×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Chrome OEM Strategy To Take On IE

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the countdown-to-antitrust-suits dept.

Google 290

ruphus13 writes "In an effort to take on IE and make strong headway in its share of the browser market, Google is taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook and working on deals with PC OEMs to include Chrome in their devices. From the article: '[Google] is likely to pursue deals with major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to put Chrome on their computers and devices. ... If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever. ... Google, much more so than Mozilla, has enough global brand recognition, money, and savvy to make a big deal of this. ... Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops. Chrome currently has just under one percent market share, according to NetApplications. That number could rise significantly through this effort. Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

290 comments

Will it really matter ? (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853543)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

Why not just get them to include firefox and google apps, giving something of more perceived value?

Re:Will it really matter ? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853617)

I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there process.

Re:Will it really matter ? (5, Funny)

hclewk (1248568) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854171)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time

Agreed. It's quite interesting that it is still loads better than IE, though.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854393)

I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there (sic) process.

Firefox and Opera aren't standing still ...

Re:Will it really matter ? (4, Funny)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854439)

But will they still call it beta?

Re:Will it really matter ? (4, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854555)

But will they still call it beta?

Uncertain. I don't know how Google's "permanent beta" policy would fly with Windows' "our beta is alpha, our RC is beta, and our SP1 is what we should have released".

Re:Will it really matter ? (5, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854637)

Chrome doesn't have adblock, and probably never will. Extensions are king, and firefox has that mindshare. Linkify, Greasemonkey, noscript, webdeveloper, firebug, etc.

I played with Chrome for about an hour and then removed it. It's a pretty horrible experience after firefox which makes it a rather pointless web browser.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854707)

However have you checked Chromes Developers tools imbedded in it. They are comparable (not the same) to firebug. As well many of the other controls only appeal to geeks, or people who for some reason doesn't want to follow web standards created past 1994. I would use Chrome if it was available for the Mac. It is faster then Firefox and a more basic UI

Re:Will it really matter ? (5, Insightful)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854977)

I installed Chrome, and forced myself to use nothing else for a week just to give it a fair try. Since then, I've not used anything else. I love the layout and the functionality - the way it uses tabs, and the fact that one tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser, is great. Sounds like I'm in a minority, though. Ah well.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Interesting)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 5 years ago | (#25855093)

While I personally agree (I couldn't live without Foxmarks, Adblock, etc), I'm not sure that the internet horde cares that much about extensions. I mean, I work with a lot of smart people (physicians) who have no clue what an extension is and don't really care.

I'd be curious what percentage of Firefox users actually use extensions. I would not be surprised if a quick, simple browser that loads ALL your web pages correctly would appeal to the majority of users.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Interesting)

ITEric (1392795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853745)

I use Chrome all of the time. I like it really well, and it's only getting better. The problem is, Google seems to keep their apps in perpetual beta. What OEM is going to want to install a beta on all of their equipment?

Re:Will it really matter ? (4, Interesting)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853807)

I used Chrome for two weeks straight and got used to it. However, once I switched back to Firefox, it was such a vast improvement I cannot begin to describe it. Even Firefox's omnibar is better at finding 'partial' URLs than Chrome's, and that's unforgivable considering how highly they were touting it.

Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854051)

Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.

Apparently you don't quite understand the concept of competition. There isn't always "The Big Guy" and "One Underdog". Why should Firefox be the only one allowed to compete?

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Informative)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854231)

Last I checked there was IE, Firefox, Opera, Konquerer, Chrome, Mosaic... plenty of browsers out there. But as far as rooting out IE goes, wouldn't you want the "best browser" to be the one to do it? I happen to think Firefox is more polished and far, far better supported on the "add-on" side of things, so I want that to be the one that other people switch to.

If you have switched to what you believe to be a better alternative but other people have not yet, isn't it normal to want to try and improve their situations, as well?

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854277)

But as far as rooting out IE goes, wouldn't you want the "best browser" to be the one to do it?

Obviously. The part where I disagree is which one is the best. You already know which one you want, so you can choose just fine. Let the other browsers compete at getting chosen by those that haven't decided.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854441)

Who does the choosing? Some people using IE don't care which browser they use, yet I still think they would benefit from switching to another. Don't you? Getting an OEM to go with a particular browser is how we make the choice for some people as to which browser they use.

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854503)

The OEM makes the choice as you appear to have suggested. Let the alternatives compete at getting the agreements with the OEM. Claiming that Firefox should be the only one allowed to seek agreements is your opinion, and one I disagree with.

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Informative)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854629)

Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.

I said that. It means I wish it were Firefox in this story on Slashdot instead of Chrome. It doesn't mean that I think Google Chrome should be banned from going near an OEM for negotiations, and it doesn't mean that I think the only option should be Firefox. Is that what this whole thread was about, GigaplexNZ? ;)

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854677)

Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE.

It doesn't mean that I think Google Chrome should be banned from going near an OEM for negotiations

It certainly sounded like you were suggesting that Google should be banned from dealing with the OEMs to supplant IE.

Re:Will it really matter ? (3, Insightful)

hplus (1310833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853787)

I think the biggest effect this will have will be raising people awareness that other browsers exist. Didn't Opera report seeing a bump in their download numbers after Chrome came out?

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853987)

It was due to Google fanboys trying to dig for reasons to rate Chrome as #2 (since it was shit compared to FF). Turns out it was shit compared to Opera, too.

Opera is the best browser I've used in terms of design and memory usage.
FireFox is the best I've used in terms of speed and ease of use.
IE is the best I've used in terms of compatibility (It gets this by default simply because of ActiveX, but also because you know that odd site that just doesn't play nice in FF or Opera probably works in IE, and you won't get pages telling you to install quicktime or the latest flash, despite the fact that you did that 5 fucking times already, like you do in FF).

Bottom line is, if I'm setting up a machine for someone else, I just set up IE and FF, and let them use whatever they want.

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854067)

IE is the best I've used in terms of compatibility (It gets this by default simply because of ActiveX, but also because you know that odd site that just doesn't play nice in FF or Opera probably works in IE, and you won't get pages telling you to install quicktime or the latest flash, despite the fact that you did that 5 fucking times already, like you do in FF).

Oh, come on. The last time I saw a site that did not play nice in Firefox or required ActiveX, was years ago. I think it was my banking site in anno 2003...

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854317)

Unfortunately, ActiveX is extremely common in corporate intranets, making it the one and only mandated browser for corporate use in a lot of places.

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854607)

Unfortunately, ActiveX is extremely common in corporate intranets, making it the one and only mandated browser for corporate use in a lot of places.

There is one task at my workplace that requires to be done through IE. So I have to switch computers just for that one task.
Simply marvellous.

Then again, the application was designed way back when Windows was much more of a monoculture, and Firefox was not even a gleam in the milkman's eye.

Re:Will it really matter ? (0)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#25855069)

You don't live in Korea, then. Almost everything requires IE, even gov't websites. Oh, and everything requires Flash. I pity the blind and epileptic in this country.

Planning (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853909)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

You don't, usually, start working on how you are going to distribute a product after you know it is ready for the market. You work on what you need to do to secure the distribution channels you want to have while you are getting the product ready, so when it is ready, those will be in place.

Presumably, Google has an idea of where it wants Chrome to go and a plan to get it there. If it doesn't then, sure, this discussion of OEM deals may be premature, but you certainly can't conclude that from the fact (which I certainly don't dispute, though I use Chrome for almost all of my home browsing now) that Chrome isn't ready today to be most people's sole browser.

Re:Planning (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854283)

Chrome would be ready for our primetime if it supported plugins.

Google could also offer a choice between Firefox and Chrome, or even install both to let the user experiment with which one they like best).

Google would win either way since Google and Mozilla already have a strategic alliance lasting until 2011 and both browsers have already integrated Google search, and I don't think Joe user wouldn't mind having them both given that he's already used to bundleware from the OEMs.

Suppose that the OEMs bundle Chrome in as the default browser and by some miracle Chrome's browser share replaces IE's overnight. People who knew only IE would still have to view each and every ad. They've given in to the fact that all ads must be seen, but they'll still be grateful that Chrome is cleaner, faster, and safer than their alternative was.

As for the rest of us, Google, where the hell are the plugins?!

Re:Will it really matter ? (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853977)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time

I think it is ready. I use Chrome exclusively on my laptops. It started out of curiosity, but now I am used to it, and it renders all the pages and shows all the videos I need it to. And it's fast.

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854375)

it renders all the pages and shows all the videos I need it to. And it's fast.

Any browser on a modern laptop is fast.

Re:Will it really matter ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854773)

Disagree. Firefox still feels sluggish at times even on a 3Ghz C2D

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854917)

Disagree. Firefox still feels sluggish at times even on a 3Ghz C2D

Are you running Windows? That could explain it ... I've had NO problems under linux on an AMD64 dual 1.9 w 4 gig ram.

Fix it first (2, Interesting)

br00tus (528477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854149)

I agree. I can't print documents without a header and footer (I can with Firefox, or even IE). I can't block images like with Firefox. There are things I like about Chrome, like that one tab acting funny or crashing does not affect the other tabs, or the downloading interface it has, or that it remembers my most frequently trafficked pages and makes that as my start page, or that I can move tabs around, or that new tabs expand locally etc. But I hate having to use multiple browsers just to block images, or print a page, or whatever.

Another ironic thing is, they create a browser so that Microsoft can't monopolize the viewing experience of the Google web page, but then they only release it on Microsoft's OS. I am typing at the moment in a Seamonkey browser on my Gnewsense (RMS-approved Ubuntu fork) box, if Chrome was released on Linux, maybe I'd be using it instead.

Re:Fix it first (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854427)

I downloaded it to do compatibility testing, then decided "why bother?" I don't use Windows on my laptop, my home box, or my box at work; bad enough I have to track down a user who still has IE6 once in a while.

Funny thing was, I had switched to Opera a while back, but a few months ago I switched back to firefox, because Opera stopped working properly (had to right-click to open links). FF3 is a big improvement.

Re:Will it really matter ? (0, Troll)

Trillan (597339) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854307)

Years later, Firefox still isn't really ready for prime time either. At this point, I think Google's got a good shot at getting there first.

For the record, this isn't to say I think IE is any good. It's horrible, and easily the worst of the crowd. But Firefox is far from a perfect browser, and some days barely hits "passable."

And IE is? (5, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854329)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time

And IE is? :)

Re:And IE is? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854533)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time

And IE is? :)

I don't use Windows either at home or at work, but I had to use IE8 to debug a problem with some dynamic content under Windows - it might not have Firebug like Firefox, but it's a lot better than it was ... If IE8 had been out 6 years ago, Firefox wouldn't be a threat. Then again, if they had introduced Vista 6 years ago, everyone would have had no choice but to run linux or OSX (can you imagine Vista on a 1 ghz Pentium with 128k of ram, a 64 meg video card, and a 20 gig hard drive?)

Re:And IE is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854989)

128k of RAM; luxury. I manage fine with my Commodore 64!

Chrome has the "wow" factor (1)

Skythe (921438) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854667)

(Disclaimer: I've been a long time FF user a while)
For the past few weeks, outside of a work context I've been only using Chrome for home use. I've had the chance to show a lot of un-tech saavy friends it in action. I have found it to be relatively easy to impress them with Chrome: showing them the new tab page, incognito; most of them are even familiar with windows task manager so it's simple to explain the sandboxed tab mode Chrome operates in; and most of all the snap-in/out tab behavior has had a major impression. I've had luck converting friends to Firefox, but it's never formed the same "wow" impression that Chrome has: most of the friends I've showed Chrome have shown genuine interest rather than just installing Firefox because i'm their token "clever nerd friend". It also has the added impression of being made by "Google" - many of my friends have no idea who "Opera" (Software) is, and are not willing to expend the effort into customizing Firefox.

As for Chrome itself, i've been using the dev branch for a few weeks, which is up to about version 4.154. According to wikipedia, the stable branch is up to 3.154: considering it's only been in beta a few weeks it can't be *that* long away from a version 1.0 (then again, it is Google, I think if Gmail had a similar version numbering scheme it would be up to something like 15.154..). Chrome has only crashed on me once in the past few weeks, i'm not seeing any serious stability issues. It feels like a more functional version of Opera (no offense, Opera fans). I'm not sure if anybody will know what i mean here, but I've always felt that Opera had a "smooth" sort of feel to browsing, in opening tabs, navigating, moving through the interface, which is something I have definitely not experienced in IE and to a lesser extent in Firefox. Chrome emulates this and pulls it off even better.

Personally, i think including Chrome OEM is a fantastic idea. The "wow" factor it puts off will get it quick adoption. It's simply something base Firefox doesn't have anymore - at least not over modern implementations of IE and without extensions. If Google can pull this OEM thing off and implement an extension platform even remotely as good as Firefox's, then I think it may gain some serious market share. (I'd also *love* to see an awesomebar implementation in Chrome, with some obviously-needed UI tweaks to suit Chrome's interface, but i have my doubts over whether i will see this day).

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854963)

Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

Many people would claim that neither is IE, or Firefox for that matter.

Re:Will it really matter ? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25855019)

Very true. And I think everybody working on Chrome knows it. So this story had me really confused. So I did the unthinkable: I read TFA.

Which turns out to be just some pundits half-assed speculation based on the following quote by a Google exec:

"We will probably do distribution deals," Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management at Google, told The Times. "We could work with an OEM and have them ship computers with Chrome pre-installed."

That's a long way from actually pursuing OEM deals. I suspect Pichai was actually talking about how they might try to get some market share once Chrome is ready for prime time.

Either that, or he's one of those dimwitted marketeers who doesn't really understand the product he's marketing.

Microsoft will play hardball (2, Interesting)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853557)

Sounds great in principal but hasn't the problem always been that Microsoft counters action like this by telling the manufacturers that if they ship competing software they will lose their OEM discounts for Windows? I am not completely up to date will the anti-trust judgements against Microsoft but assuming that this counter-attack hasn't been legally ruled out already, can't we expect Microsoft to do the same here?

Re:Microsoft will play hardball (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853647)

I think Google is large enough make doing that embarrassing to MS, and get the attention of the Attorney general.

Hell, maybe they want MS to get some anti-trust investigation against MS.

Google doesn't need MS, at all. They have nothing to fear from them.

Re:Microsoft will play hardball (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853877)

I agree that Google is large enough to get this to work: I've already had completely computer illiterate people send me links to Chrome as the next greatest thing. One of them even had trouble understanding that IE and firefox were not the same yet knows what Chrome is.

As for the attorney general -- remember what happened with the last anti-trust suit? Right after Bush was elected, there was a new attorney general and the DoJ announced that it was no longer seeking a break-up of microsoft. With a change in the political winds and a new adminstration, it's entirely plausible that Google is gunning to restart anti-trust litigation.

If it ain't broke don't fix it (3, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854709)

With a change in the political winds and a new adminstration, it's entirely plausible that Google is gunning to restart anti-trust litigation.

.
For Google, anti-trust is playing with fire ---

--- and heading into what could be a very deep recession, I don't expect to see the new administration all gung-ho and ready to move against one of the bare handful of US industrials that is actually showing a pulse, paying dividends, a company with strong export sales and a AAA credit rating.

Re:Microsoft will play hardball (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853897)

The problem with that strategy is that Google is also big enough to be theoretically investigated for anti-trust issues, especially with regards to their acquisition of DoubleClick. If Google threatens Microsoft with anti-trust allegations, Microsoft could reasonably do the same in return.

Re:Microsoft will play hardball (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854125)

If you were up to date on the anti-trust judgments against Microsoft you'd know that that's disallowed and is more of a /. fantasy than any resemblance of the truth.

Firefox actually seems to be better known (4, Funny)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853579)

I think more people know what firefox is, as the "browser that works better and has less viruses" to the general public.

  Mozilla is relatively unknown to people outside of our little slashosphere.

Re:Firefox actually seems to be better known (5, Insightful)

risk one (1013529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854123)

I think this is going to play havoc on people's understanding of the internet. Most people already think IE is the internet, but at least they knew that google was a thing on the internet. Now Google is going to be another internet that looks like a sort of three-colored button, next to the old internet that looks like a blue "e", and on both you can have Google, but you can't have the blue e on the Google internet.

Expect some calls from confused family members, people.

Thank you (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853601)

I've been saying someone needs to do this for years.

Swapping Microsoft for Google? (1)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25855061)

I've been saying someone needs to do this for years.

What exactly, though? Pay OEMs to start pre-installing something different that might also not be optimal for their end users' needs?

Personally I still trust Google more than Microsoft and I think it's good to promote diversity in the web browsers that are out there, which tends to lead to higher importance of standards. As a consumer, however, I still find it counter-productive in the long term that OEM deals should be happening at all.

OEM's should be installing software on their products because it makes their products better and more useful for the end user. They should be choosing it because it best matches the target consumer for their product, not because someone's paying them to help get their own product more in people's face.

This is exactly the same system that removed all the diversity and put 95% of the world on Windows and MSIE in the first place.

One evil for another. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853613)

I maintian MS systems and don't mind IE. I'll use FF or even Safari (but I liked the early stages of Flock).

All that said: Google is no better or worse than Microsoft, Apple, IBM or Cisco.

Each want to make a profit, create a demand for their products and generate returns.

I won't use Crome because it feeds all the data to Google.

Re:One evil for another. (1)

ITEric (1392795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853685)

I won't use Crome because it feeds all the data to Google.

If that's true, how do you suppose they get around all those spyware blockers?

Re:One evil for another. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853755)

I'm the AC but don't you know how Crome works? Google reads the data you type in the URL and generates 'hints' and such.

I wouldn't touch Crome and shudder at the data they have on people.

Re:One evil for another. (1, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853823)

and shudder at the data they have on people.

Jesus, I hope you don't use the Internet at ALL outside of Slashdot, because Chrome is the least of your worries as far as tracking goes....

Re:One evil for another. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853865)

Doesn't Firefox's awful bar essentially the same thing? Phone's home, not user controllable or removable from the browser making it virtually malware but the fanbois will no doubt mod down when faced with the truth. $$$ over principle may well send many right back to M$ who has supposedly improved IE's security in response to Firefox etc. Chrome is not worth the download till it eliminates or at leasts options the "phone home bar" and allows ad and script blocking etc.

Purely IMO and don't demand that anyone agree with me.

Re:One evil for another. (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853873)

Umm, it's not like they store that. Seriously, do you not use search engines at all or something?

Re:One evil for another. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854893)

Well google does store every search you do. I'm not certain however that they do actually store that information

Re:One evil for another. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854921)

shudder at the fact that you spell chrome crome
been to 3rd grade?

Television Ads (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853681)

That will be the ONLY thing to get the public to understand that the world is forced to break the web in order to look right for MSIE. Furthermore, a coordinated effort needs to be made to unite web developers to stop supporting Microsoft's intentional breaking of web standards.

"Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work and every web browser maker tries to remain adherent to standards so that the internet runs smoothely... that is everyone except Microsoft with its billion-dollar-budget of programmers that somehow can't get it right."

I would find it interesting what Microsoft would tell the public in response to that. "We are Microsoft and we define the standards?"

Re:Television Ads (0, Troll)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853851)

"Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work and every web browser maker tries to remain adherent to standards so that the internet runs smoothely... that is everyone except Microsoft with its billion-dollar-budget of programmers that somehow can't get it right."

That uses a lot of large words, and has far too many words, in any case, for the American public. You need something more along the lines of:

"Microsoft's Internet Explorer makes the internet cry! Google's Chrome brings it cookies!"

Or perhaps it should be a car analogy...

Re:Television Ads (1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853855)

The W3C wasn't exactly voted into power by the people.

The IEEE now isn't much more than a bunch of highfalutin assholes who'll never get 802.11n, IPv6, or anything else useful otu the door.

ICANN is filled with profiteers sponging off of domain squatters.

"We are W3C/ICANN/IEEE and we define the standards." is just as appropriate as "We are Microsoft and we define the standards.".

They're all out there for their own gain.
Standards are a good idea, but until standards bodies produce and distribute reference browsers, routers, and ...registrars(?), along with (free!) certification programs, their "standards" are suggestions and goals, not actual standards.

Re:Television Ads (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853941)

You didn't say how the W3C doesn't define the standards. You don't say how they aren't valid. There are lots of controlling and regulating bodies that are not elected by the people. While you attempt to paint a grim picture by grouping the W3C in with two other organizations that aren't exactly shining examples of effectiveness or moral integrity, I'd have to protest the tactic on the grounds that it simply fails to disprove or invalidate my comment directly. Furthermore, you indicate how ICANN is out for its own gain, but not the other two. It would have been more interesting, however, if you managed to include ISO in the mix...

Re:Television Ads (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854979)

The W3C wasn't exactly voted into power by the people.

You're right, the W3C is a coalition of companies with a vested interest in making web pages render similarly on different browsers.

Oh wait, there's one other company that's a member. I don't remember the name, but it was something like Macrohard.

Re:Television Ads (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853999)

Microsoft wouldn't respond because they understand that:

* Most people don't care about the W3C

* Most people don't pay attention to commercials

* Even more people don't pay attention to dry, boring, preachy commercials.

* Of the hundreds of millions of people who use Windows such an infinitesimally small number care about the web in a form other than "Does it work on my machine?" that rebutting your ad would be a colossal waste of time and money.

Re:Television Ads (1, Redundant)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854069)

We are Microsoft and we defile the standards.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Television Ads (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854909)

"You know how when you use the internet and you don't really understand everything that happens? We want that to work differently, because Microsoft is making it harder for people you don't know to do the things that you do."

Or rather (4, Insightful)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853689)

"Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops."

Or rather, they just didn't install a second browser at all, since the only browser kinda HAS to be the default. I really doubt much wooing was involved.

Re:Or rather (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854001)

Exactly, that was possibly the low point of the summaries I've seen today. If anything, they woo hardware manufacturers to install their whole frickin OS as the default choice, and if there was no browser in Windows it make initial setup of new PCs (especially for home users) a lot more awkward. I'd rather they included their own brand browser than none at all. If they restricted the installation of any other kind of browser, that's when I'd take issue.

Pretty much (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854403)

This idea that consumers want choice is a false one. Most don't. They just want shit to work. They don't 5 browsers, 10 media players and so on. That just confuses them. They just want programs that do the things they need, one per task.

The users that DO want choice, well they know where to go. Me, I like Firefox better than IE, I use WMP for video but Winamp for audio and so on. However it isn't a problem for me to find alternatives when I want them. But I am in the minority. Most people just want a browser and will use the one included.

Thus the OEMs don't bother to install other browsers. All it would do is confuse people. They only install additional software for two reasons:

1) It is something Windows doesn't ship with that the given system needs. DVD playback would be a good example. MS only licenses that for Vista Ultimate (you ahve to pay per unit license fees for things like CSS, MPEG-2 and AC-3 decoding), for any other Windows OS you'll have to provide your own player. So OEMs include a DVD player, often a knocked down version of PowerDVD. It is again with the "just works" thing. They know people want to be able to play DVDs out of box and don't want to have to hunt for a player program.

2) It is something they've been paid to include. This is where all the crapware Dell is famous for comes from. The companies say "Hey, we'll pay you $1 per computer sold to include our software." Dell then does this so they can lower the price of the system while still maintaining the same profit margin. They are aware most users don't give a fuck about it, it is just there to make Dell money.

So I imagine Google can get Chrome on systems, if they are willing to pay. Some manufacturers like Dell will be perfectly happy to do that, and Windows allows you to customize what the default browser is. However barring that, OEMs aren't going to be interested. They know users want a browser, but since Windows includes one and it doesn't cost extra, they'll stick with that. MS needn't do any more than provide it for free.

It would be the same deal with Office. The reason Office is an addon for computers is MS charges extra for it. If Dell wants to install it on a system, they have to pay for it. Thus Dell charges you for it. They don't roll it in to the cost since it would raise it a good bit and many people don't care about it. However, if MS included it for no additional cost, it'd be on every system Dell sold. MS wouldn't have to ask, it'd just happen.

Re:Pretty much (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854807)

So I imagine Google can get Chrome on systems, if they are willing to pay

Which they are. OEMS have been preloading Google Toolbar and Google Desktop for some time now.

History lesson (5, Informative)

mattytee (1395955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854941)

How is this insightful? Have we really forgotten the early 90s already?

Being the "old guy," I'll teach you some history. Netscape was THE browser for the first iteration of Windows 95. NO browser was bundled OR part of the OS, although AOL was often preinstalled. (I'm not sure you'd call that...thing that came with it a browser.) Basically everyone who used a browser ran Netscape (some ran Mosaic).

Then IE 3 came out (like most Microsoft software, versions 1 and 2 were too shoddy for actual use by human beings, even end users).

Microsoft made IE free to "compete" with Netscape. It still wasn't bundled with the OS until Windows 95 OSR 2.1 -- although it was installed along with Office and other MS apps. But you didn't HAVE to have IE on a Win95 system. That started with Windows 98.

Here's the thing: Netscape Navigator was then made free also, and it WAS bundled on many a PC maker's system. It's true Microsoft didn't *woo* anybody -- threats were more like it. Doesn't anybody remember the whole first antitrust thing?

Google (5, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853761)

Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...

Re:Google (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853883)

Why is this modded down?
It's the annoying fucking truth.

Google Desktop is shit, and I don't want it.
Windows Search is shit, and I don't want it.

I only have to be afraid of accidentally not opting out of one of those when I install dozens of apps.

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854337)

Well, if you have lots of semi randomly named MP3's Google Desktop can come in handy to find the song you want to play.

It's easier than find . -print |grep blah

Re:Google (3, Interesting)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854177)

Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...

I'll one up you with Java Runtime Enviro wanting to downloand and install a FUCKING OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY SUITE! I respect pushing OOo, but that's fucking absurd.

Re:Google (2, Interesting)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25855147)

I've been playing with InstallShield [acresso.com] lately for work-related things, which is one of the (if not 'the') major product for creating Windows Installer MSI files.

One of InstallShield's currently promoted features [acresso.com] (search down that page for "Value-added services") is the ability to set a flag which will cause the installer you create to install the Yahoo Toolbar with your program, reported so that your company can "generate new revenue streams".

I suppose that in this case, rather than try to go to all of the software vendors and try to convince them to include its product, Yahoo simply decided it'd be easier to go to the company with the product that makes installers for most of them. And now Acresso (the InstallShield company) suddenly has an interest in trying to make a piece of annoying nag-ware seem like an extra piece of commercialised junk (which pays them money) is as valuable addition for all the Windows software authors out there to include.

Times interview. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853841)

The original source for this story appears to be a Times article [timesonline.co.uk] with comments from "Sundar Pichai, Google Vice President, Product Management".

Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (4, Insightful)

nulled (1169845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853847)

Remember, that without the browser, Google is nothing. Without ADs, Google is nothing. (unless they start to sell and market other things besides ads) So, I view this browser situation as a 2 edged sword. On one end, defining a new standard in high quality browsers, coupled with GEARS and a super fast Javascript engine, could usher in Javascript games, AJAX apps and so much more. This would, without a doubt grow Google AD revenued. However, on the other edge of the sword is the fear of the AD Blocker add on, that will no doubt block a lot of google ad revenue. The browser, which google depends, could turn into it's worse enemy. We have already seen this with Firefox's ad blocking add on. Some argue, that only savvy internet users activate it. however, if you use Ubuntu, the add on is installed by default. A way to ensure Google does not jeapordize their AD revenues is key. I think that would be pretty easy to get around, technologically speaking. Maybe that is why Google is not putting more resources into Chrome???

Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853923)

Maybe, but I would suspect the people who install adblock are not the type to click ads anyway.

Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854061)

Ubuntu doesn't come with an ad blocker by default, how did you come to this conclusion?

Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854387)

Some argue, that only savvy internet users activate it. however, if you use Ubuntu, the add on is installed by default.

I don't see this as a "however." You typically don't use ubuntu unless you're part of the unusually computer-savvy end of the bell curve. Linux is something like 1% of the desktop market, so why would Google care?

Chrome is also open-source, so even if Google refuses to release it with an ad blocker, there's nothing stopping third parties from making their own versions that do. We're already seeing third-party-branded versions of OOo such as go-oo.org that omit Sun's annoying click-through licenses. (Or if Chrome has a plug-in architecture as flexible as Firefox's, Google probably can't stop people from making the equivalent of AdBLock Plus.)

I'm also very skeptical that Chrome can change the web as much as you're talking about:

a new standard in high quality browsers

I'd say that's extremely premature, since Chrome is a very raw beta.

could usher in Javascript games

I think JS games are cool, because JS is an open standard. But the average person playing Neopets couldn't care less that it's implemented on a semi-proprietary technology.

AJAX apps

We already have AJAX apps. The biggest problems with AJAX apps are (a) lack of cross-browser compatibility and (b) the fact that web browsers and HTTP were never designed as an application platform. Chrome won't make (b) better, and adding a new browser to the mix can at best keep from making (a) worse.

Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854491)

you should remember that ad-block does not completely gut Google of revenue - the sponsored links and google checkout links are always the first on their search results page.

people pay a shit load of money to be on the sponsored list, and they make a decent cut from the google checkout links as well.

Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (3, Informative)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854779)

I use Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu since Edgy (2006) and have Intrepid on 3 computers right now, and Hardy on 2 others. I've installed it many times for myself, and more than a couple times for friends and family. It does not come with an ad blocker by default.

Unless, for some odd reason, you're including Firefox's pop-up blocker as an ad-blocker.

Good (4, Insightful)

burndive (855848) | more than 5 years ago | (#25853927)

Google is being an innovator in this field at the moment, and so I'm glad that they're positioned to get more "default" marketshare via OEMs.

It will push Microsoft to innovate with their own browser in order to keep their search engine hits up.

One feature that I expect to see in the release version of Chrome is video chat. They released a plug-in to make Firefox compatible with their Google Talk chat's new video feature, but I'm betting that functionality will come built-in to Chrome.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854557)

I use Chrome regularly now, as I like the screen real estate it provides. I tried out the gmail video chat in Chrome, and it requires you to download a plugin.

they better support Linux soon then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25853993)

Given the gowing popularity of Linux on netbooks, Google better start rethinking their general support of Linux and get chrome working on Linux.
I still personally come across one person a month who buys the original EEE PC because its Cheap - and in fact even for the non techs they are happy with it...and dont miss IE.

 

The question of course is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854103)

...why? Theres a half dozen major players in the browser market on PCs alone and none of them charge any money for them anymore, where the benefits? How much money does MS make on IE? How much does Opera make on its desktop browser? Mozilla? Safari? I can see having your brand out there and in peoples faces but at this point why bother with the browser when its the sites you visit with it that are the money makers?

How about a Page from Firefox: Features. (2, Informative)

guidryp (702488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854217)

How about making it usable first. Let me know when there are plug ins. Specifically Flashblock. No flashblock, no browser.

HP a prime candidate? (1)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854433)

After Microsoft has broken their "vista capable" contract with HP by lowering the standards for a PC to become "vista capable", will HP return the favor by offering chrome on it's PCs?

MS.Rules != Google.Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25854539)

Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.

Is it a good thing that Google's going to buy browser share? Isn't that the same evil as MS?

Google's taking lessons from Cypress Hill! (2, Insightful)

sexybomber (740588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854663)

"Punk [playaz] bailin' every time that I use Chrome" - Cypress Hill, "Till Death Comes"

Granted, B-Real is talking about firearms here, but good for Google. It'd be interesting to see browser usage stats on machines that ship with both IE and Chrome preinstalled, although it wouldn't surprise me to see IE retain a majority share, just on name recognition alone.

Re:Google's taking lessons from Cypress Hill! (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854895)

Ooh, that's fun. Lots of good rap lyrics talk about guns like that.

"Now I got to follow him home, with my chrome, send him to the twilight zone, it's on!"

--Ice Cube, Robbin' Hood

Yeah, I could see Google using that in an ad. :-)

just means more work (1)

Gnaget (1043408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25854803)

oh man, I do not look forward to having to chrome be big enough of a deal that I have to start developing for it too. I know competition is good and all, but really 3 major browsers will make development rediculous

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25855081)

Until it can handle OWA (outlook web access) as good or better than IE, it will not surpass Firefox in my book. Superficially, Chrome handles OWA no differently/better than Firefox.
It is fast though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...