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."
But will the download be invite only?
Let's just hope that Gmail still works with other browsers.
The NY Post is never wrong.
They are just working on stuff like their toolbar and something like that. Why do you guys have to come up with a theory every single time?
I hope it's going to be dependant on a whole new insider code and not a Internet Explorer API. This may provide a nice alternative to the big Mozilla code.
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
It would be a dream come true if someone could compete with Microsoft. But Google? Google, out of anyone, I least expected.
Firefox might actually get some competition then?
Check out GOS.com.
Google is launching a new OS based on Gloucestershire health clubs! Come on now, not even MS or Apple has thought of that one. [grins]
Can google compete with open-source options like mozilla and opera?
I hear it's being developed in space.
The best and brightest in search engine companies gets woken up by others' efforts (see earlier articles about Verisign and Microsoft) to capitalize on a market by hijacking the browser, so they develop their own?
bk
Im sure it will be mentioned alot, but what is the real purpose of doing that. Competition is always a good thing but wouldn;t it be better if they backed a certain browser we all know and love ;) instead?
fp?
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.
From the article:
Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100 megabytes of storage space on a remote network -- providing consumers a virtual hard drive.
Since when did 100mb = 1 gig?
Why do this? They should just add to the **better** browser (mozilla.org)
Woooh! I think not.
If they propagated a Mozilla-based browser such as Firefox to their users. At one time I was a defender of Google, always citing their mantra of "Don't be evil," however I'm not quite sure what their intentions may be.
Best search engine? Perhaps. But let's leave it at that.
Don't be blinded by the generosity; they're potentially gearing up to be just as wicked of a monopoly as Microsoft. Whether their intentions are clear or not, that probably should not be happening, since too much power has a tendency to corrupt -- except under very exceptional circumstances.
At this rate, we'll see gindow.com registered by google.com in no time.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
What if Google can do something or have something (an idea) which no other browser has implemented? Google has already shaken up the search market and is now shaking up the email market with its Gmail service. What happens if lighting can strike a third time and create some sort of healthy competition for the brower market once again? At least mindshare would come from it and people would realise there is more than just IE out there. A lot of people use google and they are not geeks either, which is what we want.
Jonathanjk.com
Google has a tremendous name recognition, but this seems outside of its core strength.
Why should Google do its own browser? Why not just come along side an existing browser in some kind of partnership? Instead, they are simply dividing up the already fragmented non-Microsoft browser landscape. If they added worked with an existing browser, maybe even renaming it to take advantage of the brand name, adding some polish, they could make a serious dent in IE.
I think this is a tactical error on their part. And when P/E ratios are in the triple digits, it only takes one to bring the cards down (for the investors at least).
Short answer: No.
Long answer : Yes.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I took a guess and did a whois search for Gbrowser.com and indeed Google Inc. is listed as the registrar.
...
I suspect that they will begin offering a web-based web-browsing solution (like gmail, but for HTTP) with roughly a gigabyte of bandwidth usage per day. This will no doubt be great competition for the other web-based web browsers, like
Er, wait a second...
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
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.
I don't know if I feel sorry for this guy's website or not, since his image browser may soon gain in popularity (but maybe not via Google's search results :)
http://homepage.mac.com/schwarz/gbrowser.html
... 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. :)
I guess we know what their default search engine will be ;D
And it's working... I had a GOrgasm in my pants when I read this story!
-Letter
Hopefully this time they will think to register the trademark early. But just in case, I'll just go ahead and submit this here application for Gbrowser, my new line of eyebrow glitter!
Hiring all of these expensive engineers must be costing them a fortune. They could seriously reduce their bottom line with a programming team or two in Bangalore.
Why not just buy up the Mozilla.org assets from AOL? Time Warner needs the money.
A little more money into Firefox wouldn't hurt. Besides, if AOL keeps it they'll start pushing ads into it sooner or later.
Back in July Dare Obasanjo noted on one of his blog posts that Google was hiring a bunch of people from the IE browser team and couple of Java guys from Sun.
/. is irrelevant.
Even Netscape 4 sent everywhere you surfed to a central server, although of course not with the purpose of serving ads. Remember "What's Related?"
-Letter
The GInternet.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
i and eEverything have already been done... now all we need is a line of GThis and GThat to go along with out XGadget and Widget Pro...
The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser...
If they're trying to build their own browser, why would they want IE developers? If it were my business, I'd want guys who had developed a product that had to stand on its own merit to succeed. Building a product that is successful largely because of an illegal monopoly is less than impressive.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
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.
See this 1 month old blog entry: The Google Browser
Simpy
I think the next logical step would be for Google to branch out into GroupWare. Mail is the cornerstone that Groupware is based on, and a great Schedule and Phonebook is not out of Google's reach, even without those new hires.
If I was Google, I would look into developing technology like Convea's (http://www.convea.com/convea53.asp) great DHTML based groupware into a full "virtual" OS. That is, a shell for developing other great web based productivity software.
That would be awesome, but incredibly messy.
-Randy
Well, it certainly seems like Google is taking over everything that's G. Yes. You read that right. Eventually, everything that starts with the letter 'G' (or 'g') would be owned by Google.
/.ers have already suggested in previous posts and including the article, some of the ideas include gbrowser, gos, gthis, gthat, ginternet and gindows amongst others. Well, it all sounds fine and dandy. Now I just hope they will leave the gspot out of their jurisdiction.
As other fellow
Can't find the damn thing anyway.
Free XBox, PS2
Nope! Not according to whois. All four are owned by different companies.
The Cheese Stands Alone.
May want to look at this (in particular the last comment):
2
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22657
Interesting eh?
Was my post informative? Help me get a free flat screen by completing 1 silly little offer. I need one to go with my free iPod.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
Unless Google's engineers are stupid (hint: they're not) or the lawyers step in, I'm betting it'll be gecko based with Google customized Search, relavance and security features. If they're really smart they'll make it open sourced. That'd be nice. Yeah
When will companies stop trying to do everything under the sun and just be the best at what they already do? I mean, what complaints do people have about the current set of browsers available that a new one is needed? Firefox is the shit and is absolutely free. I don't need a Google browser. I need the best damn search engine in the world.. period.
Oh and lest I forget.. Isn't it Microsoft's practive of jumping into every market related to computing what gives them that evil red aura? Now here Google ("Don't be evil.") is starting down that path. Sheesh..
What is your penile percentile?
Usually, I leave the paranoid stuff to the tin-foil hat wearers, but this is something I'm beginning to get worried about.
Hmm, lets see now - Search Engine, (they can control what you see), Blogs and Pyra (they know what you blog about), Gmail (they have your e-mails). And not to mention Google groups.
And with Google toolbar Picasa, they have slowly but steadily entered the application software market. Now, if they get a browser too, it would be time to become a little wary.
It's all nice assuming that Google is benign, but you are the weakest when you think the enemy your friend. I love Google as much as the next person, but makes one wonder where they are headed with this.
Ofcourse, on the other hand, it is a good thing to be having someone compete against Microsoft atlast. But the lesson in that is the fact that Microsoft was once seen as fighting the THEN behemoth - IBM. Enemy's enemy and things like that. I guess people look at Google the same way, today (ofcourse, the quality of their work helps for sure).
Hmm, interesting trend there.
Google may have a chance at being the first to defeat IE as the #1 web browser. Sure, Joe Average thinks IE=Internet, but after a enough people find this browser just by going to Google, JA will likely want to switch to something more secure/featureful/Google-based if enough of his friends are using it. Of course, Firefox could still win against this browser (whether simply in the long run or just because it has had more time to build a following), but Google's name recognition alone could defeat it.
(note: This is not a troll against Firefox; I've been a loyal Firefox user since the early versions, and have no intentions to switch.)
Great. More Cross-Browser Shit to Worry About.
As if Konqueror's messed-up browser isn't giving those of us trying to be Linux friendly enough to worry about. How many free browsers do we really need?
Ned asks "Will google launch a browser?"
Reverend Lovejoy responds: "...ooooh short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but..."
how about Gunix, OS G, GOS, Gwindow, fireGox, Gorefox...
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser, Internet Explorer, and later founded their own company. One of them, Adam Bosworth, is credited with being a driving force not only behind IE, but Microsoft's database-management program, Access.
Excellent. Two of the most error-free and easy to use applications on my desktop. great job Google! Perhaps you next want to hire on the security audit team for Windows?
Am I to suspect that we're in for another branded browser based on the Mozilla core? From reading the article that seems likely.
I have nothing against Mozilla, but as far as web browsers for Windows or Linux are concerned, there aren't many options. On Windows you can run IE, Mozilla or Opera. Anything else just doesn't cut the mustard. IE is blindingly fast but full of holes. Mozilla is slow and apparently not full of holes (although I'm sure more will be discovered once it becomes more dominant), Opera is slow and lacks compatibility with a lot of websites.
When are we going to get a best-of-breed? There needs to be more than three (Firebird uses the Gecko rendering core from Mozilla so I count that as a Mozilla). A google browser with it's own rendering engine and interface (non-skinned please) would be great. However, I'm not expecting that for at least a year.
IE bug-for-bug compatability.
Think about it this way. Microsoft sees Google as a competitor, not as a partner now.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Google is primarily interested in making sure that Mozilla/Firefox does well, simply because Mozilla/Firefox can't be used against Google in the same way that IE can. Which fits into their world-domination-without-being-evil thing because nobody's going to pay them for a web browser anyway.
Gentoo Sucks
It would far easier for them to take Firefox as a base and customize it for their services.
Best of both worlds. I look forward to it!
Just like GNome reminds me of goog...wait..no it doesn't.
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
It is a good idea if so. After all, MS has been doing that literally for decades.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The key is tying the apps to the browser. If its just yet-another gecko browser, this will have limited impact.
If I were them, I'd grab the Firefox source, and rebrand it. Tada.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Google also owns the domains "GOS.com" "Gporn.com" "Goffice" and "Gword"
I think it's safe to say they've got big plans.
Little do you know, the G in GNU really stands for "Google's New Unix". They also own Gimp, Gnome, GTK, and Gator. That last one was just an insidious plot to create demand for their new pop-up blocking toolbar. Smart cookies, they are...
Based on the way Picasa looks, compared with Apple's iPhoto, I'd guess A browser from Google would look something like Safari.
I was going to work a joke into this but nothing comes to mind.
Lets say Google is building a browser. Won't it be hard for it to get adopted since it isn't already installed on every windows computer? FireFox is free and does a lot of things much better than IE and you don't see it shooting off into space with use when compared to IE. Most likely, google's browser won't be free either, ads or whatever would probably be inserted. Of course, the only time someone has literally laughed in my face for not having an email account was for Gmail...
Things like a decent word proccessor, spreadsheet, email client (linked with gmail), chat program, etc. A whole office suite, but one that is (cached locally) loaded over the internet. Of course security/feature updates would be automatatic, and you could use your 1gb of gmail space to also store files created by, or uploaded to, the office suite.
The apps themselves would have to be platform independent, which I guess would mean java, and the browser itself should install via some sort of super easy and fast webpage. The browser should be a modified version of some GPL program, like Firefox or Konqueror, so there would be hope of decent security and platform independence.
Safari has a google search field right in the nav bar...
Firefox has a google search field right in the nav bar...
A significant number of IE users use GoogleBar...
Why even bother making a web browser? At the moment, if it isn't IE, it's effectively Google. And even if it is IE, it's possibly Google.
Moreover, how do we know that Google's actually hiring these people to make a new web browser? Maybe they're being hired to make a new and improved version of GoogleBar, or something neat and different we haven't even thought of.
And if it is a browser it's probably going to be a branded version of Firefox. I don't really think four people is enough to write an html rendering engine all by themselveses.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
it's GNU/GOS!
but what about poor GNOME? We're going to run out of g-based application names! Time to develop a new g-based naming system that expands the address space...
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
Description: [reply] Opened: 2003-11-23 05:22 PDT
I seen this idea mentioned a while back on Slashdot and thought it'd be worth
sharing here.
Today I'd say that Google is a much bigger name than Mozilla or even Netscape
however, like Netscape, Microsoft currently has their eye on Google and they
want to make MSN Search as popular as Google is now. Google shouldn't make the
same mistake as many other competitors and wait until they're rapidly losing
market share before reacting, they need to act now and doing so could benefit
both Google and the marketshare of Mozilla.
I'd not be surprised if the version of IE shipped with Longhorn would have an
MSN Search toolbar so similar to the Google Toolbar and perhaps even modified IE
so that the Google Toolbar wouldn't work.
However, if Google were to actively promote a Google branded version of Mozilla
(Firebird would probably be the best to use) which at the bare minimum just
included all the current Google toolbar functionality (bug 218126) and promoted
it (features like tabbed browsing, type ahead find would be features that set it
above the normal Google toolbar for IE) this would see an increased usage of
Gecko based browsers, and would get Google users used to the concept of
downloading a new browser before MS cuts off their air supply.
Of course I'd hope Google would do one better and make the Google browser more
than just Firebird with a tacked on toolbar, it'd be good to see it take
advantage of the toolbar customisation features in the toolkit so that if you
don't want the entire toolbar you can drag just what you do want to wherever on
the other toolbars you prefer. I do think a separate toolbar download should be
provided too for those that prefer to use the Mozilla.org (or other
distributors) builds.
Features like tabbed browsing would be an excellent companion to any regular
Google users toolbox, being able to launch search links in background tabs is an
invaluable feature. Eventually once most people prefer downloading the Google
browser, the Google toolbar for IE can be phased out to save development costs.
Google could take this marketing idea further and offer customised versions of
the browser for ISP's that wanted to use their own branded search pages that
were powered by Google (e.g. search.netscape.com)
Advantages for Mozilla.org:
1) Increased market share for Gecko based browsers due to promotion by one of
the best known names online
2) People's base expectations of what a web browser has to offer will be raised
above the current bar set by IE
3) A higher percentage of Gecko users will means webmasters can't ignore
standards compliant browsers anymore which will benefit all Gecko uses whether
they use the Mozilla.org builds, Google builds, Netscape 7.x, etc
Advantages for Google:
1) They're not relying on Microsoft to not break the Google toolbar
functionality in future versions of IE
2) They don't have to tie people who want Google Toolbar functionality to Windows
Advantages for IE users:
1) They're more likely to hear about better alternatives to IE either through
Google or their Google using friends.
2) Even if they still choose to use IE then no doubt Microsoft will be more
likely to improve their product if they see their market share declining
------- Additional Comment #1 From David Hallowell 2003-11-23 06:05 PDT [reply] -------
After doing a Google search for 'Google Browser'
(http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+b rowser&sou rceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0)
I found a blog posting by Simon Willison
(http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/0 7/17/theGo ogleBrowser) which credits the
idea to Anil Dash (http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/006 726.php)
Bart, is this something Mozilla Marketing think is worth following up with? I
think
--
Try Nuggets , the mobile search engine. We answer your questions via SMS, across the UK.
I'd be more worried about Goatse.
Yes, I would, and as painful as it would be, I would be looking for another search engine.
May the source be with you!
C'mon, i love Google as much as anyone else, but is it really necesary? I mean, with the Google Toolbar already available for download and stuff. Integrated GMail would be nice too, but there's already a lot of perfectly useable browsers. Hell, i even like Opera's Google search better than any toolbar.
I don't know, i get a little jumpy when i see companies (that i like, if that's possible) diversifying too much instead of focusing on what they do best. Usually it's a sign of bad things coming.
Since when does the tabloid press can report on technology trends???
i would use a useragent spoof to fake the google browser.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
call it the "Growser".
I can already see how it will revolutionize the english language:
Joe: "Hey Hank, did you growse that info?"
Hank: "Yeah, my growser growsed it up real good."
Joe: "That's some mighty fine growsing, Hank."
Ok so first we had email, ebusisness, etc.
Then imacs, ipods, icandy
and kde, konqueror, and other krap
now gmail, gbrowser, gthis, gthat.
Whats next, I can't figure out the alphabetic algorithm used here? Oh, well I guess I not smart enough to be a google engineer.
Now watch Microsoft training it's big guns to Google...
Everyone else changes there browsers to identify as the google brower when they access google, is the theoretical answer to that question.
James
I checked them out, he lies. Mod him down or whatever you want.
Is it just me or does gbrowser as a name totally suck? How about growser instead...
In other news... Google plans to get into the interactive pron business with their innovative "gspot" web-based application...
"Everyone else changes there browsers to identify as the google brower when they access google, is the theoretical answer to that question."
yes. but as has been proven before, there are more ways than one to identify a browser, than just the identification string. I can set my firefox to claim that it is IE, yet windowsupdate.microsoft.com still does not work. I know the reasons for that, but its not the only example I could give. If google wanted to only allow googlebrowsers and IE, they most certainly would be able to do that.
I've been saying for quite a while that I would be glad if Google took over the world. They are pretty much the only corperation that I would even think about supporting. If they want to make a browser, that's great, an OS, even better! Good for google...
-Magiluke
Earl Grey, Hot.
Yeah, Google has the don't be evil thing going on so they would never do something like that..
Then, lets say 6 months later, google only allows the googlebrowser and IE to access google.com (with a deal where MS pays google big bucks). Lets assume google still dominates, it could be 2+ years before a viable alternative exists.
This is an absurd theory. The only rational reason that Google would do such a thing is if they believed they could make more money from the browser then they can from the search engine. Since that's a highly unlikely notion, it would be silly for them try this.
The brains behind Gooogle have been very smart and have shown that building with open standards is a very good business model. Why would you think that just because they are now public, they would throw out everything they have learned in the past, and all of the goodwill that they have earned-- all for a scheme that would be almost certain to drive them out of business overnight?
gPlatformed, so that us OSX users can take advantage. Speaking of g, maybe google will want to buy my gShares.net domain name.... better get the trademark working on that puppy!
-------
artlu.net
It is also unfortunate. On my XP box, I have to run IE due to Mozilla based browsers running very slow, using tons of ram, and unexpectedly crashing on me while I am working.
I know this will probably get me some negative mod points, but it is my personal experience. Until something better arrives, I will be using Avant for IE.
The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser, Internet Explorer, and later founded their own company. One of them, Adam Bosworth, is credited with being a driving force not only behind IE, but Microsoft's database-management program, Access.
Shit, Google's browser won't follow standards either.
...it'll be based on Firefox.
...with Google's Joe-Schmoe name recognition, this browser might actually become more successful than Firefox in short order, assuming it gets released within a year or so.
why is this post classified flaimbait when all it is is the article, and obvisouly it has brought the text of the article to people who may not otherwise have read it (as shown by the replies)
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
...why the recent third-party gmail notifier stuff is going on... Looks like they've architected a protective measure for their own branded browser - gmail integration.
Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
"Yeah, Google has the don't be evil thing going on so they would never do something like that.."
.ram) wasn't evil. That changed pretty quickly into adware, spyware, et al.
agreed, however, if they ever become beholden to stockholders, that could all change in a heartbeat. (old man voice) I remember back when Real (as in realplayer,
To avoid this problem...
GNOME browser, image viewer & mail client doesnt start with 'g' but start with 'e'
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Both MS and google have tryed to create tools for searching people's desktop machines. I imagine that a web browser/file manager would be the perfect tool to accomplish this. It would probably help if there was integration into the OS (like IE). Perhaps google sees this & has hired key microsoft alums to accomplish better desktop searching.
I agree with several posts--we have good web browsers to choose. But windows users don't really have a browser with a good file manager. (It is possible to run Konqueror on windows, but it is hardly native.) I wouldn't mind another browser on the market, but google doesn't need to hire MS people to write extensions to or derivations of a gecko or khtml browser & there is really very little that I can think of in the way of browser extensions that would make a build from scratch the logical path.
Because you called the New York Post New York Times. *Big* difference. And quite insulting to the real NYT
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
oops *blushes* didnt mean to, i even used the preview button. my mistake, sorry.
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
Googzilla... - Rob
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
Great... just what we all need: another software vendor looking to monopolise our choice with their services. I already don't like the fact that they're the only decent search engine - why should I be excited about another browser when Firefox is already doing an ample job of competing against IE? I just don't like it.
More like... nerdular nerdence!
Seems more appropriate to call it grokle
But thats just me.
I can't imagine saying did you gbrowse it.
But, well, you grok, right?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I, for one, welcome our new Google Overlords.
Unfortunately for the GMonopoly GFans, GVoice.com is already registered to somebody in Korea. Somebody is parking on GVideo.com, ditto for GMovies.com, but good news: GWhiz.com is actually in use by someone who doesn't seem to be prospecting.
So, how long is it before Google becomes the Microsoft of the web? You know, absorbing 3rd party services and utilities into its core service...? Google already integrated Email services, word definition services, advertisement services, toolbars and whole lot more, not to mention the mention of their own online store hub and now a browser. In short, Google is looking quite a bit like Microsoft and their 'you will be assimilated' mentality.
Just an observation. You know, Google being the 'good' company and all...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Then had a crazy idea.
/me goes back to sleep, leaves stupid dreamland.
Imagine: The Google Desktop Environment.
Complete with Gbrowser, the universal filemanager/web browser/gmail client, uber everything all rolled into one.
Windows, Linux, Mac versions available now.
*shivers*
And, of course, all your 'google' apps are all cross-platform, since the client is all crazy java/web stuff anyways.
Sorta google toolbar on steroids.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
GPorn? I'm a little scared.
I'm surprised this wasn't picked up sooner, actually... some time ago I had heard, via a contact at Google, that they were in talks with Mozilla.org (the very same people whose developer day they apparently just hosted, yes?) to develop a Google-branded version of the Firefox browser, adding on things like GMail and more specialized Google searches. There had been talk of shooting for Firefox 1.0, so perhaps now that the release is getting closer, the idea is becoming more serious. Such a branded distro could, even more than Netscape/Mozilla, be an interesting demonstration of the flexibility of Firefox vs IE, though, and not as new an idea as it may seem- it would also let Google send their little piggy to market much sooner than starting from scratch.
You could if you had ActiveX, thats the only reason.
It's not just you. I'm pretty much Googled-out. I also think it's a big mistake for Google to try and be all things to all people. They should focus on their search engine only. Think about how much it can still be improved. Even Google only indexes a small fraction of the pages on the WWW. About 3.3 billion which comes to no more than 10% of the publicly indexable web. Even the 3.3 billion they have indexed are not complete; some are nothing more than the URL. But I guess they have shareholders to answer to now so they feel they have to innovate in new areas.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Perhaps you can't enter a URL and just get google on the browser.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Until they buy out the registration of G-Force and replace it with Google Force, the latest anime series about a funky spaceship, a crew of slightly demented do-gooders battling the ongoing evil-guy.
Gee, we already have a bunch of open-source web browsers that are pretty good, and getting better. Maybe that's not such a great market to jump into. If I was Google, I probably wouldn't.
Then again, one place that we don't have a lot of tools for is searching our own hard disks. If I type in a couple words, I can find 100 references to web pages with that information in a second; it still takes ages to search my local disk. (Does that seem backwards to anybody else?) Most disks are huge, have plenty of free space, and most processors sit idle most of the time.
Now, Apple is solving part of this problem for Mac OS X with Tiger, for release next year. Microsoft is talking about solving part of this in Longhorn, in a few years. Various open-source projects are taking a shot at this (Storage, etc.).
Wouldn't it make more sense that they're working on a sort of local-Google? Imagine if you could steal not only Microsoft's thunder, but Apple's and Linux's as well -- wouldn't you? (Especially if you had, oh, say, an IPO...)
I hope that this will eventually lead to needing the GBrowser to read your Gmail. I like gmail only because I can access it with a browser of my choosing and use a notification plugin (thus-far) of my choosing to use it. The reason I don't use Windows isn't just for the whole "windows is evil" thing... I use Linux because I can use my computer with the tools and applications I feel most comfortable using. I can use MY computer MY way. Using windows feels like a constant chore for me, and honistly, makes my eyes hurt. "But you'll loose functionality!" some cry; so what, I would rather not do something at all then have to do it feeling like crap the whole way through.
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
...of that one guy search engine we had an article on here several months back? Can't remember it, but I want to give it another try.
I don't want an AOL (or whaterver) dominated web, a MS dominated web, nor a google dominated web.
I use google but it gives me the tinfoil hat buckwheats too, and has for a long time now. That's just too much concentrated data for one company, IMO.
Google should have done this a while ago. Have a browser that defaults to the best search engine on the web is definitely a good thing.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
This is an absurd theory. The only rational reason that Google would do such a thing is if they believed they could make more money from the browser then they can from the search engine. Since that's a highly unlikely notion, it would be silly for them try this.
Google makes very little money from its search engine. Most of their revenue (on the order of 98%) comes from advertisements, so it is'nt such a stretch for them to not support browsers that filter out adss.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
I think the reporter's gotten the wrong end of the stick - if Google are hiring Adam Bosworth et al it's more likely they're looking at rolling out more web services - this seems more in-line with their current strategy.
Shouldn't this be modded "funny"? See, it's a pun on the word "rich"...
http://www.kottke.org/04/08/the-google-browser
With the moo and the cow and the fish. Minesweeper Record: 7 sec
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/
I'm with ya on this.
I wish you hadn't posted as AC though. Cause I think what you are saying is more pertinent then the parent to this.
Cookies are way overrated. Some people are unreasonably scared of them. Lets face it, a cookie is a tool. And just like any other tool there are times when it should be used and times when it should not. There are times when it is abused and times when it is used well.
And if you are smart enough to post on slashdot then you are smart enough to know how to clean out your cookie file. You are also smart enough not to be scared of them.
It really does. It seems logical that since most people just assume Google is the only search engine anyway, that a Google Browser would seem to be a logical step in the company's progression.
HOWEVER, I am a little worried that at some point, people want so much to fight one monster that they create another to combat it.
Google search, GMAIL, the big IPO, GBrowser........GOffice for your web based DOC sharing, etc, etc, etc.
I like Google Search and I like GMAIL, but at the same time, whenever I see a company heading down the road to tell me that I should use them for my "complete online computing experience", I do feel a little uncomfortable.
I am not saying that is the case, and I am not saying any of this is bad. I like what Google is doing right now because new innovation is a good thing. But at the same time, I am aware of another company that wants everything I use to have their name attached to it and I am always keeping both eyes open.
Well after they came out with the EMacs toolbar, i pretty much knew anything was possible....
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
It's not april 1st yet!
Please note that the registrar is http://www.markmonitor.com whose raison d'etre is protection of intellectual property. It could be as simple as Google trying to prevent anyone else from registering gbrowser.com and using it to make a quick buck. Or that plus a good way to keep their future options open. I'm not sure Google needs Microsoft declaring all-out war on them so soon after their IPO.
they would have use for the ie developers just for gmail too(with it's heavy javascript ui).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Google is trying to buy Opera.
It was modded "Informative" or "Insightful" before. Hence the complaining.
If google does indeed take over (or merge with) the mozilla team, is this a good thing? I'm a firm believer in firefox, and I'd hate to see it get overshadowed by some new suite of software. The reason for this is not that I hate google (I love the big G), but that companies are primarily driven by money (not necessarily a bad thing), and this drive can mean that they ditch projects if the money doesn't roll in. If firefox were to be incorporated into a Google project, and that project failed, mozilla's popularity would drop, as people would see it as a failed Google bastard child.
To me this rumor, if true, could damage the very industry Google wants to support. IMO, software that's community developed should stay as is, and corporately developed software should do the same. Open source is great, but I worry for the future of a user-developed application being forced into the mold of a money-making application..
Incidentally though, if Microsoft were to break the Google Toolbar's ability to function inside IE as part of their hypothetical declaration of war on Google, it might end up being the nail in IE's coffin. Without the Google Toolbar, there is no way I'd be using IE willingly.
Really, what prevents Google from making cosmetic changes to Firefox/Mozilla. There is already the built in Google Search. Perhaps they would integrate a Gmail mail client.
Or perhaps, I'm talking out my ass.
Spellchecking as you go (and other client-side things) for g-mail?
Recommending pages you might like by feeding your history/bookmarks into a central database?
Making google's web index more complete by flagging unindexed pages to HQ?
None of the aboue sound very convincing reasons to write a browser to me, However, Firefox + some bells & whistles with the Google name and clout behind it could kill IE stone dead... and the wide adoption of an ad-blocking browser would push advertisers towards google text ads in their droves.
The $64,000 question is, would this 'be evil'?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Now you too can look at porn for free at 54 MB/s at your closest G-Spot!
Sorry.. Had to say it.
Surprisingly there are a few people out there who dont know about google. I was sitting in the comp lab today and a girl asks "whats a good search engine" Me and another guy look at each other and say google at the same time. her reply? "oh I usually just use ie's"
Do you not understand the concept of capitalism? The goal of a company/corporation/whatever is to MAKE MONEY. They are not going to make money by making their search engine any better than it already is. 4.2 Billion webpages is more than enough for just about any topic that has any information on the net.
I, for one, welcome google to introduce some competition. I think it would be an incredibly beneficial thing to have 2 large companies that are about even in software. If google wants to start making everything, I hope they do. I hope google makes an OS. I have always been a supporter of windows on slashdot (mod me down), mostly because of the anti-microsoft FUD that gets posted here, and I believe windows XP is incredibly stable and secure for people who know how to use it. Now SP2 makes it secure (and stable, if you factor in the fact that less adware will be getting installed) for everyone. Now back on topic... If google made an OS, I would guess it would be incredibly secure, fast, unbloated (like google's main search page), and will use genius techniques for just about everything. Google won't have to base a new OS off of anything else, while windows has always been known for making things compatable with older versions (which I believe is good, given their circumstances)... but google has different circumstances, and can make software for the future.
You geeks should like the fact that google is going in to new fields. They are probably the only company that can rival microsoft.
Subject says it all...
I like it how Google's picked up and become a company rather than just a search engine. Google browser? I'd sign up for that. Oh, and by the by, I've got six invites for those of you who are Gmail-deprived. Nothing better to do with them than give them to the truly needy.
Personally I wouldn't expect Google to see much value in "tracking" people.
Creating a 'profile' of a user isn't really the way they make their money. They don't serve you ads based on what sites you have visited (emails you've read, searches you've done) over the last day/week/month. They serve you ads based on what you are looking at now.
When you have the ability to target in a direct fashion like that the hassle and kludgyness of profiling users over a time period seems like a waste of energy.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Follow the URL listed in the bug report:/ 17/theGoo gleBrowser
http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/07
Which is from over a year ago, linking to several people talking about Google's influence and how that could bolster Mozilla's userbase.
Could be interesting to those who care.
J
Perhaps Google should just go all out and buy Netscape from AOL (which hasn't been doing anything with it anyway) and directly support Mozilla that way. Google+Mozilla, a nerd's dream come true! Then Google branded Open Office and a Google branded Linux distro, and then the world!
The posters who said that diversification could/will kill Google may be on to something. Does anybody buy anything using froogle? Is Gmail (several months in beta and still crap) ready for prime time? Has Google Answers taken over the world? Etc...
I wish they would get all their people focused on fixing up some of the really cool stuff they *might* make but already announced -- but that hasn't yet lived up to its promise -- rather than getting the rumor machine going on ever more tenuous potential expansions of the Google brand.
One cynical interpretation of this is that despite all that admirable "don't be evil" stuff, Darth Schmidt knows that you have to feed novelty (or the appearance thereof) to the stock market or those options won't increase any further. Say it isn't so!
I'll believe everything once Gmail gets good enough to give up my Yahoo account and Froogle and Google Groups get as good as Deja.com was in 2000...
...
like the subject says Konqueror can already check the spelling but not the grammer to good
me fail english? thats unpossible
Perhaps a name change to "Borgle" is in order?
...
Well, they were taking over marketshare like crazy (even before being bundled) and were inventing new technologies faster than the rest of the company could keep up. So they shut them down to ensure that web apps wouldn't take over the rest of their business. They certainly didn't stop developing IE because they couldn't afford it. I don't know about you, but grabbing a few guys that can eat away at the rest of Microsoft's business doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me ;)
That's a very interesting. What other things on mozilla.org are being discussed behind closed forums? I'm just wondering if having 'private' bugs (whether they're bugs or not) goes against the open principle of OSS development. But on the other hand, the license only covers the openness of distribution, not of discussion or development.
click-clack, front and back. I'm not moving this car otherwise.
I'm so used to seeing NYT articles (with their registration required blah blah blah) that when I saw the parent poster refer to the Post as the Times ... caught me too. Damn!
Will they have a google bar? :P
Although I will never use it as I'm totally happy with Moz, more options is always better.
This will only help stay M$'s attempts to kill the internet with longhorn.
A moral objection to porn. Registrant: Google Inc. (DOM-258915) 2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US Domain Name: googleporn.com Registrar Name: Alldomains.com Registrar Whois: whois.alldomains.com Registrar Homepage: http://www.alldomains.com
man with cart: Bring out your browser!
internet explorer: I'm not dead yet!
opera: Ie Iesu domine! *thwap*
internet explorer: I'm getting better!
What google would do well to remember is that human beings are creatures of habit, and they won't jump ship without a reason. Right now people are flocking to firefox for their windows web browsing needs because mozilla presented something they didn't have, security. While google's branding and high visibility will no doubt help them get their browser out there, they also need to present their browser as having something that neither firefox nor IE have. IE lacks security, customizability, and compactness, but it can be managed across the board by tools such as group policy. It can also be patched across an enterprise with tools like SUS. Firefox brings security and customizability to the table, but it isn't yet manageable in an enterprise network. Firefox also can't handle Microsoft-specific technologies such as activeX. Were google to bring all of the above to the table, it would be a formidable browser indeed.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
I do want to note that Gbrowser being registered doesn't conclusively mean anything. Not that I think that's the case in this situation.
It just reminds me of the (then) Square incident when they registered ChronoCrusade.com. The gaming community went nuts expecting a new Chrono Trigger game. We're still waiting.
Google registers gstring.com and takes over the porn industry. Now you can order gstrippers in the comfort of your own home via gmail and with the storage space they'll always be there for you to revisit.
The other "portal" Google owned but no one knew why...
Goatse.cx
Direct away from face when opening.
Unlike my wife, faster is ALWAYS better. If Google brings anything at all to the table it's a simple clean elegant design interface that flat out runs rings around everything else. All the extra gorpacomplexificationocitudeness should only be bolted on as snap on applications and only when necessary.
OK, now that I RTFA, I'm not at all convinced that Google is working on a browser at all.
Google isn't a software company, it's an information company. I find it much more likely that it's looking at the "network computer" idea. Email storage really isn't much of a "virtual hard drive," but Google could easily get into the business of providing just that. We've already seen personalized portals (my.yourportalhere.com), but then again, we'd already seen webmail before Gmail.
Google is just the company to make people (or groups of people - think G-roupware!) productive, or at least organized, on any browser at any computer. They don't need the browser people to create a new browser, but to make their ideas work in existing browsers.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Could it be that the guys at Google just need some people that know more than just HTML? I mean look at that homepage... it's just so simple, no javascript, flash or anything ;)
I'm afraid that I did a little dance when I read that yet another company would be taking a bite out of M$'s web browser market. I guess that shows how much I cheer for the "underdog."
Given the fact that Mozilla-branded browsers default to Google search and the fact that many Internet Explorer 5.x/6.x users install the Google taskbar add-on, Google should not waste their money to developing their own web browser, even it they use the Gecko rendering engine developed by the Mozilla team.
Google should spend its resources to develop improve their search engine and their online advertising system instead.
Look at my name, I'm not corporate friendly, but I don't think that Google is being tyranical as some of you tinfoilers. Hell, if Google can make my shopping easier if would be a shame if they didn't because of some "purity" principle.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Joke Back called he want's his name back.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Really, what prevents Google from rebranding MSHTML? I gather that most browsers (produced, not consumed) are just inspired shells on top of Internet Explorer's backend. From a corporate POV, it seems much cheaper just to hire "Recent Vocational School Programming Graduates" and "High School VB Hackers" over C and competent XML/JavaScript developers. (Yes, there is a Mozilla ActiveX Control; however, it really isn't an offical part of Mozilla and hasn't been used in the wild nearly as much as Microsoft's version.) Furthermore, a simple shell would be a smaller download.
And there is precedence: Google Toolbar was never released for anything but MSIE on Windows. If it wasn't designed properly (likely), then integrating its functionality would be easier with a MSHTML shell rather than a Mozilla app.
Don't get me wrong: I really wish that Google was developing a Mozilla-based browser. However, I simply don't see that as likely as a MSIE derivative. :-(
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
P.S. Sorry for the "really, what prevents...". I didn't realize I was mimicing your paragraph. No sarcasm or offence intended.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
is parked at GoDaddy.
There's nothing in there pointing it away from google. Many people have been hoping for a Google messenger to go along with gmail, or at least one googlefanatic friend of mine seems to think so. Frankly I'd want to see some good encryption techniques (256bit, just like https://gmail.google.com is) in this messenger built in, default. Of course it'd be nice to change it if you wanted to.
Roland Piquepaille and slashd
yeah, they're prob going for it, since they've given up just having a good search engine. How much longer till their Gtunes online muzac store?
Come on, be good at something and go from there, don't try to be everything for everyone.
BCB)#$@
free ipod and free gmail!
If Google does this, it will be the brashest, ballsiest, and downright perfect move they could have ever made. This will not be like any browser we are currently familiar with. Unlike purely client-based browsers (IE, Opera, Firefox, etc.), GBROWSER will be intimately tied to GFS, the backbone that makes Google run. Less of a browser, more of a synchronization engine, GBROWSER will pass data back and forth between client nodes and Google servers, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two.
Want to search your local file system? You'll do it from GBROWSER, which communicates with Google servers, which happen to have a snapshot view of your entire file system - if not an entire carbon copy of it.
Just because it doesnt display images doesn't mean it cant translate html.
Depending on the criteria you use, you could call lynx a more modern browser than IE6.
It has been developed more recently (Feb 2004 last major release)
Like every other browser in the world, results will improve if the webmaster devotes some time to it.
It works pretty well for strict xhtml.
Seriously, what demise? Do you have any sources? Any figures? I have a feeling the only thing you can link to are the two past articles posted on...you guessed it, Slashdot. And both were merely the web logs of tech dev sites!
I don't see any ads in Opera. Oh, that's right, I actually don't mind paying for commercial software that I enjoy and support!
:)
Seriously, Opera kicks the shit out of Mozilla. Every major innovation Opera has spawned--gestures, tabbed browsing, popup blocking--were all ripped off by Mozilla and are now hailed as Mozilla innovations. Opera's download size is tiny, it's memory footprint is small, and it is FAST. Even changing themes takes less then a second.
I'm a very happy Opera user.
Yeah, Opera is installed on here too. It will not properly render most websites, so I don't bother with it.
I do have an intrusion prevention box running which stops the all known bits of code evil to IE before it even gets to my system. That good enough for ya, AC?
Why don't they launch an operating system and finish it with Microsoft?
They beat them at search, they beat them at e-mail, I'm sure their browser will be better, why don't they come up with their own Linux distribution that will kick MS ass?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Really, what prevents Google from making cosmetic changes to Firefox/Mozilla.
Nothing really (rather lousy translation, but it gives an idea).
3.243F6A8885A308D313
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
From article:
"Google's strategy is to throw a handful of seeds and to see what grows," he said.
Or you could also say Google's strategy is to throw handfuls of shit and see what sticks
But in order to do that, they have to have hooks into all the net-related applications you use (web-browser, email, instant messaging).
The huge search engine database mostly solves the problem of providing the meta-data for your data.
It makes sense to me.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I'm sure they wouldn't object to contributing any patches to firefox if they made some changes...
But if it's mostly changes to the chrome, they don't have to make it open source.
The can just leave it in the jar files and let interpid users try to peel apart the XUL and stylesheets and whatnot to see how it's implemented.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
the G in GNU really stands for "Google's New Unix"
So what do the N and the U stand for?
Even better!
"I used my growser to google for that info and gmail it to my orkut-circle."
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
They're a public company now; depending on the details (with which I'm not familiar - how typical, right?), MS could just buy them if the rumored browser actually exists and takes a huge chunk out of IE's share. I suspect, at least for now, things are set up so this wouldn't happen, but I don't know. And, things change.
Google hosted Mozilla Developer Day on its campus, a gathering of programmers that work together to build sequels to the re-named Netscape browser.
Mozilla is Mozilla.
Netscape is Netscape
Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100 megabytes of storage space on a remote network
Can you say 1000 megs? or 1 gig?
This story is fluff. I wonder what else "journalists" are letting slip throught the cracks.
Personally, I can't wait for my iGPodStation SP
Thus, IE 6 is not a "modern" browser.
In the same way The Strokes are not The Modern Lovers.
Dude, pretending to know what you're talking about and knowing what you're talking about are two different things (not implying you aren't, but those who oughta be smart enough because they post on /.)
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
Search engines are a dangerous area though. You're always fighting the whole of the internet, everyone is trying to manipulate your search algorithms to try and get themselves ranked higher than they deserve.
The success of a search engine by itself is mostly a function of the quality of results and it isn't very difficult to switch to a new one. With these other applications, even if google starts having trouble returning decent search results, they will have people slightly locked in. They will have a much longer amount of time to fix things before they start to lose people to a better search engine.
Even without a web browser, you can telnet into some public libraries to surf with a remote Lynx browser.
Or just install Lynx on your local computer. There is even a win32 version if you don't run *nix...
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Isn't it more likely that Google is developing a browser as a defensive tactice? Something like this:
ring, ring
Sergey: Hello?
Gates: Hello, Google. This is Bill Gates! We're going to release a search engine built right into IE, which is built right into Windows! Ha ha! You guys are pwned! Who's going to bother to load up Google now, when you can just click the shiny search button in our browser (plus Google no longer renders right)
Sergey: That's funny. We're going to release a browser, with our search built right in. Think people would rather use MSN or Google for search? Do you think their search choice would guide their browser choice, or vice versa? And oh yeah, it doesn't work with streaming WMP. Who knew?
Gates:...
Sergey: And what happens to your dreams of internet domination when folks switch to our browser en masse, cause oh yeah, btw, it doesn't have security issues like IE?
Gates:...well we didn't really want to do search...
Sergey: Well! We didn't really want to develop and support a browser!
All: It seems like we've come to an agreement then!
Sergey: Have I mentioned Goffice? Online word processing, search all your documents by content, 1GB of guaranteed storage...
--
$tar -xvf
G!=K
I'm pretty sure that falls under "evil", and they wouldn't do it.
But really: would it be so bad? Any web site that you can't find either through Google or clicking from somewhere else is likely to be so badly organized as to be barely worth reading. And as Raph says, Google response times are very competitive with DNS.
OK, obviously web developers need to be able to enter URLs, and intranets need special handling. But beyond that...
In fact, that's a pretty good idea. I'm going to disable the Location bar and see how I go using only Google.
The number one reason might be some sort of a legal action from MS. Ms has gooogle in thier sights and google knows this. I just don't see them taking that risk no matter how small it might be. There is just no business reason to take a risk of being sued by a company with an army of lawyers when moz is free and open source.
As for ease of app development I'd say XUL kicks MSHTML any day.
evil is as evil does
As for '.google.com' cookies for searching (so that it remembers your prefs), you can delete the cookie, and tell firefox not to allow it to be set again, then bookmark something like the following in firefox (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%s&num=100&hl=e n&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq =&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_n hi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=of f), and then under the bookmark manager, assign the keyword 'g' under the properties. Then, you can just type 'g tin foil hat' in the location bar, and it will search google using your preferences and without a cookie.
Google makes very little money from its search engine. Most of their revenue (on the order of 98%) comes from advertisements, so it is'nt such a stretch for them to not support browsers that filter out ads.
Since they don't sell rankings, 100% of their search related revenue comes from ads. And while they do sell ads on many other sites, I bet half of their overall revenue still comes from the search engine (though I could be wrong).
Now, I don't know of any browsers that filter text ads, but I'll assume that one exists. No browser that I know of filters ads by default. So you're suggesting that Google will piss off much of the computer world and risk an antitrust lawsuit for the sole reason of blocking people who may or may not be blocking ads? This is paranoia of the most silly kind. Any website could block browsers because they are capable of blocking ads. But they don't, because it's not worth it. If this were MS, I would at least understand your paranoia, since they have a history of dirty tricks. But since Google doesn't, why assume the worst based simply on the remote possibility of bad behavior?
Google already adds the Google Toolbar to IE. What more do you need. Anything Google could put into their own custom web browser they could add as a COM object plugin to IE. There's nothing special to see here.
Heck, Google could even wrap the IE HTML rendering engine with a half-useful interface (strip out all the stupid features) and ship it, and it'd still be just fine. It wouldn't have to be Mozilla.
Or Google could give away a web browser. It doesn't matter. It wouldn't give Google money unless they figured out some way to get advertising into the app in a transparent an unobtrusive way.
A browser with online storage of profile settings. Possibly with a light-weight download. I have different browsers at home, work, friends house etc. And I like having my plugins and so forth. With lazy loading, storing stuff like that online is very useful given todays bandwidths.
Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
Geocrawler error message.
Microsoft can beat all these browsers and win back the browser market in no time by using its desktop dominance to its advantage. As Miguel de Icaza talks about the threat of XAML on his blog as reported here . Icaza states that it would take atleast 2-3 yrs after the launch of longhorn for longhorn to really catch up and become the dominant desktop OS. And that would be enough time for XUL-Mozilla to win the minds of the public. But with Micrisoft planning to put Longhorn features into XP that catch up time becomes effectively halved or less. Adoption time of XP-SP2 can give MS a better statistic to be prepared and also improve upon this adoption for Longhorn features into the mainstream XP. This would tilt the tables on Gbrowser, Firefox, Apache et. al.
Is all about branding. Google is just extending the branding, and in the way improving a bit existing products (like gmail).
Many people use google and they will use anything that has been "googelised". If the take firefox and call it something else and put the google branding on it, it will be a IE killer.
If they start extending via XPI to support IM and gmail and all the other online stuff that they have, then why stop there? they will be competing with Microsoft (and apple) on the desktop. Can anyone imagine a googelised version of Linux?
Oh, I see a Gecko- (or KHTML-) based browser as quite a likely alternative.
Firstly, art of Google's much-hyped corporate philosophy is 'don't be evil'. With that in mind, are they going to trust their brand to MSIE's security record? XPSP2 appears to be a major improvement, but it's still not in the same zip code as 'secure'. Gecko/KHTML seem to be much closer to the mark.
Second, the 'don't be evil' directive would seem to point towards wanting a standards-compliant solution, not a 'standards? what for?' solution.
Third, their history is pro-standards, pro-open APIs: Blogger is XHTML+CSS, and largely (if not entirely) valid. They also implemented the soon-to-be-standardized Atom as their primary syndication API, rather than the wilder-and-woolier RSS. Seems to me that history points more towards an OSS/standards-compliant solution rather than an MSIE shell.
Third, it isn't exactly a secret that MS sees Google as a threat. MS's history being what it is, would a company in their sights roll out a service/product based entirely on MS technology? With as many smart people as Google has, I'm not so sure they would.
Fourth, I don't think the cost of development personnel would have anything to do with it. Google's hiring practices are almost as famous as Microsoft's: they go for the very brightest available (one thing you can't say about Microsoft is that they hire dumbasses--or even just smart foks; they hire scary-smart folks). I don't see any reason they'd change that practice for a browser.
Finally, I don't know as the Google toolbar is evidence one way or another. The toolbar has been implemented (including PageRank) in a Mozilla extension already. I can see Google not much caring about other browsers previously as Moz's market share was teensy-to-non-existent when the Google Toolbar was released, Safari wasn't released yet, NN4 was a nightmare and IIRC neither it nor Opera were anywhere near as extensible as IE at the time. Gecko UAs are just now showing up in sufficient numbers to take seriously, but with a Google toolbar already available why bother?
The only strong counter-argument I see is compatibility: lots of 2nd-tier sites -- and a few 1st-tier sites -- are indifferent to hostile to non-IE/Win browsers and standards. I can see Google being loathe to tarnish their brand by releasing a browser that a whole lot of people would see as broken because it doesn't work with site X, Y or Z.
Still, I think the argument for a non-IE browser is stronger than the argument for an IE shell.
Just an idea.
Bah, where's GIM (based on jabber, like apple is doing!) already?
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Microsoft is going to sue Google for using an operating system library? For which SDKs have been released, with license terms specifically granting such use? Not likely.
As for ease of app development I'd say XUL kicks MSHTML any day.
XUL is a GUI framework. MSHTML is an web rendering engine. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer Gecko to MSHTML.
Or perhaps you just mean to spout [random open source thing] is better than [random microsoft thing]. Whatever.
samrolken
I'd welcome a Google browser. While it wouldn't surprise me if they wrote one from scratch, I think they would do better to port KHTML to Windows and build from there. With Apple contributing code to KHTML along with the Open Source community it's sure to have a fruitful and long life, couple that with the lack of a KHTML port for Windows and it would really fill a niche in the browser world. I hope you're listening Google!
I don't think the article still exists but Forbes.com had a piece where they talked about google.. they mentioned the following.. From Forbes.com: Most recently Google scored a company called Applied Semantics, whose content-scanning techniques can be used to tailor ads not just based on the words a user searches, but also on the actual pages he reads on the Internet. I would assume that they could easily put this technology into a browser.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
A little google searching brough me to this interesting info... i don't understand the majority of it :-)
but i thought i'd share. Lemme know what u think.
http://beterraba.no-ip.org/~kov/programacao/small- projects/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Exactly, and not merely could--likely would. Their history of tracking searches as well as sniffing Gmail suggests as much. But it's social context that determines how technology is used. Google is a demographic vacuum cleaner that, in the pre-9/11 era, merely looked as suspicious as the next corporate hunger to collect and market identity. Yet in an era of omnipresent government snooping, Google shows omens, if still faint, of becoming a totalitarian tool.
2001 called, it wants its funny line back.
Google will be starting franchised public WiFi access points called...
wait for it...
GSpots
From IE 6's about box:Looks like Microsoft owes more to the other developers than themselves. Just like MS-DOS, (MS) BASIC, Windows NT (think VMS), HoTMaiL....
Seems that Microsoft is good at buying companies and taking their code (Bungie?) or licensing it from someone and putting them out of the business of developing it on their own. Sure, getting a royalty check is fun, but your baby belongs to Bill now.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Hopefully, their "don't be evil" philosophy...
It's the abuse of monopoly power that is illegal and to be frowned upon. A Google monopoly would be fine. A Microsoft monopoly would be fine. However, when either of those begin to use that power to push everyone around and gain more and more power, then it becomes destructive and needs to be addressed.
Does that answer your question?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I'm stunned. How did a Slashdot post that involves the words "pubic" "bone" "urethra" "3 inches" "come here" and "finger" NOT have a joke in it, or NOT at least wind up being modded funny by a giggling 10 year old?!
...or maybe that's just someone's girlfriend?
Something is definitly rotten in the state Denmark.
*Runs like hell*
A lot of software is "By Invite Only". The "Invite" usually being a wad of cash.
;)
Which is why God made P2P, FTPs, Torrents, and the exclamation "Yarr!"
considering how BAD htmlcode google write ( and i mean its baaaaaad ) this can only be horrible..
Gneous.
I'll get my coat...
Apple does not "have" gBrowser. That's a 3rd party app made by someone who happens to have a homepage hosted on .Mac. I don't think this will be a problem for Google.
Check out Google Watch Watch instead.
You might want to read up on why the Atom syndication format was introduced.
It's really hard to tell what the "real deal" was (RSS was generic, some say too generic, and frozen, and some people at google didn't like that), but it resulted in this: Google didn't like RSS for whatever reason and therefore helped invent and adopted Atom and removed RSS support in Blogger.
I'm not saying Google is "evil", just saying that standards have been eschewed for alternative formats that are proposed as standards, splintering the market. There are still plenty of RSS readers that haven't caught up yet.
To make it very clear, you can't get RSS via any Google blogs - you must use feedburner. That doesn't sound very standards-friendly to me.
That's actually a pretty good example of why the term "open source" is harmful -- the key imho has nothing to do with "openness", it's got to do with "freedom". There's no reason why we should be free to listen in and participate in other people's discussions.
I'm quite aware of the religious war between RSS and Atom, thank you.
End of the day, Atom was and always has been on a track to be a by-Hoyle standard. RSS was and is not, and in fact one of -- if not the -- most influential people in the RSS world, Dave Winer, has specifically disavowed any such intent for RSS.
Dave has his reasons, to be sure. But none of them change the fact that Atom can be said to be a standard in a way RSS cannot.
And you might wish to read up on what, exactly, Blogger offers. You can indeed get RSS on Google blogs; you just have to sign up for Blogger Pro.
I for one welcome our new software overlords.
Why doesn't Google join the Mozilla project?
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
I'm not positive it is what you're looking for, but have a look at the Mozilla AOM Reference site. It contains a lot of good reference that a friend of mine has put together.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Microsoft only set its sights on Netscape after Netscape claimed that it was working on a shell replacement for Windows. In other words, once Netscape threatened to directly compete with Microsoft, it got squashed like a bug.
I don't see how Google will fair any differently.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Unlike explorer which allows people to lock fonts to a small and unreadable size (of course you tick 'ignore font sizes' but it doens't ignore line heights, making it compeltely unreadble still - and even then MS has their own way to ignore that setting (just check windows update) which others have started to copy - tsk tsk )
And before utters the usual suggestion of Firefox/mozilla, no thanks - there are too many things i don't like about it - including its instance on placing its config files in "Documents and Settings"
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
More browsers is better for MSIE, microsoft have a captive market, the people that want a change (the smart ones) will chose between firefox opera, Gbrowser, etc. so i prefer if google has an excellent idea they should make an excellent extension for Firefox.
\n.\n
If he's been the driving force behind IE for the last three years he is a fucking failure.
Phillip
Okay Mr AC.. Whatever you say.."
A public company cares about making money - that's why IE has lagged behind many other browsers as of late (and why development pretty much stopped on IE 6).
Now Google wants to build a browser? Why? Don't give me the "platform to launch pay services" argument. A browser is a browser - I can buy music, ebay products, and job hunt through pretty much any of the 3 browsers installed on my system.
How is this going to "challenge microsoft"?
Now if they were building an OS, i'd be excited.
-ted
Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100 megabytes of storage space on a remote network -- providing consumers a virtual hard drive.
This article must have been written by Dan Rather.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
The totality of information that Google has stored about you already (articles in groups, queries posted, Web sites visited via referer info) might be more of an issue than the potential threat of third parties breaking into their clusters.
Whether you should be concerned depends on how often you change machines, whether you have a static IP address, whether you're protected by an organizational proxy server, and on your cookie settings, of course. However, even many people who know the portential dangers in theory go with defaults in practice, as homo sapiens is a lazy species.
While I currently have no evidence that Google discarded their "Don't be evil" mantra, I'm not so sure about some of their clients...
--
Try Nuggets , the mobile search engine. We answer your questions via SMS, across the UK.
Two words: Herschel. Savage.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Hey, Gchat.com seems to still be available....
Google also owns the domains "GOS.com" "Gporn.com" "Goffice" and "Gword"
I think it's safe to say they've got big plans.
And how about God - browsing for meaning amongst all those octal dumps?
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
Precedence means priority or order. I think you mean precedent: an earlier occurrence of something similar.
-Peter
Secondly, IE5 for the Mac really isn't that bad. It's a completely different codebase than IE for Windows, and it shows (as the rendering quirks are so different!) In fact, we complain that IE5 for the Mac follows the standards a little too closely... it can be pretty strict.
Except for the fact that it gets floats totally wrong and computes margins and padding incorrectly. I used to think MacIE was okay, but then I learned CSS.
Wasn't it enabled by default?
I say this because useful datamining can be done with the backups. Depending on the purposes of a study, you do not have to have production data for it and your privacy might be violated.
Although I respect Google and I think they'll make their best to fulfill the terms of their own TOS, it would be naïve to trust Google completely, unless there's an independent review of their internal processes. And there is no guarantee that a Google might be able to keep their privacy promise if the US (or any other country where they host their servers on) becomes a fully-fledged police state.
This gives another spin to "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" stuff, huh?
Yes. Thanks for correcting my typo.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
"Google: The Service that Launched a Google of Browsers".
That should be "a googol of browsers".
It is interesting why I haven't found any post about the idea that google might bring some innovative in the internet browser. So far google-introduced ideas were quite creative and I think that some really new ideas might inspire google to create their own browser... like gmail - it is quite interesting and new... Does anybody know if any new patents were filed by google which bring fresh ideas to the internet browsing? what it can be what we're still missing? So far we have quite 'flat' view of internet - from one point go to another and see just one at a time (I don't mean multiple windows but rather how pages are presented - flat). What if google find other ways of presenting pages, more information-centric...
Please excuse my typos. I gather you can understand my intent; however, I don't have much time to proof-read today.
Note that Blogger is mostly a seperate entity, which just happens to be owned by Google. Gmail and their bread-and-butter - the search engine itself - have horrible code. They still use tabular layouts, CSS and javascript served in the head (rather than externally), font tags, unescaped ampersands, and other uncompliant code (and it's all easy to fix without breaking compatibility).
Well, that's pre-standards support and not standards support. MS did the same thing with HTML, CSS, XSLT, and other standards. As a result, they are stuck with those noncompliant behaviors. I hope the same doesn't happen with Blogger. (I think they are smart enough not to make those mistakes.)
Also, it is not a crime to implement RSS. It was standardized many times. The problem is that the only version written by a group - RSS 1.0 - was ignored by the biggest RSS supporter at the time: Userland. Furthermore, many RSS feeds don't validate, and the language itself has problems. Sound familier......like HTML. That's the reason Atom has so much broad support so early in its developement (to not make the same mistakes as with (X)HTML).
it is true that Google hires more Ph.D.s than most companies. However, that means that 1) Google as a company will want to hire as few employees as possible for any one job. 2) They would be more interested in more scholarly projects - e.g. file systems, AI, protocols - than mudane projects like a browser: a shell over a pre-existing engine (where the interesting stuff happens). I think that the origional spartan interface to Google was more due to the scientists not being interested in it rather than a conscious effort at simplicity. After all, most people who get advanced degrees hate not using their specialized knowledge.
Mozilla's google toolbar extension is based on many undocumented hacks (some pretty bad) - much like Linux's NTFS support. It works, but not necessarily forever. At best, it is an unoffical clone. At worst, it infringes on Google's "look and feel." And just as GPL developers tend to stay clear of working on proprietary code for fear of "unintentional contamination," I gather that proprietary developers tend to do the same. (Tho I think the "unintentional contamination" issue is based more on FUD than reality.)
So I don't see Google reimplementing the toolbar from scratch for Mozilla, Safari, or Opera. They likely won't modify the existing open source tools without hiring an entirely new team. The Free versions will probably never be offically reconized by Google, and a policy to keep them working may never be written. Depressing.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
What happens when the founders and upper management eventually retire? You can't guarantee that philosophy will be effected forever. Google doesn't have a contract or a checks-and-balances system to prevent such behavior. Don't rely on their good philosophy now to prevent bad stuff later on.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Another possilibity is that it was posted by the *New York Post* and you shouldn't believe the crap that comes out of that Murdoch paper.
I'm sure your theory about why they hired browser programmers is just as valid as the Posts, assuming the Post was right about them hiring browser programmers.
Yes, there is a possibility that Google might release a browser. Do these hires point to that likelihood? No. They point to a company that wants to know as much as possible about the platforms on which their tools can be run. How many ex-Ford-engineers took jobs at GM over the years? Was that because GM wanted to make Ford-like cars? Or because maybe GM thought these guys had a different outlook, and might bring something totally new to the table? (This example could be totally off, but then again could apply to any given set of competitors.)
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
OK, if there is a Gbrowser/growser will there be a Krowser, too?
-- written with Konqueror
" Not likely."
Not likely implies there is a small chance. Since the chance of being sued by the mozilla foundation is zero there is no sense in using it.
"XUL is a GUI framework. MSHTML is an web rendering engine. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer Gecko to MSHTM"
Gecko is a rendering engine that is able to render XUL. IE is a rendering engine that renders MSHTML (that being the MS version of embraced HTML)
evil is as evil does
"a googol browsers" (you wouldn't say "a hundred of browsers")
I don't like closing my browser, and remembering to flush my google cookie every few days is a pain.
Besides which, it's the google.com ID cookie that bothers me, not the gmail-related cookies. But gmail requires the ID cookie be allowed.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
MSHTML is not the "MS version of embraced HTML". MSHTML is the name of the Windows rendering engine that is used by Internet Explorer, and others.
samrolken
KHTML can already run on Windows, thanks to KDE-Cygwin. It's pretty easy to set up, and allows you to run stand-alone apps such as Konqueror on a Windows box. Quite a bit easier and faster than dual-booting.
web design experiments
There would be an image or an iFrame on amazon's page to google's servers, and it will record your global ID along with what you did.
The cookie only stores the ID which will have data in google's database.
Google, GMail, GBrowser, Gindows--how long before Ernst Gräfenberg sues them?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Well... Doesn't "G" in "Google," "GMail," "GSpot" and "GBrowser" stand for "God-sent"? Seriously, it reminds me of one story with Google, when I was wondering whether mankind will one day without the net expenditure of energy be able to restore the sun to its full youthfulness even after it had died of old age. So I asked Google: "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" Google fell dead and silent. The slow movement of progress bar ceased, the distant flashing of modem lights ended. Then, just as I felt I could hold my breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the browser connected to Google. Five words were printed: "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER." I think you get my point.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I swear I first read it as "all your apps are belong to Google."
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
"Microsoft is to OSS as Evian is to tap water."
Yeah, but maybe I like tap water.
^^^^ Best. Counterargument. Ever.
Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
The user-selectable ability to 'ignore' the IMG, OBJECT, and APPLET HTML tags and the 'onload' and 'onunload' JavaScript commands in webpages.
By doing this, the pop-up, malware, banner ad-ridden internet just got MUCH nicer to browse through. Just blocking images not on the same 'machine' as the viewed webpage would quash A LOT of bandwidth wasted by banner-ad networks like the (in)famous DoubleClick.
Well aware of this. I have to use IE at work, but I frequently use FireFox at home.
It's weird to see this article appear only days after I got a job offer from Google. Especially since I was at one point on the MacIE team. And since a friend of mine who was on the MacIE team for years also works at Google...
But it's time for a bit of a reality check. Google would be stupid to hire old IE people to work on a new browser. If indeed Google is working on a new browser, hiring people who used to work on IE to work on that browser is just inviting legal challenges.
Besides, who says that's what the Microsofties want to do? Speaking only for myself, I'm going to Google to do new, innovative things, not to write a slightly better version of what I did at Microsoft.
Regarding gbrowser.com, remember that you can register gsatanworship.com and give it Google's mailing address if you want; this kind of thing was done multiple times to Microsoft to support various jokes and conspiracy theories.
(Disclaimer: I haven't started at Google yet, so I have no actual information about gbrowser.com...)
(sig) The last bug isn't fixed until the last user is dead. (/sig)
http://www.php9.com/index.php?p=17 no comment calin
cut this signatures madness. stop reading them now!
>>The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser, Internet Explorer, and later founded their own company. One of them, Adam Bosworth, is credited with being a driving force not only behind IE, but Microsoft's database-management program, Access.
It looks like it's being developed from scratch, but given this guy's CV, it's likely to be just as crap...
...these aren't my real teeth.
If they have IE for mac OSx that meens theres an IE for unix hmmm
Also noteworthy is that the Google Deskbar uses MSIE.
samrolken