Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
This is a breaking news update from Bloomberg.
Instant reaction and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around the world.
Google doesn't have to sell its popular Chrome web browser, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in the Justice Department's landmark anti trust case against the search engine. The ruling allows Google to avoid one of the most severe remedy requests from the US government after the court found that the company had an illegal monopoly in the search market. The judge did bar Google from entering into exclusive contracts for Internet search.
All Right, we knew we wanted to talk with our man deep seeing of our Bloomberg intelligence team. He's here in studio. Google shares are up. I mean, was this expected?
First of all?
No.
I think that's why you see such an instance stock reaction, because the judge was quite vocal about how Google had created a monopoly because of all the assets, and Chrome was one of the most prominent assets that you know, they the judge focused on so.
Clearly in this case.
The fact that the ruling says that they don't have to divest Chrome, it's positive news. And look, all the exclusive arrangements with Apple and for their operating system.
I think that was.
Expected remedy really, I mean it kind of allows Apple to pick the partner they want. There won't be an exclusive arrangement. But look, from an Apple perspective, they can still say Google has the best LLM and you know they want to do business. So from that perspective, that's why Apple is up too. So you know, this sort of clears all the uncertainty for both the companies.
Look, I'm going to ask you crazy question here. Do we care about search the way that we used to care about search in the sense of typing something into Google, or increasingly do we care more about which LLM people choose.
Well, so the search market has definitely expanded because of generative AI. So think of how Google had a ninety percent plus share. I'm sure if this lawsuit came to the scene and the hearing was happening now, the jet would say Google doesn't have ninety percent plus share because CHATGPT has got one billion monthly active users, it's got the query volume not comparable to Google, but almost you know, one third of Google, And so that search market is
not the same as it was. You know, probably three years back before the launch of Chat GPT, and from that perspective, I mean, look, the search pile has grown. The fact that Google owns Chrome is a big advantage. So when I look at generative AI deployments, browser is a critical aspect of how AI agents will be deployed.
That's why you're seeing such a stock reaction because everyone knows if you take out Chrome from Google, even if Google has their own chips and they have got their own LLM, without a browser, the advantage just goes away.
So divesting Chrome would have been a big, big blow.
And you know that's why the combined entity owning Chrome and owning all the other assets that Google has is such a big advantage when it comes to generative way.
Why are we getting through this ruling?
And I guess I'm just bringing up in a world where we have a White House that I think it's fair to say it's transactional, and we have seen various tech executives make their way to the White House. Is there something that was going on behind the scenes of I don't know that caught the attention. I don't know what are you hearing?
And I mean there are obviously lobbies for these companies, it's not a surprise regardless of the administration.
But look in this case, clearly, as you said.
The administration is transactional, and this was the best outcome for Alphabet, you know, not having to divest anything. There is another pending lawsuit, the ad Tech lawsuit, but even if they have to divest something there, it's not that big of for DLAZ Chrome. Chrome is like the prized asset when it comes to Alphabet. When you think about YouTube and you know all the other things, Chrome is
right up there. Without a browser, generative AI deployments get hard and that's where owning the distribution through Chrome is paramount for a company like Alphabet.
We just want to point out shares of Alphabet are up more than six percent here in the aftermarket, and then Deep mentioned that Apple shares are also higher, and Tim they're up about four percent here.
I want to bring in Tom Giles, he senior executive editor for Global Technology. He joins us from our San Francisco bureau. Tom, this ruling obviously coming as a surprise to investors. Look no further than shares of Alphabet higher by six point four percent in the after hours. Why do you think that we got this ruling today.
I mean, this is a huge sigh of relief, right. This is, as men Deep said, they avoided the most harsh penalty here, which would have been selling Chrome Home, which you know Google has woven into its products and is really an integral part of of their value proposition to many customers. So major side of relief there. They're really allowed to continue to do a lot of the things that they have been doing. They're going to have
to change certain uh certain terms. But something else that they are can they will continue to be allowed to do is is paying for browser placement. They can still make these big cash payments that give their browser, you know, a special uh placement on an on a smartphone for example. They just need to change they can't have the kinds of exclusivity that they have used in the past. That's really what it came down to, and is you know, we're still parsing the decision, so let me be clear
about that. But what they what they said was that if we if we go too far and for example, say no to these payments, that would be onerous to the larger ecosystem, that would hurt some of the small players, some of the manufacturers, some of the other players in here, and I don't think that the DJ clearly does not want to do that at this stage. Remember that some of these decisions are going to be revisited. This is
a six year decision. We just had some headlines on that, so you know, Google's going to have to continue to mind its p's and q's in the coming years to ensure that it doesn't run a foul of this ruling. But on its face, the headline here is this is great news for Google. This is great news for Apple, and you're seeing it in those shares rallying as we speak.
Yeah, as you said, we've got Alphabet up six and quarter percent Tom and then you've got Apple shares up three point six percent to Mendy Pooh. Beyond Apple and Alphabet are kind of watching this decision and maybe a little upset about it.
I mean, remember the news and Perplexity wanted to buy Chrome and they put a value I think it's thirty four billion.
Yeah, we're talking about this earlier. Yeah, put Perplexity on the map. Everyone was like, wait, you don't even have that cash.
Even if Google had to divest Chrome, thirty four billion is too low. Off a price tag for an asset you know that has got over three billion monthly active users. That is at the core of deploying generative AI. I mean that's why you know, when you look at individual assets for Google, everyone looks at how much money does this make? Chrome doesn't make any money on a standalone basis, But when it comes to the value of Chrome, we're
talking fifty billion plus even higher. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to one hundred billion as just a standalone product, given how important it is when it comes to deploying AI.
So Tom Giles, come on back in here.
So if you were sitting down or I don't know if Alphabet's going to do any kind of call or what have you, what would you want to be asking them right now?
Well, first of all, is there a plan to appeal? And what does that look like? What are the grounds? I hate to put it this bluntly, but you guys got off really easy here. You avoided the worst possible scenarios. As we've said, as man Deep and I have been talking about, are you going to appeal? What are the grounds for that? They may see something in here that is owners to them that they feel is going to tie their hands in the future. Again, it's a six
year decision. DJ is giving itself leeway to kind of revisit at least part of this, and so is are there are there clauses? Are the things that they want to change? And do they you know, do they do they want to send the signal that we don't think we're monopolist here, which is of course what they've been saying all along. Do you want to hit that home with with with sending this into an appeals process?
Same question to you, man, Deep So you're sitting down with these execs ever at Alphabet and what you what you would want to know?
I mean, it sounds like they don't want Google to be making any exclusive payments to Apple, like the twenty billion dollar tack payment going forward, which again I view it as a positive because on the one hand, it opens up you know, other search companies to bid for Apple. But Apple has no choice but to go with Google. I mean, their users are used to, you know, the Google experience, and so it sort of saves the twenty billion dollars that Google is paying Apple and that helps
their growth. Martin, So I don't think there's anything bad here in terms of, you know, the judge restricting Google from having an exclusive arrangement with Apple.
Is there anything Tom that we'd be worried though about the EU and their view on this.
We always need to worry if you're Google, if you're one of the major US tech platforms, you always need to worry about what the EU is doing, what they're thinking, where they might land on some of these decision. So I do think it's a slightly different paradigm across the pond, as it were. But I do want to come back to and I'm curious I want to hear from man Deep too about you know, does the removal of the exclusive agreements, what kind of opening does that give to
the other platforms? How might they try to gain an advantage here? It does make a huge difference when you buy your new iPhone or you buy a new smartphone. It makes a huge difference that that there's going to be some kind of institutional or you know, existing support for Google to be the default if you cannot. If you yes, it's okay to make these payments, but if you can't have exclusive agreements, what about what about Claude? What about chat GPT. Can some of these other tools
start to present themselves as alternatives and do it more readily? Mandy, please tell me if i'm you know, yeah, no.
You're all right.
So I mean Google search ninety percent plus share is driven by these exclusive arrangements, So you're right. But I look at it this way. I mean, some of the ruling says Google may have to share their search index with you know, other providers. I have to read the fine print, but that again could make chatchpt better in terms of solving for all the use cases that we use Google for. So from that perspective, it is a risk.
At the same time, I mean, on Android, they own the operating system, so I don't think anything will change from a search experience perspective. And for Apple, again, they want their users to get the best experience, so I don't think they're going to take a chance by completely completely overhauling the search experience and you know, bring in a clot or a chat GPT for the native browser search.
I would be very.
Surprised if they did that. But the I guess the finer point here is if Google were forced to share some of their search index, then that could draw in more competition, and that is a risk.
I just want to point out that our Josh Cisco, who's got the write through on the Bloomberg terminal, says the order is one of the most monumental court decisions affecting the tech sector in more than a quarter century and could offer a blueprint for other judges who may end up weighing similar choices in cases against Meta, Amazon, and Apple. So, I mean, Mandy, first to you, what are those like, what do we need to know about those cases and what that could mean for those companies.
I mean, there is nothing as serious as there is, you know when it comes to Alphabet losing one of their core assets. I think for others, even in the case of Meta, I would have expected more fines than you know, a divestiture. I don't think anybody is forcing Meta to divest in Instagram or you know, whats not the same. It's not the same. In the case of Google, the monopoly lawsuits said they had ninety percent plus share.
That was the basis for the lawsuit.
So the fact that the judge is not saying, you know, they have to divest Chrome and it is a testament to where the market is right now. The search market has changed completely over the course of the last three years so quickly. Yes, right, and so that's why I do think it's a fair ruling from that perspective.
Tom Giles saving forty five seconds.
Final thoughts, I am curious about what kind of precedent this does set. There had been a lot of fear about a breakup of Meta. If you're telling Google that it doesn't have to sell Chrome and look, as Matt Deep said, Google's a very different animal from the Meta situation. Google is making these huge there's these huge payments that are being made right in favor of you know, getting
that browser on. You're not seeing those kinds of same payments as big, multi billion dollar payments heading to or from Meta. So that's another reason why to think that you're not. You don't you even have less reason to worry about a judge coming in or one of these regulators coming in and saying Meta, you need to divest WhatsApp or you need to divest Instagram.
Well, certainly caught our attention, some big news and got some stocks moving. Hey guys, thank you so much. Bloomberg Intelligence Global head of Technology Research mandeep Seeing in our new York Studio and senior executive editor for Global Technology out there on the West Coast, Tom Giles, Thanks so much to both of you.