Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Will Google Launch A Browser? 984

Posted by timothy from the sweet-patooties-up-for-wager dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Google Launch A Browser? More

Will Google Launch A Browser?

Comments Filter:

  • Come on... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:23PM (#10303462)
    They are just working on stuff like their toolbar and something like that. Why do you guys have to come up with a theory every single time?

  • Open Source? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:24PM (#10303481)
    Can google compete with open-source options like mozilla and opera?

  • Rich web apps (Score:5, Insightful)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:25PM (#10303489)
    Google develops the rich web app stack. Applications can be deployed through the web with richer interfaces then HTML provides.

    Google has some of these apps (search, email etc).

    Google get's richer.

  • More competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CrackedButter ( 646746 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:26PM (#10303511) Homepage Journal
    What if Google can do something or have something (an idea) which no other browser has implemented? Google has already shaken up the search market and is now shaking up the email market with its Gmail service. What happens if lighting can strike a third time and create some sort of healthy competition for the brower market once again? At least mindshare would come from it and people would realise there is more than just IE out there. A lot of people use google and they are not geeks either, which is what we want.

  • Invite only... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:27PM (#10303525) Homepage
    The current gmail marketing campaign [tech-recipes.com] is working well...

    The invite system allows the system to reduce the amount of load at one time... reduce the amount of beta testing, etc.

    GMail, GBrowse, GAnything -- they work because they remind people of this "wonderful" thing called google. As long as the letter G is associated with bigger and better, Google can send rumors of any google product...

    Any press... any rumors... is good for google.

  • I honestly hope... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdoss ( 802219 ) * on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:27PM (#10303528)
    ... that the good folks @ Google are prepared for their first massive *shrug* from the masses. It would take something extraordinary for me to switch from Firefox at this point. I would imagine the same from a lot of people. They could cash in on the IE-weary public, looking for a change, but those of us using Gecko-based browsing are quite fanatical about it. :)

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FlipmodePlaya ( 719010 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:30PM (#10303561) Journal
    Good observation. There are a lot of Opera users (myself included) who don't mind them, either. They take up littel screen real estate and are easy to ignore. Worst case sceario: they lead you to a good deal on a product, or something.

    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.

    Now to see if Google can throw together something worth switching to...

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lphuberdeau ( 774176 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:32PM (#10303584) Homepage
    From what I understood by reading the article, they might actually be planning to release some sort of modified version of Mozilla. Having more browsers using the Gecko engine sure can't be a bad thing. Plus, it will put some pressure on Microsoft to improve their browser and actually support standards.

    If Google places it's name on a browser, it will sure become popular in a matter of days.

    The success of standards depend on having multiple quality implementations. Right now, this remains a problem as only Mozilla does it right (Safari seems to be fine but I never really tested it).

  • Re:the article (not like ny times will be /.'ed bu (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:34PM (#10303604)
    The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser...

    If they're trying to build their own browser, why would they want IE developers? If it were my business, I'd want guys who had developed a product that had to stand on its own merit to succeed. Building a product that is successful largely because of an illegal monopoly is less than impressive.

  • For some reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HateBreeder ( 656491 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:35PM (#10303611)
    People seem to think that everything that google ever does is a god-sent gift!

    I think it's about time (Especially after the IPO), that people would realize that google, is first and foremost a company that's "in-it" for the money.
    with the word, money, being a key-word,
    especially when it comes to its shareholders.

    Soon enough, pressure from that direction would reach into company policy, and google would cease "doing no evil" ...

    I suggest, that we should all objectively judge each and every new product or service that google offers.

    Personally, I think a whole lot of very talented people are working together on the mozilla project, and they've been doing so for years.
    Why would anyone with a right-mind think
    that google could do any better in the short term?

    If anything, A usable product is YEARS from being ready, and by that time, who knows how powerful and advanced firefox or some other "now-working" browser would become?

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:36PM (#10303630) Homepage Journal
    What if google forked directly from Firefox?

    Would an adoption, or major sponsorship be beyond Googles reach?

    Google branded mozilla engine sat on the worlds most used search engine could result in a MAJOR shifting from IE.

  • My guess... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by taradfong ( 311185 ) * on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:38PM (#10303647) Homepage Journal
    1. The Internet, like Microsoft OS's and the English language is a sloppy, rag tag place that we're stuck with because everyone uses it
    2. You can make the Internet more of a killer app by finding ingenious ways to deal with the sloppy data (i.e., google search engine)
    3. ...or you can try and augment and clean up the mess with a new protocol or feature.
    4. If you do the latter, you will never escape the compatibility/integration hell of Internet Explorer. This is what killed Java, and is the reason that most web pages that try and do something innovative (e.g. gmail) either take a lifetime to code or just never freaking work right. That is, only the Googles or the Netscapes of the world can write and deploy apps that the average programmer *should* be able to do.
    5. But if you create a killer new HTML feature, and people embrace it, and you provide a client that deals with it cleanly, consistently and also handles the previous cruft, you may have a coup in the works.
    6. This is why if Sun really wanted Java to take off as the defacto language of the *client side* Internet, they should have bought Netscape when it had a big chunk of the market. They learned the hard way that you can never trust another vendor to correctly support an operating environment that's not based on open standards. Similarly, this is why (thank goodness) ActiveX never caught on save for a few custom corporate apps.

  • Gecko Based... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jaylee7877 ( 665673 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:38PM (#10303652) Homepage
    Unless Google's engineers are stupid (hint: they're not) or the lawyers step in, I'm betting it'll be gecko based with Google customized Search, relavance and security features. If they're really smart they'll make it open sourced. That'd be nice. Yeah

  • Don't be evil! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dustinbarbour ( 721795 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:38PM (#10303656) Homepage
    When will companies stop trying to do everything under the sun and just be the best at what they already do? I mean, what complaints do people have about the current set of browsers available that a new one is needed? Firefox is the shit and is absolutely free. I don't need a Google browser. I need the best damn search engine in the world.. period.

    Oh and lest I forget.. Isn't it Microsoft's practive of jumping into every market related to computing what gives them that evil red aura? Now here Google ("Don't be evil.") is starting down that path. Sheesh..

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by michrech ( 468134 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:42PM (#10303704)
    From what I understood by reading the article, they might actually be planning to release some sort of modified version of Mozilla. Having more browsers using the Gecko engine sure can't be a bad thing. Plus, it will put some pressure on Microsoft to improve their browser and actually support standards.

    If Google places it's name on a browser, it will sure become popular in a matter of days.

    The success of standards depend on having multiple quality implementations. Right now, this remains a problem as only Mozilla does it right (Safari seems to be fine but I never really tested it).

    I dunno. If Google does come out with a new browser, it would half to offer something that I Just Can't Live Without(C)(TM)(R) or I will just stick with what works (in my case, FireFox).

    I have a feeling I'm not the only one who has this mindset.

  • Re:I hope there is more to this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wizatcomputer ( 798648 ) <wizatcomputerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:43PM (#10303709)
    I think lots of people have doubted what Google can produce, but so far (to my knowledge), Google has succeeded with everything. Last yearm who would have believed you if you said that Google would offer e-mail? Not many people.

    For the browser, all of Google's tools will be integrated. Think about this: spell checking when you post, the ability to click on "blog this (already available on Google's tool bar), interrelated Gmail, possibly image searching on your computer and on the internet simultaneously.

    If the Google browser is good, free, and has no or only Google text ads, and has lots of features, I'll switch. If Google can make my life easier, I'm all for it.

  • Re:It would be more commendable . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by One Childish N00b ( 780549 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:49PM (#10303800) Homepage
    This is why Microsoft developing a search engine and Google developing a web browser is a good thing - you can't be too evil if you have a competitor people could easily switch to, e.g. the Redmond boys have more than enough money to throw at developing a search engine to equal Google, and Google has enough support in the OSS community to write a cool browser and then slap a well-known, respected corporate name on the boilerplate and use it to trounce IE.

    Even if Google did 'go bad', then two evil companies fighting against each other can only be a good thing, as neither can be too evil or they will lose too much market and mind share to the other side. That's the beauty of the system. Of course, like the US elections, a two-horse race doesn't always give the people at the bottom much choice, but it ensures that neither side goes total fascist/monopolist on us.

  • Too much? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:52PM (#10303835)
    C'mon, i love Google as much as anyone else, but is it really necesary? I mean, with the Google Toolbar already available for download and stuff. Integrated GMail would be nice too, but there's already a lot of perfectly useable browsers. Hell, i even like Opera's Google search better than any toolbar.

    I don't know, i get a little jumpy when i see companies (that i like, if that's possible) diversifying too much instead of focusing on what they do best. Usually it's a sign of bad things coming.
  • Since when does the tabloid press can report on technology trends???

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by isaac ( 2852 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:53PM (#10303849)
    Let's just hope that Gmail still works with other browsers.

    Gmail requires you allow cookies from google.com. This in turn allows google to log and track all your searches with a persistent cookie.

    Considering how much I use google and the degree to which it has become an extension of my own memory, I find this unacceptable. Thus, no gmail for me.

    Google's official corporate mantra might be "Don't be evil" but they sure don't care much about privacy.

    -Isaac

  • Re:Why would they "compete" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thrillseeker ( 518224 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @08:53PM (#10303851)
    It would far easier for them to take Firefox as a base and customize it for their services.

    It would much more quickly accepted and far better from a "do no evil" perspective to finacially support the Mozilla team and offer various extensions to FireFox that would improve the search experience.

  • Re:Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:03PM (#10303959)
    Can google compete with open-source options like mozilla and opera?

    From the article

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

    They might just jump on board and make a re-branded mozilla (or firefox, in fact probably firefox). The only problem with that is mozilla is still a touch flaky at times and I'm not sure that the current firefox designs will fit in with googles current design philosophy which is the embodiment of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Gmail for all it's little goodies is still very utilitarian, the google search engine itself is the epitomy of simplicity, firefox while an amazing piece of software and simpler than mozilla just doesn't have nearly this level of simplicity. Google may choose to go with firefox due to the already existing user base and code but doing something along the lines of Safari is certainly an option that must be considered (and considering googles history is something I'm very interested to see).

    On the other hand this is all still a bunch of speculation. Look at the evidence so far, they have a former lead Java guy from Sun, also

    The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser, Internet Explorer, and later founded their own company. One of them, Adam Bosworth, is credited with being a driving force not only behind IE, but Microsoft's database-management program, Access.

    Could be a browser yeah, but what did these guys do in this new company? Also note that the biggest hire was also a database guy.

    Most recently, Google grabbed Joe Beda, the lead developer on Avalon, Microsoft's code name for the user interface that will part of the next version of Windows, called Longhorn.

    Nice catch if you ignore the jokes about Microsoft UI but certainly nothing specific to web browsers there that I can see. More on mozilla day,

    Mozilla, which is "open source" and available to anyone, could be shaped to Google's specifications and be embedded with Google search, Gmail free e-mail and other Google applications.

    Seems to me that they're making the logical move of trying to see if they can get google stuff is integrated into mozilla. The last bit is perhaps the most telling,

    Other blogs and analysts believe Google is working on an instant-messaging program and a Web browser to challenge Internet Explorer.

    Well if bloggers and analysts are saying so then it MUST be true!! The fact is that google is everyones favorite company so we're rooting for it to get into the front lines of the browser wars, the place where Microsoft is considered most vulnerable by the geek population. I hope that google is working on a browser, I hope it will blow IE out of the water but there's a difference between wishful thinking and fact. Look at the main apps that google does have, google itself, the google toolbar, and gmail, wonderful apps but from a users perspective extremely simple and not subject to the whims of screwy users systems, I can't imagine them jumping into the browser wars where they don't hold all the cards (dependent on the OS) and the product is orders of magnitude more complex, I just don't think it's gonna happen.

    The instant messaging program however, now that I can see, little more complex but still very simple and a somewhat natural extension for them (bring up ads and stuff based on conversations and easy searching in logs like gmail).

    GTalk anyone?

  • Re:I honestly hope... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:07PM (#10303998)
    I wouldn't be surprised if Google's browser was Gecko-based...

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) * <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:17PM (#10304086) Homepage Journal

    Does it ever occur to you people that maybe not everyone likes the same things you do?

    Honest - other people have opinions, they really do. Maybe YOU don't prefer Opera, but the original poster does. Mentioning the benefits and your opinion of Firefox is fine, but don't be a condescending jackass just because they prefer Opera.

    Cripes.. if you like Firefox, fine - I love Firefox, it's my absolute number one browser of choice, but that doesn't mean I'm so utterly wrapped up in myself and my own thought processes that I don't recognize that maybe some other people don't like it the same way I do.

  • Half-dozen hires != much software (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:21PM (#10304119)
    Perhaps you can't enter a URL and just get google on the browser.

  • Re:Heavy XUL hooks could make this a killer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:25PM (#10304149) Homepage Journal
    The problem with XUL isn't with XUL :) it's with the javascript you need to interface with XUL. There's no documentation. You try to get stuff done and quickly discover that simple things that claim to work don't and if you're trying to do anything dynamic like change a style sheet at runtime there's no documented way to do it.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grant29 ( 701796 ) * on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:28PM (#10304169) Homepage
    Must everybody in the world have thier own broswer these days? We are already plagued by interoperability in browsers, Operating Systems, Instant messengers, etc... I know it's always good to have a choice, but not when it's this complicated. I support multiple choices, but I'd like them all to at least work, as well as work together.

    It seems like these days everybody wants to be a search engine, everybody wants to offer a music download service. Now is everyone going to offer thier own browers?

    If you are still looking for Gmail invites, I have 78 left. Pretty good odds too. [retailretreat.com]

  • Mozilla... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adriantam ( 566025 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:29PM (#10304175)
    Instead of developing a new browser, I would like to see Google releasing the browser as a re-packaging of Mozilla.

    Hence we can have one more standard-conforming browser and, by using the reputation and power of Google, to ask those "View only with IE" sites to change!

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FlipmodePlaya ( 719010 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:31PM (#10304191) Journal
    Well, adblocking techniques have existed for a long time, and are available for just about all browsers... including IE. The target demographic of any upstart browser is the uninformed IE user. The kind of person who's taskbar is filled with hundreds of unnoticed IE instances in the form of pop-ups (unders in that case?). You and I can certainly rid our lives (to a certain extent) of internet advertising, but as it is, without a well marketed and simple solution, the masses cannot.

    The fact that such a thing doesn't exist is proof that people have learned to live with and expect ads. What do they care if yet another sits atop their browser?

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:32PM (#10304197)

    If these fucking G-whatever jokes start getting modded up I'm going to gfucking gpuke. The slashdot readership needs to take a strong, forcefull stance against this crap early on. Adding G before a word isn't funny. It's lame. Kill this shit early, please, I implore you.
  • Must everybody in the world have thier own broswer these days? We are already plagued by interoperability in browsers, Operating Systems, Instant messengers, etc... I know it's always good to have a choice, but not when it's this complicated. I support multiple choices, but I'd like them all to at least work, as well as work together.

    You know, if everyone just stuck with the standards, this would be a non-issue.

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pfunkmallone ( 89539 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:53PM (#10304337)
    >put some pressure on Microsoft to improve their browser and actually support standards.

    More importantly, it would apply pressure to web designers to support open standards. All those web-based applications might even start working with Gecko based browsers, rather than require IE for ActiveX applets. Maybe we'll even see XUL and Java based apps flourish.

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @09:54PM (#10304345)
    Why gecko? 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?

    The point of advocating alternative browsers isn't to make a "better browser" its to empower standards and to create a diverse application ecology so no one app dominates. Imagine some big ass security hole in gecko after the google/firefox revolution.

    Maybe they'll go with khtml like Apple did. Maybe they'll write their own. Who knows. The point is there is a standard for writing html, thus no need for any type of lock-in, be it vendor or rendering engine.

  • Re:Google Everything? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:00PM (#10304386)
    Do you not understand the concept of capitalism? The goal of a company/corporation/whatever is to MAKE MONEY. They are not going to make money by making their search engine any better than it already is. 4.2 Billion webpages is more than enough for just about any topic that has any information on the net.

    I, for one, welcome google to introduce some competition. I think it would be an incredibly beneficial thing to have 2 large companies that are about even in software. If google wants to start making everything, I hope they do. I hope google makes an OS. I have always been a supporter of windows on slashdot (mod me down), mostly because of the anti-microsoft FUD that gets posted here, and I believe windows XP is incredibly stable and secure for people who know how to use it. Now SP2 makes it secure (and stable, if you factor in the fact that less adware will be getting installed) for everyone. Now back on topic... If google made an OS, I would guess it would be incredibly secure, fast, unbloated (like google's main search page), and will use genius techniques for just about everything. Google won't have to base a new OS off of anything else, while windows has always been known for making things compatable with older versions (which I believe is good, given their circumstances)... but google has different circumstances, and can make software for the future.

    You geeks should like the fact that google is going in to new fields. They are probably the only company that can rival microsoft.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:00PM (#10304387)
    Adding G before a word isn't funny. It's lame.

    Somebody tell the GNOME [gnome.org] people that.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glpierce ( 731733 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:03PM (#10304407)
    The more big browsers there are, the more standards-compliant they must become (though not necessarily W3C standards). This is the opposite of instant messaging - your users must be able to access all content. Web coders would have to be compliant to ensure that people on all browsers could see content, as well. Ten browsers at 10% market share each would be much better than one at 75%.

  • Google and "Tracking" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:04PM (#10304418) Journal
    Personally I wouldn't expect Google to see much value in "tracking" people.

    Creating a 'profile' of a user isn't really the way they make their money. They don't serve you ads based on what sites you have visited (emails you've read, searches you've done) over the last day/week/month. They serve you ads based on what you are looking at now.

    When you have the ability to target in a direct fashion like that the hassle and kludgyness of profiling users over a time period seems like a waste of energy.

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Build6 ( 164888 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:34PM (#10304588)
    they sure don't care much about privacy.

    I think "privacy" is something that means different things to different people.

    would it make a difference to you if Google explicitly guaranteed that no *human* entity would get to look at your data, and that any machine-automated use of the data would be limited to a specific task (and nothing else, and never would this be changed without your consent)? In such a situation I wouldn't mind.

    I absolutely do not want some human person mucking about through information about my online purchases etc., but - assuming Google can handle their systems well enough not to be rooted by anybody - i really could not care less if some machine decides to flag down my activity and ask me if I wanted yet another SATA drive for a good price (and the answer is yes!).

    until the machines become self-aware, conscious entities, I would assume they could care less (or rather, are *incapable* of caring) what I want to buy online either (actually, if Google's systems DID emerge into consciousness, I doubt it'd find my online activities interesting either. "Hanging out on Slashdot? doesn't this guy have anything better to do?"). The only thing to worry about would be whether, through incompetence or maliciousness, our data is exploited for some other purpose. if it's a rules-based system "if X user keeps hitting star wars paraphernalia sites, offer X user star wars adverts", and no nefarious individual finds out this info ("hrm, I'll bait him with a fake ebay sale"), what harm is there? (honest question - I'd like to know).

  • Re:Easy, rebrand firefox (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JeffTL ( 667728 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:44PM (#10304632)
    Firefox, MSIE, and Safari already have integrated Gmail clients -- the browsers themselves. A notifier and mailto handler might be nice, too, but that can be handled equally well with a plug-in.

  • Re:It would be more commendable . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 42forty-two42 ( 532340 ) <bdonlan.gmail@com> on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:44PM (#10304634) Homepage Journal
    Another concern is their approach to privacy. They log every search tied to the IP address forever.

    And (e.g.) slashdot doesn't keep logs?
    The same in Gmail, where they don't delete messages

    As I recall, this rumor started from a CYOA provision in the gmail TOS agreement. It's not really practical to instantaniously zap your emails from every backup archive whenever you delete something, so they obviously can't promise to destroy your emails immediately.

  • Reasons to jump to a new browser (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glamdrlng ( 654792 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:45PM (#10304643)
    What google would do well to remember is that human beings are creatures of habit, and they won't jump ship without a reason. Right now people are flocking to firefox for their windows web browsing needs because mozilla presented something they didn't have, security. While google's branding and high visibility will no doubt help them get their browser out there, they also need to present their browser as having something that neither firefox nor IE have. IE lacks security, customizability, and compactness, but it can be managed across the board by tools such as group policy. It can also be patched across an enterprise with tools like SUS. Firefox brings security and customizability to the table, but it isn't yet manageable in an enterprise network. Firefox also can't handle Microsoft-specific technologies such as activeX. Were google to bring all of the above to the table, it would be a formidable browser indeed.

  • Re:For some reason (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MasterOfUniverse ( 812371 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:53PM (#10304688)
    nd they've been doing so for years. Why would anyone with a right-mind think that google could do any better in the short term?

    umm..have you used gmail? compare that to hotmail, yahoo...its lot better, google did it better in short time in email space..why can't they do it in browswer? I'm not saying they will do it..but just b/c ppl have been doing b4 doesnt mean someone else can't do it better faster..

  • Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:57PM (#10304713) Journal
    I absolutely do not want some human person mucking about through information about my online purchases etc

    But could a google cookie really do that? Let's say I go to amazon.com (by typing it into the browser window). I buy a book. How the hell can google find out I even went to the site, let alone bought a book? This fear of a cookie to me seems ridiculous. From what I've been taught They're not that powerful. Honest question.

  • Speed baby speed !! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @10:59PM (#10304725) Homepage Journal
    Unlike my wife, faster is ALWAYS better. If Google brings anything at all to the table it's a simple clean elegant design interface that flat out runs rings around everything else. All the extra gorpacomplexificationocitudeness should only be bolted on as snap on applications and only when necessary.

  • Re:I honestly hope... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @11:14PM (#10304822) Homepage Journal
    but those of us using Gecko-based browsing are quite fanatical about it. :)

    Careful, they could do an Apple on you, and use the other Free Software HTML rendering engine...

  • Froogle, GMail, Google News are good ideas... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainPinko ( 753849 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @11:17PM (#10304849)
    Well many people have criticised Google for branching, I still reserve judgement. Personally I think Froogle was a natural expansion of Google. After all, they are already indexing the pages anyway, and I usually research products I buy using Google, so why wouldn't I look for products when I got to buy them using Froogle? It is an innovative application of what they already do. It is not a stretch to capture something new but a natural progression. The same I would argue is true for GMail to a lesser extent. Now I can search my own data, after all who doesn't lose an email or want to re-read a joke from way back when whose punchline was: "...but the duck didn't quack!." I personally love Google News since I can get various source for the same issue to get multiple perspectives. There again is Google tailouring it's searching skills to areas which are adjacent but not directly under their search engine buisness.

    Look at my name, I'm not corporate friendly, but I don't think that Google is being tyranical as some of you tinfoilers. Hell, if Google can make my shopping easier if would be a shame if they didn't because of some "purity" principle.

  • Re:Easy, rebrand Internet Explorer? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quantum Jim ( 610382 ) <jfcst24@@@yahoo...com> on Monday September 20, 2004 @11:32PM (#10304947) Homepage Journal

    Really, what prevents Google from rebranding MSHTML? I gather that most browsers (produced, not consumed) are just inspired shells on top of Internet Explorer's backend. From a corporate POV, it seems much cheaper just to hire "Recent Vocational School Programming Graduates" and "High School VB Hackers" over C and competent XML/JavaScript developers. (Yes, there is a Mozilla ActiveX Control; however, it really isn't an offical part of Mozilla and hasn't been used in the wild nearly as much as Microsoft's version.) Furthermore, a simple shell would be a smaller download.

    And there is precedence: Google Toolbar was never released for anything but MSIE on Windows. If it wasn't designed properly (likely), then integrating its functionality would be easier with a MSHTML shell rather than a Mozilla app.

    Don't get me wrong: I really wish that Google was developing a Mozilla-based browser. However, I simply don't see that as likely as a MSIE derivative. :-(

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @11:38PM (#10304972)
    Yes, I expect the trend to continue too. The trend is down for I.E. and up for Mozilla/Firefox. I graphed the trend for the last few months at w3cschools.com a few days ago, and assuming the trend continues I place the point at which I.E. is overtaken as April next year. However, the release of Firefox v1.0 may make that even sooner.

  • Re:Of course... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rhild ( 659603 ) on Monday September 20, 2004 @11:44PM (#10305015) Homepage
    Once you have a certain amount of space available people come up with all sorts of ideas for it besides email, like offsite data backup, or the GmailFS [slashdot.org] a mountable file system based on GMail

  • Re:Registered Domains Don't Mean Much (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oneishy ( 669590 ) <jczebota&oneishy,com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:55AM (#10305389) Homepage

    I agree It doesn't mean that much to have the domain registered.

    However I do find it interesting when they registered gbrowser.com

    Created on..............: 2004-Apr-26.

    vs gmail.com

    Created on..............: 1995-Aug-13.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by taernim ( 557097 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:06AM (#10305441) Homepage
    [I still can't imagine that web designers don't design for all modern browsers. We have a large and sophisticated application costing millions, and I have to say that it cost about $100 to make sure that we could support just about everyone]

    You obviously have no QA or Development experience, do you? Maybe in your area coding for "all modern browsers" is trivial, but in many areas it is not. The changes just between versions of IE 4, 5, and 6 are fairly large from a design point of view. If you're throwing in Mozilla, Firefox, etc support, that adds a lot.

    If you have a QA division that is responsible for making sure that all browsers "work properly" that requires testing on all the different browsers. Did I mention each set of browsers may need to be tested on multiple OSes as well?

    Just because it only costs YOU $100 to do something that you say is trivial, does not mean that is anywhere near the case for others.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mdecarle ( 756338 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @03:53AM (#10306026)
    Also google seems to be crafting their own stuff and they have the kind of people working there that do open source and good stuff!
    Allright, so what source code do you have lying there that came from Google?

  • No, it doesn't (Score:2, Insightful)

    by amake ( 673443 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @06:04AM (#10306452) Homepage
    Apple does not "have" gBrowser. That's a 3rd party app made by someone who happens to have a homepage hosted on .Mac. I don't think this will be a problem for Google.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rdc_uk ( 792215 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @06:30AM (#10306525)
    "you need to use things for which there are no standards, such as Flash"

    Just an assinine aside, but nobody in the entire history of the world has ever needed to use flash.
    Wanted to, yes.
    Decided to, yes.
    Been told to, yes.
    needed to, no.

  • Re:Heavy XUL hooks could make this a killer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @07:14AM (#10306649) Homepage
    There's no documentation.

    That's what I've been saying for months. I even got chided by some big-name Mozilla devs here on Slashdot for saying that the reason Microsoft's XAML will trounce all over XUL is because you can bet your ass XAML and all supporting infrastructure will be fully documented, because if you've ever seen MSDN, you know its staggeringly comprehensive. "Go to XULPlanet," I was told, "everything is documented there."

    Truth be told, XULPlanet only really documents maybe half the API. Sure, the interface definitions are there for the rest, but there's no description for most of it beyond the method names; the sample code coverage is virtually nil; and if you flip a coin and it comes up tails, XULPlanet.com will be down when you try to visit it and you need to hope that the incomplete mirror at mozdev has the page you want.

    After they ship Firefox 1.0, the best thing the Mozilla team could possibly do is to shift their resources to documenting. After documenting, finish up the XRE (come on, how many years is it overdue now?), then switch to evangelizing the platform a little more -- but not until the developer support doc is in place, and not until it can be deployed standalone.

  • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by igaborf ( 69869 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @07:31AM (#10306729)
    Because for one thing, in marketing you're not just going to put up a site full of text, you need to use things for which there are no standards, such as Flash.

    I can honestly say that I've never been influenced to do business with a company or buy a product due to a Flash presentation on a Web site. I have, however, given up and gone elsewhere if forced to screw around with Flash when all I wanted to do was get the damn product specs.

    But maybe that's just me.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Close