Slashdot Log In
Google Chrome OEM Strategy To Take On IE
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Nov 21, 2008 07:15 PM
from the countdown-to-antitrust-suits dept.
from the countdown-to-antitrust-suits dept.
ruphus13 writes "In an effort to take on IE and make strong headway in its share of the browser market, Google is taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook and working on deals with PC OEMs to include Chrome in their devices. From the article: '[Google] is likely to pursue deals with major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to put Chrome on their computers and devices. ... If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever. ... Google, much more so than Mozilla, has enough global brand recognition, money, and savvy to make a big deal of this. ... Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops. Chrome currently has just under one percent market share, according to NetApplications. That number could rise significantly through this effort. Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Internet Explorer 8 Delayed Until 2009 204 comments
Barence writes "Microsoft has confirmed that Internet Explorer 8 will not be officially released until 2009. According to a blog posting on the Internet Explorer 8 development site, a release candidate of the browser will be released in the first quarter of next year, to be followed by a final release at an unspecified date. This news comes on the same day that Google is considering bundling its Chrome browser with new PCs. Will the IE delay and Google's tactics help to steer users in Chrome's direction?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.
Why not just get them to include firefox and google apps, giving something of more perceived value?
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there process.
Parent
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Funny)
Chrome isn't ready for prime time
Agreed. It's quite interesting that it is still loads better than IE, though.
Parent
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Funny)
You've got IE to LOAD?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox and Opera aren't standing still ...
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Funny)
But will they still call it beta?
Parent
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Funny)
But will they still call it beta?
Uncertain. I don't know how Google's "permanent beta" policy would fly with Windows' "our beta is alpha, our RC is beta, and our SP1 is what we should have released".
Parent
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome doesn't have adblock, and probably never will. Extensions are king, and firefox has that mindshare. Linkify, Greasemonkey, noscript, webdeveloper, firebug, etc.
I played with Chrome for about an hour and then removed it. It's a pretty horrible experience after firefox which makes it a rather pointless web browser.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However have you checked Chromes Developers tools imbedded in it. They are comparable (not the same) to firebug. As well many of the other controls only appeal to geeks, or people who for some reason doesn't want to follow web standards created past 1994. I would use Chrome if it was available for the Mac. It is faster then Firefox and a more basic UI
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Informative)
IE crashes [google.com] - 1,380,000 Results.
Firefox crashes [google.com] - 630,000 Results.
Safari crashes [google.com] - 1,110,000 Results.
What planet are you living on?
Parent
Googleology (Score:5, Funny)
In Safari's defence, I'm sure half those million+ results are in regards to land rovers hitting elephants and other African fauna.
863,000 +safari +crashes
728,000 +safari +crashes -elephant
697,000 +safari +crashes -elephant -lions
655,000 +safari +crashes -elephant -lions -banana
Apparently, there are many crashes involving elephants and lions which have been mistakenly added to these results. Also, it appears at least 40,000 crashes involved bananas - this warrants further investigation.
Parent
On the contrary (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, ActiveX is extremely common in corporate intranets, making it the one and only mandated browser for corporate use in a lot of places.
Planning (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't, usually, start working on how you are going to distribute a product after you know it is ready for the market. You work on what you need to do to secure the distribution channels you want to have while you are getting the product ready, so when it is ready, those will be in place.
Presumably, Google has an idea of where it wants Chrome to go and a plan to get it there. If it doesn't then, sure, this discussion of OEM deals may be premature, but you certainly can't conclude that from the fact (which I certainly don't dispute, though I use Chrome for almost all of my home browsing now) that Chrome isn't ready today to be most people's sole browser.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google could also offer a choice between Firefox and Chrome, or even install both to let the user experiment with which one they like best).
Google would win either way since Google and Mozilla already have a strategic alliance lasting until 2011 and both browsers have already integrated Google search, and I don't think Joe user wouldn't mind having them both given that he's already used to bundleware from the OEMs.
Suppose that the OEMs bu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chrome isn't ready for prime time
I think it is ready. I use Chrome exclusively on my laptops. It started out of curiosity, but now I am used to it, and it renders all the pages and shows all the videos I need it to. And it's fast.
Fix it first (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. I can't print documents without a header and footer (I can with Firefox, or even IE). I can't block images like with Firefox. There are things I like about Chrome, like that one tab acting funny or crashing does not affect the other tabs, or the downloading interface it has, or that it remembers my most frequently trafficked pages and makes that as my start page, or that I can move tabs around, or that new tabs expand locally etc. But I hate having to use multiple browsers just to block images,
And IE is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome isn't ready for prime time
And IE is? :)
Parent
Re:Will it really matter ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.
Apparently you don't quite understand the concept of competition. There isn't always "The Big Guy" and "One Underdog". Why should Firefox be the only one allowed to compete?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you have switched to what you believe to be a better alternative but other people have not yet, isn't it normal to want to try and improve their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But as far as rooting out IE goes, wouldn't you want the "best browser" to be the one to do it?
Obviously. The part where I disagree is which one is the best. You already know which one you want, so you can choose just fine. Let the other browsers compete at getting chosen by those that haven't decided.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.
I said that. It means I wish it were Firefox in this story on Slashdot instead of Chrome. It doesn't mean that I think Google Chrome should be banned from going near an OEM for negotiations, and it doesn't mean that I think the only option should be Firefox. Is that what this whole thread was about, GigaplexNZ? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the REAL reason that Google is pushing Chrome instead of Firefox can be summed up in one word: Adblock. I am sure that Ads being blocked in pretty much every FF out there can't be making them too happy. If I was in charge at Mozilla i would be trying to make a deal with one of the smaller OEMs, maybe Acer and Asus to start, and offer them a "branded" FF that had links to the companies website in the default bookmarks. And if they really wanted to kick some ass they would have Adblock Plus and Foreca
Firefox actually seems to be better known (Score:5, Funny)
I think more people know what firefox is, as the "browser that works better and has less viruses" to the general public.
Mozilla is relatively unknown to people outside of our little slashosphere.
Re:Firefox actually seems to be better known (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is going to play havoc on people's understanding of the internet. Most people already think IE is the internet, but at least they knew that google was a thing on the internet. Now Google is going to be another internet that looks like a sort of three-colored button, next to the old internet that looks like a blue "e", and on both you can have Google, but you can't have the blue e on the Google internet.
Expect some calls from confused family members, people.
Parent
Television Ads (Score:5, Interesting)
That will be the ONLY thing to get the public to understand that the world is forced to break the web in order to look right for MSIE. Furthermore, a coordinated effort needs to be made to unite web developers to stop supporting Microsoft's intentional breaking of web standards.
"Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work and every web browser maker tries to remain adherent to standards so that the internet runs smoothely... that is everyone except Microsoft with its billion-dollar-budget of programmers that somehow can't get it right."
I would find it interesting what Microsoft would tell the public in response to that. "We are Microsoft and we define the standards?"
Re:Television Ads (Score:4, Insightful)
You didn't say how the W3C doesn't define the standards. You don't say how they aren't valid. There are lots of controlling and regulating bodies that are not elected by the people. While you attempt to paint a grim picture by grouping the W3C in with two other organizations that aren't exactly shining examples of effectiveness or moral integrity, I'd have to protest the tactic on the grounds that it simply fails to disprove or invalidate my comment directly. Furthermore, you indicate how ICANN is out for its own gain, but not the other two. It would have been more interesting, however, if you managed to include ISO in the mix...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, not exactly.
But as an industry consortium representing (and composed of) most of the major online companies and a number of other interested institutions, they have as democratic a mandate as any standards body I've seen.
Or rather (Score:4, Insightful)
"Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops."
Or rather, they just didn't install a second browser at all, since the only browser kinda HAS to be the default. I really doubt much wooing was involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly, that was possibly the low point of the summaries I've seen today. If anything, they woo hardware manufacturers to install their whole frickin OS as the default choice, and if there was no browser in Windows it make initial setup of new PCs (especially for home users) a lot more awkward. I'd rather they included their own brand browser than none at all. If they restricted the installation of any other kind of browser, that's when I'd take issue.
History lesson (Score:5, Informative)
Being the "old guy," I'll teach you some history. Netscape was THE browser for the first iteration of Windows 95. NO browser was bundled OR part of the OS, although AOL was often preinstalled. (I'm not sure you'd call that...thing that came with it a browser.) Basically everyone who used a browser ran Netscape (some ran Mosaic).
Then IE 3 came out (like most Microsoft software, versions 1 and 2 were too shoddy for actual use by human beings, even end users).
Microsoft made IE free to "compete" with Netscape. It still wasn't bundled with the OS until Windows 95 OSR 2.1 -- although it was installed along with Office and other MS apps. But you didn't HAVE to have IE on a Win95 system. That started with Windows 98.
Here's the thing: Netscape Navigator was then made free also, and it WAS bundled on many a PC maker's system. It's true Microsoft didn't *woo* anybody -- threats were more like it. Doesn't anybody remember the whole first antitrust thing?
Parent
Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...
I'll one up you with Java Runtime Enviro wanting to downloand and install a FUCKING OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY SUITE! I respect pushing OOo, but that's fucking absurd.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been playing with InstallShield [acresso.com] lately for work-related things, which is one of the (if not 'the') major product for creating Windows Installer MSI files.
One of InstallShield's currently promoted features [acresso.com] (search down that page for "Value-added services") is the ability to set a flag which will cause the installer you create to install the Yahoo Toolbar with your program, reported so that your company can "generate new revenue streams".
I suppose that in this case, rather than try to go to all of the
Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers (Score:4, Informative)
I use Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu since Edgy (2006) and have Intrepid on 3 computers right now, and Hardy on 2 others. I've installed it many times for myself, and more than a couple times for friends and family. It does not come with an ad blocker by default.
Unless, for some odd reason, you're including Firefox's pop-up blocker as an ad-blocker.
Parent
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is being an innovator in this field at the moment, and so I'm glad that they're positioned to get more "default" marketshare via OEMs.
It will push Microsoft to innovate with their own browser in order to keep their search engine hits up.
One feature that I expect to see in the release version of Chrome is video chat. They released a plug-in to make Firefox compatible with their Google Talk chat's new video feature, but I'm betting that functionality will come built-in to Chrome.
How about a Page from Firefox: Features. (Score:3, Informative)
How about making it usable first. Let me know when there are plug ins. Specifically Flashblock. No flashblock, no browser.
Google's taking lessons from Cypress Hill! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Punk [playaz] bailin' every time that I use Chrome" - Cypress Hill, "Till Death Comes"
Granted, B-Real is talking about firearms here, but good for Google. It'd be interesting to see browser usage stats on machines that ship with both IE and Chrome preinstalled, although it wouldn't surprise me to see IE retain a majority share, just on name recognition alone.
Google will target embedded applications (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd bet that Google is looking to target embedded platforms that will need a lightweight browser in ROM. This would include things like cell phones/PDAs, netbooks, notebooks with a pre-boot environment, etc. This is what Chrome was designed for from the start.
The biggest killer app of them all is television. Over the next few years, The US has an impending mass uptake of new, higher resolution televisions that are suitable for web browsing and other text dominant internet activities. We already have a selection of set-top boxes and game consoles to provide usable internet functions on TV. Internet enabled televisions will become commonplace in the not too distant future. These will be the products of choice for aging, wealthy, and (relatively) technologically illiterate boomers.
If Google can get its foot in the door to that and other embedded markets then they can compete without having to face MS directly. I expect that MS will not be able to revamp Pocket IE to make it capable enough to be a viable competitor to Chrome on a platform where a web browser has to have all the bells and whistles to satisfy users.
Dont Get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft will play hardball (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Google is large enough make doing that embarrassing to MS, and get the attention of the Attorney general.
Hell, maybe they want MS to get some anti-trust investigation against MS.
Google doesn't need MS, at all. They have nothing to fear from them.
Parent
If it ain't broke don't fix it (Score:4, Interesting)
.
For Google, anti-trust is playing with fire ---
--- and heading into what could be a very deep recession, I don't expect to see the new administration all gung-ho and ready to move against one of the bare handful of US industrials that is actually showing a pulse, paying dividends, a company with strong export sales and a AAA credit rating.
Parent
Re:If it ain't broke don't fix it (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when is Microsoft an industrial company? They employ more lawyers than programmers!
I've caught heat here for posting that without published confirmation, but if you include the staff of their outsourced legal on top of their in-house legal, it vastly outnumbers their in-house programming staff. How much outsourced programming staff could they have when they employ legal to bully 3rd party hardware companies to develop drivers for their new OS's?
Case in point, did it take more programmers to develop OOXML than it took lawyers to get the standard approved?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey! There can only be one monopoly, and that is us! Your Honor? Hello?"