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?
"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.
and shudder at the data they have on people.
Jesus, I hope you don't use the Internet at ALL outside of Slashdot, because Chrome is the least of your worries as far as tracking goes....
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."
You didn't say how the W3C doesn't define the standards. You don't say how they aren't valid. There are lots of controlling and regulating bodies that are not elected by the people. While you attempt to paint a grim picture by grouping the W3C in with two other organizations that aren't exactly shining examples of effectiveness or moral integrity, I'd have to protest the tactic on the grounds that it simply fails to disprove or invalidate my comment directly. Furthermore, you indicate how ICANN is out for its own gain, but not the other two. It would have been more interesting, however, if you managed to include ISO in the mix...
I think this is going to play havoc on people's understanding of the internet. Most people already think IE is the internet, but at least they knew that google was a thing on the internet. Now Google is going to be another internet that looks like a sort of three-colored button, next to the old internet that looks like a blue "e", and on both you can have Google, but you can't have the blue e on the Google internet.
Expect some calls from confused family members, people.
Chrome isn't ready for prime time
And IE is? :)
"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.
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.
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.