# The Internet Will Remain Unchanged, Only the Participants Will Transform
In the constantly shifting realm of the internet, one aspect stays the same: the essential framework of the web. Although the participants—industry leaders, new ventures, and creators—may fluctuate, the internet itself persists as a medium for communication, commerce, and creativity. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently emphasized a vital point in a CNBC interview: divesting Big Tech firms like Google won’t fundamentally resolve the issues people have with them. His remarks highlight a broader reality about the internet: the ecosystem may evolve, but the foundational dynamics largely stay consistent.
## The Mirage of Transformation
The notion of dismantling tech behemoths like Google, Amazon, or Meta (previously Facebook) has gained momentum in recent times. Regulators and lawmakers assert that breaking apart monopolies could promote competition and benefit consumers. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice has contemplated compelling Google to divest its Chrome browser to even the competitive landscape in the search and browser sectors. However, as Schmidt emphasized, such measures may not yield the significant transformation many desire.
The reasoning is straightforward: the internet isn’t shaped by separate companies but by the motivations and incentives that propel them. Whether Chrome is governed by Google, Amazon, or another tech powerhouse, the fundamental business model—leveraging user data for profit—will persist. The participants may shift, but their objectives and tactics will remain unchanged. As Schmidt aptly stated, “Big Tech is equally problematic,” and trading one corporate overlord for another scarcely addresses the core issues.
## Why Dividing Big Tech Won’t Resolve Everything
Fragmenting a corporation like Google might appear to be a win for consumers, but it’s improbable to result in substantial enhancements in the internet’s operations. Here’s why:
1. **The Same Motivations Endure**: Tech corporations excel through data acquisition and targeted marketing. Whether it is Google, Meta, or a theoretical new proprietor of Chrome, the drive to gather and capitalize on user data will endure. These firms are profit-oriented, and the current internet framework incentivizes those who can obtain the most data.
2. **Few Viable Alternatives**: Even if Google were compelled to sell Chrome, the list of potential buyers is limited to other tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, or Apple. These organizations are unlikely to treat user data differently. Smaller, independent entities may lack the necessary resources to compete effectively, leaving the market in the hands of familiar players.
3. **User Preferences**: Individuals utilize products like Chrome not because they are the best or the most ethical choices, but due to their seamless integration with other services. Google’s ecosystem—spanning Gmail, Google Docs, Google Drive, among others—offers a level of convenience few rivals can rival. This unity fosters user loyalty, regardless of the owner of the browser.
4. **Regulatory Hurdles**: Even if regulators manage to dismantle a tech giant, implementing significant changes is a separate challenge altogether. The same regulatory oversight that Google encounters would extend to any new owner of its assets, perpetuating a cycle of legal disputes and minor modifications rather than comprehensive reform.
## The Realities of Big Tech Supremacy
The supremacy of Big Tech results not merely from their size or market dominance; it reflects the evolution of the internet itself. The web has transformed into a data-centric ecosystem, where firms vie to amass, analyze, and profit from user information. This model has generated considerable wealth and innovation, yet has also triggered widespread concerns over privacy, misinformation, and monopolistic behaviors.
For instance, Google’s Chrome browser serves not just as a means for web surfing; it acts as a portal to Google’s broader ecosystem. By connecting with Gmail, Google Drive, and other services, Chrome ensures that users stay within Google’s sphere. This degree of integration provides a substantial advantage that no level of regulatory action can easily disrupt.
Even alternative browsers like Firefox, which emphasize privacy and open-source values, struggle in such an environment. Firefox is financially supported by Google, creating a contradiction where one of the most privacy-conscious browsers relies on one of the largest data gatherers.
## The Participants May Shift, But the Game Endures
The present structure of the internet guarantees that even if one tech giant declines, another will emerge to fill the void. Consider these possible scenarios:
– **If Google Divests Chrome**: A new entity may implement slight adjustments, but the browser would still function as a vehicle for data gathering and monetization. The integration with other services might change, yet the fundamental business model would remain unchanged.
– **If Google Is Divided**: The individual segments of Google—search, advertising, Android, Chrome—would likely continue to hold sway in their specific markets. The division may foster new competitors, but it wouldn’t fundamentally alter the operations of these markets.
– **If Smaller Entities Gain Traction**: While smaller companies like Brave or DuckDuckGo present alternatives, they
