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.'"
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?
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?"
I use Chrome all of the time. I like it really well, and it's only getting better. The problem is, Google seems to keep their apps in perpetual beta. What OEM is going to want to install a beta on all of their equipment?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...
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!!
I used Chrome for two weeks straight and got used to it. However, once I switched back to Firefox, it was such a vast improvement I cannot begin to describe it. Even Firefox's omnibar is better at finding 'partial' URLs than Chrome's, and that's unforgivable considering how highly they were touting it.
Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.
Chrome isn't ready for prime time
I think it is ready. I use Chrome exclusively on my laptops. It started out of curiosity, but now I am used to it, and it renders all the pages and shows all the videos I need it to. And it's fast.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Exactly, that was possibly the low point of the summaries I've seen today. If anything, they woo hardware manufacturers to install their whole frickin OS as the default choice, and if there was no browser in Windows it make initial setup of new PCs (especially for home users) a lot more awkward. I'd rather they included their own brand browser than none at all. If they restricted the installation of any other kind of browser, that's when I'd take issue.
which is totally what she said
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.
.
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.
While I personally agree (I couldn't live without Foxmarks, Adblock, etc), I'm not sure that the internet horde cares that much about extensions. I mean, I work with a lot of smart people (physicians) who have no clue what an extension is and don't really care.
I'd be curious what percentage of Firefox users actually use extensions. I would not be surprised if a quick, simple browser that loads ALL your web pages correctly would appeal to the majority of users.
I think the REAL reason that Google is pushing Chrome instead of Firefox can be summed up in one word: Adblock. I am sure that Ads being blocked in pretty much every FF out there can't be making them too happy. If I was in charge at Mozilla i would be trying to make a deal with one of the smaller OEMs, maybe Acer and Asus to start, and offer them a "branded" FF that had links to the companies website in the default bookmarks. And if they really wanted to kick some ass they would have Adblock Plus and ForecastFox installed by default and set to go at first run. Simply ask them for their country and zip code to set up the extensions.
Because working PC repair I have been installing FF with Adblock Plus and ForecastFox installed on the menubar and to hear my customers talk that is just the greatest thing since sliced bread. The LOVE not getting anymore stupid in your face ads and having the 3 day forecast sitting in a bar at the top with a little pop up with the current weather at startup is just the coolest damn thing to hear them talk. Of course I also point out that it is a safety feature, since it will pop up a warning when there is a severe weather alert in their area. I have heard nothing but compliments on that feature.
But I really doubt that we'll be seeing Google pushing Firefox, or really doing much of anything with Firefox except paying for the default search rights, thanks to Adblock Plus. While they will continue paying for those simply because it would be foolish to give up a 20% browser share to MSFT or Yahoo, Adblock Plus means many of their ads simply won't reach the majority of FF users. because if you go to recommended add ons which IIRC is sorted by most popular you will see that Adblock Plus is always near the top. According to Mozilla 331,002 downloads this week were for Adblock Plus. So that is 331K Mozilla users that won't be seeing their adsense ads this week, and that of course doesn't count all those that have download Adblock Plus in the past. So I think we'll be seeing a lot more of Google trying to push Chrome, not because they think it has a better chance of beating IE, but because unlike FF you can't easily block ads in Chrome. And since ads are their bread and butter who can blame them.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
I was in two minds about it, until I typed:
about:plugins
and the first line said - ActiveX
then I said no thank you, and moved on.
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...
One thing that seems to have been lost to the mists of time: IE 4 and IE 5 were functionally better browsers than Netscape 4. Their rendering was much nicer and they didn't crash nearly as often.
I wanted to use Netscape instead of IE. But it was such a hideous piece of shit that it was actually worse than IE.
I started running test builds and bug-reporting on Mozilla around mid-2000. Not because it was good, it wasn't, but because it was important. Thankfully it finally became good around 0.9.1.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I've found a fair number of friends are using FX with no extensions. When I've found this, I've recommended in the past they switch to Opera, as out of the box it's better than Fx. Now I'm pushing Chrome at them.
For thee and me, Fx is better as it does lots of extras. We're power users, spending a lot of time online, building sites, etc. A large number of Fx users don't use a single extension, and the majority of users still use IE.
Which is better for my grandma--IE, Fx with no extensions, or Chrome?
I suggest Chrome.
Mat Bowles