Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome OEM Strategy To Take On IE
ruphus13 writes "In an effort to take on IE and make strong headway in its share of the browser market, Google is taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook and working on deals with PC OEMs to include Chrome in their devices. From the article: '[Google] is likely to pursue deals with major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to put Chrome on their computers and devices. ... If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever. ... Google, much more so than Mozilla, has enough global brand recognition, money, and savvy to make a big deal of this. ... Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops. Chrome currently has just under one percent market share, according to NetApplications. That number could rise significantly through this effort. Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.'"
Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.
Why not just get them to include firefox and google apps, giving something of more perceived value?
Sounds great in principal but hasn't the problem always been that Microsoft counters action like this by telling the manufacturers that if they ship competing software they will lose their OEM discounts for Windows? I am not completely up to date will the anti-trust judgements against Microsoft but assuming that this counter-attack hasn't been legally ruled out already, can't we expect Microsoft to do the same here?
I think more people know what firefox is, as the "browser that works better and has less viruses" to the general public.
Mozilla is relatively unknown to people outside of our little slashosphere.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I've been saying someone needs to do this for years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I maintian MS systems and don't mind IE. I'll use FF or even Safari (but I liked the early stages of Flock).
All that said: Google is no better or worse than Microsoft, Apple, IBM or Cisco.
Each want to make a profit, create a demand for their products and generate returns.
I won't use Crome because it feeds all the data to Google.
That will be the ONLY thing to get the public to understand that the world is forced to break the web in order to look right for MSIE. Furthermore, a coordinated effort needs to be made to unite web developers to stop supporting Microsoft's intentional breaking of web standards.
"Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work and every web browser maker tries to remain adherent to standards so that the internet runs smoothely... that is everyone except Microsoft with its billion-dollar-budget of programmers that somehow can't get it right."
I would find it interesting what Microsoft would tell the public in response to that. "We are Microsoft and we define the standards?"
"Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops."
Or rather, they just didn't install a second browser at all, since the only browser kinda HAS to be the default. I really doubt much wooing was involved.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
The original source for this story appears to be a Times article with comments from "Sundar Pichai, Google Vice President, Product Management".
Remember, that without the browser, Google is nothing. Without ADs, Google is nothing. (unless they start to sell and market other things besides ads) So, I view this browser situation as a 2 edged sword. On one end, defining a new standard in high quality browsers, coupled with GEARS and a super fast Javascript engine, could usher in Javascript games, AJAX apps and so much more. This would, without a doubt grow Google AD revenued. However, on the other edge of the sword is the fear of the AD Blocker add on, that will no doubt block a lot of google ad revenue. The browser, which google depends, could turn into it's worse enemy. We have already seen this with Firefox's ad blocking add on. Some argue, that only savvy internet users activate it. however, if you use Ubuntu, the add on is installed by default. A way to ensure Google does not jeapordize their AD revenues is key. I think that would be pretty easy to get around, technologically speaking. Maybe that is why Google is not putting more resources into Chrome???
You don't, usually, start working on how you are going to distribute a product after you know it is ready for the market. You work on what you need to do to secure the distribution channels you want to have while you are getting the product ready, so when it is ready, those will be in place.
Presumably, Google has an idea of where it wants Chrome to go and a plan to get it there. If it doesn't then, sure, this discussion of OEM deals may be premature, but you certainly can't conclude that from the fact (which I certainly don't dispute, though I use Chrome for almost all of my home browsing now) that Chrome isn't ready today to be most people's sole browser.
Google is being an innovator in this field at the moment, and so I'm glad that they're positioned to get more "default" marketshare via OEMs.
It will push Microsoft to innovate with their own browser in order to keep their search engine hits up.
One feature that I expect to see in the release version of Chrome is video chat. They released a plug-in to make Firefox compatible with their Google Talk chat's new video feature, but I'm betting that functionality will come built-in to Chrome.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Given the gowing popularity of Linux on netbooks, Google better start rethinking their general support of Linux and get chrome working on Linux.
I still personally come across one person a month who buys the original EEE PC because its Cheap - and in fact even for the non techs they are happy with it...and dont miss IE.
...why? Theres a half dozen major players in the browser market on PCs alone and none of them charge any money for them anymore, where the benefits? How much money does MS make on IE? How much does Opera make on its desktop browser? Mozilla? Safari? I can see having your brand out there and in peoples faces but at this point why bother with the browser when its the sites you visit with it that are the money makers?
I agree. I can't print documents without a header and footer (I can with Firefox, or even IE). I can't block images like with Firefox. There are things I like about Chrome, like that one tab acting funny or crashing does not affect the other tabs, or the downloading interface it has, or that it remembers my most frequently trafficked pages and makes that as my start page, or that I can move tabs around, or that new tabs expand locally etc. But I hate having to use multiple browsers just to block images, or print a page, or whatever.
Another ironic thing is, they create a browser so that Microsoft can't monopolize the viewing experience of the Google web page, but then they only release it on Microsoft's OS. I am typing at the moment in a Seamonkey browser on my Gnewsense (RMS-approved Ubuntu fork) box, if Chrome was released on Linux, maybe I'd be using it instead.
How about making it usable first. Let me know when there are plug ins. Specifically Flashblock. No flashblock, no browser.
Chrome isn't ready for prime time
And IE is? :)
This idea that consumers want choice is a false one. Most don't. They just want shit to work. They don't 5 browsers, 10 media players and so on. That just confuses them. They just want programs that do the things they need, one per task.
The users that DO want choice, well they know where to go. Me, I like Firefox better than IE, I use WMP for video but Winamp for audio and so on. However it isn't a problem for me to find alternatives when I want them. But I am in the minority. Most people just want a browser and will use the one included.
Thus the OEMs don't bother to install other browsers. All it would do is confuse people. They only install additional software for two reasons:
1) It is something Windows doesn't ship with that the given system needs. DVD playback would be a good example. MS only licenses that for Vista Ultimate (you ahve to pay per unit license fees for things like CSS, MPEG-2 and AC-3 decoding), for any other Windows OS you'll have to provide your own player. So OEMs include a DVD player, often a knocked down version of PowerDVD. It is again with the "just works" thing. They know people want to be able to play DVDs out of box and don't want to have to hunt for a player program.
2) It is something they've been paid to include. This is where all the crapware Dell is famous for comes from. The companies say "Hey, we'll pay you $1 per computer sold to include our software." Dell then does this so they can lower the price of the system while still maintaining the same profit margin. They are aware most users don't give a fuck about it, it is just there to make Dell money.
So I imagine Google can get Chrome on systems, if they are willing to pay. Some manufacturers like Dell will be perfectly happy to do that, and Windows allows you to customize what the default browser is. However barring that, OEMs aren't going to be interested. They know users want a browser, but since Windows includes one and it doesn't cost extra, they'll stick with that. MS needn't do any more than provide it for free.
It would be the same deal with Office. The reason Office is an addon for computers is MS charges extra for it. If Dell wants to install it on a system, they have to pay for it. Thus Dell charges you for it. They don't roll it in to the cost since it would raise it a good bit and many people don't care about it. However, if MS included it for no additional cost, it'd be on every system Dell sold. MS wouldn't have to ask, it'd just happen.
After Microsoft has broken their "vista capable" contract with HP by lowering the standards for a PC to become "vista capable", will HP return the favor by offering chrome on it's PCs?
Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.
Is it a good thing that Google's going to buy browser share? Isn't that the same evil as MS?
"Punk [playaz] bailin' every time that I use Chrome" - Cypress Hill, "Till Death Comes"
Granted, B-Real is talking about firearms here, but good for Google. It'd be interesting to see browser usage stats on machines that ship with both IE and Chrome preinstalled, although it wouldn't surprise me to see IE retain a majority share, just on name recognition alone.
(Disclaimer: I've been a long time FF user a while)
For the past few weeks, outside of a work context I've been only using Chrome for home use. I've had the chance to show a lot of un-tech saavy friends it in action. I have found it to be relatively easy to impress them with Chrome: showing them the new tab page, incognito; most of them are even familiar with windows task manager so it's simple to explain the sandboxed tab mode Chrome operates in; and most of all the snap-in/out tab behavior has had a major impression. I've had luck converting friends to Firefox, but it's never formed the same "wow" impression that Chrome has: most of the friends I've showed Chrome have shown genuine interest rather than just installing Firefox because i'm their token "clever nerd friend". It also has the added impression of being made by "Google" - many of my friends have no idea who "Opera" (Software) is, and are not willing to expend the effort into customizing Firefox.
As for Chrome itself, i've been using the dev branch for a few weeks, which is up to about version 4.154. According to wikipedia, the stable branch is up to 3.154: considering it's only been in beta a few weeks it can't be *that* long away from a version 1.0 (then again, it is Google, I think if Gmail had a similar version numbering scheme it would be up to something like 15.154..). Chrome has only crashed on me once in the past few weeks, i'm not seeing any serious stability issues. It feels like a more functional version of Opera (no offense, Opera fans). I'm not sure if anybody will know what i mean here, but I've always felt that Opera had a "smooth" sort of feel to browsing, in opening tabs, navigating, moving through the interface, which is something I have definitely not experienced in IE and to a lesser extent in Firefox. Chrome emulates this and pulls it off even better.
Personally, i think including Chrome OEM is a fantastic idea. The "wow" factor it puts off will get it quick adoption. It's simply something base Firefox doesn't have anymore - at least not over modern implementations of IE and without extensions. If Google can pull this OEM thing off and implement an extension platform even remotely as good as Firefox's, then I think it may gain some serious market share. (I'd also *love* to see an awesomebar implementation in Chrome, with some obviously-needed UI tweaks to suit Chrome's interface, but i have my doubts over whether i will see this day).
.
For Google, anti-trust is playing with fire ---
--- and heading into what could be a very deep recession, I don't expect to see the new administration all gung-ho and ready to move against one of the bare handful of US industrials that is actually showing a pulse, paying dividends, a company with strong export sales and a AAA credit rating.
oh man, I do not look forward to having to chrome be big enough of a deal that I have to start developing for it too. I know competition is good and all, but really 3 major browsers will make development rediculous
How is this insightful? Have we really forgotten the early 90s already?
Being the "old guy," I'll teach you some history. Netscape was THE browser for the first iteration of Windows 95. NO browser was bundled OR part of the OS, although AOL was often preinstalled. (I'm not sure you'd call that...thing that came with it a browser.) Basically everyone who used a browser ran Netscape (some ran Mosaic).
Then IE 3 came out (like most Microsoft software, versions 1 and 2 were too shoddy for actual use by human beings, even end users).
Microsoft made IE free to "compete" with Netscape. It still wasn't bundled with the OS until Windows 95 OSR 2.1 -- although it was installed along with Office and other MS apps. But you didn't HAVE to have IE on a Win95 system. That started with Windows 98.
Here's the thing: Netscape Navigator was then made free also, and it WAS bundled on many a PC maker's system. It's true Microsoft didn't *woo* anybody -- threats were more like it. Doesn't anybody remember the whole first antitrust thing?
What exactly, though? Pay OEMs to start pre-installing something different that might also not be optimal for their end users' needs?
Personally I still trust Google more than Microsoft and I think it's good to promote diversity in the web browsers that are out there, which tends to lead to higher importance of standards. As a consumer, however, I still find it counter-productive in the long term that OEM deals should be happening at all.
OEM's should be installing software on their products because it makes their products better and more useful for the end user. They should be choosing it because it best matches the target consumer for their product, not because someone's paying them to help get their own product more in people's face.
This is exactly the same system that removed all the diversity and put 95% of the world on Windows and MSIE in the first place.
Until it can handle OWA (outlook web access) as good or better than IE, it will not surpass Firefox in my book. Superficially, Chrome handles OWA no differently/better than Firefox.
It is fast though.
If Google really wants to take on Microsoft, how come they aren't developing their own OS? It's not as if Windows were unassailable...
I'd bet that Google is looking to target embedded platforms that will need a lightweight browser in ROM. This would include things like cell phones/PDAs, netbooks, notebooks with a pre-boot environment, etc. This is what Chrome was designed for from the start.
The biggest killer app of them all is television. Over the next few years, The US has an impending mass uptake of new, higher resolution televisions that are suitable for web browsing and other text dominant internet activities. We already have a selection of set-top boxes and game consoles to provide usable internet functions on TV. Internet enabled televisions will become commonplace in the not too distant future. These will be the products of choice for aging, wealthy, and (relatively) technologically illiterate boomers.
If Google can get its foot in the door to that and other embedded markets then they can compete without having to face MS directly. I expect that MS will not be able to revamp Pocket IE to make it capable enough to be a viable competitor to Chrome on a platform where a web browser has to have all the bells and whistles to satisfy users.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
M$ Internet Exploder isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.
Why not just get them to include firefox, GNU/Linux, and all sorts of free software, giving something of more perceived value rather than using M$ junk?
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in commiting suicide.
Besides search, GMAIL (sort of...) and Google Maps, what has Google done that has been successful. Even Google Maps and GMAIL are distant 2nd or 3rd in their categories. Most of their non-search efforts have failed - or at least haven't done a hell of a lot. Lively dead. Picasa forgotten. Google Apps...trying hard but no significant share. All their other experiments? Intersting toys. Perhaps this is why their stock deserves to be $250/share instead of $500/share like it was earlier this year. Search is a KILLER business but eventually Microsoft or someone else will make progress and catch up with them. The 'switching cost' for a search engine is zero.
Considering Chrome will be in beta for the next two decades, I would like to believe that would complicate OEM deals.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Chrome makes my HD rattle and grind, rattle and grind, thrash thrash, even when I'm not using it, no thanks.
I have been using Chrome since it was released. The URL bar is awesome; very intuitive, very convenient. I do miss Firefox extensions, but I am sure we will soon have a Chrome extension framework.
Till the third update, the browser used to crash pretty regularly, but since then it has not crashed even once. It handles about 120 tabs without any issue, which compares favourably with the 200+ tabs that I used to force Firefox to handle.
It does get a bit slow with more than 100 tabs, but I am sure like the Chrome crashes, the slowness too will be sorted out before long.
Seems kinda odd that google would donate 85 million dollars to mozilla foundation, then turn around and push their own browser. Sounds like they are not playing to win, but instead, playing to make ms lose.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
...they will lose their OEM discounts for Windows?
You must also be talking about things like
Windows Hardware Quality Lab(WHQL) Certification
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
I would find it interesting what Microsoft would tell the public in response to that. "We are Microsoft and we define the standards?"
"We're the software company. We don't care."
In Safari's defence, I'm sure half those million+ results are in regards to land rovers hitting elephants and other African fauna.
863,000 +safari +crashes
728,000 +safari +crashes -elephant
697,000 +safari +crashes -elephant -lions
655,000 +safari +crashes -elephant -lions -banana
Apparently, there are many crashes involving elephants and lions which have been mistakenly added to these results. Also, it appears at least 40,000 crashes involved bananas - this warrants further investigation.
If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever.
This isn't about the browser wars of old - its about a possible future "cloud wars" between Google Apps and Microsoft.
Microsoft currently has a potential advantage in that it controls both the browser and its web apps - so its no big surprise when things like Sharepoint and Exchange webmail work more slickly on IE than they do on other browsers. Even if Microsoft would never stoop to an "IE9 ain't done until Google Apps won't run" policy, they have no incentive to make things easy for Google Apps. (While not strictly webapp related, I'm still cursing the silly restrictions on running "active content" from local discs they introduced as an alternative to fixing the bloody security model).
Playing with Chrome its clear that slick handling of webapps (such as making webapps launch and display more like local applications) was a priority - and Google is free to develop this aspect further. Even if I wasn't tempted to "switch" from Firefox or IE to Chrome as my main browser, I might consider using Chrome as a webapp platform.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
If Google really can make Chrome a valid alternative it's going to be huge. As others have said above, I can't see Google supporting add-ons, if only because ad blockers are not something Google are going to be keen on.
However, a valid alternative to Microsoft's shoddy browser, with solid backing behind it could shake up the browser market. If Google get decent market share, it could force Microsoft to finally support web standards.
I'm also pretty sure that any major feature Google invent will soon be copied by IE and Firefox, so in another 6-12 months us techies who want add-ons, ad blockers, but still want separate processes for each tab will have all of that in Firefox. So long term, you could see pressure on Microsoft from two sides: Chrome eroding IE's market share for regualar desktop users, and Firefox remaining the browser of choice on Linux and for more advanced Windows users.
Beyond all the technical differences, I'm really rooting for Firefox/Mozilla. I think in the end they are the only browser provider that doesn't have some conflict of interest to be concerned with. They just provide an open source browser. Everyone else has some other interest that they "may" try and push with their browser. IE, Chrome, and Safari are all from companies that have a vested interest in getting you to their content/platform. Opera comes close to Mozilla but they are close sourced and do seem to do things like try and tie you in to their online portal.
Considering Chrome has less than 1% adoption compared to IE's 70% or so adoption, and it has been out less than a year compared to IE decade or so, I would say having half the result of IE is positively abysmal.
Chrome wont take a large piece of the browser market until enterprises start using it as a standard. From my experience, IE is still that standard. It would take a large mishap by Microsoft for them to lose the browser battle.
You're kidding right? They make tons of money from Google for the search referrals. They have over $50M in the bank and make more than that each year. Getting their browser on every new computer would make them tons more too. Google has good incentive to push off firefox and reduce their payments.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Google has to do this. They can't stay in Microsoft's crosshairs forever -- eventually Steve will get a good shot in. Microsoft is pouring immense resources into driving people away from Google and onto Microsoft Live (including its search engine). People may be eschewing the IE search box (or switching it to Google) today, but that's not sustainable. If the current situation is allowed to continue, Microsoft will eventually use its desktop monopoly to relegate Google to an also-ran. (And don't think Firefox will be your comfortable fallback position either -- Mozilla's revenue comes directly from Google. Without Google there is no Firefox.)
Google is smart to start throwing some of their heft around while they still have it. Hopefully they're big and determined enough to win over some big OEM deals.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
.
Since services like S&P began to define it as an industrial.
The six AAA rated industrial companies are Automatic Data Processing, Exxon Mobil Corporation, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc and Microsoft. In the early 1980s, there were more than 30 industrial companies with 'AAA' ratings. Microsoft joins select industrial club with S&P's AAA rating
S&P defines and tracks the performance of dozens of sub-sectors in the economy: Standard & Poors (S&P) Sector Indexes
S&P doesn't care if Spacely Space Sprockets employs only one visible engineer or technician. It doesn't even care what a sprocket is - or does - beyond a general sense of how it is produced and distributed and the role it plays in the economy.
They employ more lawyers than programmers!
More on a janitorial as well. Big Whoop.
Microsoft employs 94,000 people. It owns or leases 677 sites world-wide, 29 million square feet of real estate. It has subsidiaries in every country from A to Z. The programmer is never going to dominate the headcount in an organization that operates on such a scale. Fast Facts About Microsoft
How much outsourced programming staff could they have when they employ legal to bully 3rd party hardware companies to develop drivers for their new OS's?
Dear lord, spare me this.
You do not have to bully anyone to produce drivers for the OS that has 90% of your potential market - and Apple has a lock on damn near 10% of what remains.
I think that a lot of people posting "it's not ready" here, and explaining that it is so because it "has no plugins", "no adblock", "no flashblock", "no noscript" etc are really missing the point. Vast majority of users (the non-"power user" variety) couldn't care less about all this stuff. They really need a simple browser with some basic but convenient UI, nice-looking, fast, and secure (insofar as they're told it's secure). Chrome offers all that already. Yes, it still has some stability problems, but those can be ironed out quickly enough by spending more resources on intense testing. But in terms of features, it's all there already. It's the kind of browser I could give to my computer-averse mom and know she can figure it out on her own, which is something I can't say for Firefox.
Haven't any of you heard of the tool Admuncher? It works in EVERY browser (although its not cross-platform) and works much better than Adblock. It can block adds from IE, Chrome, Firefox, MSN, Opera and the list goes on and on and on and on.
Methinks that maybe Google needed more control of the browser, and thus the internet experience, than either IE or Firefox could afford them...
thus, Google had to create it's own browser, with the final intent being total online domination. Not unlike Microsoft's failed and abandoned "the internet will be ours" strategy with it's free IE browser over the last decade plus.
Give Google time to refine it's new application, as well as pay off the OEM's to bundle it into their hardware, and Google should be able to reach 25% market share within years. Then they'll turn on the Google power behind the app. By tracking each and every persons web habits, and not having to rely on anyone searching for a particular term, or visiting a particular website, Google will have the upper hand in
the " User Data for Sale" category.
And if they mix that with their plan to sell TV ads via EchoStar and Experian as recently announced, then no ad company will be more powerful, or have more effect, than our friendly do-no-evil search page.. Google.
If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
is it like one hand fapping?
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Sometime back I advised Facebook and Digg to roll out their own specialized light weight browsers exclusively for their users (for e.g customized version of http://dillo.org./
I believe this trend will continue with all Web 2.0 companies.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
I installed Chrome, and liked it. But it is flakey when using the Flash video player on YouTube and elsewhere....frequently locking up or crashing. Over the weekend, I installed opera 9.62. I had not looked at Opera AT ALL in at least 4 years. Now I know where Google got many of the best ideas in Chrome. Opera is like Chrome could be one day.....but isn't yet. I installed Opera on my windows and linux system. With several special-purpose Gmail accounts, I need a different browser for each one. Opera is good. At this stage, better than Chrome by a long way.
Only boring people are ever bored.