Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Media Television

Google To Air Chrome Ads On TV 148

Posted by Soulskill
from the somebody-call-seinfeld dept.
mikesd81 writes "Google plans on advertising with spots promoting its Chrome browser this weekend. Google Japan had already released a 30-second video promoting Chrome on YouTube, but the company will distribute that video through the Google TV Ads network this weekend as an experiment to see if it can drum up interest in Chrome. Google advertised their browser on the New York Times' website on Wednesday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Air Chrome Ads On TV

Comments Filter:
  • Too simple (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sopssa (1498795)

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

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

    • On the Contrary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:28AM (#27888143) Journal

      Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use.

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by causality (777677)

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

        Because they're based on informed decisions?

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

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          Hi! I'm Chrome! I come without all the plugins you depend on to protect your privacy, and without those to accelerate every other browser function except JavaScript execution!

          AdBlock Plus
          BetterPrivacy
          Cache Search
          FoxyProxy/TorButton
          Ghostery
          Greasemonkey
          DownloadThemAll
          FasterFox
          Firebug
          Launchy
          Stealthier
          TabMixPlus
          YSlow

          I don't run FireFox, but an individualized web tool kit that Chrome will NEVER provide. Why

          • Why would the average home user (the vast majority of, if not all, Slashdot readers do not count as the average home user) ever need Firebug or YSlow?
      • Why'd they use the corporate "edgy rock experience" music that is tone and not the exact same as teh pseudo-indy sound behind every schlock Microsoft and Starbucks corporate-stooge video montage?

        I feel so energetic and inspired to do valuable work! How much do I now need to spend?

        Still, the girl with the afro and the dominoes gave me a boner.

      • I think its good for us to argue as we are only atypical in are interest to understand all things technological. That said everyone has different tastes. I enjoy chrome for everyday browsing because it is simplistic. The instant search thing is so useful I start trying to do it when I have firefox open. That said I do have issues with it because its not very tweakable, but then I have firefox that I can open in those situations so what do I care if chrome can't.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

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

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

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

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

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

        No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.

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

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

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09, 2009 @11:27AM (#27888495)

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

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

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

    • Chrome is still too simplifistic

      Apparently so is English.

      • Chrome is still too simplifistic

        Apparently so is English.

        He obviously meant a long s [wikipedia.org]; he just has no key for it (and slashdot doesn't like unicode and has a love/hate relationship with (X|HT)ML entities).

  • by nschubach (922175) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:25AM (#27888133) Journal

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

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

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

    • by devman (1163205)
      Welcome to many years ago? Slashdot has been doing that since I started reading it.
      • by nschubach (922175)

        It only happens if I'm logged in and it just started for me recently so it has to be some setting... I just don't know which.

    • by LukePH (1065930)
      Not complete, but getting there:
      https://launchpad.net/chromium-project [launchpad.net]
      https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa [launchpad.net]
      Not sure if it will run on debian but
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by PleaseFearMe (1549865)
      It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google. And this one is especially nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnrFwlTPvY&feature=channel_page [youtube.com]
      • by nschubach (922175)

        There's a comment on that video that I found rather humorous, if not a little creepy: "See the three 6's in the pong ball?"

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by siloko (1133863)

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

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

    • by wisty (1335733) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:54AM (#27888285)

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

      • by RudeIota (1131331) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @01:17PM (#27889459) Homepage

        google has jumped the shark and become a big company

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

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

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

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

      • by Kingrames (858416)
        They're not doing it to generate a new userbase or to get new customers. They already pretty much have the whole world as users.
        They're doing it so that we can all go up to our bosses and legitimately say, "You need to remove internet explorer from the workplace, here are some alternatives that are actually secure and work better." And we won't get outright dismissed as biased or wrong, because they saw it on TV.
        • by wisty (1335733)

          They are advertising to pointy haired bosses, in order to give employees the tools they need to do their jobs?

          Hmm, still sounds like a big company. Maybe they could also do some adds for Kubuntu?

        • by hkmwbz (531650)

          They're not doing it to generate a new userbase or to get new customers. They already pretty much have the whole world as users.

          Uh, no, Chrome has less than 2% of the browser market. They want more users.

    • by paazin (719486)

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

      Not compiling from source!?

      Hand in your nerd badge, please.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CSMatt (1175471)

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

    • by ameyer17 (935373)

      has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

      And completely fails in Mobile Safari.
      Also, for what it's worth, the setting seems to be "use beta index" under "index beta settings" on http://news.slashdot.org/help [slashdot.org]

    • I just don't understand what's so interesting/damning here.

      Do you do web development? Do you support an intranet web app that only runs on IE 6.0?

      I don't. But what I hear is that you first develop for standards-conforming browsers, then spend a lot of time hacking your site to be IE-compatible too.

      A lot of development hours could be saved if IE was more compliant with the standards. A lot of system administration hours could be saved if users could be made to use a more secure browser than IE 6.0. ("a lot" was pulled from my ass.)

      Possibly, more competition migh

      • by Firehed (942385)

        As someone that DOES do web development, I'll say that "a lot" is probably a good 50% of the total front-end time. Thankfully javascript libraries have almost completely eliminated the cross-browser scripting incompatibilities, but hacking around its incomplete and inaccurate rendering abilities still takes a huge amount of time.

        As such, I fully welcome IE8. Not because I like Microsoft or its products, but because it does a pretty good job adhering to standards (those that it misses tend to be pretty non-

  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:28AM (#27888147)

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

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

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

    • by paziek (1329929) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:37AM (#27888191)

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

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

      • Safari for Windows and Chrome for Windows have identical browser chrome. I mean, pixel-identical. WHAT.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

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

    • by trazan (667537)
      They've promised a mac beta for fall 2009. That's about it.
    • Camino.
    • by saddino (183491) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @11:41AM (#27888651)

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

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

    • by Anonymous Coward

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

      PROTIP: Google's marketing department doesn't develop Chrome.

      • by AndrewNeo (979708)
        It's sad when usually-well informed people don't seem to know about this common practice in the business world. Why are they working on feature X instead of feature Y? Because X and Y are two different teams.
  • by Lord Lode (1290856) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:40AM (#27888203)
    Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by causality (777677)

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

      It's like a Russian reversal without the Russian.

    • Yo, dawg! We heard you like ads, so we put an ad in your TV so you can have (our) ads while you browse.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:41AM (#27888211)

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

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

      • by smoker2 (750216)

        Google Chrome is BSD licensed

        So what is the compile option for "don't grass me up" ?

        Personally, I'm going to dig out my copy of Phoenix and reinstall that. Firefox has jumped the shark.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plasmacutter (901737)

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

      [citation needed}

    • by eric-x (1348097) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @11:22AM (#27888471)

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by eric-x (1348097)

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

        • by hkmwbz (531650)

          I forgot: memory usage.

          Chrome's one process per tab thing will ensure high memory usage, then.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The download manager is an improvement? I guess its all preference but I strongly have to disagree -- In chrome downloads are per tab, so its very easy to forget which tab you started along download in once you switch away or start navigating to other sites.

        Also if you close chromes window the downloads stop.

        Contrast to firefox which keeps the download manager separate

        • by daver00 (1336845)

          In chrome downloads are per tab

          You Fail! [mozillalinks.org]

          Also, closing the tab does not stop the download, it just closes the tab. The download continues in the download manager.

          Thats double fail.

      • by Waccoon (1186667)

        Chrome treats you like an idiot. You can't configure the interface and anything more than the bare essentials is buried under a complex cascade of menus. I also hate how all the status messages are treated like pop-ups. Don't obscure the content, please.

        It's just another slick-looking "you don't need to know" applications. That's hardly good interface design, unless the product is designed from the ground up just for marketing.

        Testing my code in Chrome is a PITA. I hope the Iron developers start making

    • I'm sorry sir, it seems that you've dropped your tinfoil hat- allow me to return that to you.
    • by Clarious (1177725)

      I would think you have to be crazy to install any binary software made by an advertising company

      You can alway download and remove those code if you are paranoid, i'm sure there are people who did that already.

    • by CSMatt (1175471)

      SRWare Iron [srware.net].

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

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

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

    Personally I think in

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

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

            Tried it before. Either they say "I use the Internet" (meaning IE), "What is a browser?", "I use Windows", or some other thing that halfway makes sense but really doesn't. Sure, after a while you can get them to say that they use Internet Explorer, but for the most part they have no clue what a browser really is.

            • by lazybeam (162300)

              I get "I use MSN" (meaning their homepage) or "I use Google" (meaning their homepage). It's even hard for them to separate their own computer and the Internet - for example going over quota most people will be "shaped" to around 64kbps - they think their entire computer will be slowed down by that.

        • by hkmwbz (531650)

          On the other hand, the Firefox project is community driven and really can't spend the resources advertising on TV.

          Actually, Mozilla has tons of cash.

  • by David Gerard (12369) <slashdot.davidgerard@co@uk> on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:45AM (#27888237) Homepage

    I can see the testimonials [today.com] now:

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

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

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

  • So, I saw the add. It said at the end, "Install Google Chrome".

    Good Morning Google, Wake Up! We haven't got Chrome as yet, just by the way...

    I'll never understand why a lot FOSS is provided better (or only) on Windows and not Linux. Chrome, TortoiseSVN, KeePass, etc. Why is KeePassX so much worse than KeePass? Why are eSVN and RapidSVN just so bad?

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

      On the other hand, would they care to make their software Free if it weren't for the Open Source movement? At least we can port the best written software (if its core is not too tightly-coupled to Win32 APIs), so still better than nothing. The biggest problem is t
  • as if supporting IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera isn't bad enough... Chrome is just not needed... please, for the love of web developers, Google, stop it.
    • by bunratty (545641)
      At some point you'll realize that you should support standards... by validating your pages and testing in multiple browsers. That's the way to ensure that your website works even in new browsers, new versions of existing browsers, new operating systems, and so on.
    • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:23PM (#27889013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Don't know about America but in Canada if you made a whack of money spend it on advertising and deduct it from your income and bam you made less money and won't have to give as much income tax to the government. And money you donate to charity is only partially deductible, figures huh? I do something similar with my small business if I make to much money for example $60,000 @ 22% = $13,200 tax. I figure a way to spend it that will benefit me and be deductible from my income (lease a vehicle in my case) so I
  • by DownWithMedia1.0 (1547249) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @11:36AM (#27888605)
    Thats great. Lets give Google more and more information about what we do online. As if doubleclick, Google toolbar, reading gmail, gTalk, and everything else they do wasnt enough.
  • how much word-of-mouth advertising they're sacrificing by shafting OS X and Linux distributions?
    • how much word-of-mouth advertising they're sacrificing by shafting OS X and Linux distributions?

      Yes, which is why they don't care.

  • Hulu Add (Score:2, Informative)

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

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

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

  • But people will still use firefox for porn.
  • There's no rational economic rationale for expensive television advertising a software product for which you charge no money.

    Please don't say "Netscape!" either. That was an economic failure at the end of the day...it made a tonne of people very rich and, indeed, helped to change the world. These may have been noble goals, but it was an irrational bubble that created the wealth. The company failed...finally.

    I think fear might explain this: fear of an antitrust probe (either into Google, or into its relation

    • by hkmwbz (531650)

      There's no rational economic rationale for expensive television advertising a software product for which you charge no money.

      Google charges no money for their search engine. Does that mean that they aren't making money from it? Of course not.

      Currently, Google either gets none of the search revenue through a broswser (Microsoft gets it all in IE), or not all of it (they have to share with Opera and Mozilla). With Chrome, they keep all the search revenue.

  • I hope Google doesn't run Chrome ads in the country where I live. I already am the involuntary user help desk, for relatives, friends, their friends, etc.

    I can hear the calls already: "Hello? PolygamousRanchKid? I saw this ad from Google on TV . . . can you install Google on my computer? This means that I can watch all that stuff from Google without an Internet connection anymore, so I don't need to pay those monthly fees anymore, right?"

    I am, of course, kidding, but only slightly.

  • So what ever happened to Google promoting itself through word of mouth? What happened to the Google that prided itself on having grown entirely without needing to advertise?

    For me, the problem with Chrome is that it is too minimal. It certainly doesn't help that for the things that it is supposed to do well (multiprocess to mitigate stability memory leaks), it doesn't actually do all that well (because it reuses processes and often groups multiple tabs), and I end up getting stability problems and memory

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...