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.
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]
I hear it's being developed in space.
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.
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
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.
... 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
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!
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 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.
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
Yes.
("English for Geeks" Tip of the Day: To obtain verbose output, include the keyword how at the beginning of your query.)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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?
The key is tying the apps to the browser. If its just yet-another gecko browser, this will have limited impact.
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...
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
> Similarly, this is why (thank goodness) ActiveX
:)
> never caught on save for a few custom corporate apps.
Not to mention millions of spyware products.
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.
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."
Can google compete with open-source options like mozilla and opera?
From the article
Last month, Google hosted Mozilla Developer Day on its campus, a gathering of programmers that work together to build sequels to the re-named Netscape browser.
They might just jump on board and make a re-branded mozilla (or firefox, in fact probably firefox). The only problem with that is mozilla is still a touch flaky at times and I'm not sure that the current firefox designs will fit in with googles current design philosophy which is the embodiment of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Gmail for all it's little goodies is still very utilitarian, the google search engine itself is the epitomy of simplicity, firefox while an amazing piece of software and simpler than mozilla just doesn't have nearly this level of simplicity. Google may choose to go with firefox due to the already existing user base and code but doing something along the lines of Safari is certainly an option that must be considered (and considering googles history is something I'm very interested to see).
On the other hand this is all still a bunch of speculation. Look at the evidence so far, they have a former lead Java guy from Sun, also
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.
Could be a browser yeah, but what did these guys do in this new company? Also note that the biggest hire was also a database guy.
Most recently, Google grabbed Joe Beda, the lead developer on Avalon, Microsoft's code name for the user interface that will part of the next version of Windows, called Longhorn.
Nice catch if you ignore the jokes about Microsoft UI but certainly nothing specific to web browsers there that I can see. More on mozilla day,
Mozilla, which is "open source" and available to anyone, could be shaped to Google's specifications and be embedded with Google search, Gmail free e-mail and other Google applications.
Seems to me that they're making the logical move of trying to see if they can get google stuff is integrated into mozilla. The last bit is perhaps the most telling,
Other blogs and analysts believe Google is working on an instant-messaging program and a Web browser to challenge Internet Explorer.
Well if bloggers and analysts are saying so then it MUST be true!! The fact is that google is everyones favorite company so we're rooting for it to get into the front lines of the browser wars, the place where Microsoft is considered most vulnerable by the geek population. I hope that google is working on a browser, I hope it will blow IE out of the water but there's a difference between wishful thinking and fact. Look at the main apps that google does have, google itself, the google toolbar, and gmail, wonderful apps but from a users perspective extremely simple and not subject to the whims of screwy users systems, I can't imagine them jumping into the browser wars where they don't hold all the cards (dependent on the OS) and the product is orders of magnitude more complex, I just don't think it's gonna happen.
The instant messaging program however, now that I can see, little more complex but still very simple and a somewhat natural extension for them (bring up ads and stuff based on conversations and easy searching in logs like gmail).
GTalk anyone?
I stole this Sig
To avoid this problem...
GNOME browser, image viewer & mail client doesnt start with 'g' but start with 'e'
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Googzilla... - Rob
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
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
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.
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/
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.
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
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.
like the subject says Konqueror can already check the spelling but not the grammer to good
me fail english? thats unpossible
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 ;)
It may not be about the broswer per say - but about better search results provided, in conjunction with, limited (or extensive) advertising revenue.
.13 sec on the top result, mostly missed the second, heroically fought of a cloaked redirect on the third site and then generally settled on number 4
Think of it this way. Right now you have "page rank", which is determined by incoming links in particular the weight (page rank) of the pages on which these links reside, and the number of other pages to which these pages link. In short your operating under the theory that important pages link to relevant, important pages.
This theory is brilliant in the vaccume of six years hence. This theory is subject to manipulation today - a victom of its success, the defunct yahoogles unbeatable market share, and the many schemes which have been devised to inaccuratly influence page rank, google bombs, affiliate directories, link farms, and most recent, text link advertising.
Enter the study not of what webmasters do - but what humans do. Millions upon millions of people whose privacy is lost in the quest for better result, people who search and click and go back and close popups and eventully lead you to the mecca that *should have* appeared first in your results. People and patterns and masses of data that categorize bad results and good results. Jack and Jane and 10,000 friends who spent an average of
You cannot utilize these people (effectively) with js or url tracking codes because you dont know wheteher they stopped searching because they gave up, or because they found their mecca, or because there crappy browser got infected with yet another piece of spyware, or because they are utter morons incapible of using the internet. You cant use them with the toolbar because pagerank and non-anonymity is only of interest to those who desire most to skew your results (seo-types). You cant track them in gmail because it has nothing to do with surfing. The other services you mention - such as mozbar dont provide information to google (officially page rank is proprietary and only to be implemented by google which it has been for exactly one browser and is off by default).
However you enter the browser market - get say a 25% market share within your first year (notably not with firefox or mozilla or any open source project because you want a unique offering, not a privacy crippled ad bloated version of a better product), and are able to proveide the results that users most want. The bigger your market the more infallable your results and the more minute any form of manipulation becomes.
In short, my privacy is a tradeoff for the results I want. It eliminates manipulation, it cannot be duplicated by microsoft (IE in its current state will go where the spyware tells it to reguardless of the users intention), and it will prove viral if it catches on (conceptually take off the tinfoil for better results is not unlike open source - devote my time for the software I want).
How do I keep track of people who are fingering
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!
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
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.
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
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.
I agree It doesn't mean that much to have the domain registered.
However I do find it interesting when they registered gbrowser.com
vs gmail.com
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
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.
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!