Having just read the paper, I find their case for separating out Chrome pretty weak. A lot of their points have nothing to do with Chrome being part of Google really.<p>The failure of the (really weak) DNT standard had nothing to do with Chrome. While I get that Google is an advertiser, Chrome did implement DNT and wasn't even as big of a player back then.<p>Then they talk about Widevine DRM which, say what you want about DRMs, is something media platforms actively asked for due to their licensing. But in anycase, I don't see how this has anything to do with the fact that Google owns Chrome?<p>They also talk a lot about self-preferencing, meaning putting pop-ups to install Chrome on a bunch of Google properties (most notably on search). While I agree that this behavior should be condemned and is anti-trust related, it's mostly about Google leveraging their dominant position in <i>search</i> to gain an edge in the browser space, not the other way around... Barring Google from doing this is what needs to happen, not separating Chrome in a different company.<p>They talk a lot about how Chrome is strategically important for Google, which it is. Chrome is a pure strategy play from Google. But that doesn't mean the industry is suffering because of it (in fact I'd argue Chrome helped the industry tremendously). Until Google abuses their position with Chrome, which the authors haven't made a good case for, I don't see why Chrome should be the target they make it to be.