Google-branded Firefox?

arpy writes "An article on Mozillanews.org is reporting on Google's registration of the domain GBrowser.com (nothing to look at there yet). The article provides a summary of rumours that Google will release a branded version of Mozilla Firefox (along with some interesting speculation)."

a copycat search engine with a copycat browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the tech has all been done before, although by companies that people don't think are Not Evil enough. Sorry.

Maybe search?

[Harbinjer]

Could the hirings of the browser people be just to integrate desktop search better with current existing browers? That does sound more likely to me.

Re:The next logical step

[Arghdee]

I'd like to see them build official extensions to the Mozilla platform, rather than rebrand Firefox.

Give the consumers more choice!

Google

[suso]

All good things come to an end?

Pure speculation

[FiReaNGeL]

OK, this story is pure speculation.

But if it turns out to be real, will they be able to gain a significant market share? Against IE and the rising Mozilla-based FireFox? To me, it seems that IE get all the non-techy people love, and Firefox gets the geeks... They better implement some VERY nice features, because the Google name alone won't make me switch for sure. And I LOVE Google.

Re:Hmmm....

[Scoria]

Competition often provides an impetus to remain benevolent. If Google were to successfully conquer Microsoft, then what impetus would they possess to remain benevolent? Google is now a publicly traded corporation, and "Don't be evil!" may not last.

Re:Alright,

[Anonymous Coward]

When do we slashbots start hating google for becoming too big?

I don't think it's the being big so much as abusing power when they get that way. Microsoft might not be such a bad company if it didn't use its weight to destroy competition.

Let's just hope Google stays nice :)

Re:Been there, done that (Dupe)

[moonbender]

Slightly condensed version of the article summary: "An article on Mozillanews.org is reporting on [old news]. The article provides [rumours] along with [speculation]."

Way to go!

We've got money now!

[cubicledrone]

So let's branch off into 800 money-losing "businesses" and flush a pile of cash the size of Nebraska down a shithole so someone can stand up in a meeting and look brilliant by saying "I think we should return to our core business."

Then we can start the layoffs.

Google still dosent have a single non-windows app.

[dwipal]

Google-Toolbar, Google-Desktop, Picassa, etc. etc. etc...but everything windoze. I would simply love the google-desktop for linux or mac.. may be, so firefox might be *sortof* an answer.

google desktop runs a webserver on the localhost which the browser connects to, so u can always use google desktop of ur windows machine from the linux machine and do stuff like that.

Re:Not just a browser

[ryanmfw]

That's like asking, "Why have a monitor when our speakers are so wonderful?" Because the OS is a necessary part of the computer. None of those things run without one. But! Maybe Google will be coming out with an OS. They have a now commonplace name, and they have the skills. Maybe they'll produce a Linux distro.

Gbrowser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone assume that Gbrowser would be a web browser? It could really be any number of things; an online photo album, an online store, anything that you can "browse".

Re:Hmmm....

[polecat_redux]

Considering that both the Google toolbar and the Google Desktop (and gmail notifier) apps are only for Windows, I'd say a Google-branded version of IE would be more likely.

Re:Maybe search?

[bheer]

If this "silent code checkins" story is true, two candidates come to my mind:
a) improved Google Desktop Search compat with Firefox
b) some form of Alchemy code (Adam Bosworth is working at Google and has some neat ideas about making the browser smarter about working offline)

What beats me is why ANY major changes would occur before a 1.0 ship. Both (a) and (b) are things that could be done in Firefox 1.1, which is why I'm sceptical about this whole silent checkins thing.

Re:Not just a browser

[pdboddy]

Actually, you have a great idea there. What's Linux's major drawback? The perception that you can't just insert a CD, and it'll install itself perfectly. Or that it's too difficult to do if you don't know everything to know about Linux. If Google were to produce a Linux distro, that distro would have the weight of Google's name, plus anything that came bundled with the would *likely* work properly (less flaws, more filling) as they do have decent coders who know their stuff, and they have the capability to create a desktop environment with search, email, blogging (and more) right at your fingertips. Add to the fact that Google seems to be a) Less Evil Than The Other Guys(TM) and b) willing to take a steady-as-she-goes approach. We'd end up with an OS that wasn't half assed, chock full of coding holes nor equipped with stuff we couldn't uninstall (ie. IE!). Go Google!

Re:Only be a good think

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Google sees Microsoft as a competitor, so leveraging XUL with Google's killer apps is one way to keep the the internet free from a possible Microsoft lock-in (XAML comes to mind).

A valid question

[Gentlewhisper]

Will Gbrowser be GPL?

Re:We've got money now!

[avalys]

Please. I'd hardly call those "ventures", more like experiments that they make available for the public to play with.

Those things cost them so little to develop, a single one of them taking off would generate enough revenue to pay for their entire experimentation program.

Re:The next logical step

[cayenne8]

Well, I hope they keep an un-adulterated version of Firefox. The thing I LIKE about it is not being all bundled with email, USENET apps. When I want email, I use an email client. When I want USENET access...I use a news client. When I want to browse....well, you know....Firefox.

Re:Maybe search?

[gl4ss]

google could afford having 1 guy doing domain name registering for one day per week, in the marketing or whatever pr guys they have.

you know, registering every possible good name they can think of, REGARDLESS OF IF THEY'RE PLANNING A PRODUCT OR NOT. you know, 'just in case'.

Re:The next logical step

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's customers are the advertisers, not the users.

Doesn't that lend weight?

[SuperKendall]

Indeed, by using Mozilla code Google is not building a browser at all. If he'd said "distributing" I might think different.

A google branded browser would do really well, and could do wonders to further teh adoption of XUL if it helped use Google, GMail, and other Google apps.

Will Google steal Mozilla's thunder?

[Thai-Pan]

At first I thought to myself "What's the point?" but upon reading the article, I saw a few valid ideas for such a product.

My main concern about this lies in whether or not Google's rebranded Firefox will essentially steal the Firefox project away from Mozilla. Ultimately, Google has far more popular support as a whole than Mozilla, and is well known by an audience consisting not of just computer geeks, but my IE-wielding doofus customers. I think even if the Google browser were 100% identical to Firefox, it would in the end be more successful simply because of the brand recognition.

When we look at the "browser wars" right now, our two distinct groups are IE and Firefox (and Opera, etc etc..), but division among the ranks of open source soldiers is the worst thing that could happen to us. If Google's rendition of Firefox becomes more successful than Firefox, they will in the end seize some level of control over the whole Mozilla project. If they were to do so, well.. They'd be a bunch of jerks.

IMO the best way Google could go about such a project would be to implement their new additions to the Firefox browser via XUL, with minimal changes to the core browser itself. If they leave the Firefox browser as the property of the Mozila project, they don't step on any toes, and XUL is still flexible enough that they can make all the toys they'd like. Furthermore, even if they distribute their own Google Browser Package which is essentially Firefox with the Google XUL Extensions, it would still capture their market while remaining "friends" of the open source community. I don't think I'd install a Google browser myself, but I'd consider a couple of Google extensions on Firefox.

This again ties back to a previous article about the role of XUL. Cross platform workplaces are becoming more and more common these days, and an XUL oriented work platform could certainly alleviate a lot of the stress. Imagine plugging in your PDA/Cell phone, and bing, it synchronizes with a Firefox extension, the same as you use at home, at work, etc. Or even if you used XUL extensions for instant messaging, saving synchronizing files between home and work (Gmail file system extension anybody?), basic office work.. Ultimately if Firefox wants to take a major stab at IE's market, they're going to need some clever tricks to get people to rely on it, and if you ask me, getting people to rely on the XUL platform is it.

Re:Only be a good think

[pdboddy]

Heh, that's a bit of a FUD.

If that were true, we'd be seeing daily accounts of Apache servers being hacked and used for malicious purposes. According to Netcraft [netcraft.com], Apache is used by almost 70% of the webservers [netcraft.com] out there. Yet Microsofts IIS is on 20% of the webservers out there, and there have been way, way more malicious attacks on it. So being bigger does not necessarily mean being the bigger target.

IE gets more attacks because it is poorly coded, and you see less attacks on Firefox because it is coded better than IE. If it were to be come more popular, I don't foresee a huge jump in attacks.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not necessarily a web browser

[Nurgled]

The web isn't the only thing you can browse.

Re:The next logical step

[swillden]

Yea, sure, I'm paranoid, but sometimes being paranoid and /not/ being a dumbass are the same thing.

Paranoia is good.

Knowing how to read is even better. I quote myself:

don't bother typing your real e-mail account and password

I said that because (a) giving your real data is pointless and foolish and (b) I don't want your data.

Re:Been there, done that (Dupe)

[bluephone]

I am annoyed that I can't cite sources, but I'm not keen on losing some hard earned sources inside Google, nor getting them in trouble. There was somewhat of a witch hunt inside Netscape trying to figure out who leaked various bits about NS7 plans to me. I have no desire to get Google folks in troube next. :)