Slashdot Mirror
Will Google Launch A Browser?
ServeYourWorld writes "The
New York Post is reporting that 'Based on the half-dozen hires in recent
weeks, Google appears to be planning to launch its own Web browser and other software
products to challenge Microsoft.' I took a guess and did a whois search for Gbrowser.com
and indeed Google Inc. is listed as the registrar."
Google develops the rich web app stack. Applications can be deployed through the web with richer interfaces then HTML provides.
Google has some of these apps (search, email etc).
Google get's richer.
The current gmail marketing campaign is working well...
The invite system allows the system to reduce the amount of load at one time... reduce the amount of beta testing, etc.
GMail, GBrowse, GAnything -- they work because they remind people of this "wonderful" thing called google. As long as the letter G is associated with bigger and better, Google can send rumors of any google product...
Any press... any rumors... is good for google.
... that the good folks @ Google are prepared for their first massive *shrug* from the masses. It would take something extraordinary for me to switch from Firefox at this point. I would imagine the same from a lot of people. They could cash in on the IE-weary public, looking for a change, but those of us using Gecko-based browsing are quite fanatical about it. :)
From what I understood by reading the article, they might actually be planning to release some sort of modified version of Mozilla. Having more browsers using the Gecko engine sure can't be a bad thing. Plus, it will put some pressure on Microsoft to improve their browser and actually support standards.
If Google places it's name on a browser, it will sure become popular in a matter of days.
The success of standards depend on having multiple quality implementations. Right now, this remains a problem as only Mozilla does it right (Safari seems to be fine but I never really tested it).
Qui ne va pas à la chasse n'a pas de gibier
PHP Queb
People seem to think that everything that google ever does is a god-sent gift!
...
I think it's about time (Especially after the IPO), that people would realize that google, is first and foremost a company that's "in-it" for the money.
with the word, money, being a key-word,
especially when it comes to its shareholders.
Soon enough, pressure from that direction would reach into company policy, and google would cease "doing no evil"
I suggest, that we should all objectively judge each and every new product or service that google offers.
Personally, I think a whole lot of very talented people are working together on the mozilla project, and they've been doing so for years.
Why would anyone with a right-mind think
that google could do any better in the short term?
If anything, A usable product is YEARS from being ready, and by that time, who knows how powerful and advanced firefox or some other "now-working" browser would become?
Sigs are for the weak.
I think lots of people have doubted what Google can produce, but so far (to my knowledge), Google has succeeded with everything. Last yearm who would have believed you if you said that Google would offer e-mail? Not many people.
For the browser, all of Google's tools will be integrated. Think about this: spell checking when you post, the ability to click on "blog this (already available on Google's tool bar), interrelated Gmail, possibly image searching on your computer and on the internet simultaneously.
If the Google browser is good, free, and has no or only Google text ads, and has lots of features, I'll switch. If Google can make my life easier, I'm all for it.
What's the point of a sig?
Does it ever occur to you people that maybe not everyone likes the same things you do?
Honest - other people have opinions, they really do. Maybe YOU don't prefer Opera, but the original poster does. Mentioning the benefits and your opinion of Firefox is fine, but don't be a condescending jackass just because they prefer Opera.
Cripes.. if you like Firefox, fine - I love Firefox, it's my absolute number one browser of choice, but that doesn't mean I'm so utterly wrapped up in myself and my own thought processes that I don't recognize that maybe some other people don't like it the same way I do.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
The problem with XUL isn't with XUL :) it's with the javascript you need to interface with XUL. There's no documentation. You try to get stuff done and quickly discover that simple things that claim to work don't and if you're trying to do anything dynamic like change a style sheet at runtime there's no documented way to do it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Instead of developing a new browser, I would like to see Google releasing the browser as a re-packaging of Mozilla.
Hence we can have one more standard-conforming browser and, by using the reputation and power of Google, to ask those "View only with IE" sites to change!
http://www.ieaa.org/~adrian/
Well, adblocking techniques have existed for a long time, and are available for just about all browsers... including IE. The target demographic of any upstart browser is the uninformed IE user. The kind of person who's taskbar is filled with hundreds of unnoticed IE instances in the form of pop-ups (unders in that case?). You and I can certainly rid our lives (to a certain extent) of internet advertising, but as it is, without a well marketed and simple solution, the masses cannot.
The fact that such a thing doesn't exist is proof that people have learned to live with and expect ads. What do they care if yet another sits atop their browser?
The more big browsers there are, the more standards-compliant they must become (though not necessarily W3C standards). This is the opposite of instant messaging - your users must be able to access all content. Web coders would have to be compliant to ensure that people on all browsers could see content, as well. Ten browsers at 10% market share each would be much better than one at 75%.
G
There's no documentation.
That's what I've been saying for months. I even got chided by some big-name Mozilla devs here on Slashdot for saying that the reason Microsoft's XAML will trounce all over XUL is because you can bet your ass XAML and all supporting infrastructure will be fully documented, because if you've ever seen MSDN, you know its staggeringly comprehensive. "Go to XULPlanet," I was told, "everything is documented there."
Truth be told, XULPlanet only really documents maybe half the API. Sure, the interface definitions are there for the rest, but there's no description for most of it beyond the method names; the sample code coverage is virtually nil; and if you flip a coin and it comes up tails, XULPlanet.com will be down when you try to visit it and you need to hope that the incomplete mirror at mozdev has the page you want.
After they ship Firefox 1.0, the best thing the Mozilla team could possibly do is to shift their resources to documenting. After documenting, finish up the XRE (come on, how many years is it overdue now?), then switch to evangelizing the platform a little more -- but not until the developer support doc is in place, and not until it can be deployed standalone.
NO CARRIER