Business | CES | Digital audio | Gadgets | Games | Green computing | Home entertainment | Internet & broadband | Laptops | Linux | Macs | PC Peripherals & components | PC security | PCs & laptops | Mobile phones | Digital photography & video | Software | Wi-Fi & networking
September 2, 2008
On the face of it, the answer is simple: Google Chrome is an open-source web browser and, as such, will be aiming to blow Mozilla Firefox out of the water and then train its guns on Internet Explorer.
Indeed as an open-source web browser, you'd think that Firefox is the premier target. And Google Chrome (which will use the same rendering engine as Safari and right now is Windows only) launches only days after Microsoft's major beta release of Internet Explorer 8.0. Game on.
See also: Microsoft slaps Google with IE8: the 'porn browser'
See also: Google Chrome review
But first impressions are not correct, at least not on this occasion.
Mozilla announced today that it had reached agreement with Google to continue its lucrative revenue-sharing deal for a further three years. Firefox makes almost all its revenue through Google, which pays Mozilla for every web search that takes place through the browser's searchbar and default home page.
Each search is an opportunity for Google to display contextual ads, and Mozilla receives a tiny slice of the profit generated. With 20 percent of the web-browser market, those tiny slices soon add up to a healthy great pie. A pie made of cash.
It seems strange that Google would agree to another three years of this mutually beneficial deal, and then launch a Firefox rival. If it wants all of the money, why let Firefox have any? If not, why enter the crowded web-browser market?
And what's with the timing - straight after signing on with Mozilla? Leaked or not, Google knew that Chrome was coming soon.
Over the past few years Mozilla and Google have made very cosy bedfellows. Firefox and Google's various tools play very nicely together, and the companies share common goals. And a common enemy: Microsoft.
Perhaps Google is aiming not for Firefox or even the market leader IE, but for an altogether juicier, and more vulnerable target. Windows Vista.
Regardless of its burgeoning market share, Vista is taking a hell of a beating right now. But if you intend to buy a new PC in the next couple of years, you're not a Mac fan and you don't want to run Linux, Windows Vista's pretty much the only game in town. And, like playing poker with your Dad's friends, it's a game that will cost you dearly. A few hundred quid at least, depending on your chosen flavour of Vista.
Google Chrome is free. But it's not an OS, right? Well, not quite, and not quite yet. But Google can already provide you with a myriad of apps that can offer everything from calendar and email client, to word processor, presentation app and video player. And with the inclusion of Google Gears, Chrome can work offline too. Just what do you need Windows for?
Google Chrome is far more than a web browser. It's the first tentative attempt at the much-vaunted Google OS. And, wedded to the desktop with a ton of bloat and a barrel-load of ill-feeling, Windows will have to shape up to face the challenge.
See also: Google Chrome browser takes on Microsoft & Mozilla
Visit Broadband Advisor for the latest internet news, reviews, tips & tricks
Get the latest news and opinion on Google at PC Advisor's dedicated Google News Spotlight
Posted by: Matt Egan
Submit to:Digg
Slashdot
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Posted by Oriental Carpet Brokers on September 3, 2008 :
Google's browser is super fast but i miss my search bars and the links on some sites turn into red colours. I haven't found a way to adjust the browser theme either!
I stick with Firefox!
Posted by anskyber on September 3, 2008 :
Err....not quite right.
If you intend to buy a new PC then the very large majority will buy one with an OS preinstalled. Your comment that an OS (Vista) will cost "A few hundred quid at least" is rather far fetched and in being so also undermines your main premise about the free nature of Chrome.
I think you are also confusing an OS with web based utilities. You could be right about the long term aim of Google but the logic is less than impeccable.
Posted by anskyber on September 3, 2008 :
Err....not quite right.
If you intend to buy a new PC then the very large majority will buy one with an OS preinstalled. Your comment that an OS (Vista) will cost "A few hundred quid at least" is rather far fetched and in being so also undermines your main premise about the free nature of Chrome.
I think you are also confusing an OS with web based utilities. You could be right about the long term aim of Google but the logic is less than impeccable.
Posted by Matt Egan on September 3, 2008 :
anskyber - I'd say you were naive in the extreme if you think that OEMs don't pass on the cost of the OS to consumers. And I know for a fact that you aren't! It may not be several hundreds of pounds, but you do pay for Windows, and you don't have to pay for Chrome - immature as it is.
Posted by Matt Egan on September 3, 2008 :
And of course you're right about me confusing an OS with a bunch of web-based utilities. But I tend to think that Microsoft has confused an OS with a whole bunch of features and fripperies that not everyone needs. I suspect the perfect solution lies somewhere between the two.
Posted by Praise Be on September 3, 2008 :
I see that the anskyber has once again stood in something very nasty.
He will be upset to hear that in a recent survey in the US that nearly 35% of a sampled 3,000 computers had been downgraded (in reality up-graded) from Vista to XP.
Matt has it right but I expect Vista to be around only $5 very soon.
Google are to future when it comes to quality and free web based utilities. Unfortunately, Microsoft's business model is old and tired because without Google's billion dollar advertising revenues coming in then they are simply Vista'd.
Back to your old Corner olde boy.
Posted by anskyber on September 4, 2008 :
Good.
Matt, perhaps you will point out where I have said OEMs will not pass on the cost of any OS to the consumer? I was questioning your assertion about a few hundred pounds which you have now retracted.
Praise Be . "once again", can you direct me to the previous occasions you have in mind? Actually I'm not in the slightest bit upset about people making choices about OS, why should it?
Quite the contrary, in fact I think it is very healthy that there is a genuine chance of real and effective competition in the OS and utilities market. It's good for all consumers to have this healthier environment.
Posted by Matt Egan on September 4, 2008 :
anskyber - you didn't, I did and, as you pointed out, I was being a tad dramatic!
Praise Be - get more sleep, you hear?
Posted by anskyber on September 4, 2008 :
OK Matt thanks, I'm on Chrome at the moment and whilst we are some way away from a fully integrated system and I do like Vista I can see some real and potentially exciting opportunities if Chrome grows up to it's full potential and cloud computing is a reality.
On that point and in fairness to your general point, the challenge is really down for Microsoft now.
Posted by Susie on September 4, 2008 :
Downloaded Chrome Beta yesterday and I have already made it my default browser...
I cannot believe just how fast it is. No bloat, clean, easy on the eye...I love it.
Well done Google, nice one!
Posted by Onion Dump on September 5, 2008 :
"Google Chrome is far more than a web browser. It's the first tentative attempt at the much-vaunted Google OS. And, wedded to the desktop with a ton of bloat and a barrel-load of ill-feeling, Windows will have to shape up to face the challenge."
Where are the facts to support this theory?
Given Google's perported "special" relationship with Mozilla. wouldn't it have made more sense for them to release their own OS directly with Firefox bundled?
Why would any organisation pilot it's first OS by first releasing a browser?
Surely Google and Mozilla against Microsoft makes much more business sense than Google against Mozilla and Microsoft?
Posted by romdjoll on September 6, 2008 :
Given the prevalence of netbooks, it seems logical that a browser-based os is something we'll be seeing in the not too distant future. With Chrome, Google do appear to be taking the first steps in that direction.
I know, personally speaking, that if the Linux version of Chrome matches the Windows one, I can see no reason not to go for a linux based netbook and work on docs etc online. I'll keep my pc - for gaming.
This is where Microsoft need to wake up - even Dell are producing netbooks now, and a bloated, resource-hogging OS is not what is needed on them.
Posted by girl_sweet on September 8, 2008 :
yes this is a new free CHATROOM under www.coldtube.com/chat.php
Posted by Matt Egan on September 8, 2008 :
Onion Dump - no proof, just my opinion. And Google is going in browser first because that's how it sees things going. Microsoft's answer to declining Office sales is to throw more features at it and increase the price. Google's is to offer a free, ad-supported product. Extrapolate the same thing to OS level, and you can see where the challenge lies for Microsoft.
Posted by Apply food stamp on September 24, 2008 :
I wanted to research this subject and write a paper. Your post what a thousand words would not. Nice job.