4 ms·

I think you underestimate Google's ability to push their goods. They've shown time and time again that they can enter a cluttered market and make a name for the

by unalone 18y ago

I think you underestimate Google's ability to push their goods. They've shown time and time again that they can enter a cluttered market and make a name for themselves nonetheless. You seem to assume that the average person isn't going to want this rather than Firefox. That's patently false. I dislike Gecko: in my experience WebKit works better and faster. I dislike Mozilla: they seem to me to be manned with incompetent workers who are each brilliant at one small thing, poor with everything else. Above all, I dislike Firefox. I think it's extremely ugly to look at. I've had more crashes with that in Windows than I've had with Safari, and Safari on Windows isn't nearly as stable as it is on OS X. Its developers focus too much on hype and not enough on reliability and ease of use. They're arrogant about it, too. So if Google makes a web browser similar to how they made their chat client, they'll find a market. All they need is something simple, uncluttered, fast, and efficient - and that's what they're offering up here. They don't list one feature here that I don't think is essential, and they don't miss more than one or two features that I wish they had. I think that, in terms of browser design, we've just seen Google announce that there's finally a competitor to Apple's browser. And the thing is, there are a lot of people who dislike Firefox but use it for plugins. If a browser appears that's better-designed AND open, Firefox is going to get hurt. Also, how do you think Firefox got 20%? Google. Google Google Google. And I'm certain that they can push Chrome much faster if and when they want to. The solution isn't advertising. The solution is figuring out just how to make a browser that users will actively seek out. Firefox was like that for a while, before other browsers got tabs. Beyond that, though, it's never had anything that new users really care much about, with the slim exception of the tech market. Most Firefox users can't tell the difference between it and IE without a hacker friend pointing it out. And I think Google is aware of that.

qaexl 18y ago
With the feature set of WebKit + Gears + faster Javascript, as a developer, I'm much more likely to write apps against this platform. I am thinking specifically of distributing the Chrome browser with my app: User goes to the site and already has Chrome. My site automatically detects that, and they can download my Gears app. User goes to the site and has Firefox. My site detects that and gives them an option of the "lite" and the "full" version of my Gears app. The "full" version just happens to come with an install of the Chrome. User goes to the site and has IE. My site detects that and gives them the download link to my app that comes with a Chrome installer. In all three cases, I get what I want -- users use my app, and preferably running on a platform that runs fast enough. If I'm targeting "mom and pop", I doubt they'd notice that it happens to come with Chrome. Because I can write a Gears app that doesn't have the URL links or the menu links, as far as the user is concerned, they are simply running my app. I can easily see Google pushing an "office suite", which simply consists of a gears version of Gmail, GDoc, etc. Personally, I liked Firefox 1 and 1.5. I thought Firefox 2 was horrible, and all the IEs worse. When Firefox 3 release candidates came out, I switched to it immediately. Reading through those feature lists, as soon as Chrome is available for Linux, I'm getting a copy of it. Maybe I won't have to keep disabling Javascript by default with Chrome.
- unalone 18y ago
  I think that an Office suite is almost guaranteed, since all the parts are in place. Agreed. Pity Chrome is only Windows. I'd love to see how Google makes it look and run on Leopard.

by unalone 18y ago

qaexl 18y ago

With the feature set of WebKit + Gears + faster Javascript, as a developer, I'm much more likely to write apps against this platform. I am thinking specifically of distributing the Chrome browser with my app: User goes to the site and already has Chrome. My site automatically detects that, and they can download my Gears app. User goes to the site and has Firefox. My site detects that and gives them an option of the "lite" and the "full" version of my Gears app. The "full" version just happens to come with an install of the Chrome. User goes to the site and has IE. My site detects that and gives them the download link to my app that comes with a Chrome installer. In all three cases, I get what I want -- users use my app, and preferably running on a platform that runs fast enough. If I'm targeting "mom and pop", I doubt they'd notice that it happens to come with Chrome. Because I can write a Gears app that doesn't have the URL links or the menu links, as far as the user is concerned, they are simply running my app. I can easily see Google pushing an "office suite", which simply consists of a gears version of Gmail, GDoc, etc. Personally, I liked Firefox 1 and 1.5. I thought Firefox 2 was horrible, and all the IEs worse. When Firefox 3 release candidates came out, I switched to it immediately. Reading through those feature lists, as soon as Chrome is available for Linux, I'm getting a copy of it. Maybe I won't have to keep disabling Javascript by default with Chrome.

unalone 18y ago
I think that an Office suite is almost guaranteed, since all the parts are in place. Agreed. Pity Chrome is only Windows. I'd love to see how Google makes it look and run on Leopard.