Beta
×

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!

Sony To Put Chrome On Laptops

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the what-happened-to-firefox dept.

Google 278

consonant writes "FT is reporting that Google has reached a deal with Sony to ship Chrome on the Vaio line of PCs. Google confirmed that Sony PCs carrying Chrome had started to go on sale and said it was in talks for similar deals with other computer makers. It said the arrangement was 'experimental' and part of wider efforts to boost distribution, including a deal to make Chrome available to internet users who download the RealPlayer software and the company's first use of television advertising. While mainstream media coverage and financial details were very sparse, El Reg terms it a 'Microsoft-snubbing deal.' Google also mentioned it was pushing for similar deals with other vendors. Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yay, more Riders... (0, Troll)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274079)

I guess what's good for Bills in congress is now good for Installing Software.

Good or bad Software, I hate being marketed-to during a software install.

It's like trying to paint a wall in your house and having the paint can or paint roller through advertising at you! DO NOT WANT!

Re:Yay, more Riders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274329)

Welcome to proprietary software.

Re:Yay, more Riders... (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274507)

Good or bad Software, I hate being marketed-to during a software install.

Then stop using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or for that matter any browser. Google is already paying those browser makers to include themself as the default search engine, so Google gets you to use them and see their ads. You are already being marketed right after you've installed those. It doesn't even matter if its open or closed source, firefox and opera are on both ends.

Re:Yay, more Riders... (2)

JayAitch (1277640) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274799)

I don't mind as long as installing the software is unchecked by default.

Uh oh (0, Flamebait)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274081)

Here we go again. Anyone think MS is going to pull the same crap that they did when OEMs tried bundling Netscape?

Re:Uh oh (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274265)

No, they will pull slightly different crap, like having Windows Update automatically install IE and make it the default.

Re:Uh oh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274957)

See, if it were MS paying other companies to push their wares, it'd be evil. But seeing as Microsoft is a monopoly and Google is just a minnow, it's OK, right?

Run (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274083)

OMG Run! It must be rootkited!!

For those who don't read the article (4, Informative)

EponymousCustard (1442693) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274085)

It refers to the Chrome browser, not the OS

Re:For those who don't read the article (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274199)

I was hoping for the coating - as in "Oooh shiny!", but no. I'll just have to stick with brushed aluminum or various shades of plastic...

Re:For those who don't read the article (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274379)

For those who don't read the article

It's actually pretty apparent from TFS:

Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

Although it is the end of TFS...

Re:For those who don't read the article (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275049)

Ah; so it's not a new rootkit?

Let's get this straight... (5, Insightful)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274087)

Google *paid* Sony to pre-install Chrome, just like Symantec pays for Norton bloatware to be pre-installed on HP (etc.) notebooks. There seems to be a sort of OEM market here; for years already. Nothing to see here; move along.

Head asplodes (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274187)

What happens when Good [wikipedia.org] and evil [wikipedia.org] combine? And why would anyone buy a computer of all things from a company that has placed rootkits on their paying customers' gear?

This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.

Re:Head asplodes (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274373)

This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.

Because a company that lives off data mining everything you do through them (sifting email for target advertising, web searches for the same) is as pure as freshly driven snow, right? The fact that anybody would use a browser from them so they can see *EVERYTHING* you browse is mind boggling.

The hypocrisy is incredible.

Re:Head asplodes (4, Funny)

erpbridge (64037) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274425)

What happens when Good [wikipedia.org] and evil [wikipedia.org] combine?

Good+Evil = Goovil?

Re:Head asplodes (0)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274701)

Good + Evil
Goovil
Googil
Google

Re:Head asplodes (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275045)

Goovil Beta that is...

Re:Head asplodes (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274437)

Because with corporations the size of Sony, the left hand has no clue what the right one is doing until the right hand comes along and demands useless copy protection schemes be pasted all over.

Re:Head asplodes (2, Informative)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274597)

Ah! I see where you are coming from. An advertising company's systems are being pre-installed by a company that has resorted to using hidden rootkits.

Free indeed.

Just follow the money. Who exactly are Google's clients again? Wait, who exactly is that browser designed for again?

Let me just pontificate on the eViL of Google Analytics (GA) here, while I've still got the ink. Let's say website owner Jill sets up GA, signs Google's EULA, and is basically a happy camper. Jill is happy, and agreed to be happy. So is GA. But Jill is now reporting all the IP, browser, OS, time-of-day tracking info to GA of supposedly 'anonymous' visitor-Jackie. GA also has agreements with most of the websites visitor-Jackie visits today. SO, GA can effectively track visitor-Jackie's internet-usage without Jackie's knowledge or agreement, or other strong-regulation whatsoever. (Yeah, under protest Google said they'd reduce the amount of time they agree to 'track' visitor-Jackie from something like 3 years to 1.5; so what!).

But wait, that's not all:

Google will also provide you with free software that you can catalog all your images & videos, including facial recognition; (and provide free hosting.)

And manage all your phone calls, and SMS, providing free transcription and search based off the transcription, (and free hosting of this info)

For free? Just follow the money folks.

Re:Let's get this straight... (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274399)

As well as Google pays Firefox, Opera and other browsers to have Google as the default search engine. This is their main marketing method, to have their services as default. There has been occasional other ad's, but they're quite minority with google. And well, it seems to work great for them.

Re:Let's get this straight... (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274791)

As well as Google pays Firefox, Opera and other browsers to have Google as the default search engine. This is their main marketing method, to have their services as default. There has been occasional other ad's, but they're quite minority with google. And well, it seems to work great for them.

Better Google than Bing or Yahoo!.

Re:Let's get this straight... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274439)

Yup, that's probably it. Dell et al preload their machines with all sorts of unwanted, never asked for crap including Norton, MS Works etc. I just bought a new Dell and spent quite some cleaning all the unwanted junk & default links off the thing.

The Norton app was especially offensive because it pops up a box (with the close button helpfully disabled) forcing you to activate your 30 days whether you want to or not. Then it pops up again later to ask for registration info. I'm sure if I continued with the trial it would have popped up again and again pushing me to buy their product. It wasn't ransomware but it felt almost as sleazy.

While Chrome isn't a bad browser and certainly isn't anywhere as offensive as Norton, I really don't see any reason that a vendor would make it the default unless they were being paid to.

Re:Let's get this straight... (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274755)

Honestly MS-Works doesn't bug me so much as those ignorant 90/180day evaluation copies of MS Office... Maybe Sun should pimp out copies of Star Office, and then have an annual *nag* in that version about purchasing an upgrade to the new version. This could fund the copies placed on OEM PCs and fund further development for OpenOffice.org

Re:Let's get this straight... (2, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274633)

Exactly there is nothing novel about this. Companies have been setting up deals to get their software installed by OEMs for decades. The only reason this was posted was to try to push an anti-Microsoft spin and nothing else.

Re:Let's get this straight... (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274661)

that is how it is done and having any kind of monopoly has no restriction on doing this, or so it seems since Microsoft does this over and over again. The retail stores are the same, they get paid by vendors for placing product and paid for shelf space. The idea that the customer makes choices is long gone here in the US. The only exception is the very small fraction of the population which are considered trend setters and do the work finding what they really want or remaking products into that fits their needs.

What I would like to see is to see someone pull a Microsoft and purchase more of Microsoft's software off of devices so more people get a chance to try something else.

LoB

Re:Let's get this straight... (0, Troll)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274677)

What a turn around... back in the 90's the uproar was MS pushing a "Free" browser with their OS, as Netscape was charging...

Apparently in Capitalist America, the browser pays you.

Re:Let's get this straight... (1)

ConstableBrew (1335195) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274825)

It's not the money exchange that should concern you, it should be the quality of the products being pushed. Symantec and McAfee are among the worst bloat ware being put on new machines and generally need to be uninstalled before the new pc you just got begins to run like a good machine should. On top of that, the software that comes preinstalled on new pcs is generally useless and rarely used by the end user. Google Chrome as the default browser offers a slick bit of software that will be directly used by the end user nearly every time the pc is booted. Why does the fact that Google paid to get the software there negate its usefulness?

Re:Let's get this straight... (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274831)

Google *paid* Sony to pre-install Chrome, just like Symantec pays for Norton bloatware to be pre-installed on HP (etc.) notebooks. There seems to be a sort of OEM market here; for years already. Nothing to see here; move along.

Internet Explorer, as the default browser, has Bing as the default search engine and as default for making suggestions. The information this provides to Bing is valuable in the field of advertising. Google wants to push their own browser to route such information to Google. Both sides are betting on the fact that most people are too lazy to change their defaults--or possibly, unwilling to commit themselves to one application over another because it shows a level of geekiness they do not want to commit themselves to defending. History seems to side very well with the idea with PCs. This is precisely how MS became the dominant force on the PC.

In short, if OEMs feel they can "snub" Microsoft when it comes to their web browser, it opens the door for all sorts of companies with enough money to push their product through to replace Microsoft's offering in the same way that Microsoft did it to their competitors. That seems a rather big deal.

Mandated by the EU? (1, Troll)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274093)

Doesn't sound like it. Market forces at play ... except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place. We'll need to see more details before wondering if this could be anti-competitive (leveraging one monopoly illegally in another area).

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274195)

Doesn't sound like it. Market forces at play ... except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place. We'll need to see more details before wondering if this could be anti-competitive (leveraging one monopoly illegally in another area).

Except I don't get a huge popup warning every time I go to Google.com or a splash page saying something like:

"WARNING: YOUR GOOGLE EXPERIENCE IS SUB-OPTIMAL AND YOU ARE AT RISK OF INTERNET VIRUSES AND PERMANENT COMPUTER DAMAGE. PLEASE INSTALL THIS WINDOWS SECURITY UPDATE: CHROME.EXE TODAY!"

Google isn't anywhere CLOSE to DrDosing MS at this point.

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274217)

I don't think Google has a monopoly in any area, nor does this look like an instance of Google leveraging their success in search or advertising to gain an advantage for their browser. Google is simply paying Sony to install Chrome, as has been done with pre-installed software for many years.

Re:Mandated by the EU? (0, Troll)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274359)

I don't think Google has a monopoly in any area, nor does this look like an instance of Google leveraging their success in search or advertising to gain an advantage for their browser. Google is simply paying Sony to install Chrome, as has been done with pre-installed software for many years.

Google has a monopoly in search (at least in the U.S. anyway). I don't see any leveraging either.

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274589)

According to this article from two weeks ago [usatoday.com] , Google has a 65% share of the U.S. search market. That's hardly a monopoly.

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274771)

People keep saying stuff like this but anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws don't use such overly literal definitions when defining what is and isn't a monopoly.

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274871)

It is, according to the legal definition.

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274977)

According to this article from two weeks ago [usatoday.com], Google has a 65% share of the U.S. search market. That's hardly a monopoly.

It is, according to the legal definition.

I don' think that is true. None of the laws I know of specify actual percentages of a market, but the general rule of thumb has been to start investigating market influence on customers at about 70%. Beyond that, abuse requires leveraging of that to gain an advantage in another market through bundling (every Google search installs Chrome) or tying (Chrome has google search features only accessible in Chrome and refuses to let other browsers implement them or Google places a Chrome download link in the main Google search page).

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274835)

They are leveraging it if they can offer a 50/50 revenue split, whereas other browsers would have to split it in 3 (browser vendor, OEM, search vendor)...

Re:Mandated by the EU? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274915)

Or is Google offering a 50/50 revenue split on search revenue? If so, how are other browsers going to compete with that? At best they can offer a 33/33/33 split.

End of IE? Start of Chrome antitrust pains? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274787)

From the text:

Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

No. Not likely.

But why is Google getting these deals? I'm betting it is because the OEMs want some of that sweet search revenue from Google. Google is dominant in the online advertising market, and now they are using that dominance to get OEM deals to distribute Chrome.

Sounds a bit like Microsoft, doesn't it?

How are other browser vendors going to compete with Google here exactly? How can they possibly compete with Google's 50/50 revenue split? If Mozilla does this, they won't be able to offer more than a third for each party: Themselves, the OEM, and the search provider (likely Google). Is that a similar unfair advantage to Microsoft's operating system monopoly and the destruction of the browser market?

Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274101)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs [youtube.com]

On behalf of all the web developers and security people out there, let me post this for them.

Really this is the end for IE (1)

smooth123 (893548) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274581)

I thought the beginning of the end for IE was when Firefox gained more than 20% of the browser market share.

Or? (4, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274107)

Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

Or the end of privacy?

Re:Or? (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274537)

Somebody else gets it.

Re:Or? (5, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274705)

Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

Or the end of privacy?

You mean that hasn't happened yet???

Oh...the browser (0, Redundant)

Pheidias (141114) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274111)

I'm probably not the only one who was startled that the Chrome OS would be on Sony laptops. Oh, well.

Chrome OS? (3, Insightful)

agrif (960591) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274115)

For some reason, I thought it was talking about the Chrome OS, which was particularly interesting because that'd be a big thing for a new OS, and because we haven't really seen much of the OS so far.

Shame on Google for naming two different things Chrome. It only causes confusion.

Re:Chrome OS? (5, Interesting)

randomsearch (1207102) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274257)

Don't you think the confusing naming is deliberate?

Long-term strategy must be to build a brand. A few years down the line:

"I use Chrome to surf the internet" says person in electronics store. "Oh, you'll love this phone/pc/tv/netbook/washing machine, then... it has Chrome OS".

"I'll take that one, the Chrome thing."

Result: Google is King.

RS

Re:Chrome OS? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274995)

dude, even my car has chrome. it rocks! or, rather, rockmelts [rockmelt.com] .

Re:Chrome OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274325)

Shame on Google for naming two different things Chrome. It only causes confusion.

Given that Chrome OS's only real point is to provide a platform for running Chrome-the-browser it doesn't seem unreasonable. The idea seems to be that when you run Chrome OS it will be as if Chrome is running directly on the hardware so they will form a seamless whole.

Will it make a dent? (2, Insightful)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274123)

Probably nothing worthwhile..

I work with lots of laptops and sony is never one of them. I'd say Apple laptops are making a larger dent in IE than Sony ever could.

Re:Will it make a dent? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274805)

Probably true... the irony is since the rootkit issue I haven't purchased *ANY* products produced by Sony. The irony, I spend *FAR* more on hardware (AV and PC gear) than I ever spend on music. I really wish I could get more people to do the same.

Re:Will it make a dent? (2, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274869)

Sony did have 25% of the laptop market 8 years ago and I used to see Vaios everywhere so it's a bit surprising that Sony have fallen so far. The 2008 sales figures [cnet.com] :

Rank Vendor Market share
1 HP 20.8%
2 Dell 15.1%
3 Acer 14.6%
4 Toshiba 9.3%
5 Lenovo 7.5%
6 Fujitsu 5.2%
7 Apple 4.6%
8 Asus 4.3%
9 Sony 4.2%

Almost every one of those other manufacturers will be shipping IE. So technically you're right, Apple at 4.6% is a slightly bigger dent than Sony's 4.2%, but it's not a huge difference.

Pimp my laptop! (3, Funny)

everynerd (1252610) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274125)

Pimp my laptop! Spinners on the fans, remote unfold, a cappucino maker in the CD-ROM bay, and chrome eeeverywhere. Whaaaaat!

Tell me I'm not the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274127)

... who imagined a laptop with 22"s, spinners, and a sound system that could drown out a space shuttle launch.

Stronger Metal? (1)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274135)

Does this mean they will be more durable? Made with REAL CHROME!

oh god.. (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274163)

wait.. wait.. wait.. wait?????!!!

google chrome bundled alongside real player.....well there goes the neighborhood...

ah i forget.....Vaio's are those laptops that you have to format right after you buy them so they get rid of the tons of useless crap...

Old news (4, Interesting)

Graelin (309958) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274185)

I purchased a Viao a few months back and was surprised to see Chrome appear on the desktop instead of IE. If Google wants to buy browser market share more power to them. I had not tried Chrome before and I'm glad I have, its a great browser.

Re:Old news (2)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274837)

I've tried it, but its apparent lack of bookmark keywords and, by extension, search keywords were a major drawback for me. "imdb dagon" gets me the entry for Dagon on imdb. "gf goog" gets me a stock quote on GOOG, etc. Has Chrome implemented anything like this? Did I just miss it?

Typical OEM Software Deal (3, Insightful)

rliden (1473185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274239)

The FT article (short and worth reading) is basically saying that Chrome's adoption is low and they are making OEM deals, advertising, and doing a "crapware" bundle with RealPlayer install. According to Google they are "frustrat[ed] at what they consider a lack of interest among internet users about browsers." and want to push awareness. According to Google they want to push browser development and competition:

"It's not so important everyone uses Google Chrome, it's more important browser technology evolves as fast as it can." said Mr Rakowski. Chrome set new records in terms of its speed, prompting a race among rivals to boost the performance of their own software.

The "browser snub" headline is just an attention grabber by the Register (go figure). I don't see this being much different than any other OEM making deals with third party application vendors to install and use their software as a default.

The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options. I like to use Firefox. I would much rather install it by dowloading from IE than having some random third party vendor. I like Chrome, but I don't trust Google and I don't like how their software is installed along with their updater. I also hate the crapware opt-outs I have to watch for although to be fair vendors other than Google participate in that practice (Sun, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc).

Re:Typical OEM Software Deal (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274335)

The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use.

They aren't deciding which software you use, they are deciding which software they provide you.

You can use whatever software you want, and people who care more than a tiny bit will often use very different software than the OEM bundles.

Re:Typical OEM Software Deal (2, Interesting)

rliden (1473185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274575)

Yes, you're right you don't have to use the software. You do have to remove it and/or deal with any registry and file associations and redirects setup by the OEM. There is a decent chance you will have it go through first run before going "WTF" and removing it. OEM software installs always seem to leave a bunch of junk in the registry and in userland directories. I would rather they didn't leave a bunch of cruft laying about and screw with file associations that's all.

Re:Typical OEM Software Deal (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274559)

Good description "crapware bundle". I was thinking the same thing: Chrome with RealPlayer; why not Solaris with AOL.

Re:Typical OEM Software Deal (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275027)

The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options.

There are many OEMs, and you don't have to go to the bigger ones. Small ones often do cater to geek market, and sell boxes with clean OS installs, or with something like FreeDOS so that you can do everything on your own.

Why must every article sensationalize "the end"? (4, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274243)

I'm all for Google getting Chrome on to vendor boxes, but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! It should open up more competition and force MS (Chrome and Fire Fox too!) to improve their standards compliance though.

If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords? Wow, that's a great improvement...

We are much better served by having multiple main stream browsers that all force each other to maintain tight adhesion to standards and to continue to push innovation.

-Rick

Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (0)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274429)

IIRC Google is at least on the standards committee, which is more than I can say of Microsoft.

Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (2, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274691)

...which is more than I can say of Microsoft.

No it's not [w3.org]

Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274485)

If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped?

Uh, Microsoft is forced to make IE worth using? Duh...

Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274515)

If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords?

The problem isn't that Microsoft is an overlord, but that Internet Explorer is a crappy piece of software that causes headaches for web developers. If they cannot come up with a better browser, it's their fault.

Everybody is better off without IE.

Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274939)

", but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! "
Yes it should IE is a horrible browser.

Consumers are helped becasue the best Browser won.

Of course, there will still be plenty of other option besides IE.

Naturally if MS actually improves IE, that's also good.

Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275039)

The problem for MS is that a lot of content depends on IE's legacy behavior. Standards compliance is primarily a developer's issue in particular for developers that don't use IE for browsing or even run Windows (except for testing). The later you introduce a browser the easier it is to be compliant because you don't have any legacy users to piss off.

sure, and MSFT will just let this happen (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274247)

Microsoft will start paying companies to keep IE just like they paid people to put IE on computers in the Netscape days. They paid vendors to put XP on netbooks when Linux was the only OS used so it's just a matter of time. And watch for the studies stating 4x the hassles when using Chrome over IE.

LoB

Re:sure, and MSFT will just let this happen (1)

One Louder (595430) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274583)

Yep, if history is any guide, this is just a negotiating ploy by Sony to get better OEM pricing for Windows or marketing dollars from Microsoft. This will follow the usual playbook - deal is reached, then Sony will claim they were just "studying the idea" and the results will show that users overwhelmingly prefer IE and how great a partner Microsoft is.

"The End of IE?" Really? (2, Insightful)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274255)

Why are we even continuing to ask this question? IE will never go away, and we all know this. As long as Microsoft has adequate competition, they will devote adequate resources to develop an adequate browser. And IE8 is that; perfectly adequate. Is it great at Acid3? Absolutely not. Does it do what most people want it to, most of the time? Sure; and the end result of that is that most people will never care enough to switch.

Will this deal be the beginning of the end for IE6? Now that's a question I want an affirmative answer to. I'd hope so, but it wont. That pos is being kept alive by the needs of organizations who are stuck using internal web apps that overworked programmers kludged together for IE 6. And it's going to take a whole lot more than a new Vaio (That will be slicked and re-imaged before the suits even notice this 'Chrome' thingy), to penetrate the rancid cloud of decay emanating from their decrepit web browser of choice before they pay to have those reworked.

Will it be the default browser? (1)

Powys (1274816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274277)

Will it be the default browser?

Bad Title (4, Funny)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274289)

When I first read it, I thought Sony has gone off the deep end and added more "bling" to their laptops.

Chrome Won't Make It In The Enterprise (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274299)

Chrome as it currently stands won't ever garner wide enterprise acceptance.

In Windows, Chrome installs itself into the user's profile folder under the Local Settings folder, rather than into the traditional Program Files folder location.

This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions, often imposed by network administrators to prevent users from installing unauthorized software. While this may work in some settings, any well crafted software restriction policy will prevent this attempt to bypass security restrictions.

As well, by failing to follow proscribed methods for installing software on Windows, Google is actually making it difficult for enterprises that might choose to distribute Chrome on their networks.

Until Google addresses this issue by creating an IT department friendly version of Chrome, it doesn't stand a chance of making any inroads on enterprise networks.

Re:Chrome Won't Make It In The Enterprise (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274619)

This is partly why we've disallowed Chrome here. It's too subversive.

We used to allow Picasa (our staff generally have a _lot_ of images, and it makes sense to let them manage them as they see fit with some caveats), but since Picasa attempts to force the install of Chrome, and Chrome is known to be subversive, we've dropped Picasa and stopped rolling out Sketch Up.

MS are getting better and better and Google are getting less and less accommodating. I don't think there's anything here for the IE team to worry about.

Re:Chrome Won't Make It In The Enterprise (2, Insightful)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274681)

This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions

On UNIX you can just mount the users' home directories 'noexec' and they won't be able to run unauthorized code - an equivalent mechanism should exist in Windows. I also imagine that Chrome has some means to specify the installation directory like most other Windows programs. I don't think those are major issues, and even if they are, they can be fixed easily by Google. The real reasons that IE is still prevalent in the enterprise are:
1. Legacy intranet apps that were written before Web standards
2. Laziness of IT staff
3. Castra- ...er, migration anxiety
4. And of course the unimaginable option that the employees don't actually need a web browser to get their work done, so there is little reason to give them some other than the default.

Re:Chrome Won't Make It In The Enterprise (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275099)

In Windows, Chrome installs itself into the user's profile folder under the Local Settings folder, rather than into the traditional Program Files folder location.

This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions, often imposed by network administrators to prevent users from installing unauthorized software. While this may work in some settings, any well crafted software restriction policy will prevent this attempt to bypass security restrictions.

As well, by failing to follow proscribed methods for installing software on Windows, Google is actually making it difficult for enterprises that might choose to distribute Chrome on their networks.

Per-user installation is a well-documented [microsoft.com] feature of Windows Installer, and is one of the "proscribed methods". It's not a hack or a workaround for anything.

Does anyone even use Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274321)

Wow... more bloatware on a VAIO, how surprising. They have like 10gb of junk programs you'll never use... now Google can add their buggy and insecure browser to the mix.

BTW.. has anyone actually USED Chrome? I have, and let's just say MS has nothing to worry about.

Re:Does anyone even use Chrome? (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274721)

A browser's a "junk program you'll never use"?

Sony are in the business of selling complete, usable, PCs. To the bulk of the market, a PC with no web browser is incomplete.

Interesting... (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274331)

So will end users see it as "Google Chrome" or "Browse the internet"?

PC Decrapifierr (1, Interesting)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274333)

Thank all the computer gads for the PCDecrapifier http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/ [pcdecrapifier.com] Now we can add Google's browser to the list of unwanted pre-installed gunkware.

Re:PC Decrapifierr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274579)

Excellent, more software to get rid of all the crap software! What next, some kind of tool to help remove all those cleaner programs?

Probably one that requires a background service, because apparently that's the only way to write programs, plus an auto updater. And a firefox toolbar.

Would it really be so hard just to post a list of what stuff you can delete and why?

Re:PC Decrapifierr (1)

MikeDX (560598) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274943)

Wow, thats some awesome list of apps it removes!

    * user warning: Unknown column 'parent_id' in 'where clause' query: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pcdcfeedback_apps a WHERE parent_id = 0 in /var/www/vhosts/pcdecrapifier.com/httpdocs/sites/pcdecrapifier.com/modules/pcdcfeedback/pcdcfeedback.module on line 437.
    * user warning: Unknown column 'parent_id' in 'where clause' query: SELECT app_id, name, description, comments FROM pcdcfeedback_apps a WHERE parent_id = 0 ORDER BY a.name ASC LIMIT 0, 30 in /var/www/vhosts/pcdecrapifier.com/httpdocs/sites/pcdecrapifier.com/modules/pcdcfeedback/pcdcfeedback.module on line 437.

There's no Internet on this computer. (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274501)

I run a cybercafe. All the computers have Firefox and that Blue e on the desktop. Nobody uses Firefox. If there's no Blue E on the desktop, I sometimes get a question like "how do you open the internet here? ". Back comes a blue "e" icon. If you remove the "blue e", and call something else "internet", that sometimes does the trick. Then there's the problems of the microsoft-only websites. Several small details of sites only work properly under IE. More questions.

Re:There's no Internet on this computer. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274759)

It's not difficult to change Firefox's icon.

Microsoft Update with Google Chrome?? (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274551)

There is a plug-in for Firefox that will let you use Firefox on the Windows Update site! Though I doubt an "Average" User could get it to work, from a quick glance at the instructions! Is there even any way to get the Chrome browser to work with Microsoft Update!! If not, what are the folks in Europe going to do to keep Windows up to date ???

Re:Microsoft Update with Google Chrome?? (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274679)

Windows 7 doesn't require IE to use Windows Update.

Is this the end of Firefox? (1)

Hottie Parms (1364385) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274623)

Seriously, IE is going to be the default browser for a lot of people. A lot of IE users will look at Chrome and say "bleck". Firefox users, on the other hand, are more open to experimentation. Thus, I think this is going to affect Firefox's market share more than anything else.

Not the end for MSIE. Just more crapware. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274663)

Presently, I am no fan of Microsoft and am somewhere close to neutral about Google. We know what to expect of Microsoft. Google is quickly becoming a wildcard and they are primarily an advertiser and ultimately sells its soul to the highest bidders.

The way I see it, the more Google software you install on your computer, the more information Google has to collect and use with their privacy promises always subject to change like everyone else's. (Ever notice you don't even get to know exactly what is being collected on you let alone be able to purge or delete it?)

For once I would like to see a computer with just the OS and a disk of things that "could" be installed by the user. Let the machine run as fast and as efficiently as possible to begin with.

Re:Not the end for MSIE. Just more crapware. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275021)

"...sells its soul to the highest bidders."
hyperbole much? clearly you are not neutral, that was a poor attempt to try to seem non biased to validate your point.

No Big Deal... (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274717)

... I'll be impressed when I Toyota agrees to put Chrome in the Prius.

Finally a very shiny laptop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29274839)

I totally would buy a nice, shiny, chrome-plated laptop!

Oh wait, you are talking about a web browser. I think some perspective is needed: http://xkcd.com/198/

Next addition: Racing stripes! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274903)

And of course a huge spoiler!

YetAnotherBeginningOfEndForIE (1)

kaaposc (1515329) | more than 5 years ago | (#29274919)

New tag for stories about yet another event that could maybe trigger the beginning of the end for IE.. Equivalent with "dreamon" and "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

This is not good (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275003)

One of the World's most compact, lightweight and fast browsers will be included in that gigantic bundle DVD (yes, CD not enough) which I noticed most Sony users/fans hate, especially after Vista/Win7.

I am afraid to ask if Sony will provide updates or Google? In case of Google, welcome to "check updates for every 2 hours", in case of Sony, security updates not shipped for weeks...

This really makes no sense both for Google and Sony, maker of high end multimedia laptops. Normally, each Chrome install benefits us, Apple users (Webkit based) but this thing really doesn't make too much sense. Especially imagining compatibility hell Sony users will live when they browse Sony support pages themselves. I had to run IE under Virtual PC 7 (PPC) just couple of months ago, to help a Vaio emergency.

I thought they meant Chrome OS (0, Redundant)

Crashspeeder (1468723) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275033)

That was a huge letdown. I thought the OS was what would be installed on the Sony laptops. I thought Google had a huge leg up all of a sudden. The browser being installed isn't that big a deal.

Microsoft should do the same (3, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29275067)

What would prevent Microsoft from striking similar deals with other OEMs, effectively numbing the effects of European regulators? They should go for it.

Meanwhile, Google should improve their Chrome browser's interface so that it is more appealing to the first time user. It is not that beautiful at first sight.

Mock-ups [mozilla.org] from folks at Mozilla could be an inspiration.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?