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.
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
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. :)
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.
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?
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
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."
The problem with XUL isn't with XUL :) it's with the javascript you need to interface with XUL. There's no documentation. You try to get stuff done and quickly discover that simple things that claim to work don't and if you're trying to do anything dynamic like change a style sheet at runtime there's no documented way to do it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Instead of developing a new browser, I would like to see Google releasing the browser as a re-packaging of Mozilla.
Hence we can have one more standard-conforming browser and, by using the reputation and power of Google, to ask those "View only with IE" sites to change!
http://www.ieaa.org/~adrian/
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
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.
There's no documentation.
That's what I've been saying for months. I even got chided by some big-name Mozilla devs here on Slashdot for saying that the reason Microsoft's XAML will trounce all over XUL is because you can bet your ass XAML and all supporting infrastructure will be fully documented, because if you've ever seen MSDN, you know its staggeringly comprehensive. "Go to XULPlanet," I was told, "everything is documented there."
Truth be told, XULPlanet only really documents maybe half the API. Sure, the interface definitions are there for the rest, but there's no description for most of it beyond the method names; the sample code coverage is virtually nil; and if you flip a coin and it comes up tails, XULPlanet.com will be down when you try to visit it and you need to hope that the incomplete mirror at mozdev has the page you want.
After they ship Firefox 1.0, the best thing the Mozilla team could possibly do is to shift their resources to documenting. After documenting, finish up the XRE (come on, how many years is it overdue now?), then switch to evangelizing the platform a little more -- but not until the developer support doc is in place, and not until it can be deployed standalone.
NO CARRIER