No, because they just repackage the engine. The driving force of the core development is still Google and their whims.
It's hard to say that any of this can be pinned on Google like they're somehow to blame but at the same time we've nonetheless found ourselves in a market where users and developers have very little choice and this currently benefits Google quite a bit.
Good engineering discipline I think would ask major browsers to break themselves purposefully by randomly disabling any features that are browser specific or outside of some "core" standard saying you must only use these opportunistically but that's not a law you can write.
Open Gmail? Why not use Chrome?
Google chat? Tried Chrome?
Search Google? It’s better with Chrome!
Android phone within 1 mile of you? Use Chrome!
Breathing oxygen? Well…
This seems like using one monopoly (search) to create another (browser). Isn’t that exactly what anti-trust laws forbid? Let’s not forget not bothering very hard to make sure their stuff like Google Docs that you may be required to use at work work with other browsers. “Just use Chrome” they say.
MS got hit. Apple is going to. Google should be too, but I doubt it will happen.
(I’d argue giving away Android is dumping and requiring Play is bundling, but that’s another rant)
It's nasty to now rewrite history claiming it's some kind of conspiracy to make a browser that ran way better than IE and Mozilla one.
The definition of anti-competitive behavior doesn’t care. It doesn’t matter if 100% of people switched because it’s better and their friends told them and not a single one did it because of the ads. The ads were still illegal.