Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 To Air Chrome Ads On TV

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the somebody-call-seinfeld dept.

Google 148

mikesd81 writes "Google plans on advertising with spots promoting its Chrome browser this weekend. Google Japan had already released a 30-second video promoting Chrome on YouTube, but the company will distribute that video through the Google TV Ads network this weekend as an experiment to see if it can drum up interest in Chrome. Google advertised their browser on the New York Times' website on Wednesday."

cancel ×

148 comments

Too simple (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888117)

Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use. Its just a plain browser with no extra functionality, no mouse gestures or anything that actually browsing a lot more efficient.

I'm not in the firefox legion tho, I prefer Opera for its fast responsiveness and having everything required for nice browsing experience built in. That being said, firefox does have some nice addons I would like to use aswell, but its not just as good and nice for my daily usage. I do however use it for web development because of its relevant addons.

On the Contrary (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888143)

Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use.

I would wager that a simplified computing experience is not only what the general public desires but would also be a very refreshing change of pace.

I'm sure that's part of Google's strategy with their general public campaigns. Remember Slashdot is maybe ~1% of web browser users and our tastes are atypical.

Re:On the Contrary (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888365)

Remember Slashdot is maybe ~1% of web browser users and our tastes are atypical.

Because they're based on informed decisions?

Not that two informed people can't disagree with each other, because on a matter of taste, they can. It's just that each of them would have a reason for doing so other than "it's what the computer came with."

Re:On the Contrary (1, Informative)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888769)

Hi! I'm Chrome! I come without all the plugins you depend on to protect your privacy, and without those to accelerate every other browser function except JavaScript execution!

  AdBlock Plus
  BetterPrivacy
  Cache Search
  FoxyProxy/TorButton
  Ghostery
  Greasemonkey
  DownloadThemAll
  FasterFox
  Firebug
  Launchy
  Stealthier
  TabMixPlus
  YSlow

I don't run FireFox, but an individualized web tool kit that Chrome will NEVER provide. Why re-invent the wheel a a way to simply stealth more advertising and information theft by Google, the largest private investment the NSA ever made?

Re:On the Contrary (2, Insightful)

ushdfgakj (1218112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890553)

Brilliant. Mod parent up.

Re:On the Contrary (0, Troll)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888937)

You say this like it's a novel point but it is exactly true. ~99% of the market out there is uninformed and does not want to be informed. I believe this is what the previous poster was referring to. As much as this makes every slashdotter wince with blinding pain, it's true. People just want to be told what to use. Microsoft knows that, and now it's obvious that Google knows that. I wish Linux would come to terms with that but that's another post.

I dare say people will start blindly following this advertising and maybe fall back to pre-installed IE8 when Chrome does not work.

Re:On the Contrary (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889011)

You say this like it's a novel point but it is exactly true.

I claimed no novelty. It was merely an observation.

People just want to be told what to use. Microsoft knows that, and now it's obvious that Google knows that. I wish Linux would come to terms with that but that's another post.

That Linux hasn't accepted that as though it were the only possible way could be one of the main reasons why I use it. That's part of why I never felt like it was Linux's job to appeal to the masses or to replace the monopoly position of Windows. I don't see how it could do that without becoming just like what it would replace. Sort of like that saying "be careful about whom you hate, for you will end up resembling them."

Re:On the Contrary (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888861)

Why'd they use the corporate "edgy rock experience" music that is tone and not the exact same as teh pseudo-indy sound behind every schlock Microsoft and Starbucks corporate-stooge video montage?

I feel so energetic and inspired to do valuable work! How much do I now need to spend?

Still, the girl with the afro and the dominoes gave me a boner.

Re:Too simple (2, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888345)

Really? I guess I will have to tell that to the users I deal with every day who are still confused over the concept of opening a tab in Firefox.

Mouse gestures aren't even on the map. Inability or all out fear of installing a program (thanks to idiotic mainstream tech reporters).. now there is a problem for Chrome.

Re:Too simple (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888449)

Chrome is missing a lot to make it feel like a full app.

The mouse wheel must not be implemented using the native features because it doesn't follow the settings in the mouse driver. I also can't click the mouse wheel to scroll quickly.

Find sucks compared to find in other browsers. Especially if you're trying to find text in a text area.

No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.

That said, I wind up using it every day and am making this comment with it. I have firefox running as my main browser but I have chrome open and use that to do some quick browsing because of the way chrome separates tabs into different processes. When firefox picks up this model and does a better job of releasing memory back to the OS, I'll stop using Chrome.

Re:Too simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27889653)

I'd like to use something better than Firefox because:
1. Mouse wheel scrolling sucks, even though other modes of scrolling somehow don't
2. Occasional slowdown in select text fields
3. For some reason, disk thrashing last night while typing in a text field

But:
1. Chrome subverts the normal menu-based GUI, which makes it unnecessarily hard to use
2. Not for Linux

Re:Too simple (5, Funny)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889733)

No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.

*Every* toolbar in chrome is a google toolbar

Re:Too simple (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888495)

Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use. Its just a plain browser with no extra functionality, no mouse gestures or anything that actually browsing a lot more efficient.

It's amazing how many people are confusing a minimalist interface with no features. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. Take your time, poke around, look up some guides and how-tos, Google, check the help files and official forums, etc. You just might be surprised.

That said, right now it's unrealistic to expect Chrome to have every feature Opera and Firefox (with extensions) have. But if you're an early Phoenix adopter back in 2002-03, you'll know that Chrome has the right formula for success: a strong focus on the basics. A pity Phoenix lost sight of that; perhaps in 6-7 years Chrome will become slow, bloated and insecure as well, and someone else steps up to repeat the cycle.

Re:Too simple (4, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890063)

It really is funny how pretty much the exact same arguments Mozilla users made against Phoenix back in they day are now being made by Firefox users against Chrome.

I used Phoenix then, and I use Chrome now, whenever I use a machine it actually runs on.

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (4, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888133)

I just don't understand what's so interesting/damning here. So a company is pitching it's product. Good for them. Maybe it will educate people (average people) to the fact that there are options.

I haven't used it myself as there's no Debian package for it and I'm not compiling it from source. Sorry.

While on the browser discussion, has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

devman (1163205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888151)

Welcome to many years ago? Slashdot has been doing that since I started reading it.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888185)

It only happens if I'm logged in and it just started for me recently so it has to be some setting... I just don't know which.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (2, Informative)

PleaseFearMe (1549865) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888239)

It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google. And this one is especially nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnrFwlTPvY&feature=channel_page [youtube.com]

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888273)

There's a comment on that video that I found rather humorous, if not a little creepy: "See the three 6's in the pong ball?"

Until they said that, I never noticed that the circle in the middle with the three lines branching out could be interpreted as a "6". Personally, I don't care, but there are people that do.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888319)

I think they're stretching.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (2, Funny)

siloko (1133863) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888347)

It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google

I'm not sure how you navigate the tubes but every time I do a search I see their logo plastered all over the page. It must cost them a fortune.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888755)

It does. Do you know how much a pixel is worth these days?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (4, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888285)

It's a big deal, because google has jumped the shark and become a big company. Why do they need to buy TV adds? They *are* an advertising company.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (3, Insightful)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889459)

google has jumped the shark and become a big company

Google has become a big company?! Oh no! :O

Google might be an advertising agency, but they don't have any connection to the world of traditional media - they are (nearly) entirely dependent on the Internet.

The Internet is a great place to advertise, but I feel a television campaign can really open up the flood gates for the "casual user" demographic.

This also fits with Google's mantra when you boil down everything they do -- throw your money at it. They have the resources, why not?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

paazin (719486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888391)

I haven't used it myself as there's no Debian package for it and I'm not compiling it from source. Sorry.

Not compiling from source!?

Hand in your nerd badge, please.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890275)

He just said he was using Debian, not Gentoo!

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (2, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889149)

It is very unlikely that you will ever see Chromium in the Debain repositories. Two outside programs that the browser uses are under the BSD Protection License, which Debian has not classified as a license that passes the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (0, Redundant)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889963)

While on the browser discussion, has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

Not for me, but I'm not running Iceweasel. Or Windows.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal (1)

ameyer17 (935373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890557)

has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

And completely fails in Mobile Safari.
Also, for what it's worth, the setting seems to be "use beta index" under "index beta settings" on http://news.slashdot.org/help [slashdot.org]

How about actually getting the mac version out? (4, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888147)

How about actually getting the mac version up and running before spending tons of time on tv ad production?

for christ sake they've been promising a beta for how long now?

Safari used to be zippy, but, despite being the best option for mac right now, has some nasty habits and memory leaks. I'd like to see what chrome can offer.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (4, Insightful)

paziek (1329929) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888191)

I think that Google doesn't care that much about bringing Chrome to the Mac or Linux, since they only bother is most likely IE, with is very backwards in its technology and pretty much restricts Google on what they can write for their users.

Safari seems to be pretty compatible with community-approved standards, and in fact, it even is ahead in many of them, implementing what is still in draft. While someone might argue, that this way they might actually break websites when - yet not finished - standards change, but I think that people who tinker which them actually know that, and design their pages in a way, that won't break them in the future, just cause they relied on some experimental feature.
Okay, seems like I'm getting off-topic here.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (0)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888249)

Safari for Windows and Chrome for Windows have identical browser chrome. I mean, pixel-identical. WHAT.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (2, Informative)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888441)

Browser chrome means the browser UI. The term originated in Firefox, where it is used in the urls for extensions and browser XUL (e.g, chrome://browser/content/browser.xul )

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890003)

is very backwards in its technology and pretty much restricts Google

Chrome is based on the Webkit, if i am not mistaken, and that means at least the core level HTML/CSS is the same as Safari. So the technology is very much the same. The reason why Google/Chrome does not see Linux or OSX as a priority is that 90% of all users do not use it anyway. As a startup browser they have priorities and goals set to try the major market first, whether it is even worth to invest in the franchise will be seen there quicky.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888197)

I completely agree. Oh, and how about Linux? I have a few computers that operate that OS. Google should wait on ANY product until it is available on Linux, Macs, and Windows.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (1)

trazan (667537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888311)

They've promised a mac beta for fall 2009. That's about it.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888431)

Camino.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (3, Informative)

saddino (183491) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888651)

Chromium (the open source basis for Chrome) is available to download and compile, and you can also download unofficial binaries [manu-j.com] if you're really dying to see how Chrome for OS X is coming along.

And if you want to experience what a one-process-per-tab feels like on the Mac, you can check out the Chrome-inspired OS X browser, Stainless [stainlessapp.com] .

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888795)

How about actually getting the mac version up and running before spending tons of time on tv ad production?

PROTIP: Google's marketing department doesn't develop Chrome.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890299)

It's sad when usually-well informed people don't seem to know about this common practice in the business world. Why are they working on feature X instead of feature Y? Because X and Y are two different teams.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (0, Troll)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888973)

What is a 'mac' ?

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out? (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889945)

has some nasty habits and memory leaks

Safari is another Apple jewelry, it's prime purpose is not a function.

Chrome Ads? Huh? (0, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888157)

MUHUWHAHAHAHA! I have teh Slashdot Ads Disabled checked to over POwer Nine-Thoussssaaandddd!

In all seriousness: Get Chrome and lose a really nice set of wooden blocks? Ya, computer users can really relate to wooden blocks. The best that can be said about this ad is Google apparently didn't have to pay for it. But that doesn't make it a bargain. Meh, whadddya I know, I have AdBlock+. Haven't seen an ad on Slashdot for ages. So, really, who gives a flying fuck?

=Smidge=

Re:Chrome Ads? Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888753)

Yeah, I got the "No Ads" option for the first time yesterday, and I was like, "/. has ads?"

AdBlock + FTW.

I run Chrome in my Win7 VM, but I really miss AdBlock + ... give me that and I could live w/o my other FF extensions.

Better to... (5, Funny)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888203)

Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!

Re:Better to... (2, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888395)

Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!

It's like a Russian reversal without the Russian.

At last Spyware for everyone ! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888211)

un-removable updaters with unique id's ? check, keylogging via google suggest ? check , encrypted strings sent to the largest advertising company on the planet ? check.

i really dont understand the hard on people have for Chrome, if it was branded by Doubleclick everybody would condemm it (Google own Doubleclick so they are the same) yet if its branded by Google it must be ok, regardless of the facts.
I would think you have to be crazy to install any binary software made by an advertising company, perhaps Gator or Zango should release a browser as there seems to be thousands of people who would install it if it was branded something else
the force is strong, the stupidity of hipsters even more so

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888415)

Some of us aren't totally fucking paranoid and use software because it's good.

If you're that afraid, use SRWare Iron, or compile it yourself. Google Chrome is BSD licensed.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889995)

Google Chrome is BSD licensed

So what is the compile option for "don't grass me up" ?

Personally, I'm going to dig out my copy of Phoenix and reinstall that. Firefox has jumped the shark.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888425)

un-removable updaters with unique id's ? check, keylogging via google suggest ? check , encrypted strings sent to the largest advertising company on the planet ? check.

[citation needed}

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (4, Interesting)

eric-x (1348097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888471)

Fact remains that Chrome gives you a very smooth experience. It's quick (major concern for me), very handy start page (there's probably a ff plugin that does that too), download manager is an improvement; tab dragging to open a new window is very useful. The only thing that sucks is the bookmark manager.

If you don't like the usage tracking then there's always the opensource clone SRWare Iron.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (3, Informative)

eric-x (1348097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888539)

I forgot: memory usage. As a java developer I have to run a few memory sucking applications such as an IDE. The main thing that made me switch to chrome was that I got tired of restarting ff because after a while it would have eaten a significant amount of memory.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888689)

Hahahahahahahaha! A java developer worried about memory usage. That's hilarious!

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888953)

The download manager is an improvement? I guess its all preference but I strongly have to disagree -- In chrome downloads are per tab, so its very easy to forget which tab you started along download in once you switch away or start navigating to other sites.

Also if you close chromes window the downloads stop.

Contrast to firefox which keeps the download manager separate

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (1)

Staticnumeric (1407543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888491)

I'm sorry sir, it seems that you've dropped your tinfoil hat- allow me to return that to you.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888939)

If I trusted \. I would log in and give you a thumbs up. The Internet: Mama always said don't trust that man in the shiny suit.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (1)

Clarious (1177725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888957)

I would think you have to be crazy to install any binary software made by an advertising company

You can alway download and remove those code if you are paranoid, i'm sure there are people who did that already.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889201)

SRWare Iron [srware.net] .

Chromium source code with all of the privacy-infringing stuff removed.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone ! (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889343)

Looks very promising... too bad it's not working for Linux yet. :(

TV ad spots are a great idea... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888217)

... I think it's a really good idea personally as the average user does not know about these kinds of things. Also chrome is very high speed and less prone to freezing and crashing. IE tends to be one ofthe worst for that, although with IE8 they tried to make it so it doesn't take down the whole browser.

I think mass advertising of little known things to the average person is great, it's unfortunate that it's so expensive to do any many great things never get the exposure they deserve.

Personally I think including a basket of competing APPS with an operating system is the only really way to go and then have the apps load a homepage from their respective sites, etc. I've often wondered about forcing a company like Microsoft to include alternative browsers. It would also help having an installed base which would lead to better standardization.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea... (2, Interesting)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888359)

I'm hoping this will make Fire Fox advertise a little more. A quick 30 second clip during a prime time show. There was a contest about 3 years ago [slashdot.org] but I don't know whatever came of it.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888805)

The average American though has no clue what a browser is. Google can spend some money advertising because Google is loaded. On the other hand, the Firefox project is community driven and really can't spend the resources advertising on TV.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea... (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889725)

Go ask one of your friends that knows nothing about computers except how to turn them on what browser they use, and I bet they'll say IE. People know what a browser is, they just don't know much about them. And maybe it's hard in this economic time right now, but Fire Fox I'm sure could afford an ad or two here and there.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890131)

Go ask one of your friends that knows nothing about computers except how to turn them on what browser they use, and I bet they'll say IE.

Tried it before. Either they say "I use the Internet" (meaning IE), "What is a browser?", "I use Windows", or some other thing that halfway makes sense but really doesn't. Sure, after a while you can get them to say that they use Internet Explorer, but for the most part they have no clue what a browser really is.

I can see the testimonials now (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888237)

I can see the testimonials [today.com] now:

"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome. That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." - John Lilly, Mozilla (through gritted teeth).

"Browsers don't need to be integrated with online apps. Certainly not like the operating system ... I'll just get back to you." - Ian Moulster, Microsoft IE Team.

"We're Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live." - Larry Page.

All I can say is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888323)

Chrome Rocks!!

- "The" Chrome Fan boy ;)

Install, did you say? (1)

Umangme (1337019) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888337)

So, I saw the add. It said at the end, "Install Google Chrome".

Good Morning Google, Wake Up! We haven't got Chrome as yet, just by the way...

I'll never understand why a lot FOSS is provided better (or only) on Windows and not Linux. Chrome, TortoiseSVN, KeePass, etc. Why is KeePassX so much worse than KeePass? Why are eSVN and RapidSVN just so bad?

Re:Install, did you say? (1)

A.K.A_Magnet (860822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888483)

Because they are "Open Source" business-minded and not "Free Software" supporters, meaning they don't give a fuck about providing a full Free stack. I have come to the tragic conclusion that most Open Source contributors are now running Windows.

On the other hand, would they care to make their software Free if it weren't for the Open Source movement? At least we can port the best written software (if its core is not too tightly-coupled to Win32 APIs), so still better than nothing. The biggest problem is that it completely overshadowed the moral aspects of Free Software, which are now to of many corporate Open Source developers nothing but a joke under the pretense of pragmatism and practicality.

Re:Install, did you say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888485)

because 90% of PCs run windows?

or should FOSS only run on FOSS OS's even if they have 1/90th the market-share?

of course, since it is open-source, there is nothing to stop you from getting it ported to linux, either via your time or via your donations to other programmers

my hairy asshole (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888393)

helo

Please not another minor browser (1)

chelsel (1140907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888407)

as if supporting IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera isn't bad enough... Chrome is just not needed... please, for the love of web developers, Google, stop it.

Re:Please not another minor browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888517)

umm... if you support safari, you pretty much inherently support chrome - they both use the same redering engine - webkit - albeit differeing versions, possibly.

Re:Please not another minor browser (1)

chelsel (1140907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888681)

you said it all "... you pretty much inherently support chrome ...". That area not covered by "pretty much" is where all the work is involved...

Re:Please not another minor browser (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888811)

Actually I've never really had a problem between Firefox, Opera and Safari. If anything, it's Firefox's font size difference that's the real problem.

Re:Please not another minor browser (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888617)

Better yet, get better standards compliance.

Re:Please not another minor browser (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888919)

At some point you'll realize that you should support standards... by validating your pages and testing in multiple browsers. That's the way to ensure that your website works even in new browsers, new versions of existing browsers, new operating systems, and so on.

Re:Please not another minor browser (4, Insightful)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889013)

If you code to standards, your only real issue will be IE.

If you don't, well, it's never too late to start.

Adding another Webkit based browser to the mix does not cause much extra pain. You also forgot to include mobile browsers in your list - the beauty of the web is that you don't have to know all the capabilities of the clients which will look at your content ahead of time, and yet your site can still be read by them. Yes it's nice to have things render the same on every browser, but it's not essential, and if that's really your goal, you should give up now, or use Flash or something.

The reason for this browser to exist is to unseat IE as the default way to run google web apps, and prevent Microsoft screwing google (and ruining the web as collatoral damage), as they have done so many times to rivals in the past. With Google threatening Microsoft on multiple fronts, it just doesn't make sense that they rely on MS as their main conduit for users, particularly given the modus operandi of Steve I'm-going-to-fucking-kill-Google Ballmer.

The (old) hope is presumably to reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers, which run Google software without getting in the way too much, for Google or the user.

That's also why you won't see them rush to put Chrome on Linux or OS X - there is no corresponding threat on those platforms, and healthy browsers exist there.

Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada. (2, Funny)

yourassOA (1546173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888439)

Don't know about America but in Canada if you made a whack of money spend it on advertising and deduct it from your income and bam you made less money and won't have to give as much income tax to the government. And money you donate to charity is only partially deductible, figures huh? I do something similar with my small business if I make to much money for example $60,000 @ 22% = $13,200 tax. I figure a way to spend it that will benefit me and be deductible from my income (lease a vehicle in my case) so I only make $50,000 @ 15% tax = $7,500 tax. So I get to drive a new truck and pay less taxes. I sure google is doing something similar where advertising cost is saving them money not costing them.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27888523)

You still aren't *saving* money. If you spend $100,000 on advertising it's certainly deductible, but that means you save about $35,000 of income tax.

Same goes for your business... you'd still make more money if you just didn't get the truck at all. And, since you're only using it for business purposes (right?) it's not like it saves you from needing your own personal car....

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada. (2, Informative)

yourassOA (1546173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888725)

No there is a loophole the truck can be used for personal provided you keep a kilometer log and report to the government how much of your total kilometers was to earn business income. For example 50,000 KM cost me $14,000, 60% of KM were to earn business income so $8,400 is a tax deduction. And I get to drive a truck I couldn't afford otherwise thanks to a loophole for large construction and oil-field companies. Seriously when you see large company fleets they are usually just a way for the company to pay less taxes (some of these companies are writing off thousands of trucks) and hey driving a new truck around feels better than paying taxes.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada. (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889003)

Actually there is a percentage penalty if at least 70% of the kilometers of a company owned vehicle don't get used for company purposes that I don't see you mentioning here. You should probably look into that.

It's different for small bussiness.... (1)

yourassOA (1546173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889743)

and construction, oilfield etc. I was mostly just giving a kind of generic example rather than actual numbers. However with leased vehicles the lease payment itself is tax deductible in my case the lease is $750/month plus $1000 fuel and $500 maintenance even after market parts to a degree (ie. bull bars, step-up-bars, mud flaps, police scanner, CB radio, etc) I work places where you need a big truck to sometimes even get to the job site never mind hauling big trailers with skid steers or supplies. Writing off 63% of $2250 every month is $1417.50 a month. Here follow the clicky. [about.com] Ever think about sub-contracting? I would encourage anyone to start their own business even if your only sub-contracting out your own labor.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada. (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889253)

Sorry I wish I could alter my original post. The charge I refer to is the 'stand by charge' Basically you (personally) need to pay 2% of the value of the vehicle calculated by the PERCENTAGE OF TIME in each thirty day period that vehicle is sitting in your driveway or being used by you.

Also, on top of that it is a taxable benefit and you must pay income tax on the amount that you are saving by not having a vehicle (including an estimate of maintenance charges that you are saving).

Maybe still worth it, I don't know. I looked into it when I started my business and the accountant I was talking to told me not to even bother considering it, so I just use my personal vehicle and write off everything by percentage of KM driven for business.

I found good information here [taxresource.ca]

Hope they don't mind getting slashdotted.

Chrome OS (0, Troll)

carlosap (1068042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888581)

search: microsoft word

Did you mean: Google Docs Top 1 result shown
1. Welcome to Google Docs Free web-based word processor and spreadsheet, which allow you share and collaborate online.
More results from google.com >>

Re:Chrome OS (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889765)

seriously no but they do advertise against microsoft word no3 ad on the right side

Google Apps
Email, calendar, docs & more!
£33 user/year. Start free trial now
www.google.com/apps

guess even google can't make their ad quality good enough for google :/

Google Big Brother (3, Insightful)

DownWithMedia1.0 (1547249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888605)

Thats great. Lets give Google more and more information about what we do online. As if doubleclick, Google toolbar, reading gmail, gTalk, and everything else they do wasnt enough.

Re:Google Big Brother (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27889053)

I was about to post the same thing. Google will store your browsing history FOREVER. They give a s*** about user privacy.

I'm close to leaving their Gmail also, due to that, and the fact that their email has become very buggy and slow anymore.

Do they realize (1)

ethana2 (1389887) | more than 5 years ago | (#27888963)

how much word-of-mouth advertising they're sacrificing by shafting OS X and Linux distributions?

Uh, already ON TV (1)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889189)

I saw one 2 days ago on TV, I think it was during "Bones"

Chrome Hate (0, Troll)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889193)

Look, Chrome is significantly speedier than Firefox and terms of both usability and running the program. For me that's all that really matters, so I use chrome. I know, it's doesn't have addons, but that's really only a deal breaker for adblock, which I don't use anyway for moral reasons.

Hulu Add (2, Informative)

Aramil Moonmist (1548219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889239)

I just saw the chrome add for hulu the other day, and I must say, I love chrome and I like the idea of them advertising it, but the comercial just kinda looked goofy.

YouTube Link (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889247)

Why link to Blogspot for the video (which doesn't actually have it) instead of the actual video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5535Ts-iOP0 [youtube.com]

Re:YouTube Link (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889279)

I was too quick on the reply button. It's because there are many links to different videos about browsers on that page.

Fantastic news! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27889661)

The Mac version must be here!!!

Yeah... Chrome might be real goog for browsing... (2, Funny)

WSOGMM (1460481) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889755)

But people will still use firefox for porn.

Google has WAY too much money (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889793)

There's no rational economic rationale for expensive television advertising a software product for which you charge no money.

Please don't say "Netscape!" either. That was an economic failure at the end of the day...it made a tonne of people very rich and, indeed, helped to change the world. These may have been noble goals, but it was an irrational bubble that created the wealth. The company failed...finally.

I think fear might explain this: fear of an antitrust probe (either into Google, or into its relationship with Mozilla...I think 75% of the reason Chrome exists is so Google can continue to lobby for Mozilla's "non-profit" status which provides a tax benefit to one of Google's major investments.)

"Can you install Google on my computer?" (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27889971)

I hope Google doesn't run Chrome ads in the country where I live. I already am the involuntary user help desk, for relatives, friends, their friends, etc.

I can hear the calls already: "Hello? PolygamousRanchKid? I saw this ad from Google on TV . . . can you install Google on my computer? This means that I can watch all that stuff from Google without an Internet connection anymore, so I don't need to pay those monthly fees anymore, right?"

I am, of course, kidding, but only slightly.

Chrome is still behind Firefox (1)

societyofrobots (1396043) | more than 5 years ago | (#27890769)

I like Chrome as it's the fastest browser I've ever used. It's probably the safest, too. But the bookmarks aren't friendly, and it doesn't have crash protection like Firefox.

Yeap, Chrome crashed on me within a day . . . Firefox crashes too, but at least it reloads the windows when you restart it!

Chrome uses more RAM than Firefox, but only like 50mb or so.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...