Slashdot Mirror
Google Planning Web Browser?
Kick the Donkey writes "John Dvorak has just posted a very interesting, albeit hypothetical, analysis of Google's future directions. Citing the 'unusual' hires of Rob Pike (from Bell labs), Ben Goodger, and Darin Fisher (both from Mozilla) and the acquisition of the gbrowser.com domain, Dvorak speculates that a Firefox based Google browser and Google-OS may soon be coming to a cluster near you."
It's a dead horse, let's go beat it.
A browser is one thing and apparently the only thing the evidence supports. Why the jump to a Google OS?
The last article about Google browser speculation is here.
I know for a fact. It will be announced in two months and four days.
...is for Google, if the browser news is true, that they base it on Firefox and INCLUDE all extensions people add to Firefox in the browser's installation script. Of course these should be [installation] options.
I wish this would finally happen, so we don't have to hear about the possibility of it anymore. A google browser, perhaps a re-skinned upgraded version of firefox, would be quite nice. With all the google functions built in. It would be interesting, if nothing else.
Google, although well known for its search engine, is making money out of advertisement.
The friendly article might have hinted a possible failure of such Googled-attempts - "Think of the potential advertising revenue you can generate when you own the entire desktop environment."
The reason why I choose and stick to Firefox is its simplicity and nothingness.
And even Microsoft dare not put a single advertisement in its desktop OS.
Simply put, most people use a tool because it works, and it does only what it's meant to do. An ad-serving (albeit how intelligent it is) browser or desktop is definitely not my cup of cappuccino.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I hope they have something to add to browser use that isn't already covered by Firefox, and I'm not just talking about having the Google logo plastered all over it in an attempt at 'integration'. Otherwise it's going to be what is known as a pointless endeavour.
Isn't this the John C. Dvorak that has worked in technology for several decades, making many predictions, talking of supposed trends... and being wrong on almost all of them?
event: Google hired a dark fibre negotiator
press conclusion: "They must be doing VOIP!"
event: google hires clever browser developer
Press conclusion: "They must be doing their own browser!"
event:Google hired a plan 9 developers
press conclusion: "They must be doing their own OS!!"
What's next - google hires a plumber - the end of IT as we know it?
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
No, they aren't.I mean come on! We already heard about these rumors a loooong time ago. It's not true. Stop posting about it.
Le français vous intéresse?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Oh my God. I think that's the first time I've ever seen Google-OS in a /. headline (note: headline).
We've entered a new era.
I think a Google browser will be excellent, and a just imagining a Google OS makes me giddy. Yup, giddy.
Even Jason Kottke speculated on this in ummm, last September.
Is it more credible now that Slashdot's found the story?
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Blake Ross, in his blog, had some insightful commentary that I didn't see mentioned here on Slashdot:
Google's interest in Firefox shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. At the end of the day, 90+% of Google's users are accessing its service through the browser created and controlled by its largest competitor. Would you feel comfortable if customers had to walk through your competitor's shop to get to your own? This is really what Firefox is all about from a strategic standpoint, and this is what "it's just a browser!" naysayers are missing: he who owns the window to the web owns the web. When there's one porthole on the ship, everyone has to look through it. Firefox seeks to add more portholes to make sure people really understand what's going on outside.
If they're planning an entire OS to make codifying and searching your data easier, I can't see that happening anytime in the short-term. After all, awhile back there was a shoot-out of desktop search tools, and the Google Desktop Search wasn't top-ranked (yet).
- shadowmatter
Google could also roll out a thin client service in which you do everything within any browser window connected to Google. Google could host user accounts that go beyond email and search. A person could browse through the google browser, manage their googlefiles, run googleoffice, send gmail, buy stuff through froogle, etc. It would be a totally portable thin client service.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The web client is, in fact, the #1 application on the desktop these days. Literally, many people just click the "maximize" button after the browser is launched, and the web client occupies the entire surface of the screen. Off they go to read e-mail, look at porn, or cause a raucus on Slashdot by posting provocative articles.
Then, the next step for Google is to create Gunix (Google + Lunix), pronouced "goon-ix". With the Google client in place, you download Gunix and swap out M$ Window$.
Then ...
<waking up in a code sweat>
Google has a very good search engine, but I would prefer that Google stay off my desktop. I like Google just like it is -- a web site which I visit to read the latest news and to search for the best porn pictures.
The problem with Google taking over my desktop is that I would then be swapping one monopoly for another: Micro$oft. What I like about open source is the decentralization, anti-monopoly attitude of the folks behind the Free Software Foundation. This kind of environment tends to encourage programmers from all parts of the world to contribute her little bit to creating a peace of great software. No one group of developers becomes dominant like Micro$oft or eventually Google.
According to "whois gbrowser.com", the domain was created almost a year ago (2004-Apr-26), so, being true, this is a long time plan...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
As long as it's Firefox based and they *fix gmail's cutting off of messages in Firefox*. Seriously, this is getting on my nerves. Works fine in IE, but gmail chokes in Firefox. This didn't happen a few weeks ago...
I'm sure it doesn't take a roomful of analysts at Google to realize that their greatest vulnerability is in web access. If MS were to embed their "next-generation" search so deeply into the UI experience of a future (Longhorn?) OS that the average consumer would become accustomed to simply using the, say, always visible MS search bar in the Sidebar for all web and desktop searches, Google would be toast. And you can bet Microsoft's roomful of analysts have come to exactly the same conclusion: the way to defeat Google is to make it hard to access Google.
So, if you're Google, are you going to sit around with your hands in your ridiculously deep pockets and let Microsoft dictate the future growth of your business? Hell no. In fact, recent comments from MS make it clear that war has been declared.
Defensive strategies are already in the works (e.g. using AdSense to "spread" their ad revenue generation so that it doesn't depend on hits to Google proper) so, how to counterattack?
Well, Google hires smart engineers and likely equally smart business strategists who know that Firefox's success is a free trial balloon -- and it hasn't popped. Google's best move is to build a browser and challenge MS on its own turf. There's a reason Google is always in need of Windows developers and its not just to work on the Google Toolbar.
Is Google building an OS? Who knows. But is Google building a browser? They better be.
An operation system by most accounts that I have heard is the program that handles devices, files & filesystem, processes(process manager), and I/O(input/output).
Processes written in JavaScript and/or a server-side language, I/O through the browser interface, files through WebDAV, and how is a web UA not an operating system? This is what scared Microsoft into adopting its anti-Netscape strategy.
"http://switch.atdmt.com/action/Google_Browser"
It MUST be true!
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
This would be a trivial thing for google to do, and I think its where they are heading. If they release a browser, look for them to shortly thereafter release a web based office suite (that only works in their browser), or possibly a web based vnc viewer type app (again that only works in their browser), then they can sell desktop apps over the web, charge a monthly service fee, you get 10TB of storage on google's cluster, you get access to the compute power of that cluster, you have access to it anywhere, everywhere, fast and easy.
This will be the death of MS, but as other posters have said, it is scary as all hell. Google is a nice company now, but this kind of power concentrated in 1 companies hands will prove horrible for the net.
So this google web browser is old news and people have pretty much said it's not happening.
Maybe they aren't building a web browser. Google is in the information organization sector. (you may argue they are in the ad business, but that business is dependent upon their core business of analyzing data). The more logical conclusion in my opinion is if they are building a "gbrowser" that it's a file system browser application. Something that arranges info better than Microsofts Windows Explorer thingie.
Just my two cents. I doubt this is even true, they most likely just registered the domain name as a provision.
I personally think Google is making a web browser. All the information points to it;
7 59)
- they registered a domain (gbrowser.com)
- they are hiring people who worked on IE at Microsoft (there's an interview with a MS employee about that at NYTimes)
- they hired the man behind the success of Firefox
- they hired numerous people that worked on Netscape
- Fritz Schneider a Google employee (software engineer) is fixing bugs on Mozilla (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253
And I accidently found that "A Mozilla bug was marked closed with this comment, This is a duplicate of a private bug about working with Google. So closing this one."
Seriously, they master web searching and email, they released a software to manipulate digital images, they released Blogger, desktop search, purchased Keyhole, released the Google toolbar,... Their every product is web sentric in some way.
I think the question one might ask is 'why wouldn't Google make a web browser?'
The company lives on ads, just think about how much would an ad cost in a browser that ~50 million people use. It could be something similar as Opera's ad but displaying 'Google relevant ads', or it could be something completely different. As I said I think Google will release a browser this year and it will be highly integrated with gmail and blogger.
Coming soon: Google-condoms and Google-brand suppositories!
Bite me. Seriously, I enjoy it.
How does Firefox assign and keep track of memory? Last I checked, it used system calls, which are part of the OS.
How does Windows or Linux put your computer to sleep? Last I checked, it used ACPI calls, which are part of the BIOS. In the case of browser-as-platform, the host OS (Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, etc.) assumes the role of a BIOS. Replacing the BIOS with something a bit more powerful could eliminate that middleman altogether.
Isn't Google the new Microsoft?
Has Google done anything new? Not really. Much like the early Microsoft, they simply take existing ideas and improve them. Google wasn't the first search engine. They weren't the first webmail provider. They weren't the first web site that searched Usenet (in MS fashion, they bought deja). Even Picasa, which they bought, is being transformed into a PC version of iPhoto.
Based on their past history, it wouldn't surpise me if they were to boldly attack Microsoft on browser, OS or even on an Office-type product.
Imagine if instead of selling an "appliance" they sell a USB keychain a-la bootable (stripped down) live linux with firefox. Or instead of selling the USB drive, you just download an image into any commodity USB drive.
Most of your stuff is on-line. Your "computer" is online + on your keychain.
They won't need to sell hardware, you won't need an OS on your computer (except for games), you won't think about virii anymore.
Of course, this is all pure speculation. OTH, John Dvorak has been right a hella-lot-more than he's been wrong. He may be on to something.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Google doesn't have to develop an OS, they already have a huge cluster running linux, they just have to give everyone a window into that massive beast of a system (their browser) and install some apps on it, and there ya go, thin client, web based, architecture agnostic computing just what Netscape tried to do before MS killed them dead.
I mostly agree with you however, Google has been pretty good about doing ads in a way that people happily accept.
I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to provide some extra value or service to the desktop that made people feel ok about the ads.
I don't think they'll abuse the users like those free internet services of the '90's. People will still have the option to not use them.
The guys at Google are pretty smart. If they do go this route, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Also, with some serious competition, it'll be nice to see Microsoft be more inovative and customer friendly.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Has John Dvorak ever been right about anything, ever? Remember, this is the same guy that predicted OS/2 would triumph over Windows... I only wish I had his job, so that I could get paid for making assine predictions all the time! Right now I'm basically making assine predictions for free, but at least they turn out correct much more often than Dvorak's...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Before the google search engine, the best we had was keyword index based lookups. Google blew the rest of the search engines out of the water with pagerank and the sheer genius of indexing by linked popularity.
Perhaps not a new idea in the world of scientific papers (where the number of papers referencing yours is the primary success indicator) but certainly a new idea when applied to the web.
If you don't think that counts as "new", then I challenge you to come up with a single example of something new.
It seems reasonable to me that, by hiring these guys, Google is going to build a competitor to MS Office that runs within a (Mozilla-based) browser.
Consider that XUL has a lot of the capabilities that let users get a good UI in browsers. Consider also that Google already has zillions of hefty servers dotted around. If they extended XUL as required and created e.g. GoogleWord, GoogleExcel and GooglePoint, users could create and store their docs in a secured, always-there backend similar to that used by Gmail. Imagine logging into Gmail and having all your documents stored with your email, labelled (as for Gmail messages) into one or more categories and searchable - I can see that being very attractive for many people.
Yep, there's obviously a few bits missing:
- MS Office document compatibility (but is that such an issue if Google can change user's work habits such that people exchange pointers to GoogleOffice docs rather than the docs themselves? Maybe all they need is an MS Office import/export facility, which reads/writes docs in MS' published XML format from a server located in a country that is suitably patent-free...)
- something to allow documents to be embedded within other documents (wonder what percentage of MS Office users actually use this)
- XUL would need beefing up in terms of capability
- 100 others...
Still, given Google's deep pockets, I don't see these issues as insurmountable. Given that (IMHO) 90% of MS Office users only ever use 10% of MS Office's functionality, a sort-of WordPad on steroids may be enough to get a critical mass of people to switch to using GoogleWord provided they solve other MS-Office-centric issues such as document management on PCs, viruses/spyware and so on.
"Even if Google becomes No. 3, it will take a while for people to get over the hype-brainwashing that has become the tale of Google."
/. user base!
That's dead on. I mean the things that Google has done that are direct privacy violations in the last couple of years should have taken the shine right off them. Yet look how brightly they glow in a large percentage of the
How many hundreds or thousands of people here gladly gave up any semblance of email privacy to sign up for GMail, who have also unthoughtfully exposed their poor friends and relatives to having their email unwittingly scanned as well.
At this point I can't help mentally picturing Google fans, clutching at everything the company does even as they erode their privacy, like Golum clutching The Ring as he falls to his doom.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Just curious, does anyone have a list of predictions made by John Dvorak which turned out to be true?
[o]_O
Google's a search engine company, I don't want to see any other product from them.
Feel free to keep your eyes closed then.
I for one welcome our new google browser overlords.
The real question is, who do you trust with that information? Google has worked hard to build trust.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
What is this "dumb" of which you speak and why would he want to fuck it?
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
No. They hired Rob Pike because he's Rob Fucking Pike. He's the Pike in Kernighan & Pike. K&P and K&R are just about as standard as you can get....who cares if they want to create an OS, a Browser, or just ask him "Bob, what do you think?" -- because quite frankly ANY of those are valid.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Sunday! Sunday!! SUNDAY!!!
Point your browser to slashdot.org this SUNDAY to witness the most extreme browsing event EVER!
SEE Hulk Hemos and Taco the Giant face off in a thrilling STEEL CAGE MATCH!
SEE the return of the intimidating, the amazing, the TERRIFYING, Kolumbine Katz!!
SEE the nail biting STEEL CAGE MATCH between Hulk Hemos and Taco the Giant!!!
SUNDAY! SUNDAY!! SUNDAY!!!
Don't miss it your you'll be dead! Or WORSE!
It's OK! I'm a limo driver!
Napolean anyone? Or did I miss that hollywood flick that now made him American :p
Actually the concept of Google finally moving on the semantic web has been mentioned a few times. If you look at it, the browser is really the last step in really making that happen. Sure you can surf through a google proxy (like you do everytime you use Google images) and Google can watch what you follow to help rank things, but imagine if you where creating relevance data with every link you followed. It's big brotherish, yes, but would be gold as far as ranking things.
Course there are other nice things you could do like define your own request types for pulling meta-data, etc.
Let's face it. Google is in the position that Micro$oft has been in for a while, only in the web space as opposed to the OS space. (Case in Point) They could finally convince people to get on board the semantic express
If Google just sticks to their motto, they'll be fine.
Before you all get all frothy about Dvorak's predictions, look back at his recent posts and ask yourself the question "does this guy know what the hell he's talking about?" You'll see that he's frequently wrong. He's also got some very odd and misguided opinions. I used to read (and enjoy) his column years ago. But those days are long gone. I clump him right up there with other frequently wrong columnists such as Rob Enderle and Paul Thurrott.