Slashdot Mirror


Google Chrome, the Google Browser

Philipp Lenssen writes "Google announced their very own browser project called Google Chrome — an announcement in the form of a comic book drawn by Scott McCloud, no less. Google says Google Chrome will be open source, include a new JavaScript virtual machine, include the Google Gears add-on by default, and put the tabs above the address bar (not below), among other things. I've also uploaded Google's comic book with all the details (details given from Google's perspective, anyway... let's see how this holds up). While Google provided the URL www.google.com/chrome there's nothing up there yet."

72 of 807 comments (clear)

  1. Very Interesting... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I imagine the first question on everyone's mind will be, "Why do we need a new web browser?" To which I imagine the truthful answer is: "We don't. At least not for technical reasons."

    I believe what Google is looking to accomplish is to trade on their brand name in an attempt to further dislodge Internet Explorer.

    Remember when AOL purchased Netscape? AOL didn't care about the browser in the slightest. They wanted Netscape for the brand name. To the vast majority of users, Netscape was the Internet.

    Google has since taken that place. Google is the Internet to many people. So much so that Google has felt compelled to to prevent the genericizing of their mark.

    In this particular case, however, the strength of their mark works to Google's advantage. They have already convinced millions of users to install their desktop software. If they can further convince millions of users to install and use their browser, they can cause enough of a disruption to finally remove IE's leadership in the browser market. Especially given the solid work already done by FireFox, Opera, and Safari. With only another 10% marketshare loss on the whole, even the most stubborn websites will be forced to support third party browsers. And once they support third party browser, it will be very little time before the technological superiority of the alternative browsers causes them to add special features not available for Internet Explorer users.

    It will be Netscape vs. Internet Explorer all over again. Except that instead of two giants fighting it out, it will be Microsoft against everyone else. And when everyone else happens to be giants in their own right, Microsoft's prospects will start looking rather grim.

    In effect, this move is a blow aimed squarly at Redmond. Not for the purposes of truth, justice, and the freedom of all mankind; as I'm sure many will imagine. Rather, for the purpose of hitting back at Microsoft for their attempts to leverage their monopoly in promoting MSN Search over Google. The only difference is that Google Search is a good product and it is entrenched. Internet Explorer hasn't been a good product since Microsoft stopped developing it nearly 8 years ago (piss-poor upgrades pretending to be standards-compliant not withstanding), and its entrenchments are slowly falling to competition.

    1. Re:Very Interesting... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      To the vast majority of users, Netscape was the Internet.

      Google has since taken that place. Google is the Internet to many people. So much so that Google has felt compelled to to prevent the genericizing of their mark.

      Well I'd better do some googling to find out about that.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Very Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I imagine the first question on everyone's mind will be, "Why do we need a new web browser?" To which I imagine the truthful answer is: "We don't. At least not for technical reasons."

      To take advantage of the forefront in "tabs at the top" technology, of course. I am personally very excited that science has progressed to the point where we can now have tabs above the address bar.

    3. Re:Very Interesting... by cca93014 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To the vast majority of users, Netscape was the Internet.

      It's true. My dad refers to the *entire internet* as Google. Sigh.

    4. Re:Very Interesting... by ip_vjl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know you're being snarky, but if you actually think about it, the address bar really *does* belong under the tab bar.

      The address is a property of the current page. Placing it above the tabs puts it into the same space as the persistent elements like the file/edit menus. Those are application-wide. Below the tabs puts it into the same space as the page content, which makes sense as it isn't an application-wide property, but is directly related to the selected tab.

      I'd never thought about it before, and can't say I'm bothered with the current setup (address above the tabs) but there is a sense to it.

    5. Re:Very Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually the question on my mind is what's going to happen to Mozilla? As I remember, they get most of their backing from Google generously paying for the traffic they get from Mozilla's search plugin. If Google cancels that deal (and they very well might, if they have a competing browser), Mozilla will lose most of its cash-flow very suddenly.

      So with fierce competition from webkit and Opera and a lot less money all of a sudden, and a browser from Google that does anything just as well as FF does it and a few things better, Mozilla may be left struggling. This may not be such a terrible thing, Mozilla grew from nothing, it could be an important lesson to go back there, but they may not survive going from being one of the best funded web browsers to one of the worst funded web browsers in just a few months.

    6. Re:Very Interesting... by mollymoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're not building the whole thing, but it's a bit more than just a rebranding. They're using Webkit (Safari, Konqueror) rather than Gecko (Firefox), but adding a new Javascript engine and UI, and building in Google Gears.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    7. Re:Very Interesting... by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article:

      One aim of V8 was to speed up JavaScript performance in the browser, as it's such an important component on the web today.

      This is probably one of the main reasons they've done it. They've been trying to push applications on the web, and the speed hasn't been completely impressive. With faster JavaScript execution, their products are much more viable.

    8. Re:Very Interesting... by Jorophose · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've never used Opera have you?

      Default look is tabs (well, more like mini windows unlike binder tabs) over the adress bar. =/

    9. Re:Very Interesting... by Locklin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google doesn't pay Mozilla because they like firefox. They pay because Mozilla drives millions of hits to Google's search engine. As long as firefox is doing that, Google will pay (although, I'm sure they will only freely advertise their own browser now).

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    10. Re:Very Interesting... by foobsr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the address bar really *does* belong under the tab bar

      Not that I care, but maybe the "user" perceives the content of tabs & current page as more related while not being aware of the address of the current page at all.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    11. Re:Very Interesting... by A.K.A_Magnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reading the comic, it looks like their plan is to use the browser as a thin-client platform for remote desktop applications: that is, what the project Mozilla Prisms tries to achieve with XUL and Microsoft wants to do with XAML. The difference is that Google already has a lot applications to offer (YouTube, Gmail, Google Office suite, etc). Looks like being cross-platform is quite important for these. It will surely be interesting :).

      I guess they will make it seamless to the point you can click an icon and get a remote application launched (without having to open the browser at any time). As for having a beta version released soon, I really doubt Google would release the comic and show their plans to its competitors (mainly Microsoft) if they hadn't something to show very soon.

    12. Re:Very Interesting... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They've been trying to push applications on the web, and the speed hasn't been completely impressive.

      Safari, FireFox, and Opera (in that order) have been showing marked improvements in Javascript performance. To the point where Javascript performance is a major point of competition. Microsoft's JScript engine is currently the slowest Javascript engine on the browser market. (As I can personally attest after running sophisticated sorting algorithms through it.) So the problem still comes back to Internet Explorer.

    13. Re:Very Interesting... by Firehed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's certainly true to a point; however, rigging up a monetized Google Custom Search is all of five minutes work. The behavior to a search at google.com is a tiny bit different (you can also weight the results with keywords; I find this quite helpful for my development work), but the biggest change for them would be that they'd have to change the default home page from google.com/mozillasearch to mozilla.com/googlesearch, and the search box accordingly.

      Do know that the Google search isn't anything near their only source of funding. The Amazon search in that top-right search box is an Amazon Affiliate search - tag=mozilla-20 gets added into your Amazon search URL, and they get a minimum of 4% of the purchase price provided you went through their affiliate link last (I don't see why people gripe about this kind of thing so often, it only costs Amazon money, not the purchaser). With the volume that probably does, it's more like 6-8% on most items.

      I'm sure that there are plenty of other sources of income for Mozilla, though I'd expect those are the biggest two. And both are structured in such a way that they'd have to be personally blocked from using the affiliate program (unlikely, especially given the bad press), or the program itself would have to be shut down entirely (even more unlikely, as half the internet gets its funding from these things).

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    14. Re:Very Interesting... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm only 9 pages into the comic but the fact that every tab and plugin will run as a separate process seems significant to me and something more than just a rebranding.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    15. Re:Very Interesting... by dash2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read the cartoon. You'll find a lot of interesting ideas there. It doesn't sound at all like Firefox with a few default extensions and a custom theme.

    16. Re:Very Interesting... by risk+one · · Score: 5, Funny

      And there's more:

      Chrome has a privacy mode; Google says you can create an "incognito" window "and nothing that occurs in that window is ever logged on your computer." The latest version of Internet Explorer calls this InPrivate. Google's use-case for when you might want to use the "incognito" feature is e.g. to keep a surprise gift a secret. As far as Microsoft's InPrivate mode is concerned, people also speculated it was a "porn mode."

      They've taken IE's disgusting perverted porn mode idea that only perverts would use, and put it in their own browser so now you can use it to keep your wholesome family activity like buying surprise gifts for your loving husband or your precious children, a delightful little secret for now. Finally, a browser for good-old fashioned God fearing Americans like you and me. Gosh, those perverts at Microsoft, a porn mode! Who would imagine such a thing...

    17. Re:Very Interesting... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      if you actually think about it, the address bar really *does* belong under the tab bar.

      Judging by the rest of your post, what you really mean is that the address bar does belong with the page. But so do tabs. The active tab is directly connected with the page that's displayed.

      Since both the address bar and the tabs both can't be right above the page proper, another solution is then to place either the tabs or the address bar below the page. Yes, below it. Or place the tabs at the side, like most normal books with tabs.

      Personally, I'd like to see the address bar at the bottom, which fits with the GUI paradigm of a shell, where your input is always at the bottom, or instant messaging programs, where the input is at the bottom, or line editors, where -- you catch my drift.
      But people are easily confused, and probably too used to the URL field being at the top, so it might be better to place the tabs at the bottom (or the sides).

    18. Re:Very Interesting... by 117 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know plenty of people that don't use the address bar at all, they Google for every website (other than those in their bookmarks) even when they know the full URL. Only the other day I wanted to show a friend of mine a beta of a new website for a record label we liked, as the site is only in beta it's not indexed - I read out the URL and he proceeded to type it into the Google search box, I questioned this and he said that that's what he always does. He then couldn't get his head round the fact that the URL I gave him found no hits in Google, so I had to type if for him into the address bar - he really couldn't grasp that if you're going to type the full URL (regardless of whether or not it's indexed by Google) it's quicker to type it into the address bar.

    19. Re:Very Interesting... by Antibozo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tabs at the sides is correct. Otherwise you end up with illegible tab titles once you pass five or six tabs. See my other comment about this.

    20. Re:Very Interesting... by HappySmileMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I read the comic I seemed to think it looked completely different to Firefox, new process for each tab/plugin/script, new Javascript VM... I suppose they're similar in the fact that they both render web pages, have tabs and extensions, but every browser has those, and that's where the similarities end.

    21. Re:Very Interesting... by Khuffie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe IE8 already does that (runs tabs as separate processes)

    22. Re:Very Interesting... by linhares · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please look at its source code and come back to us.

    23. Re:Very Interesting... by Khuffie · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wasn't aware I should look at the source code everytime I want to make sure something occured in an application. When I hit 'send' in gmail, do I need to look at the source code to make sure the email was sent?

    24. Re:Very Interesting... by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I'm only 9 pages into the comic but the fact that every tab and plugin will run as a separate process seems significant to me and something more than just a rebranding."

      Which is good because current plugins in firefox (they add up) will freeze/slowdown/crash the browser, and I hate that, it's Firefox 3 too.

    25. Re:Very Interesting... by weicco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well how else you think Schroedinbugs can exist? Microsoft is way ahead of Open Source world on this one.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    26. Re:Very Interesting... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hopefully, that means that Konqueror will be added to the official list of "supported" browsers then.

      I really dislike having to use Firefox / Iceweasel to clear my spam folder. (Agent spoofing gives me the interface, but when I try to click on anything, I get stuck in a page loading loop. Either that or the whole page highlights itself and I can't chose anything.)

      I know I can manually delete spam, page by page, with the html interface, but when you have +1000 spams, that gets tedious, fast.

    27. Re:Very Interesting... by linhares · · Score: 3, Informative

      modded troll? well, that's life. What I mean is that, even if it opens in another process or thread, you cannot be sure (without the code) that the processes are truly sandboxed and won't interfere with one another.

    28. Re:Very Interesting... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does that mean that their relationship with Mozilla will be ending? If Google Chrome takes off I can't see how it would make much business sense to support the competition to their own product. And if the relationship ends I can see Mozilla going downhill fast as from what I understand the place is pretty much funded by Google. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    29. Re:Very Interesting... by thanatos_x · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It looks to my untrained eye like google chrome is working on seriously pushing a web OS (or a hybrid browser/OS)

      It'll also make for a damn solid browser, but a lot of the features they're looking to add are necessary for these things to really take off. They want things to be very stable, fast and secure. The first two are needed for wide scale user adoption, and the third is needed to become a long term standard. (and it's far easier to add from scratch than later on.)

      They're also working on making it developer friendly it sounds.

      I think the tabs on the top is a psychological differentiation - if you have one tab for streaming music and one for reading news, they're really doing two completely different things. I wouldn't be surprised to see subtabs (hopefully with separate processes) below for having x number of 'normal' tabs open.

      --
      I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
    30. Re:Very Interesting... by gparent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nobody cares, dude. It belongs where the user wants it, and I don't want my address bar below my tabs, end of story.

      It's a matter of personnel opinion and I seriously hope there will be an option to fix the location if you don't like it.

    31. Re:Very Interesting... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The V8 Javascript engine sounds like a huge improvement as well. Finally, precise, incremental garbage collection for Javascript! I'm hoping this is the beginning of the end for conservative garbage collection and (ugh!) reference counting. The JIT sounds good as well but there will be stiff competition in this area from Firefox 3.1 with TracingMonkey, and SquirrelFish is nothing to sneeze at either.

      Now that Javascript performance is on its way to being solved, and local storage and offline mode are close to becoming standard, the last bastion of non-Web applications is graphics. Browsers still don't provide a graphics API that could seriously challenge native apps for things like image and video editing, 3D graphics and games. VRML and SVG don't work as graphics APIs. Some people have forgotten, but we learned long ago that immediate mode is the only way to do graphics; scene graphs/retained mode are a dead end. We need OpenGL ES in the browser.

      Looking even further ahead: if OpenCL was exposed to web applications as well, there's practically nothing that couldn't be done in a web app. At that point, Windows becomes irrelevant, and Microsoft's monopoly is finally broken.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    32. Re:Very Interesting... by jorgevillalobos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Does that mean that their relationship with Mozilla will be ending?

      Google recently renewed their monetary agreement with Mozilla for 3 more years.

      So, no, it seems their relationship remains strong. Google Chrome sounds like a very cool project, but I'm thinking that it'll be more of an experiment than an actual product, just like most things Google make.

      Also, I doubt Mozilla would have a hard time finding funding even if Google pulls the plug on them.

    33. Re:Very Interesting... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox isn't the only browser funded primarily by Google; Opera is as well.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    34. Re:Very Interesting... by mo^ · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It's a matter of personnel opinion ....."

      I'll contact HR and have them run a survey for ya

      --
      bah!*@%!
    35. Re:Very Interesting... by Peaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I haven't read the Unified GC Theory, but here is my take on it:

      1. Reference counting wastes a memory storing the counts (especially for small objects)
      2. The extra memory can easily push things out of the cache negating the supposed cache-locality they are supposed to allow
      3. Reference counting does a lot of unnecessary extra work (increasing and decreasing references as they are passed around unnecessarily)
      4. The extra determinism of object death time is not that important, especially as nobody should really rely on GC for cleanup code
      5. The extra determinism of cleanup times is not that important, if efficient GC implementations take negligible amounts of time to complete a cycle (I guess some real numbers ought to be used here)
      6. Reference counting + cycle detection is more complicated than generational GC
      7. Actual implementations of ref-counting GC's seem to be based on malloc/free and use their knowledge of freed memory (reference counts at 0) when allocating. This makes allocations more expensive than the O(1) moving pointer generational GC. This is not inherent, though, but it is kind of pointless to see refcounts going down to 0, and then waiting out on that information until you sweep to re-claim that memory -- because if you sweep anyway, why not find the unreachable objects then?
    36. Re:Very Interesting... by kabloom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suppose I ought to give you a link to the paper.

  2. Ha! by Warll · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Ha! by Warll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh you're right that is faster: http://blogoscoped.com.nyud.net/google-chrome/

    2. Re:Ha! by Alystair · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ha, there's a tiny slashdot window on page 22. I recognize all the other windows except for "October" in the top right frame. Anyone have an idea of what that is?

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Re:Google already released their browser by santiam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, but it's September fools day, right?

  5. It's the homepage by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These days, there isn't much to differentiate between browsers as far as end-users are concerned. A "smart homepage" is a very effective way of capturing a user's interest, providing significant convenience, and making it less likely for them to switch away. Opera have started down this road with their speed dial feature, but Google seem to be taking it a big step further. Google have tried this once before, with iGoogle, but building it into the browser means they can incorporate things like surfing history and bookmarks to determine which websites are most important to a user without needing manual configuration in the same way an online homepage would.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  6. Re:404?!?!? by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe you're confused as to what "404 Not Found" means. It means the page you're looking for isn't there, not that the server is overloaded or can't handle the request. It's not slashdotted.

    However, this is not Google's normal 404 page. They've definitely configured www.google.com/chrome differently than the rest of the site, so they're obviously planning to put something there.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  7. Now they can monitor everything you do easier by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now they can monitor everything you do easier...

    Google is a marketing company, and in the past has used nefarious ad tracking to even Firefox searches reporting information to the Google servers.

    Now they want a browser? Why? What reason would they need for a new browser?

    So instead of putting full support behind a 'generic' Firefox, they want to enter the market so they can gather even more information from the user.

    Nice... Geesh

    Sadly they will get some of the Dell and other bundling deals, because they can afford to pay these companies to put this browser on machines, and most users won't know what is going on behind, even if the tech community finds Google doing the most nefarious things possible with the browser.

    This type of concern makes the IE8 privacy mode and blocking sites from tracking users the 'non-evil' choice.

    What was Google's ad hoc motto again, and was it just words after all?

    1. Re:Now they can monitor everything you do easier by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Competition is a good thing. Google can push to improve the features they'd like to improve in this browser; if it's better than firefox and IE, it'll push those to improve as well. It benefits nobody to become complacent. Moreover, by making KHTML/Webkit an even more important rendering engine, it will become less possible to ignore web standards and code to the browsers that happen to be out there. Since it's going to be open source, I don't think there's anything to worry about here, really.

    2. Re:Now they can monitor everything you do easier by MrCoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's open source. I'm sure a project of this magnitude will get lots of looking eyes. Good resource pool for Google to spot talent too.

    3. Re:Now they can monitor everything you do easier by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now they want a browser? Why? What reason would they need for a new browser? So instead of putting full support behind a 'generic' Firefox, they want to enter the market so they can gather even more information from the user.

      That's a pretty big assumption. Since this browser will be open sourced, it's not like they'll be able to hide any tracking. My best guess is they have different motivations. First, this gives them a good project to help contribute to Webkit, which in turn benefits them by further undermining Microsoft's market dominance. Second, it allows them to develop their own Java VM and faster javascripting and pages protected from one another and special windows for Web apps. All of those features point to making a browser specifically designed to make Web applications (a market Google is heavily investing in to sell to corporations and give to individuals with ad supported revenue) faster, more stable, easier to use, and more practical.

    4. Re:Now they can monitor everything you do easier by Neoprofin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know Google spiders my mail, just because I'm aware of it doesn't mean they aren't doing it, it just means that I don;t care. I don't know if I'd be comfortable assuming that just because something is open source doesn't mean there isn't some very visible code, neatly commented, that says "We're watching you."

  8. google's relationship with mozilla? by qw0ntum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how this will affect Google's relationship with the Mozilla foundation? IIRC, Google is one of Mozilla's primary sources of funding, as they pay for the rights to be the default search engine on Firefox.

    --
    'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
    1. Re:google's relationship with mozilla? by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Informative

      It won't in the medium-term, because Google just extended its investment in Mozilla through 2011.

    2. Re:google's relationship with mozilla? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative

      All of mozilla's code is tri-licensed -- MPL, GPL, and LGPL. Unless Google releases it under all 3 licenses (or a BSD/MIT license), they won't use it.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  9. Re:404?!?!? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh crap, that's what happens when you get distracted before reaching the end of TFS.

    Can't stay on task long enough to read a Slashdot summary ? Better up your Ritalin dose.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. Re:Webkit by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Informative

    Going with Webkit is an interesting choice. It seems like there are a lot of minor browsers using it rather than Gecko these days.

    Apple chose KHTML as the foundation of WebKit for the size and quality of the codebase compared with Gecko, despite having Gecko experts working on the project. It makes sense that others would choose WebKit for the same reasons.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  11. I just uncovered some hidden subtitles by martinw89 · · Score: 5, Funny
    • Google Chrome, Google's Browser
      Just when you thought Google wasn't going to get any cooler, we try desperately to prove you wrong.
    • Google Chrome, Google's Browser
      Don't worry, it won't be out of Beta until IE 10.
    • Google Chrome, Google's Browser
      Now with Omni Bar, the omniscient Awesome Bar
    • Google Chrome, Google's Browser
      Just when you thought data mining couldn't get any closer to home

    OK, in all seriousness I think it's nice to see another Webkit based browser around. I'm personally waiting to see the Epiphany team's Webkit based browser. Hopefully, Google's Chrome project will spur some innovations that the Firefox/Safari/Opera/IE competition has failed to supply. Maybe the JS engine will prove it's worth as well, speedups in this area are always nice.

  12. Mozilla? by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does this mean for Mozilla, which currently gets most of its financial support from Google? If Google has their own browser which competes against Firefox, will they be inclined to reduce their support of Firefox?

    If not, it means Google will be paying for two competitors to Internet Explorer. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft complains about unfair competition.

    In any event, if Google's aim is to further drive people away from IE, they'll have to spend some cash on advertising. Their target is people who are already familiar with Google's brand name, but believe the blue "e" is "how you get to Google." Some of these people launch IE and type "www.google.com" into the address bar every time they want to search for something, because their home page is set to MSN and they are unaware that it can be changed (or that other sites can be bookmarked), let alone know how to do so.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  13. translation... by speedtux · · Score: 3, Insightful
  14. Excellent - I can't wait! by onefriedrice · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think Google has enough of my personal information, so this will be just wonderful.

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  15. What would really impress me... by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

    would be an *online browser*. Like Google docs. Imagine just how great it would be not to need a browser to go online. History, cookies, bookmarks, all stored on Google servers. Plus it would be incredibly fast since the internet is already on Google servers!

    Also that would be very convenient for Google, they could access our private information locally on their servers, no need to "call home". Hell they could even check with our e-bank statements to see how much money we can spend so they could offer really well-targeted ads.

    That would be huge. All they need for me to sign up is to throw in some features involving blogs, mashups and Spacebook.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  16. Re:Google OS by dr_doogie01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having a read of the section around multi-threading / multi-processes it looks like this is the Google OS.

    In the same way that widgets on the desktop have become common place, google gear widgets would replace these...and eventually larger pieces of software.

  17. Ex-Firefox developers by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anyone else notice the number of current or former Firefox developers name-checked in that comic? Ben Goodger was the Firefox project lead until recently. The most significant part of this news may be that Google is pulling people off Firefox development (assuming they were contributing to Firefox while working there) and getting them to write a new browser. Still, Firefox is working pretty well and their financial future is secure for the next few years - thanks to wads of cash from Google - so we need not be too worried.

    Apart from that, my verdict is 'show us the code'. Announcements of future plans and vapourware are not really interesting, even when it's Google.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  18. Designing browser as if it were an OS by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Based on Page 4, Google is designing the browser as if it were an operating system. This is something that I commented on previously in the discussion of Microsoft's approach to IE8. Going from shared memory to protected memory was a big step for multitasking on the desktop, and since web applications are more and more complex, the same move needs to be made with browser design.

    If IE8 and "Google Chrome" are moving in this direction, what will we see from Safari and Firefox? Safari 4 betas give no indication of a fundamental re-architecting. Firefox 4 is still at least a year away, and so far no one in that community has been publicly talking about this kind of redesign. And Opera... who knows?

  19. Re:Uh, Memory Leaks by erikharrison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, the opposite should be true. Memory won't "leak" from tab to tab. When the tab gets closed, it's memory gets returned to the OS pool by hook or by crook. Only the UI itself should leak memory over the lifetime of the browser.

  20. Re:Opera, Safari, Chrome? by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the TFA, it's multi-process, multi-threaded.
    That in and of itself is enough to get my interest.
    The days of having FireFox clocked / crashed because some flash or javascript went ape-shit on one of the 20 different tabs you have open ... are over. And yes, it happened to me today on eBay while I was opening up a bunch of auctions looking at cars - some worthless POS put a monster flash based gadget in his auction and brought my entire browser to its knees.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  21. Google's own implementation of Flash by ruinevil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless they develop a mostly working implementation of Flash, I don't see any point choosing them over Mozilla or Opera or Konqueror. They can optimize the rest of the browsing components all they want, but Flash is now the weakest link in the components needed to view the web in all its glory. Though a new faster JavaScript engine is nice too.

  22. 1 Single Main reason : Multi-process by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I imagine the first question on everyone's mind will be, "Why do we need a new web browser?" To which I imagine the truthful answer is: "We don't. At least not for technical reasons."

    No, sorry, but there's a big honking huge reason :
    Multiple process.

    This is going to greatly improve stability of browsing.

    Currently, all browsers run a 1 single process (well with some exception for some browser plugins in Firefox - mostly the opensource one - which use a thin plugins to call an external processus like gnash or mplayer).

    If anything fucks up (and boy that happens often with Flash plugin in Linux) the whole browser is gone.
    If there's a bug in the engine (automatic dictionary recognition was broken when switching between tabs from one textarea straight into another), the whole browser is down.
    If there's a freeze (old-style virus scanning plugins in Firefox or on-the-fly scan in Windows) the whole browser is inusable.

    All this could be averted if each page and each plugin was enforced to run in a separate process.
    In worst case you would only lose the current page.
    Flash would only crash its very own process, buggy pages will only crash alone without taking down the whole browser. Virus scan won't stop the user browsing in other tabs.

    And as a side effect, this kind of organisation will better benefit from the current crop of 4x and 3x cores desktop CPUs.

    I've been dreaming for a good multi-process browser for ages.
    I'm just astonished that it comes in the form of a new project from google and not as a complete rewrite of the Firefox browser.

    But maybe Firefox has slowly reached the point where it is past it's revolutionary golden period and is now simply polishing it's current model but isn't going to switch to something new (just like "Mozilla 1.x" did stagnate until FireFox/FireBird/Phoenix emerge)

    Or maybe Chrome will be the slight stimulation that Mozilla needed to stop masturbate over their growing market share and return back to revolutionize the browsing experience.

    PS:
    According to the comic, Google Chrom won't use a simple address bar, but what they call an "omni-bar".
    Cue in all whine boys who where complaining about Mozilla's switch to "awesome bar" in FireFox 3.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  23. Where's Belgium? by KasperMeerts · · Score: 5, Funny

    On page 13, they have completed Hitler's dream. Germany seems to occupy Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland,most of Austria, Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary.

    Weird because the rest of the chart seems pretty correct.
    This must mean all of Google are Nazi's.

    --
    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
  24. Re:404?!?!? by Skapare · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you think Google's www.google.com address just goes to one server that picks out different content by file name, you're in for a surprise. Try the http://www.google.com/chrome address and the http://www.google.com/chrome1 address with a tool that lets you look at the HTTP headers. Look at the "Server" header. Different server code. Google runs a high performance, massively load balanced, widely geographically distributed, HTTP front end that figures out what server to pass things to based on the URI part of the URL. They don't need to do separate hostnames (although they can still do that, too, such as http://maps.google.com/ and http://mail.google.com/).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  25. Re:Fine line between clever and stupid by TorKlingberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would use too much screen space for me. Also, you would be taken more seriously if you don't present your personal preference as some kind of universal truth.

  26. The comic is AWESOME! by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That comic is really great. It deals with every question someone interested in the field would have at Google once he hears of this.
    "Why a new Brower project?" "Why Webkit?" "Why yet another JavaScript VM?" (OMG, not *again* is what I thought first), etc.
    Very informative indeed.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  27. Re:Webkit by pchan- · · Score: 4, Funny

    So will Google add ad filtering capabilities?

  28. Re:Fine line between clever and stupid by Requiem18th · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes but unless you regularly open 20+ tabs it going to waste a lot of screen real state.

      Besides it's ugly, the tab titles get cut tiny anyway, this time always not just when using many tabs.

      Now if you only use one window I understand it and I in fact would demand such a layout, but I *like* having separate windows for separate tasks. I often have 2-3 windows (spread on 2 virtual desktops) each one with 1-4 tabs.

      Other times I use the tabs as a stack where I simply middle click what I want to read further and keep reading, sequentially. In this case screen space is more relevant than navigability.

      All around I like that horizontal tabs are supported and default in most modern browsers but I do understand why these extensions exists.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.