3 ms·

Chrome is a good app. I played around with it yesterday. Sad that they are doing it "open source". They should license it, then they could get the revenue they

by Allocator2008 18y ago

Chrome is a good app. I played around with it yesterday. Sad that they are doing it "open source". They should license it, then they could get the revenue they need to be a serious competitor to IE. As it is, nor matter how good technically Chrome is, it will be a curiousity. Without revenue from licensing you can't play with the big boys. "Open source"/free software sounds good in a college sociology paper, but sucks as a business model. It's like flying a 4-engine aeroplane with two engines off. It's stupid. But on the technical side, it is good, and so I'll probably use it. I just feel bad for google's shareholders. They could really be doing a lot better off.

mixmax 18y ago
What Google is doing is commoditizing the browser in order to make the web more accessible - and most importantly more like an operating system by including a (supposedly) superior javascript engine that makes it possible to create real apps in a browser window. The financial interest of Google is not to make money on the browser, but to change the game and move as many apps on to the Internet and away from the computer as possible. This is where their strength lies, and they know it. In my opinion this is a genius and bold move to which Microsoft basically has no countermoves. If they play along and get better javascript performance in IE apps move to the web, if they don't IE will fall behind firefox and chrome. Either way Google wins. They don't care about making money on the browser. They care about moving everything into the(ir) cloud.
aconbere 18y ago
I'm a bit confused about where you're coming from here. They could certainly have attempted to license v8 but since the bulk of what they have going on are extension of the already open sourced WebKit rendering engine that would have been difficult. Now they certainly could have written their own rendering engine, but if time has shown anything it's that this is not easy task (look at the lag time between release to market and efficient rendering for any of the big engines). And in this case it would have likely meant the death of the project to step out with an inefficient root rendering engine. Okay... so let's assume the above. They are forced to open source the components that link in with Web Kit, but they keep the Javascript VM closed and license that. We now get to throw into contention that there is any significant cash flow available to license. I think that's certainly suspect. So finally let's think about why google might not care. This isn't about making a money move. Much like releasing IE back in the 90's wasn't a money move for MS. It is however a platform move. Google has a number of very resource intensive javascript applications, a number of which are common for people to have open at the same time. That requires have a better framework for dealing with these kinds of tasks. Chrome is an attempt to provide that. It's not even clear if this is a serious browser bid, or more of a road map for other browser vendors to emulate. In the end it doesn't matter. Google's revenue stream requires eyeballs, lots of them. And the eyeballs are asking for better performance, Chrome is a means to that end.

mixmax 18y ago

What Google is doing is commoditizing the browser in order to make the web more accessible - and most importantly more like an operating system by including a (supposedly) superior javascript engine that makes it possible to create real apps in a browser window. The financial interest of Google is not to make money on the browser, but to change the game and move as many apps on to the Internet and away from the computer as possible. This is where their strength lies, and they know it. In my opinion this is a genius and bold move to which Microsoft basically has no countermoves. If they play along and get better javascript performance in IE apps move to the web, if they don't IE will fall behind firefox and chrome. Either way Google wins. They don't care about making money on the browser. They care about moving everything into the(ir) cloud.

aconbere 18y ago

I'm a bit confused about where you're coming from here. They could certainly have attempted to license v8 but since the bulk of what they have going on are extension of the already open sourced WebKit rendering engine that would have been difficult. Now they certainly could have written their own rendering engine, but if time has shown anything it's that this is not easy task (look at the lag time between release to market and efficient rendering for any of the big engines). And in this case it would have likely meant the death of the project to step out with an inefficient root rendering engine. Okay... so let's assume the above. They are forced to open source the components that link in with Web Kit, but they keep the Javascript VM closed and license that. We now get to throw into contention that there is any significant cash flow available to license. I think that's certainly suspect. So finally let's think about why google might not care. This isn't about making a money move. Much like releasing IE back in the 90's wasn't a money move for MS. It is however a platform move. Google has a number of very resource intensive javascript applications, a number of which are common for people to have open at the same time. That requires have a better framework for dealing with these kinds of tasks. Chrome is an attempt to provide that. It's not even clear if this is a serious browser bid, or more of a road map for other browser vendors to emulate. In the end it doesn't matter. Google's revenue stream requires eyeballs, lots of them. And the eyeballs are asking for better performance, Chrome is a means to that end.