Break off Chrome into its own company that can serve it's own interests in making a good browser that serves the user (remember it's called the user agent because the browser must ultimately serve the user above all else) rather than serving Googles ad interests would be the right kind of action.
Right now, Chrome is compromised in terms of meaningful user privacy and user security because Googles bottom line largely relies on them not making those features as good as they can, while pretending they do. They can't just block 3rd party cookies to reduce tracking, it has to come with their Topics API so that Google can keep its ad monopoly (and that API consolidates Googles powers even more, especially considering the current implementation has Google playing literal gatekeeper over who can and can't use it instead of solving the privacy issue that the Topics API has).
For another example; WebManifest v3 was intended as a security update to the mess of v2... but it also conveniently takes a wrecking ball to adblockers (a major issue for Google the ad company) and guess what Google (the browser developer) is basically completely non-responsive about. They could respond to this and work out an actual solution, but the only thing they do is keep pushing back the permanent end date for V2 to avoid the bad PR.
Finally, as for avoiding punishment; Google could do all of the above and make an agreement (with legal consequences upon violation) that the Chrome team/subsidiary is wholly independent from the rest of Google when it comes to making executive decisions on where to take a browser. That way, they wouldn't have to break it off and can still take in the profits/fund the development of Chrome without it being compromised into serving Google.
> Break off Chrome into its own company that can serve it's own interests in making a good browser that serves the user
That’s nice in theory, but historically, browser only companies haven’t been very successful in the market. No one wants to pay for a browser and monetizing one is a full of a big pool of dark patterns.
The most successful browser engines have always been those that we tied to another source of income, namely, the OS or search. Doesn’t Firefox still get the bulk of its funding from Google?
Even as a separate company, Chrome would be beholden to some external entity (likely Google search) for money, and that still carries with it the same risks as now, just formalized with contracts.
In a world where everybody uses Chromium, which is paid by surveillance capitalism.
I really don't know, but I could imagine a world where some people would pay for their browser (many would use the "community edition", probably), and where search engines would pay to be the default.
Google would probably still contribute to Chromium, they would just not directly have control over its governance. Maybe overall the web tech would move slower, but I don't think that would necessarily be bad.
In my world, people use whatever spying piece of crap browser a random app installed as a default for them. I really don't think anybody except a few enthusiasts would pay for a browser.
How would Chrome company make money? Nobody is going to buy the browser. They'd be selling content relevant ad space on the app or just implementing whatever google pays them to implement.
Right now, Chrome is compromised in terms of meaningful user privacy and user security because Googles bottom line largely relies on them not making those features as good as they can, while pretending they do. They can't just block 3rd party cookies to reduce tracking, it has to come with their Topics API so that Google can keep its ad monopoly (and that API consolidates Googles powers even more, especially considering the current implementation has Google playing literal gatekeeper over who can and can't use it instead of solving the privacy issue that the Topics API has).
For another example; WebManifest v3 was intended as a security update to the mess of v2... but it also conveniently takes a wrecking ball to adblockers (a major issue for Google the ad company) and guess what Google (the browser developer) is basically completely non-responsive about. They could respond to this and work out an actual solution, but the only thing they do is keep pushing back the permanent end date for V2 to avoid the bad PR.
Finally, as for avoiding punishment; Google could do all of the above and make an agreement (with legal consequences upon violation) that the Chrome team/subsidiary is wholly independent from the rest of Google when it comes to making executive decisions on where to take a browser. That way, they wouldn't have to break it off and can still take in the profits/fund the development of Chrome without it being compromised into serving Google.