I agree.IMO their main intention is to attract developer community by making it semi-opensource,increase the popularity and then force end user to see Ads.
Joined: Jun 22, 2005
In my opinion, it would have been much better if they would have added their new ideas to Firefox instead of writing their own browser from scratch.
That probably would not have fit them from business-perspective.
Joined: Jun 22, 2005
Originally posted by Arjun Shastry: I agree.IMO their main intention is to attract developer community by making it semi-opensource,increase the popularity and then force end user to see Ads.
I don't understand this. FireFox is the Google Browser. Google pays many millions each year to FireFox to make the browser. Even the terms in the press release are strange, as Firefox talks about "chrome" as the pluggable style that makes the presentation layer on top of the FireFox engine.
Changing the chrome on Firefox has always been well documented, if not exactly easy.
Google pays many millions each year to FireFox to make the browser.
Are you referring to the money Google spends to have the Firefox search box hit Google by default? They have the same deal with Apple about Safari, so I wouldn't say that "Firefox is the Google browser".
Even the terms in the press release are strange, as Firefox talks about "chrome" as the pluggable style that makes the presentation layer on top of the FireFox engine.
It sure is confusing, but I see nothing strange about it. Same word used by a different company -> different meaning.
Joined: Mar 13, 2003
Originally posted by Amit Agrawal: well this helped answering some of my questions as why google built a new browser rather than extending firefox
Even if whatever they are claiming in that comic book is not true completely, it would surely be better than available ones - else they would not release it anyway.
Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Originally posted by Sumit Bisht: did anyone read this? Do they really think web developers/end users can be manipulated like this ?
I did, and now I feel more knowledgeable about the project, and not the least bit manipulated. Can you elaborate what you mean?
Originally posted by ankur rathi: Even if whatever they are claiming in that comic book is not true completely, it would surely be better than available ones - else they would not release it anyway.
It will certainly be better for Google, because they don't need to pay Mozilla and Apple to send search queries their way. It also integrates Gears, which contributes to Google's bottom line through better support of offline web apps. Whether it's better for the end user remains to be seen. After all, different people prefer different browsers; but generally, choice is good.
I wouldnt mind. I just hope I dont have to end up hacking my css to align to chrome browsers as well. Already have a head ache aligning to more than 3 at a time
I would be concerned about what they do with the URLs that I type on my address bar. Google is known for its lack of privacy and I certainly would not want them sending ad agencies the URLs that I visit. I have enough spam already thank you.
You can drag a tab and open it as a new browser instance
The address bar obviously finds proposals with Ajax. It also searchs your bookmarks and your history
The history is displayed in a new tab and is searchable
Popups are "collected" as a window in the window. You only see the title bar of the last one at the very bottom of the page
You can bookmark pages with the star next to the address bar. But to open a bookmark, you've got to type in the first letters into the address bar or open a new tab and go to the favorites directory on the start page. The usability is totally mixed up here: i rarely bookmark a page. Only the ones i find really interesting. But i regularly use my bookmarks. The star may stay there but should do something reasonable
"First, browsers need to be more stable. ... A browser crash is a big deal." Firefox is very stable. I've never had Firefox crash on Windows or Ubuntu. Browser stability is not a big problem.
"Finally, Google Chrome is a fully open source browser." So what? Firefox is fully open source too.
At least, one good thing is that Google Chrome uses WebKit, which is used by some of the other big browsers as well. Hopefully that means it will render in the same way as other WebKit browsers.
We'll see if it becomes popular, and I know there are a lot of smart people at Google who build great applications, but currently I still really don't see why a completely new browser is necessary (besides business / power reasons). [ September 03, 2008: Message edited by: Jesper Young ]
Joined: Aug 23, 2001
well, imho chrome has not been developed for pure technical reasons. i guess a large % of pc user mainly use:
1. a browser 2. an office pack (excel, word, ppt etc) and ofcourse 3. a gui based operating system
though google would end up killing firefox, i don't think its strategic focus was firefox users. even the whole comic strip runs on IE v/s chrome basis (without any attention to firefox).
firefox captured approximately 19% of the market share but its still far from being a real threat to IE which remains "the browser" for windows users and covers almost 74% of overallbrowser market. google hopes that its brand would help chrome doing the same damage to IE which gmail did to yahoo and hotmail.
i will not be surprised if i see a free google operating system in another couple of years especially if chrome is successful.
And, more about "First, browsers need to be more stable. ... A browser crash is a big deal." - The first exploit has been found that makes all tabs crash. They're not (yet) delivering what they promise.