Google-branded Firefox? 355
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)."
Been there, done that (Dupe) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Been there, done that (Dupe) (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to go!
Re:Been there, done that (Dupe) (Score:3, Insightful)
The next logical step (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I sorta saw it coming. Google is investing heavily in JavaScript-powered desktop-like web apps like Gmail and Blogger. Google could then use their expertise to build Mozilla apps. It'll be interesting to see whether this happens or not.
Re:The next logical step (Score:4, Insightful)
Give the consumers more choice!
Re:The next logical step (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The next logical step (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The next logical step (Score:5, Informative)
Google could then use their expertise to build Mozilla apps. It'll be interesting to see whether this happens or not.
Yeah, imagine a Gmail web interface built with XUL. Something like this [willden.org], but built with Google simplicity, speed and style.
Disclaimer: The link goes to a copy of xulwebmail [mozdev.org] on my web server sitting on my cable modem. If it gets hammered too hard I'll take it down. Also, note that I don't think xulwebmail actually works, so don't bother typing your real e-mail account and password. Still, use mozilla or firefox and take a look at it if you haven't seen it before. It certainly looks like it could be a very cool way to do webmail... and lots of other stuff, too.
Re:The next logical step (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
I said that because (a) giving your real data is pointless and foolish and (b) I don't want your data.
Re:The next logical step (Score:4, Informative)
and take their word that the source code they linked to is the acutally source code they're running?
Oops, forgot to address this bit of silliness.
If your web browser is secure, and you don't agree to any dialogs asking if you want the code to do any questionable things, then what's the problem?
If you web browser has security holes, then how do you know that *any* web site is safe? (Hint: You don't. DNS spoofing means you can't even know for sure that you're going where you think you're going).
If you're really concerned about it, create a user account with no privileges other than to its (empty) home directory and log in as that user to browse. Better yet, install Firefox in a chroot jail and run it from there.
Or if you're *really* concerned about it, there's always telnet. Although XUL doesn't look too interesting that way.
Gmail has a HUGE usability error... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't I open my different messages in new tabs? Why can't I view a message, and then open my "inbox" in a separate tab?
As it stands now, I have to manually open a new window and then navigate to GMail. I can't believe Gmail has the same problem hotmail does.
Re:Gmail has a HUGE usability error... (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gmail has a HUGE usability error... (Score:3, Informative)
Tabbrowser Extensions [texturizer.net]...
Re:The next logical step (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this may sound lame for 2004, but I wish Google would make a nice portal page like my.yahoo.com and let logged in users modify their preferences. Maybe they already have, but I can't find it on their page. I think that'd be more useful than yet another Mozilla browser.
Maybe search? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe search? (Score:2, Informative)
Registrant:
Google Inc.
(DOM-1278108)
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View
CA
94043
US
Domain Name: gbrowser.com
Re:Maybe search? (Score:3, Insightful)
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'.
Not necessarily a web browser (Score:3, Insightful)
The web isn't the only thing you can browse.
Re:Maybe search? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Hmmm.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Death to MS Explorer!
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Alright, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alright, (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Alright, (Score:5, Interesting)
When the google browser is no longer open and has a 90% market share.
From our perspective, this is a little silly, and more than a little opportunistic on google's part.
But in the big picture, this will do a lot to put a brand name on an Explorer killer. And google seems to be pretty good at making usable internet products, so I'm giving all of this a tentative thumbs-up. Anything that gets the lusers to not think of the blue e as "the internet" is good by me.
Not that anyone ever cares to ask me, mind you.
Re:Alright, (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Alright, (Score:5, Funny)
When Google becomes self-aware, I'd prefer not to be known as a Google-hater.
Re:Alright, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alright, (Score:2)
Besides, Google has been big for a long time, big enough that they've been able to work on some projects that didn't generate any revenue for quite a while. Some of these things are starting to come together, so people are starting to notice, but their size is not a new thing.
Remember, they've been the default search engine f
Not just a browser (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not just a browser (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not just a browser (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just a browser (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not just a browser (Score:3, Interesting)
You are perceiving Google to be the ultimate solution to everything, a viable "endlösung" to all of the world's problems ( Yes, I spelled it right this time! ) including war, famine and Celine Dion. Google might be a good company that seems to know where to put it's efforts, as both Google itself and Gmail are wonderfully clean and fast, I highly doubt they would risk themselves in the OS market. the Gbrowser itself already seems a bit far-fetched, but a rebranded Firefox with standard Google utils (
Re:Not just a browser (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, Microsoft made IE free, likely in hopes of killing Netscape. But could Microsoft make it's OS free? Not in this lifetime... Windows is where MS's money comes from.
Re:Not just a browser (Score:3, Interesting)
The bro
Re:Not just a browser (Score:4, Interesting)
Although not stated, I believe the parent poster meant "Why bother with os and native apps, when you can access this from anywhere on any computer". Essentially taking the brain out of the box, and putting it availlabe from everywhere on the network.
Not that I think that's going to happen, but a lot of hosted apps are coming to fruition every day. E-mail was one that exploded quickly, I don't believe that word processing and spreadsheet are that far behind.
Why do things online? Easier to upgrade, install the upgrade on the server and you are done.
Re:Not just a browser (Score:2)
For the mother !@#$ing billionth time (Score:3, Informative)
Only be a good think (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still strugling to think why they would want to do this, perhaps that have some cool XUL applications in the offering.
Re:Only be a good think (Score:2)
It's called "investors"
Re:Only be a good think (Score:2)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=goog [yahoo.com]
Re:Only be a good think (Score:5, Informative)
They have that.
Re:Only be a good think (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Only be a good think (Score:3, Funny)
You are counting the same server multiple times because hosting providers use Apache for the most part.
Anyone who has worked in your typical office, will be waging a constant fight against IIS and MSSQL because that's what most of the companies are selling to shops that aren't big enough for Oracle.
Apache has not won the war. I say that to keep anyone from giving up on that front.
And? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of those domains was "(companyname)lovesjesus".
I wish I were kidding.
Anyway, it only makes sense for Google to do the same.
I will, however say that I would gladly give up the left nuts of all those within 100 miles of me for a version of FireFox that had what this Google Fangirl thinks would be the Alpha and Omega of browsers.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
At least for the next few seconds.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Funny)
So is jesuslovesgoogle.com. WWJG? (What Would Jesus Google?)
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And? (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:3, Funny)
I will neither confirm nor deny that I worked for any of the companies or individuals in that list.
I will only say that this was at the birth of the .com boom, so it is possible the company is no longer listed as the doman may or may not have lapsed.
Maybe.
... satan? (Score:3, Funny)
[OT] Re:And? (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And? (Score:2)
Pick a browser, any browser. IE and the Line-mode browser are especially fun
Screwy html (Score:2, Informative)
The html got messed up somewhere along the line. Here's my original submission:
An article [mozillanews.org] on Mozillanews.org [mozillanews.org] is reporting on Google's [google.com] registration [whois.net] of the domain Gbrowser.com [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 [mozilla.org] (along with some interesting speculation).
Pure speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Pure speculation (Score:2)
Most people haven't heard of Mozilla (insert rant about screwy open-source project names here), but they sure as hell have heard of (and trust) Google.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if Google *buys* Mozilla? (Score:3, Interesting)
for in case it gets slashdotted: (Score:5, Funny)
mysql_pconnect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:mysql_pconnect (Score:2)
They are definitely up to something (Score:2, Informative)
Registrant:
Google Inc.
(DOM-1278108)
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View
CA
94043
US
Domain Name: gbrowser.com
Administrative Contact:
DNS Admin
(NIC-1467103)
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View
CA
94043
US
dns-admin@google.com
+1.6503300100
Fax- +1.6506188571
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
DNS Admin
(NIC-1467103)
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View
already slashdotted... FULL TEXT (Score:5, Informative)
October 19th, 2004 - jesus_x
For several months, there's been a lot of buzz around Google's April 2004 registration of the gbrowser.com domain. After quite a while of digging, I believe I've managed to boil some truth out of the rumor stew. While this is pure speculation, it's speculation based on a wide variety of facts gathered over the past three months. Feel free to take it with a generous helping of salt.
The Mozilla developers have been stone silent on the issue, aside from a few accidental slips, but several other sources have let loose other bits of information. Interestingly, there's either great confusion on the plans (or a highly partitioned project inside Google), or a good deal of misinformation. Trying to determine what's real and what's not is like making a Venn diagram. Each source is a circle filled with information. Some information is common to all or many circles, some information only comes from one source. you have to put all the circles together, and where they overlap is the most reliable information. So after weeks of analysis, this is where we think Gbrowser is headed.
The overlap is looking like a Google branded and customized Firefox based browser. To help set it apart from the rest of the browser crowd, they're integrating a lot of their own technologies. Since Firefox does not contain a mail app, they're integrating Gmail for email access, with a built in new-mail notifier. Interestingly, mailto: urls will work with Gmail, allowing peple to click email links in pages and have Gmail open a new mail to that address, as well as IE-like buttons on the toolbar for composing new mail from scratch.
Newsgroups will be built in similar to Gmail with the Google Groups service, and possibly the ability to select groups to watch, like in a full fledged newsreader (like Mozilla Thunderbird). And Google News will also have built in access from the browser along with Google Alerts or a similar, RSS-based feature.
Other features include better search integration, with the extra features such as Image Searching by right clicking on an image or selected word. As Silicon.com found there is also a Google branded IM service on the way as well, and could be a Jabber or rebranded AIM also coming bundled with the browser.
There are other, extra-browser features that will most likely come with it, and tie into the browser, such as Google Desktop Search, Picasa (with links to the browser for web-related sharing, searching, etc.), and Google Toolbar features that IE users currently enjoy.
Also, Google loves the recently aquired Blogger, and will have built in linkage to Blogger and rich-editing tools, making Blogger a highly integrated feature, with the ability to blog links and web-content as easily as using their integrated GMail features.
As I stated, Mozilla.org and Mozilla developers have been very quiet on all of this. But with such an open organization, it's hard to hide all secrets. There have been a lot of hidden bugs in Bugzilla related to searching, bugs that even members of the Security group can't access. Recently, there was a bug duplicated to a confidential bug with the following comment by the triager: "This is a duplicate of a private bug about working with Google. So closing this one." That bug also now closed, but it was open long enouch for people to notice it.
There's also a lot of 'covert' code going into the tree without individual bug references. And none of these patches are being checked in by Google staff, but by other Mozilla developers, ostensibly checking in code for Google employees to keep a low profile. None of this is Google-exclusive, per se, as much as it is code that one could easily see as making life easier for a third party developer making heavy integration changes. the checking comments are usually very technically described, possibly to obfuscate their use to the majority of watchers to maintain the secret. Example
Exactly how all this is being tied together is not clear, alth
Only one problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even their latest offering, the desktop search says they might include FireFox support in the future, but only if enough people request it.
I would think that if they are in fact going to release a rebranded FireFox, they would be making sure that most of their services work with it.
It sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking to me.
Not a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Whats more, there are one or two of us out here that don't want a myriad of features specifically oriented to one corporation. I'd be more than happy with Google producing a line of Google plugins and extensions, but coding them into the browser itself? That sort of thing leads to code forks... and thats not a good thing for the Firefox project on the whole.
In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:2)
We've got money now! (Score:3, Insightful)
Then we can start the layoffs.
Re:We've got money now! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We've got money now! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Next thing you know... (Score:5, Funny)
Google still dosent have a single non-windows app. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Here's an idea.. (Score:5, Funny)
GoogleOS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Integration's great, but at which point will it just become a bloated, lock-in business model??
Expressly denied by Google CEO (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically
Re:Expressly denied by Google CEO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Expressly denied by Google CEO (Score:5, Funny)
Well that about cinches it, doesn't it? Now the only question is when they release it.
Re:Expressly denied by Google CEO (Score:2)
Doesn't that lend weight? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Linky Linky! (Score:5, Funny)
Gbrowser? (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
A valid question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A valid question (Score:3, Informative)
Some speculation: (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people thought advertising on the Internet was dead, but AdSense revived it.
A lot of mainstream media thought tracking our usage was an invasion of our privacy -- but Google has only strengthened its capabilities and products using our data in a productive manner.
When we speculate on Google's pending product releases, we seem to always forget to take into account that there will be something totally new attached to it --- making the product near-revolutionary.
"Nothing to look at", oh yeah? (Score:2)
You think anyone here cares about that??? It'll be
Eric Schmidt says NO! (Score:2, Redundant)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3d077db6-25ff-11d9-81d9-
Nothing worse than ruining the speculation wars with facts.
Will Google steal Mozilla's thunder? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
New browser paradigm? (Score:4, Interesting)
Next step: the world (Score:3, Interesting)
An interesting sidenote... (Score:5, Interesting)
In my ("How Microsoft Lost the API War") essay, I quoted a Microsoft guy (and Longhorn Avalon team member) named Joe Beda. I quoted him saying "Microsoft is making a big bet on the rich client." And now he works at Google with Adam Bosworth. I'm sure what they're doing is a new browser. It's the IE (Internet Explorer) team reconstructed inside Google.
It would make perfect sense and it would kill IE (Score:5, Interesting)
It would make IE unused and unwanted by the masses and it would run on any and every platform that Google runs on.
The fact that Google has to time this right should be obvious: If it becomes public knowledge too soon, Microsoft will do it's usual embrace and extend routine to make IE the most modern, full featured browser out there.
But I think Google is absolutely right to do this. Microsoft has already acknowledged Google as a competitor, especially in search services with MSN, and to Microsoft nothing is holy in chasing and killing a competitor. This means that it would not be beneath MS to do it's utmost in both FUD and technical underhandedness to stop Google working on PCs with Windows.
Google's best chance is to attack by moving forward with a platform that integrates many popular web features in order to get the public to move over to Mozilla. Once and if their marketshare is high enough it will prove very very difficult for MS to unseat them, especially if they don't have the majority borwser anymore. This is not 1995 and Microsoft couldn't threaten PC manufacturers with withholding Windows OEM.
Re:Google (Score:2)
Or... (Score:2)
Re:Would their own browser improve search results? (Score:3, Informative)
nice Troll, too bad it's pretty well known now that the "Google desktop search is spyware" FUD has already been debunked