Yes, they can, so it's not an asset???

The answer to your question is simple - because you can get funded by Google to keep its search the default

But as many have said repeatedly here, people use Chrome BECAUSE it has Google's integrations. They choose to use Chrome because of Google. So why would anyone buy Chrome that is devoid of anything Google?

Further more, why would Google pay money to Chrome's buyer if they can simply spin up another browser used open source Chromium (which Google maintains), and start marketing that?

On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make?

The other things are also simple:

Saying things repeatedly doesn't make them universally true.

You don't need to buy anything, it can continue to be free, why did you make it up???

Google would pay because they can't make another leader overnight. Also they might be banned from doing so.

So basically, you think:

1. Google must sell Chrome

2. Google must continue to pay the new buyer tens of billions for the right to be default engine

3. Google is disallowed from making a browser ever again

4. Google must abandon Chromium, and their engineers should stop contributing to Chromium because of #3

I feel sorry for Google. The Biden administration is absolutely clueless on how tech works and the Trump administration will hate Google regardless.

It's actually dumber. Google can't "pay the new buyer tens of billions for the right to be default engine" either.

Which comes back to my original point, who the heck is going to buy Chrome?

Basically, I think you're making more stuff up to substitute for the lack of argument in the previous stuff you've made up, which isn't related to the main point.

So, no, of course you guessed wrong again in your 1-4

  On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make?

This was your question right?

I'd provide an argument if the question was more coherent.

How would you provide an argument with such a level of comprehension? There are 3 identical questions you ignored, if you can't comprehend the third one you could fall back to the first two, which are phrased a bit simpler.

But that's enough of your trolling for me, goodbye

    On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave does not not an asset make?

What does "not not" mean?

Yikes.