match given their focus on improving the web, but acquiring Chrome would require them to scale massively—likely to afford and sustain the technical and operational demands of the browser.

• Zoom: Despite attempts to expand beyond video calls with tools like Zoom Docs, email, and calendar, none have achieved significant traction yet. Acquiring Chrome would be an even bigger leap, pushing the organization far beyond their core expertise, likely spreading them too thin.

• Elon Musk: Musk probably sees the appeal of owning the world’s dominant browser, but with SpaceX, Tesla, X and now the Department of Government Efficiency all vying for his attention (and budgets), taking on Chrome might finally stretch those resources and focus too far.

• Salesforce: While Chrome's dominance would give Salesforce unprecedented access to integrate their enterprise tools directly into billions of browsers, it's hard to see them succeeding in consumer tech. Marc Benioff has shown little interest in consumer products, and Salesforce's enterprise DNA makes them an awkward steward for the world's most popular browser.

• Intuit: While Intuit excels at creating mass-market financial tools, transitioning to managing a global web browser is a leap too far. Chrome’s scale and complexity don’t align with Intuit’s existing business model or expertise.

• OpenAI: It’s hard to imagine a scenario where OpenAI would step into the browser market. While the company’s AI tools and services are undeniably transformative, its focus has been on advancing artificial intelligence rather than managing a complex, user-facing product like Chrome.

The Chromium Question

One intriguing aspect of this situation is Chromium, the open-source core of Chrome. The DOJ’s filing might clarify whether Google could continue maintaining Chromium after divesting Chrome. If Google retains control of Chromium, it would significantly lower the technical barrier for potential buyers, as the acquisition would focus more on the Chrome brand than on its technical foundation. However, this could also diminish Chrome’s overall value as a product. On the other hand, if Google cannot remain Chromium’s maintainer, the pool of companies capable of managing both Chrome and Chromium’s massive codebases shrinks considerably.

We'll know more soon, but one thing's certain: whoever buys Chrome will reshape how billions of people access the web. Whether that ends up being better or worse than Google's current dominance also remains to be seen.