Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google To Air Chrome Ads On TV

Posted by Soulskill on Sat May 09, 2009 09:17 AM
from the somebody-call-seinfeld dept.
mikesd81 writes "Google plans on advertising with spots promoting its Chrome browser this weekend. Google Japan had already released a 30-second video promoting Chrome on YouTube, but the company will distribute that video through the Google TV Ads network this weekend as an experiment to see if it can drum up interest in Chrome. Google advertised their browser on the New York Times' website on Wednesday."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Too simple (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sopssa (1498795)

    Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use. Its just a plain browser with no extra functionality, no mouse gestures or anything that actually browsing a lot more efficient.

    I'm not in the firefox legion tho, I prefer Opera for its fast responsiveness and having everything required for nice browsing experience built in. That being said, firefox does have some nice addons I would like to use aswell, but its not just as good and nice for my daily usage. I do however use it for web development because of

    • On the Contrary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:28AM (#27888143) Homepage Journal

      Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use.

      I would wager that a simplified computing experience is not only what the general public desires but would also be a very refreshing change of pace.

      I'm sure that's part of Google's strategy with their general public campaigns. Remember Slashdot is maybe ~1% of web browser users and our tastes are atypical.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by causality (777677)

        Remember Slashdot is maybe ~1% of web browser users and our tastes are atypical.

        Because they're based on informed decisions?

        Not that two informed people can't disagree with each other, because on a matter of taste, they can. It's just that each of them would have a reason for doing so other than "it's what the computer came with."

          • You say this like it's a novel point but it is exactly true.

            I claimed no novelty. It was merely an observation.

            People just want to be told what to use. Microsoft knows that, and now it's obvious that Google knows that. I wish Linux would come to terms with that but that's another post.

            That Linux hasn't accepted that as though it were the only possible way could be one of the main reasons why I use it. That's part of why I never felt like it was Linux's job to appeal to the masses or to replace the monop

            • Re:On the Contrary (Score:5, Informative)

              by something_wicked_thi (918168) on Saturday May 09 2009, @04:53PM (#27891677)

              Why? It's either a troll or satire.

              The "individualized web toolkit" is webkit, which is used by KDE, Nokia, and Safari.

              Chrome is getting extension support (albeit not Firefox compatible) real soon now.

              Furthermore, Chrome has Greasemonkey support to a degree already. See http://mashable.com/2008/12/15/google-chrome-greasemonkey-scripts/ [mashable.com]

              Finally, Chrome has better privacy than Firefox in some ways because it has an anonymous browsing mode, and it's more secure because of the process and sandbox model they use. Firefox is working on that, but they're a long way behind.

              Really, Firefox is falling pretty far behind many of the other browsers at this point. Don't get me wrong - it's still a good browser, and way better than IE, but all that it's got going for it now is the extension framework. Safari and Chrome are both way faster than Firefox. Even IE has a better process model (Firefox runs everything in a single thread, which is why it gets really sluggish with a lot of open tabs, or when one tab is really CPU heavy). Firefox is also a huge memory hog and, at least on Linux, is pretty unstable.

              Again, most of these things will be fixed if they can fix their process model, but I expect that's a long ways off. They've got a lot of catching up to do.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Really? I guess I will have to tell that to the users I deal with every day who are still confused over the concept of opening a tab in Firefox.

      Mouse gestures aren't even on the map. Inability or all out fear of installing a program (thanks to idiotic mainstream tech reporters).. now there is a problem for Chrome.

      • Chrome is missing a lot to make it feel like a full app.

        The mouse wheel must not be implemented using the native features because it doesn't follow the settings in the mouse driver. I also can't click the mouse wheel to scroll quickly.

        Find sucks compared to find in other browsers. Especially if you're trying to find text in a text area.

        No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.

        That said, I wind up using it every day and am making this comment with it. I have firefox running as my main browser but

    • Re:Too simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2009, @10:27AM (#27888495)

      Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use. Its just a plain browser with no extra functionality, no mouse gestures or anything that actually browsing a lot more efficient.

      It's amazing how many people are confusing a minimalist interface with no features. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. Take your time, poke around, look up some guides and how-tos, Google, check the help files and official forums, etc. You just might be surprised.

      That said, right now it's unrealistic to expect Chrome to have every feature Opera and Firefox (with extensions) have. But if you're an early Phoenix adopter back in 2002-03, you'll know that Chrome has the right formula for success: a strong focus on the basics. A pity Phoenix lost sight of that; perhaps in 6-7 years Chrome will become slow, bloated and insecure as well, and someone else steps up to repeat the cycle.

      • Re:Too simple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Goaway (82658) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:29PM (#27890063) Homepage

        It really is funny how pretty much the exact same arguments Mozilla users made against Phoenix back in they day are now being made by Firefox users against Chrome.

        I used Phoenix then, and I use Chrome now, whenever I use a machine it actually runs on.

  • by nschubach (922175) on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:25AM (#27888133) Journal

    I just don't understand what's so interesting/damning here. So a company is pitching it's product. Good for them. Maybe it will educate people (average people) to the fact that there are options.

    I haven't used it myself as there's no Debian package for it and I'm not compiling it from source. Sorry.

    While on the browser discussion, has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

    • Welcome to many years ago? Slashdot has been doing that since I started reading it.
      • It only happens if I'm logged in and it just started for me recently so it has to be some setting... I just don't know which.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google. And this one is especially nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnrFwlTPvY&feature=channel_page [youtube.com]
      • There's a comment on that video that I found rather humorous, if not a little creepy: "See the three 6's in the pong ball?"

        Until they said that, I never noticed that the circle in the middle with the three lines branching out could be interpreted as a "6". Personally, I don't care, but there are people that do.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by siloko (1133863)

        It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google

        I'm not sure how you navigate the tubes but every time I do a search I see their logo plastered all over the page. It must cost them a fortune.

    • by wisty (1335733) on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:54AM (#27888285)

      It's a big deal, because google has jumped the shark and become a big company. Why do they need to buy TV adds? They *are* an advertising company.

      • by RudeIota (1131331) on Saturday May 09 2009, @12:17PM (#27889459) Homepage

        google has jumped the shark and become a big company

        Google has become a big company?! Oh no! :O

        Google might be an advertising agency, but they don't have any connection to the world of traditional media - they are (nearly) entirely dependent on the Internet.

        The Internet is a great place to advertise, but I feel a television campaign can really open up the flood gates for the "casual user" demographic.

        This also fits with Google's mantra when you boil down everything they do -- throw your money at it. They have the resources, why not?

    • by paazin (719486)

      I haven't used it myself as there's no Debian package for it and I'm not compiling it from source. Sorry.

      Not compiling from source!?

      Hand in your nerd badge, please.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CSMatt (1175471)

      It is very unlikely that you will ever see Chromium in the Debain repositories. Two outside programs that the browser uses are under the BSD Protection License, which Debian has not classified as a license that passes the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:28AM (#27888147) Journal

    How about actually getting the mac version up and running before spending tons of time on tv ad production?

    for christ sake they've been promising a beta for how long now?

    Safari used to be zippy, but, despite being the best option for mac right now, has some nasty habits and memory leaks. I'd like to see what chrome can offer.

    • by paziek (1329929) on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:37AM (#27888191)

      I think that Google doesn't care that much about bringing Chrome to the Mac or Linux, since they only bother is most likely IE, with is very backwards in its technology and pretty much restricts Google on what they can write for their users.

      Safari seems to be pretty compatible with community-approved standards, and in fact, it even is ahead in many of them, implementing what is still in draft. While someone might argue, that this way they might actually break websites when - yet not finished - standards change, but I think that people who tinker which them actually know that, and design their pages in a way, that won't break them in the future, just cause they relied on some experimental feature.
      Okay, seems like I'm getting off-topic here.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          Browser chrome means the browser UI. The term originated in Firefox, where it is used in the urls for extensions and browser XUL (e.g, chrome://browser/content/browser.xul )

    • by saddino (183491) on Saturday May 09 2009, @10:41AM (#27888651)

      Chromium (the open source basis for Chrome) is available to download and compile, and you can also download unofficial binaries [manu-j.com] if you're really dying to see how Chrome for OS X is coming along.

      And if you want to experience what a one-process-per-tab feels like on the Mac, you can check out the Chrome-inspired OS X browser, Stainless [stainlessapp.com].

  • by Lord Lode (1290856) on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:40AM (#27888203)
    Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by causality (777677)

      Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!

      It's like a Russian reversal without the Russian.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2009, @09:41AM (#27888211)

    un-removable updaters with unique id's ? check, keylogging via google suggest ? check , encrypted strings sent to the largest advertising company on the planet ? check.

    i really dont understand the hard on people have for Chrome, if it was branded by Doubleclick everybody would condemm it (Google own Doubleclick so they are the same) yet if its branded by Google it must be ok, regardless of the facts.
    I would think you have to be crazy to install any binary software made by an advertising company, perhaps Gator or Zango should release a browser as there seems to be thousands of people who would install it if it was branded something else
    the force is strong, the stupidity of hipsters even more so

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Some of us aren't totally fucking paranoid and use software because it's good.

      If you're that afraid, use SRWare Iron, or compile it yourself. Google Chrome is BSD licensed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      un-removable updaters with unique id's ? check, keylogging via google suggest ? check , encrypted strings sent to the largest advertising company on the planet ? check.

      [citation needed}

    • by eric-x (1348097) on Saturday May 09 2009, @10:22AM (#27888471)

      Fact remains that Chrome gives you a very smooth experience. It's quick (major concern for me), very handy start page (there's probably a ff plugin that does that too), download manager is an improvement; tab dragging to open a new window is very useful. The only thing that sucks is the bookmark manager.

      If you don't like the usage tracking then there's always the opensource clone SRWare Iron.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by eric-x (1348097)

        I forgot: memory usage. As a java developer I have to run a few memory sucking applications such as an IDE. The main thing that made me switch to chrome was that I got tired of restarting ff because after a while it would have eaten a significant amount of memory.

    • SRWare Iron [srware.net].

      Chromium source code with all of the privacy-infringing stuff removed.

  • ... I think it's a really good idea personally as the average user does not know about these kinds of things. Also chrome is very high speed and less prone to freezing and crashing. IE tends to be one ofthe worst for that, although with IE8 they tried to make it so it doesn't take down the whole browser.

    I think mass advertising of little known things to the average person is great, it's unfortunate that it's so expensive to do any many great things never get the exposure they deserve.

    Personally I think in

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mikesd81 (518581)
      I'm hoping this will make Fire Fox advertise a little more. A quick 30 second clip during a prime time show. There was a contest about 3 years ago [slashdot.org] but I don't know whatever came of it.
      • The average American though has no clue what a browser is. Google can spend some money advertising because Google is loaded. On the other hand, the Firefox project is community driven and really can't spend the resources advertising on TV.
        • Go ask one of your friends that knows nothing about computers except how to turn them on what browser they use, and I bet they'll say IE. People know what a browser is, they just don't know much about them. And maybe it's hard in this economic time right now, but Fire Fox I'm sure could afford an ad or two here and there.
  • I can see the testimonials [today.com] now:

    "We are so, so happy with Google Chrome. That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." - John Lilly, Mozilla (through gritted teeth).

    "Browsers don't need to be integrated with online apps. Certainly not like the operating system ... I'll just get back to you." - Ian Moulster, Microsoft IE Team.

    "We're Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live." - Larry Page.

  • Don't know about America but in Canada if you made a whack of money spend it on advertising and deduct it from your income and bam you made less money and won't have to give as much income tax to the government. And money you donate to charity is only partially deductible, figures huh? I do something similar with my small business if I make to much money for example $60,000 @ 22% = $13,200 tax. I figure a way to spend it that will benefit me and be deductible from my income (lease a vehicle in my case) so I
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by yourassOA (1546173)
        No there is a loophole the truck can be used for personal provided you keep a kilometer log and report to the government how much of your total kilometers was to earn business income. For example 50,000 KM cost me $14,000, 60% of KM were to earn business income so $8,400 is a tax deduction. And I get to drive a truck I couldn't afford otherwise thanks to a loophole for large construction and oil-field companies. Seriously when you see large company fleets they are usually just a way for the company to pay l
  • by DownWithMedia1.0 (1547249) on Saturday May 09 2009, @10:36AM (#27888605)
    Thats great. Lets give Google more and more information about what we do online. As if doubleclick, Google toolbar, reading gmail, gTalk, and everything else they do wasnt enough.
  • Hulu Add (Score:2, Informative)

    I just saw the chrome add for hulu the other day, and I must say, I love chrome and I like the idea of them advertising it, but the comercial just kinda looked goofy.
  • Why link to Blogspot for the video (which doesn't actually have it) instead of the actual video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5535Ts-iOP0 [youtube.com]

    • I was too quick on the reply button. It's because there are many links to different videos about browsers on that page.

    • Because they are "Open Source" business-minded and not "Free Software" supporters, meaning they don't give a fuck about providing a full Free stack. I have come to the tragic conclusion that most Open Source contributors are now running Windows.

      On the other hand, would they care to make their software Free if it weren't for the Open Source movement? At least we can port the best written software (if its core is not too tightly-coupled to Win32 APIs), so still better than nothing. The biggest problem is t
    • At some point you'll realize that you should support standards... by validating your pages and testing in multiple browsers. That's the way to ensure that your website works even in new browsers, new versions of existing browsers, new operating systems, and so on.
    • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Saturday May 09 2009, @11:23AM (#27889013)

      If you code to standards, your only real issue will be IE.

      If you don't, well, it's never too late to start.

      Adding another Webkit based browser to the mix does not cause much extra pain. You also forgot to include mobile browsers in your list - the beauty of the web is that you don't have to know all the capabilities of the clients which will look at your content ahead of time, and yet your site can still be read by them. Yes it's nice to have things render the same on every browser, but it's not essential, and if that's really your goal, you should give up now, or use Flash or something.

      The reason for this browser to exist is to unseat IE as the default way to run google web apps, and prevent Microsoft screwing google (and ruining the web as collatoral damage), as they have done so many times to rivals in the past. With Google threatening Microsoft on multiple fronts, it just doesn't make sense that they rely on MS as their main conduit for users, particularly given the modus operandi of Steve I'm-going-to-fucking-kill-Google Ballmer.

      The (old) hope is presumably to reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers, which run Google software without getting in the way too much, for Google or the user.

      That's also why you won't see them rush to put Chrome on Linux or OS X - there is no corresponding threat on those platforms, and healthy browsers exist there.

        • Actually I've never really had a problem between Firefox, Opera and Safari. If anything, it's Firefox's font size difference that's the real problem.