Browser development doesnt need to go as fast as Google is pushing it. Its OK to slow down and not push new features and standards all the time. It doesnt need to be as expensive as Google is making it.
If Mozilla can make up a significant portion of funding by selling default search engine placement, I'm sure an independent Chrome could get 10x that (based on userbase/usage) and be reasonably self-sufficient for continued browser development.
The owner of Chrome could go to the manufactures of any non Apple phone and tablet and ask them royalties to ship Chrome with their phones. Maintenance releases included. Per unit royalty, flat, whatever they agree upon. The alternative would be Firefox or any other browser, which would have an incentive to follow suit. Or build their own browser. Samsung has one. They might leave the desktop browser free or as Microsoft for money. After all they would be developing the engine used by Edge. Again the alternative would be resuming the development of their own engine, starting with forking Blink.
The owner of Android could do the same. There is a long history of OS licensed to phone manufacturers. The incentive for manufacturers to keep using a common OS is probably much bigger than keep installing Chrome: nobody wants to sell phones without apps and nobody wants to pay developers to develop four or five versions of the same app. Think about home banking or games. Web apps might be enough and I very welcome that, but they are not enough for everything especially on low specs devices.
That’s sort of the point, right? The monopoly laws are designed to go after companies that are using their monopoly position in one market to subsidize other product lines to keep out competition.
Whats weird is that nobody has tried to sell browsers for a very long time. It's not like they gave away Chrome to drive some other browser out of the market.
They developed Chrome because their business was web based and they wanted a solid platform for their apps.
And we all benefited from that stable platform. And it's mostly open source in Chromium. And they are paying Mozilla to stay in the game - an arms length, independent implementation of standards.
I think its wrong to suggest what they should have done is build an entire walled garden like Apple has done.
Update: I think the important part of your statement was "too keep out competition." I don't see how developing and giving away Chrome is stifling the browser market.
I can see how paying other people to make Google search default might stifling the search market, but that has nothing to do with Chrome.
I agree that's what the laws are supposed to go after, but forced sale or divestment seems like the wrong remedy here.
Force Google to charge money for the service, or to pay a portion of imputed stolen revenue to competitors. But Chrome itself is not a viable business without the huge fountain of money that is search ads.
How does Chrome make income? Isn't it basically developed at a loss, but it makes money for Google's other business units?