Will Google Launch A Browser?

ServeYourWorld writes "The New York Post is reporting that 'Based on the half-dozen hires in recent weeks, Google appears to be planning to launch its own Web browser and other software products to challenge Microsoft.' I took a guess and did a whois search for Gbrowser.com and indeed Google Inc. is listed as the registrar."

Re:Let me guess:

[Nurgled]

Opera already does that if you enable the Google TextAds feature... with Google, no less.

Re:Let me guess:

[NoMercy]

And Firefox has an extention to do it too...

gbrowser image browser

[CFrankBernard]

I don't know if I feel sorry for this guy's website or not, since his image browser may soon gain in popularity (but maybe not via Google's search results :) http://homepage.mac.com/schwarz/gbrowser.html [mac.com]

Re:Let me guess:

[Short Circuit]

Firefox already does that [mozilla.org]. (Well, it doesn't exactly track you, and it only displays relevant ads if you want it to.)

This totally fits with Google's recent hires...

[MelloDawg]

Back in July Dare Obasanjo noted on one of his blog posts [25hoursaday.com] that Google was hiring a bunch of people from the IE browser team and couple of Java guys from Sun.

Dear PATIK

[Letter]

Dear PATIK,

Even Netscape 4 sent everywhere you surfed to a central server, although of course not with the purpose of serving ads. Remember "What's Related?"

-Letter

Re:Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera isn't open source, dipshit.

Kottle: The Google Browser

[otisg]

See this 1 month old blog entry: The Google Browser [kottke.org]

May be a gecko browser

[digitalgimpus]

May want to look at this (in particular the last comment):

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226572 [mozilla.org]


Interesting eh?

Was my post informative? Help me get a free flat screen [freeflatscreens.com] by completing 1 silly little offer. I need one to go with my free iPod.

text of link as it won't allow clickthrough

[Anonymous Coward]

Description: [reply] Opened: 2003-11-23 05:22 PDT

I seen this idea mentioned a while back on Slashdot and thought it'd be worth
sharing here.

Today I'd say that Google is a much bigger name than Mozilla or even Netscape
however, like Netscape, Microsoft currently has their eye on Google and they
want to make MSN Search as popular as Google is now. Google shouldn't make the
same mistake as many other competitors and wait until they're rapidly losing
market share before reacting, they need to act now and doing so could benefit
both Google and the marketshare of Mozilla.

I'd not be surprised if the version of IE shipped with Longhorn would have an
MSN Search toolbar so similar to the Google Toolbar and perhaps even modified IE
so that the Google Toolbar wouldn't work.

However, if Google were to actively promote a Google branded version of Mozilla
(Firebird would probably be the best to use) which at the bare minimum just
included all the current Google toolbar functionality (bug 218126) and promoted
it (features like tabbed browsing, type ahead find would be features that set it
above the normal Google toolbar for IE) this would see an increased usage of
Gecko based browsers, and would get Google users used to the concept of
downloading a new browser before MS cuts off their air supply.

Of course I'd hope Google would do one better and make the Google browser more
than just Firebird with a tacked on toolbar, it'd be good to see it take
advantage of the toolbar customisation features in the toolkit so that if you
don't want the entire toolbar you can drag just what you do want to wherever on
the other toolbars you prefer. I do think a separate toolbar download should be
provided too for those that prefer to use the Mozilla.org (or other
distributors) builds.

Features like tabbed browsing would be an excellent companion to any regular
Google users toolbox, being able to launch search links in background tabs is an
invaluable feature. Eventually once most people prefer downloading the Google
browser, the Google toolbar for IE can be phased out to save development costs.

Google could take this marketing idea further and offer customised versions of
the browser for ISP's that wanted to use their own branded search pages that
were powered by Google (e.g. search.netscape.com)

Advantages for Mozilla.org:
1) Increased market share for Gecko based browsers due to promotion by one of
the best known names online
2) People's base expectations of what a web browser has to offer will be raised
above the current bar set by IE
3) A higher percentage of Gecko users will means webmasters can't ignore
standards compliant browsers anymore which will benefit all Gecko uses whether
they use the Mozilla.org builds, Google builds, Netscape 7.x, etc

Advantages for Google:
1) They're not relying on Microsoft to not break the Google toolbar
functionality in future versions of IE
2) They don't have to tie people who want Google Toolbar functionality to Windows

Advantages for IE users:
1) They're more likely to hear about better alternatives to IE either through
Google or their Google using friends.
2) Even if they still choose to use IE then no doubt Microsoft will be more
likely to improve their product if they see their market share declining

------- Additional Comment #1 From David Hallowell 2003-11-23 06:05 PDT [reply] -------

After doing a Google search for 'Google Browser'
(http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+b rowser&sou rceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0)
I found a blog posting by Simon Willison
(http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/0 7/17/theGo ogleBrowser) which credits the
idea to Anil Dash (http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/006 726.php)

Bart, is this something Mozilla Marketing think is worth following up with? I
think

Re:Let me guess:

[Anonymous Coward]

The browsing experience is full of ads to begin with. Pop ups, click throughs, banners, flash ads, etc. For an IE user migrating, the trade off of pop-ups for another banner is a good one.

Not if you use firefox + adblock it isn't. It's really pretty quick to 'teach' adblock about the annoying stuff, after that you are back to the good old days, with more content than ads on pages...

Re:Let me guess:

[KB1GHC]

it's called AdBar

Re:The power of G baby

[foreverdisillusioned]

Behind the pubic bone, near the urethra. Go in about 3 inches with your palm up and make a "come here" gesture with your finger.

Tempted to add some sort of joke here, but I'm shooting for "Informative" so I can get a little karma.

Re:okay, here is a theoretical question then.

[JeanBaptiste]

"Yeah, Google has the don't be evil thing going on so they would never do something like that.."

agreed, however, if they ever become beholden to stockholders, that could all change in a heartbeat. (old man voice) I remember back when Real (as in realplayer, .ram) wasn't evil. That changed pretty quickly into adware, spyware, et al.

Re:Let me guess:

[Anonymous Coward]

edit: you can still log in to gmail though if you set lifetime of cookies in mozilla to be "to end of session" it still creates the ID cookie but expires as it says "at end of session" instead of 01/18/38

Re:Sneak preview...

[praxis]

Picasa looked inspired by iPhoto long before Google bought it.

Re:Google Everything?

[Chess_the_cat]

It's not just you. I'm pretty much Googled-out. I also think it's a big mistake for Google to try and be all things to all people. They should focus on their search engine only. Think about how much it can still be improved. Even Google only indexes a small fraction of the pages on the WWW. About 3.3 billion which comes to no more than 10% of the publicly indexable web. Even the 3.3 billion they have indexed are not complete; some are nothing more than the URL. But I guess they have shareholders to answer to now so they feel they have to innovate in new areas.

Re:Let me guess:

[Jordy]

Oh yeah?

Try searching for 'porn' on google:

Free Porn & Hot Sex - New
The #1 Sex pick of The King
XXX Free Porn here - 100% Free!

Nudes XXX
Super girls. Video and photo online
Only for you and free

Re:Let me guess:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, no gmail for me.

Maybe someone should create a browser extension that removes cookies after closing the browser. Oh, wait..

one month ago...

[nadolph]

http://www.kottke.org/04/08/the-google-browser

Re:Heavy XUL hooks could make this a killer

[mewphobia]

XUL is a great concept, but it will be a while before it's ready to develop decent apps in.

At the moment, there are bugs preventing things as simple as an itunes style datasheet - where you can click in a field and an editbox appears for editing. Even the nearest workaround has a bug attached to it.

XUL's a great theory, but if it were as great as the hype machine says it is, we'd be seeing a crapload more XUL apps by now.

checkout http://wiki.mozilla.org/XULDev?NeilsWishlist [mozilla.org] to see some of the things XUL needs to be ready for the primetime.

Re:It would be more commendable . . .

[damiam]

The same in Gmail, where they don't delete messages.

Of course they delete messages. All it says in the TOS is that messages may not be deleted instantly, because it's a distributed storage system with a lot of backups.

Re:Or it's just a smart way of protecting their IP

[Vacindak]

Incidentally though, if Microsoft were to break the Google Toolbar's ability to function inside IE as part of their hypothetical declaration of war on Google, it might end up being the nail in IE's coffin. Without the Google Toolbar, there is no way I'd be using IE willingly.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

1 [google.com] 2 [google.com] 3 [google.com] 4 [google.com] 5 [google.com] 6 [google.com]

-last post was supposed to be anon too.. good luck this time around, br0ck

Re:Let me guess:

[TulioSerpio]

see the last comment in this bug (see the dates, too) (cant link, bugzilla dont want to be slashdotted)

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2265 72

Re:the article (not like ny times will be /.'ed bu

[Mia'cova]

Well, they were taking over marketshare like crazy (even before being bundled) and were inventing new technologies faster than the rest of the company could keep up. So they shut them down to ensure that web apps wouldn't take over the rest of their business. They certainly didn't stop developing IE because they couldn't afford it. I don't know about you, but grabbing a few guys that can eat away at the rest of Microsoft's business doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me ;)

Re:Easy, rebrand firefox

[artson]

"Perhaps they would integrate a Gmail mail client."

Whoops, too late, Firefox has an extension [texturizer.net] for that too.
"Adds a context menu link for opening a GMail compose window when clicking on mailto: links and text email addresses. Based on G-Mailto specs."

Re:Let me guess:

[PeterPumpkin]

Apparently I'm "not authorized" to view that bug. Probably most others are too. Could you post details?

Re:Easy, rebrand firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL prevents it!

Lynx is modern

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it doesnt display images doesn't mean it cant translate html.

Depending on the criteria you use, you could call lynx a more modern browser than IE6.

It has been developed more recently (Feb 2004 last major release)

Like every other browser in the world, results will improve if the webmaster devotes some time to it.

It works pretty well for strict xhtml.

Re:Let me guess:

[roca]

> So we can find ourselves in a situation where
> one popular browser's (or rending engine) tics
> and weirdness dictates how to write webpages
> like IE does now?

As a core Gecko developer, I promise you that we are committed to fixing any tics and weirdnesses that deviate from published Web standards, and this will remain true even in the unlikely event we find ourselves with a monopoly. For Web developers, this means that if they rely on bugs of ours that deviate from Web standards, then we will eventually break their content.

Because we're open source, you don't even have to trust me. If you ever feel that Mozilla.org is abusing its position, you are welcome to gather followers, fork the code and carry the project on in whatever direction you wish.

Re:Not enough g-follow thru on existing stuff

[Ytsejam-03]

The posters who said that diversification could/will kill Google may be on to something. Does anybody buy anything using froogle? Is Gmail (several months in beta and still crap) ready for prime time? Has Google Answers taken over the world? Etc...

I wish they would get all their people focused on fixing up some of the really cool stuff they *might* make but already announced -- but that hasn't yet lived up to its promise -- rather than getting the rumor machine going on ever more tenuous potential expansions of the Google brand.

This is typical Eric Schmidt. When he was the Novell CEO, the development of new ideas was strongly encourged. The result was lots of new products which all solved problems in their own way, and didn't necessarily work well together. When Schmidt finally "resigned," the company had three different proxy-cache products (iChain, BorderManager, Volera) alone!

Eric Schmidt is a technologist. He was successful as CTO at Sun, back in the 90's when Sun was doing well. But what did he do for Novell, and what exactly has he done for Google? While he seems to understand technology and the culture that drives it, I don't see what he has done for any of these companies that is so revolutionary.

Nothing really

[apankrat]

Really, what prevents Google from making cosmetic changes to Firefox/Mozilla.

Nothing [google.com] really (rather lousy translation, but it gives an idea).

Does it matter if Google trumps MS?

[Ygorl]

They're a public company now; depending on the details (with which I'm not familiar - how typical, right?), MS could just buy them if the rumored browser actually exists and takes a huge chunk out of IE's share. I suspect, at least for now, things are set up so this wouldn't happen, but I don't know. And, things change.

Re:Easy, rebrand firefox

[Red Alastor]

Firefox is under the Mozilla Public License and the GPL don't prevent it anyway.

Story is full of wrongness.

[chrispycreeme]

Google hosted Mozilla Developer Day on its campus, a gathering of programmers that work together to build sequels to the re-named Netscape browser.

Mozilla is Mozilla.
Netscape is Netscape


Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100 megabytes of storage space on a remote network

Can you say 1000 megs? or 1 gig?

This story is fluff. I wonder what else "journalists" are letting slip throught the cracks.

Links is modern

[Jack Action]

Various [mff.cuni.cz] hacks [elinks.or.cz] of links [sourceforge.net] support JS, graphics and *gasp* -- tabbed browsing.

Thus, IE 6 is not a "modern" browser.

In the same way The Strokes are not The Modern Lovers. [modernlovers.com]

Re:Let me guess:

[OverlordQ]

Bug 226572 - Google branded Mozilla browser [bugzilla.mozilla.org]

"This is a duplicate of a private bug about working with Google. So closing this one"

pull out your tinfoil hats.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[martingunnarsson]

That's not Apple's website, it's a personal .mac homepage for some guy. I think it's unlikely he has registered the gBrowser trademark.

Could this mean KHTML on Windows?

[Zulithe]

I'd welcome a Google browser. While it wouldn't surprise me if they wrote one from scratch, I think they would do better to port KHTML to Windows and build from there. With Apple contributing code to KHTML along with the Open Source community it's sure to have a fruitful and long life, couple that with the lack of a KHTML port for Windows and it would really fill a niche in the browser world. I hope you're listening Google!

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[timmyf2371]

You do make a good point - but a robots.txt file would be of negligable bandwidth and specific search engines the site owner wishes to use can be allowed whereas everything else can be disabled - problem solved.

Re:Registered Domains Don't Mean Much

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail [wikipedia.org]

"Before being acquired by Google, gmail.com was a free email service offered by Garfield.com, online home of the comic strip Garfield."

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[TheUz]

Aye mon, lynx is ver' handy when ya need to read docs, an have not yet or do not intend to setup an X server. Lynx definitely has it's uses.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Gmail was registered by Nostradamus ;-)

[HHMMSS]

$ whois Google.com

Created on..............: 1997-Sep-15

Google Watch - The work of a LIAR

[nejekketi]

Google Watch is the work of an instane liar who tries to get back at Google with lies and deception because his POS page wasn't ranked #1.

Check out Google Watch Watch [google-watch-watch.org] instead.

MozRef.org

[KjetilK]

I'm not positive it is what you're looking for, but have a look at the Mozilla AOM Reference [mozref.org] site. It contains a lot of good reference that a friend of mine has put together.

Re:Registered Domains Don't Mean Much

[68kmac]

gmail.com belonged to someone else originally. Google only bought it from them lateron.

But will it display fonts correctly?

[Snaller]

Unlike explorer which allows people to lock fonts to a small and unreadable size (of course you tick 'ignore font sizes' but it doens't ignore line heights, making it compeltely unreadble still - and even then MS has their own way to ignore that setting (just check windows update) which others have started to copy - tsk tsk )

And before utters the usual suggestion of Firefox/mozilla, no thanks - there are too many things i don't like about it - including its instance on placing its config files in "Documents and Settings"

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[the_womble]

And how do you estimate how many browsers are not sending out the correct user agent string. Opera and and Konqueror both make it very easy to identify as another browser (usually people choose IE 6) and Opera does it by default - so it is likely that you have more people with an IE6 user agent who are using Opera than people with an Opera user agent you are using Opera.

Add people who have changed the default user agent in other browsers and you probably have a significant overstatement of IE6 use, a smaller overstatement of IE5 and Netscape use and large understatement of the use everything other than those two.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[stonecypher]

Yeah, Just so you're aware, Flash is actually well-standardized, and because there's a single canonical viewer, one of its great advantages is that you don't have to play vendor control games. Arguably, for complex layout, Flash is easier to work with than HTML, specifically because it is so singly standardized and implemented.

Now, I can't stand to work with it, so please don't think that I'm advocating it. But, Flash was publically standardized and released to the public for reimplementation in the middle of the lifespan of Flash 4. That's the reason for projects like Ming, and for Macromedia's competitors like Adobe to have begun to include the flash format in their own products all at the same time.

As far as open standard things that can do what Flash can do which browser vendors are implementing - other than Flash (which satisfies your criteria,) it's called SVG, and it's about halfway there. You guys haven't rushed to it at all, hence browser vendors' lackluster support. It's been around since 2001.

As far as working in Firefox but not in Mozilla, son, I hate to be the first to break it to you, but they're built from the same codebase.

I'd love to see an example of that; it defies what the Mozilla project seems to be. Did you bother to report it in Bugzilla? Did you tell anyone at irc.mozilla.org #mozillazine about it? Look, it's one thing not wanting to fix it yourself, but if the impossible is occurring, you might at least tell the project about it? I mean, trapsing through bugzilla there appears to be no such bug, and so the only person you have to blame for this not being fixed is yourself.

Anyway, when any one of you guys has to write a container, deal with polymorphism, handle large scale architectures, deal with interfaces across applications, write libraries for static or dynamic linking, then I'll manage to hold sympathy for a few two- and three-line HTML hacks which are already extremely well documented at places like The Noodle Incident [thenoodleincident.com], MeyerWeb [meyerweb.com], WaSP [wasp.org], Well-Styled, and so forth.

The things you're complaining about, even if they were as hard as you suggest, just aren't that hard. As an HTML novice but as a programmer I walked into an IRC channel, got a few good FAQ sites, read for an afternoon, and was able to write cross-browser sites afterwards. Go read Sutter's and Alexandrescu's papers about exceptions if you want to see short examples of what other people deal with silently.

Nobody makes more noise about fewer or smaller issues than the web programming community. Oh no, you have to preface a property illegally with an underscore. Shudder.