Sphinn - Google Chrome, Google's Browser Project

54
Sphinn It!

Went Hot: September 2, 2008 - 3:16 am
Posted By: ciaran 307 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://blogoscoped.com)
Category: Google Other

Not content with acting as most people's default browser, Google actually now wants to be people's browser. It makes you wonder why they keep pumping so much cash into Mozilla (although for those guys I guess 'so much cash' is a relative term)

19 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from iBrian 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

This is too surreal - it seems like we've been talking about the G Browser for years.

It makes sense on so many levels, though - as a gateway to a range of virtual services on top of the traditional net services Google has already developed. Plus help defend Google's ad revenue against intentional and accidental ad blockers.

from massa 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

I considered some remark alluding to the death of the free internet but then I realized it died long ago.

Assuming of course it ever existed in the first place.

from NickWilsdon 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@Ciaran

I imagine Google really likes the free PR they get by being associated with the Open Source movement. It places them in a good position against Microsoft and probably goes down well with the techs they are recruiting. In reality I believe Yahoo! is a more serious player in the OS movement, working on and releasing their JS frameworks for example. While Google has used OS technology to build it's empire and server infrastructure, I've seen them criticised for not giving back much.

I can definitely see why they would want to have their own browser, partly for protecting their ad revenue as iBrian says but more so for speeding up and supporting their online office applications. Cloud computing is where it's at now - and having used Google Apps for 6 months myself you soon realise the hype doesn't yet meet the reality. Aside from Gmail, their flagship product, the others do not compare well against Microsoft except on price terms.

Still it would be a big move, to place themselves in competition with FireFox and Mozilla could push them further into the evil empire in most people's eyes. Not a great PR step so it better be worth it.

from NickWilsdon 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

As some additional links: Matt Cutts and Google have now officially confirmed the new browser. Matt has a post coming today which will explain more.

from Harith 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

NickWilsdon,

Rumour has it, Google Chrome has Anti-Blackhat plugin built in already. I.e special Anti-Blackhat algos already incorporated in!!

Chrome is going to discount sites buying backlinks or posting fake linkbait camaignes when it displays Google serps :-)

Furtermore, Chrome has also the famous "Cuttlet-Block Plugin For MattCutts.com" , by @nickwilsdon http://tinyurl.com/2b5rrb :-)

Ok. Lets call it a wishful thinking :-)

from NickWilsdon 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@Harith

>Google Chrome has Anti-Blackhat plugin built in already

Hmm yep sounds a tricky plugin, something along the lines of...

order allow,deny
deny from Russia or China
allow from all

P.S. Ok, Ok - I can't take the pressure, I promise to port the plugin over for you. I wonder what support Google is going to provide for plugins. On a more serious note, that is the real value to me in FF, not so much the default browser.

from iBrian 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Google Chrome book here:
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

A lot of us thought Google would have to go this route at some point, but rather than rush in, it looks like they've given it every serious thought.

If I worked for Google, I'd probably be pretty chuffed with it - Chrome is certainly offering a lot of potential that suggest Google's best technical assets, rather than ad hoc development.

Got to admit, looking forward to using it as well - looks like today will be a positive Google news day.

from NickWilsdon 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@iBrian

Well until we start talking about privacy issues. I'm interested to see how the new browser runs though, especially with the custom Java machine. Like you say, definitely looks like they have given this serious thought.

As I've said though before, the real value of Firefox lies with the extensions not the core. Opera built a far better and faster browser long ago. The FF extensions give me the functionality I want in a browser.

That's not to say Google won't allow contributions, they would be daft not to but it will take time to match the range currently available for FF. There's also the question of how the Mozilla/FF community will take this news. Will the developers there feel Google has just screwed them over? After all Google has built this on the back of Mozilla employees they lured away. If feelings are bad then that could affect how many plugins are built for them.

I guess it may come down to how much of an open source project this actually is. Google don't have the best track record with the OS guys and their other internal projects, such as iGoogle have not attracted quality contributions. I've not seen the OS licence this is being released with, but in my eyes, that will determine the level of community contribution.

If this is truely OS that would also address the privacy concerns - as someone could re-release a custom build with any questionable fuctions removed.

from ChrisOD 306 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

By the way, coincidence or not:

The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. A footnote in Mozilla's 2006 financial report states "Mozilla has a contract with a search engine provider for royalties. The contract originally expired in November 2006 but was renewed for two years and expires in November 2008. Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract."; this equates to approximately US$56.8 million.

from NickWilsdon 306 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

@ChrisOD

Yes saw a note to that in the comments on MattCutts blog, made me wonder.

Did Google reveal this to Mozilla last week, when they renegotiated the partnership to keep Google as the default homepage.
If not, that is less than ethical

from ianmacfarlane 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

What I'm seeing as the major barrier for Google to overcome is how to get this onto people's computers.

See also our take (Sphinn link).

from dannysullivan 306 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

ianmacfarlane no guarantee people will use it, but imagine....

Google has a distribution deal with Dell and when renewing in the future, it gets Dell to make Chrome and not IE the default browser.

Gmail comes out with some awesome new feature that only works initially in Chrome. Other browsers are free to add the Chrome-like functionality since it's all open source, but they have to play catch-up to do so. And Gmail users might decide Chrome works better.

Google Apps similarly gains some new functionality that only works well with Chrome because it's all, you know, a browser for the 21st century.

It's not that Google will be wrong in how Chrome probably will be able to do some things the other browsers won't, at first. It's not like they'll be actively trying to use Chrome as an anti-competitive tool. But the end result might very much be the same.

from DianeV 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

So, one question: is it Standards compliant?

from sza 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

gains some new functionality that only works well with Chrome

As long as the difference in functionality is not very big, it won't be an incentive to switch. If it's big enough, Google could become an offender in the style of "This site looks best with ...", which, I guess, they would definitely want to avoid.

The implicit (or, god forbid, explicit) message of "Our services work best with our own tools" has the potential to make a serious dent in Google's general lovability, which is one of the most important pillars of their success.

Some "awesome new feature that only works initially in Chrome" could be a wake-up call for the wider Google-loving populace about the company's slow slide towards evilness (= being just another greedy corporation).

Although, possibly, they are able to put a shiny friendly spin on it, just like they put a spin on practically everything they did to date to keep their fanboys sedated and happy.

If they consider this new product really important for their own future, we may possibly see the first real marketing push from Google instead of just word-of-mouth and distribution deals.

from NickWilsdon 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Chrome now live for download http://www.google.com/chrome (from Twitter)

from iBrian 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Interesting to see Chrome offer to import Firefox bookmarks, but didn't ask about IE (unless I overlooked something).

If this is the case, trying to grab market share from Firefox rather than IE could end up looking like factionalism - unless it keenly targets people most likely to run Firefox rather than IE for take up.

2c.

from omalainternet 306 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Here's what I think on privacy issues, behavioral patterns, and how it's going to affect trash websites:
http://sphinn.com/story/70132

from DavidGerard 305 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." - http://notnews.today.com/?p=57

from iBrian 305 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

"Interesting to see Chrome offer to import Firefox bookmarks, but didn't ask about IE"

My bad, it's importing from the default browser.