Google is receiving support from an interesting source, with CTO and Ruby on Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson, saying the company should not be forced to sell Chrome.

The DOJ is arguing its case that Google should be forced to sell off its Chrome web browser, saying having the dominant web browser gives the company an unfair advantage pushing users toward its dominant search engine. The DOJ’s theory is that selling Chrome would cut off one of the biggest onboarding advantages Google has for its search engine, giving other companies a better chance at competing.

Hansson doesn’t see it that way, making the case that the internet will be far worse off if Google is forced to divest itself of its web browser.

First, Chrome won the browser war fair and square by building a better surfboard for the internet. This wasn’t some opportune acquisition. This was the result of grand investments, great technical prowess, and markets doing what they’re supposed to do: rewarding the best. Besides, we have a million alternatives. Firefox still exists, so does Safari, so does the billion Chromium-based browsers like Brave and Edge. And we finally even have new engines on the way with the Ladybird browser.

Look, Google’s trillion-dollar business depends on a thriving web that can be searched by Google.com, that can be plastered in AdSense, and that now can feed the wisdom of AI. Thus, Google’s incredible work to further the web isn’t an act of charity, it’s of economic self-interest, and that’s why it works. Capitalism doesn’t run on benevolence, but incentives.

Interestingly, Hansson also makes the case that Google is all that stands in the way of Apple and Microsoft forcing users to rely exclusively on their app ecosystems, rather than being able to rely on web-based applications too.

We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web’s corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web’s capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in — and it did!

But the vitality of that free and open application platform depends on constant development. If the web stagnates, other platforms will gain. But with Team Chrome pushing the web forward in a million ways — be it import maps, nested CSS, web push, etc. — is therefore essential.

Hansson ultimately agrees that Google should not be allowed to unfairly dominate the online ad market, but he strongly believes forcing it to sell Chrome is a bad idea.