Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Software Internet Explorer The Internet News

Google Chrome OEM Strategy To Take On IE 290

Posted by Soulskill
from the countdown-to-antitrust-suits dept.
ruphus13 writes "In an effort to take on IE and make strong headway in its share of the browser market, Google is taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook and working on deals with PC OEMs to include Chrome in their devices. From the article: '[Google] is likely to pursue deals with major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to put Chrome on their computers and devices. ... If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever. ... Google, much more so than Mozilla, has enough global brand recognition, money, and savvy to make a big deal of this. ... Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops. Chrome currently has just under one percent market share, according to NetApplications. That number could rise significantly through this effort. Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome OEM Strategy To Take On IE

Comments Filter:
  • by tomhudson (43916) <.barbara.hudson. ... bara-hudson.com.> on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:18PM (#25853543) Journal

    Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

    Why not just get them to include firefox and google apps, giving something of more perceived value?

    • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:23PM (#25853617) Homepage Journal

      I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there process.

      • by hclewk (1248568) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:25PM (#25854171)

        Chrome isn't ready for prime time

        Agreed. It's quite interesting that it is still loads better than IE, though.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tomhudson (43916)

        I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there (sic) process.

        Firefox and Opera aren't standing still ...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by tobiasly (524456)

          I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there (sic) process.

          Y'know, when a post contains at least three spelling/grammatical errors, and you decide to call attention to only one of them, it makes you look just as uninformed as the OP.

      • by ciaohound (118419) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:03PM (#25854439)

        But will they still call it beta?

      • by walt-sjc (145127) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:28PM (#25854637)

        Chrome doesn't have adblock, and probably never will. Extensions are king, and firefox has that mindshare. Linkify, Greasemonkey, noscript, webdeveloper, firebug, etc.

        I played with Chrome for about an hour and then removed it. It's a pretty horrible experience after firefox which makes it a rather pointless web browser.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jellomizer (103300)

          However have you checked Chromes Developers tools imbedded in it. They are comparable (not the same) to firebug. As well many of the other controls only appeal to geeks, or people who for some reason doesn't want to follow web standards created past 1994. I would use Chrome if it was available for the Mac. It is faster then Firefox and a more basic UI

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by maxume (22995)

            I have not wavered in my support for clown computing.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by MrMarket (983874)
            I use chrome for web apps like pandora, gmail and google reader. The application shortcut feature works nicely for these; it gives you the web app in an window without all the browser navigation crap.
        • by psychodelicacy (1170611) * <bstcbn@gmail.com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @11:26PM (#25854977)
          I installed Chrome, and forced myself to use nothing else for a week just to give it a fair try. Since then, I've not used anything else. I love the layout and the functionality - the way it uses tabs, and the fact that one tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser, is great. Sounds like I'm in a minority, though. Ah well.
          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Skreems (598317)
            Your browser crashes? What is this, 1994?
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by the_B0fh (208483)

            I was in two minds about it, until I typed:

            about:plugins

            and the first line said - ActiveX

            then I said no thank you, and moved on.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by kkwst2 (992504)

          While I personally agree (I couldn't live without Foxmarks, Adblock, etc), I'm not sure that the internet horde cares that much about extensions. I mean, I work with a lot of smart people (physicians) who have no clue what an extension is and don't really care.

          I'd be curious what percentage of Firefox users actually use extensions. I would not be surprised if a quick, simple browser that loads ALL your web pages correctly would appeal to the majority of users.

          • by Nikker (749551) *
            The people who don't care about extensions are the ones complaining to add a feature in for the next release.
        • by Joe Tie. (567096)
          For what it's worth, there's a patch/build of chrome already which has support for greasemonkey scripts.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ITEric (1392795)

      I use Chrome all of the time. I like it really well, and it's only getting better. The problem is, Google seems to keep their apps in perpetual beta. What OEM is going to want to install a beta on all of their equipment?

      • by Kagura (843695) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:42PM (#25853807)
        I used Chrome for two weeks straight and got used to it. However, once I switched back to Firefox, it was such a vast improvement I cannot begin to describe it. Even Firefox's omnibar is better at finding 'partial' URLs than Chrome's, and that's unforgivable considering how highly they were touting it.

        Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by GigaplexNZ (1233886)

          Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.

          Apparently you don't quite understand the concept of competition. There isn't always "The Big Guy" and "One Underdog". Why should Firefox be the only one allowed to compete?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Kagura (843695)
            Last I checked there was IE, Firefox, Opera, Konquerer, Chrome, Mosaic... plenty of browsers out there. But as far as rooting out IE goes, wouldn't you want the "best browser" to be the one to do it? I happen to think Firefox is more polished and far, far better supported on the "add-on" side of things, so I want that to be the one that other people switch to.

            If you have switched to what you believe to be a better alternative but other people have not yet, isn't it normal to want to try and improve their
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by GigaplexNZ (1233886)

              But as far as rooting out IE goes, wouldn't you want the "best browser" to be the one to do it?

              Obviously. The part where I disagree is which one is the best. You already know which one you want, so you can choose just fine. Let the other browsers compete at getting chosen by those that haven't decided.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Kagura (843695)
                Who does the choosing? Some people using IE don't care which browser they use, yet I still think they would benefit from switching to another. Don't you? Getting an OEM to go with a particular browser is how we make the choice for some people as to which browser they use.
                • The OEM makes the choice as you appear to have suggested. Let the alternatives compete at getting the agreements with the OEM. Claiming that Firefox should be the only one allowed to seek agreements is your opinion, and one I disagree with.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                    by Kagura (843695)

                    Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.

                    I said that. It means I wish it were Firefox in this story on Slashdot instead of Chrome. It doesn't mean that I think Google Chrome should be banned from going near an OEM for negotiations, and it doesn't mean that I think the only option should be Firefox. Is that what this whole thread was about, GigaplexNZ? ;)

                    • Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE.

                      It doesn't mean that I think Google Chrome should be banned from going near an OEM for negotiations

                      It certainly sounded like you were suggesting that Google should be banned from dealing with the OEMs to supplant IE.

                    • by Kagura (843695)
                      They should be.
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      :D
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by hairyfeet (841228)

              I think the REAL reason that Google is pushing Chrome instead of Firefox can be summed up in one word: Adblock. I am sure that Ads being blocked in pretty much every FF out there can't be making them too happy. If I was in charge at Mozilla i would be trying to make a deal with one of the smaller OEMs, maybe Acer and Asus to start, and offer them a "branded" FF that had links to the companies website in the default bookmarks. And if they really wanted to kick some ass they would have Adblock Plus and Foreca

              • by mixmatch (957776)
                With the download count for Firefox being over 710 Million, I think its a bit naive to say that ads are "being blocked in pretty much every FF out there." Adblock plus currently has 29 Million downloads.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by hairyfeet (841228)

                  But we know that the download count really don't mean squat. Hell I have no less than 5 different versions of FF sitting in my download folder. Does that mean I am 5 people? No, it means that their auto updater kinda sucks on my connection and I also grab the latest version when I get ready to burn my "handy dandy freeware CD" which I hand out to customers. I am also sure that Adblock is getting under counted, unless that includes updates. because I grab a copy of Adblock about once every 6 months and use t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hplus (1310833)
      I think the biggest effect this will have will be raising people awareness that other browsers exist. Didn't Opera report seeing a bump in their download numbers after Chrome came out?
      • It was due to Google fanboys trying to dig for reasons to rate Chrome as #2 (since it was shit compared to FF). Turns out it was shit compared to Opera, too.

        Opera is the best browser I've used in terms of design and memory usage.
        FireFox is the best I've used in terms of speed and ease of use.
        IE is the best I've used in terms of compatibility (It gets this by default simply because of ActiveX, but also because you know that odd site that just doesn't play nice in FF or Opera probably works in IE, and you wo

        • IE is the best I've used in terms of compatibility (It gets this by default simply because of ActiveX, but also because you know that odd site that just doesn't play nice in FF or Opera probably works in IE, and you won't get pages telling you to install quicktime or the latest flash, despite the fact that you did that 5 fucking times already, like you do in FF).

          Oh, come on. The last time I saw a site that did not play nice in Firefox or required ActiveX, was years ago. I think it was my banking site in anno 2003...

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by abigor (540274)

            Unfortunately, ActiveX is extremely common in corporate intranets, making it the one and only mandated browser for corporate use in a lot of places.

            • by cp.tar (871488)

              Unfortunately, ActiveX is extremely common in corporate intranets, making it the one and only mandated browser for corporate use in a lot of places.

              There is one task at my workplace that requires to be done through IE. So I have to switch computers just for that one task.
              Simply marvellous.

              Then again, the application was designed way back when Windows was much more of a monoculture, and Firefox was not even a gleam in the milkman's eye.

    • Planning (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:54PM (#25853909)

      Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

      You don't, usually, start working on how you are going to distribute a product after you know it is ready for the market. You work on what you need to do to secure the distribution channels you want to have while you are getting the product ready, so when it is ready, those will be in place.

      Presumably, Google has an idea of where it wants Chrome to go and a plan to get it there. If it doesn't then, sure, this discussion of OEM deals may be premature, but you certainly can't conclude that from the fact (which I certainly don't dispute, though I use Chrome for almost all of my home browsing now) that Chrome isn't ready today to be most people's sole browser.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Chrome would be ready for our primetime if it supported plugins.

        Google could also offer a choice between Firefox and Chrome, or even install both to let the user experiment with which one they like best).

        Google would win either way since Google and Mozilla already have a strategic alliance lasting until 2011 and both browsers have already integrated Google search, and I don't think Joe user wouldn't mind having them both given that he's already used to bundleware from the OEMs.

        Suppose that the OEMs bu
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blind biker (1066130)

      Chrome isn't ready for prime time

      I think it is ready. I use Chrome exclusively on my laptops. It started out of curiosity, but now I am used to it, and it renders all the pages and shows all the videos I need it to. And it's fast.

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        it renders all the pages and shows all the videos I need it to. And it's fast.

        Any browser on a modern laptop is fast.

    • Fix it first (Score:3, Interesting)

      by br00tus (528477)

      I agree. I can't print documents without a header and footer (I can with Firefox, or even IE). I can't block images like with Firefox. There are things I like about Chrome, like that one tab acting funny or crashing does not affect the other tabs, or the downloading interface it has, or that it remembers my most frequently trafficked pages and makes that as my start page, or that I can move tabs around, or that new tabs expand locally etc. But I hate having to use multiple browsers just to block images,

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        I downloaded it to do compatibility testing, then decided "why bother?" I don't use Windows on my laptop, my home box, or my box at work; bad enough I have to track down a user who still has IE6 once in a while.

        Funny thing was, I had switched to Opera a while back, but a few months ago I switched back to firefox, because Opera stopped working properly (had to right-click to open links). FF3 is a big improvement.

    • And IE is? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xtifr (1323) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:45PM (#25854329) Homepage

      Chrome isn't ready for prime time

      And IE is? :)

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        Chrome isn't ready for prime time

        And IE is? :)

        I don't use Windows either at home or at work, but I had to use IE8 to debug a problem with some dynamic content under Windows - it might not have Firebug like Firefox, but it's a lot better than it was ... If IE8 had been out 6 years ago, Firefox wouldn't be a threat. Then again, if they had introduced Vista 6 years ago, everyone would have had no choice but to run linux or OSX (can you imagine Vista on a 1 ghz Pentium with 128k of ram, a 64 meg video card,

    • by jesterzog (189797)

      Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

      Many people would claim that neither is IE, or Firefox for that matter.

    • by fm6 (162816)

      Very true. And I think everybody working on Chrome knows it. So this story had me really confused. So I did the unthinkable: I read TFA.

      Which turns out to be just some pundits half-assed speculation based on the following quote by a Google exec:

      "We will probably do distribution deals," Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management at Google, told The Times. "We could work with an OEM and have them ship computers with Chrome pre-installed."

      That's a long way from actually pursuing OEM deals. I suspect Pichai was actually talking about how they might try to get some market share once Chrome is ready for prime time.

      Either that, or he's one of those dimwitted marketeers who doesn't really understand the pr

    • Besides search, GMAIL (sort of...) and Google Maps, what has Google done that has been successful. Even Google Maps and GMAIL are distant 2nd or 3rd in their categories. Most of their non-search efforts have failed - or at least haven't done a hell of a lot. Lively dead. Picasa forgotten. Google Apps...trying hard but no significant share. All their other experiments? Intersting toys. Perhaps this is why their stock deserves to be $250/share instead of $500/share like it was earlier this year. Search is a K
  • Sounds great in principal but hasn't the problem always been that Microsoft counters action like this by telling the manufacturers that if they ship competing software they will lose their OEM discounts for Windows? I am not completely up to date will the anti-trust judgements against Microsoft but assuming that this counter-attack hasn't been legally ruled out already, can't we expect Microsoft to do the same here?

    • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:26PM (#25853647) Homepage Journal

      I think Google is large enough make doing that embarrassing to MS, and get the attention of the Attorney general.

      Hell, maybe they want MS to get some anti-trust investigation against MS.

      Google doesn't need MS, at all. They have nothing to fear from them.

      • by quanticle (843097)

        The problem with that strategy is that Google is also big enough to be theoretically investigated for anti-trust issues, especially with regards to their acquisition of DoubleClick. If Google threatens Microsoft with anti-trust allegations, Microsoft could reasonably do the same in return.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Provocateur (133110)

      "Hey! There can only be one monopoly, and that is us! Your Honor? Hello?"

  • by deft (253558) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:20PM (#25853579) Homepage

    I think more people know what firefox is, as the "browser that works better and has less viruses" to the general public.

      Mozilla is relatively unknown to people outside of our little slashosphere.

    • by risk one (1013529) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:20PM (#25854123)

      I think this is going to play havoc on people's understanding of the internet. Most people already think IE is the internet, but at least they knew that google was a thing on the internet. Now Google is going to be another internet that looks like a sort of three-colored button, next to the old internet that looks like a blue "e", and on both you can have Google, but you can't have the blue e on the Google internet.

      Expect some calls from confused family members, people.

    • Firefox was just mentioned in an Answer on the Jeopardy Teen Tournament. It is safe to say that FF has begun to enter into the general cultural consciousness.

  • I've been saying someone needs to do this for years.

    • I've been saying someone needs to do this for years.

      What exactly, though? Pay OEMs to start pre-installing something different that might also not be optimal for their end users' needs?

      Personally I still trust Google more than Microsoft and I think it's good to promote diversity in the web browsers that are out there, which tends to lead to higher importance of standards. As a consumer, however, I still find it counter-productive in the long term that OEM deals should be happening at all.

      OEM's should be

  • Television Ads (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:29PM (#25853681) Homepage

    That will be the ONLY thing to get the public to understand that the world is forced to break the web in order to look right for MSIE. Furthermore, a coordinated effort needs to be made to unite web developers to stop supporting Microsoft's intentional breaking of web standards.

    "Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work and every web browser maker tries to remain adherent to standards so that the internet runs smoothely... that is everyone except Microsoft with its billion-dollar-budget of programmers that somehow can't get it right."

    I would find it interesting what Microsoft would tell the public in response to that. "We are Microsoft and we define the standards?"

    • by Quarters (18322)
      Microsoft wouldn't respond because they understand that:

      * Most people don't care about the W3C

      * Most people don't pay attention to commercials

      * Even more people don't pay attention to dry, boring, preachy commercials.

      * Of the hundreds of millions of people who use Windows such an infinitesimally small number care about the web in a form other than "Does it work on my machine?" that rebutting your ad would be a colossal waste of time and money.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by PPH (736903)

      We are Microsoft and we defile the standards.

      There. Fixed it for you.

    • Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work

      Two problems: First, the W3C is self appointed - it isn't even an industry group but rather is a collection of academics, theorists, and philosophers. Second, as such, they are less interested in how the web actually works and more interested in how they wish the web worked.

  • Or rather (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kamokazi (1080091) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:30PM (#25853689)

    "Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops."

    Or rather, they just didn't install a second browser at all, since the only browser kinda HAS to be the default. I really doubt much wooing was involved.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by somersault (912633)

      Exactly, that was possibly the low point of the summaries I've seen today. If anything, they woo hardware manufacturers to install their whole frickin OS as the default choice, and if there was no browser in Windows it make initial setup of new PCs (especially for home users) a lot more awkward. I'd rather they included their own brand browser than none at all. If they restricted the installation of any other kind of browser, that's when I'd take issue.

    • This idea that consumers want choice is a false one. Most don't. They just want shit to work. They don't 5 browsers, 10 media players and so on. That just confuses them. They just want programs that do the things they need, one per task.

      The users that DO want choice, well they know where to go. Me, I like Firefox better than IE, I use WMP for video but Winamp for audio and so on. However it isn't a problem for me to find alternatives when I want them. But I am in the minority. Most people just want a browse

      • So I imagine Google can get Chrome on systems, if they are willing to pay

        Which they are. OEMS have been preloading Google Toolbar and Google Desktop for some time now.

    • History lesson (Score:5, Informative)

      by mattytee (1395955) on Friday November 21, 2008 @11:19PM (#25854941) Homepage
      How is this insightful? Have we really forgotten the early 90s already?

      Being the "old guy," I'll teach you some history. Netscape was THE browser for the first iteration of Windows 95. NO browser was bundled OR part of the OS, although AOL was often preinstalled. (I'm not sure you'd call that...thing that came with it a browser.) Basically everyone who used a browser ran Netscape (some ran Mosaic).

      Then IE 3 came out (like most Microsoft software, versions 1 and 2 were too shoddy for actual use by human beings, even end users).

      Microsoft made IE free to "compete" with Netscape. It still wasn't bundled with the OS until Windows 95 OSR 2.1 -- although it was installed along with Office and other MS apps. But you didn't HAVE to have IE on a Win95 system. That started with Windows 98.

      Here's the thing: Netscape Navigator was then made free also, and it WAS bundled on many a PC maker's system. It's true Microsoft didn't *woo* anybody -- threats were more like it. Doesn't anybody remember the whole first antitrust thing?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by David Gerard (12369)

        One thing that seems to have been lost to the mists of time: IE 4 and IE 5 were functionally better browsers than Netscape 4. Their rendering was much nicer and they didn't crash nearly as often.

        I wanted to use Netscape instead of IE. But it was such a hideous piece of shit that it was actually worse than IE.

        I started running test builds and bug-reporting on Mozilla around mid-2000. Not because it was good, it wasn't, but because it was important. Thankfully it finally became good around 0.9.1.

  • Google (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El Lobo (994537) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:37PM (#25853761)
    Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...
    • Why is this modded down?
      It's the annoying fucking truth.

      Google Desktop is shit, and I don't want it.
      Windows Search is shit, and I don't want it.

      I only have to be afraid of accidentally not opting out of one of those when I install dozens of apps.

    • Re:Google (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iamhigh (1252742) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:26PM (#25854177)

      Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...

      I'll one up you with Java Runtime Enviro wanting to downloand and install a FUCKING OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY SUITE! I respect pushing OOo, but that's fucking absurd.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jesterzog (189797)

      I've been playing with InstallShield [acresso.com] lately for work-related things, which is one of the (if not 'the') major product for creating Windows Installer MSI files.

      One of InstallShield's currently promoted features [acresso.com] (search down that page for "Value-added services") is the ability to set a flag which will cause the installer you create to install the Yahoo Toolbar with your program, reported so that your company can "generate new revenue streams".

      I suppose that in this case, rather than try to go to all of the

    • by pipingguy (566974) *
      When offered with an option during installation, just read and don't select 'Yes'. Mind you, I WAS a bit annoyed that a recent software "upgrade" after clicking "Software Update" on my Mac downloaded a 60 MB file. Was that a total replacement of the existing program or did it append?

      I'm running one of those new solid state drives as the hard disc, and at only 60GB I can't afford to have a lot of bloat filling up the limited space.
  • by nulled (1169845) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:47PM (#25853847)
    Remember, that without the browser, Google is nothing. Without ADs, Google is nothing. (unless they start to sell and market other things besides ads) So, I view this browser situation as a 2 edged sword. On one end, defining a new standard in high quality browsers, coupled with GEARS and a super fast Javascript engine, could usher in Javascript games, AJAX apps and so much more. This would, without a doubt grow Google AD revenued. However, on the other edge of the sword is the fear of the AD Blocker add on, that will no doubt block a lot of google ad revenue. The browser, which google depends, could turn into it's worse enemy. We have already seen this with Firefox's ad blocking add on. Some argue, that only savvy internet users activate it. however, if you use Ubuntu, the add on is installed by default. A way to ensure Google does not jeapordize their AD revenues is key. I think that would be pretty easy to get around, technologically speaking. Maybe that is why Google is not putting more resources into Chrome???
    • by bcrowell (177657)

      Some argue, that only savvy internet users activate it. however, if you use Ubuntu, the add on is installed by default.

      I don't see this as a "however." You typically don't use ubuntu unless you're part of the unusually computer-savvy end of the bell curve. Linux is something like 1% of the desktop market, so why would Google care?

      Chrome is also open-source, so even if Google refuses to release it with an ad blocker, there's nothing stopping third parties from making their own versions that do. We're alre

    • by martinw89 (1229324) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:54PM (#25854779)

      I use Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu since Edgy (2006) and have Intrepid on 3 computers right now, and Hardy on 2 others. I've installed it many times for myself, and more than a couple times for friends and family. It does not come with an ad blocker by default.

      Unless, for some odd reason, you're including Firefox's pop-up blocker as an ad-blocker.

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by burndive (855848) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:56PM (#25853927) Homepage

    Google is being an innovator in this field at the moment, and so I'm glad that they're positioned to get more "default" marketshare via OEMs.

    It will push Microsoft to innovate with their own browser in order to keep their search engine hits up.

    One feature that I expect to see in the release version of Chrome is video chat. They released a plug-in to make Firefox compatible with their Google Talk chat's new video feature, but I'm betting that functionality will come built-in to Chrome.

  • by guidryp (702488) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:31PM (#25854217)

    How about making it usable first. Let me know when there are plug ins. Specifically Flashblock. No flashblock, no browser.

  • by sexybomber (740588) <boccilinoNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:33PM (#25854663)

    "Punk [playaz] bailin' every time that I use Chrome" - Cypress Hill, "Till Death Comes"

    Granted, B-Real is talking about firearms here, but good for Google. It'd be interesting to see browser usage stats on machines that ship with both IE and Chrome preinstalled, although it wouldn't surprise me to see IE retain a majority share, just on name recognition alone.

    • by sootman (158191)

      Ooh, that's fun. Lots of good rap lyrics talk about guns like that.

      "Now I got to follow him home, with my chrome, send him to the twilight zone, it's on!"

      --Ice Cube, Robbin' Hood

      Yeah, I could see Google using that in an ad. :-)

  • by wiredlogic (135348) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @12:27AM (#25855329)

    I'd bet that Google is looking to target embedded platforms that will need a lightweight browser in ROM. This would include things like cell phones/PDAs, netbooks, notebooks with a pre-boot environment, etc. This is what Chrome was designed for from the start.

    The biggest killer app of them all is television. Over the next few years, The US has an impending mass uptake of new, higher resolution televisions that are suitable for web browsing and other text dominant internet activities. We already have a selection of set-top boxes and game consoles to provide usable internet functions on TV. Internet enabled televisions will become commonplace in the not too distant future. These will be the products of choice for aging, wealthy, and (relatively) technologically illiterate boomers.

    If Google can get its foot in the door to that and other embedded markets then they can compete without having to face MS directly. I expect that MS will not be able to revamp Pocket IE to make it capable enough to be a viable competitor to Chrome on a platform where a web browser has to have all the bells and whistles to satisfy users.

  • "Beta" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RudeIota (1131331) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @03:26AM (#25856019) Homepage
    Considering Chrome will be in beta for the next two decades [slashdot.org], I would like to believe that would complicate OEM deals.
  • Dont Get it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BountyX (1227176) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @04:35AM (#25856227)
    Seems kinda odd that google would donate 85 million dollars to mozilla foundation, then turn around and push their own browser. Sounds like they are not playing to win, but instead, playing to make ms lose.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...