Google To Air Chrome Ads On TV

mikesd81 writes "Google plans on advertising with spots promoting its Chrome browser this weekend. Google Japan had already released a 30-second video promoting Chrome on YouTube, but the company will distribute that video through the Google TV Ads network this weekend as an experiment to see if it can drum up interest in Chrome. Google advertised their browser on the New York Times' website on Wednesday."

Comments

Too simple

[sopssa]

Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use. Its just a plain browser with no extra functionality, no mouse gestures or anything that actually browsing a lot more efficient.

I'm not in the firefox legion tho, I prefer Opera for its fast responsiveness and having everything required for nice browsing experience built in. That being said, firefox does have some nice addons I would like to use aswell, but its not just as good and nice for my daily usage. I do however use it for web development because of its relevant addons.

Re:Too simple

[MickyTheIdiot]

Really? I guess I will have to tell that to the users I deal with every day who are still confused over the concept of opening a tab in Firefox.

Mouse gestures aren't even on the map. Inability or all out fear of installing a program (thanks to idiotic mainstream tech reporters).. now there is a problem for Chrome.

Re:Too simple

[rackserverdeals]

Chrome is missing a lot to make it feel like a full app.

The mouse wheel must not be implemented using the native features because it doesn't follow the settings in the mouse driver. I also can't click the mouse wheel to scroll quickly.

Find sucks compared to find in other browsers. Especially if you're trying to find text in a text area.

No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.

That said, I wind up using it every day and am making this comment with it. I have firefox running as my main browser but I have chrome open and use that to do some quick browsing because of the way chrome separates tabs into different processes. When firefox picks up this model and does a better job of releasing memory back to the OS, I'll stop using Chrome.

Re:Too simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use. Its just a plain browser with no extra functionality, no mouse gestures or anything that actually browsing a lot more efficient.

It's amazing how many people are confusing a minimalist interface with no features. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. Take your time, poke around, look up some guides and how-tos, Google, check the help files and official forums, etc. You just might be surprised.

That said, right now it's unrealistic to expect Chrome to have every feature Opera and Firefox (with extensions) have. But if you're an early Phoenix adopter back in 2002-03, you'll know that Chrome has the right formula for success: a strong focus on the basics. A pity Phoenix lost sight of that; perhaps in 6-7 years Chrome will become slow, bloated and insecure as well, and someone else steps up to repeat the cycle.

Re:Too simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to use something better than Firefox because:
1. Mouse wheel scrolling sucks, even though other modes of scrolling somehow don't
2. Occasional slowdown in select text fields
3. For some reason, disk thrashing last night while typing in a text field

But:
1. Chrome subverts the normal menu-based GUI, which makes it unnecessarily hard to use
2. Not for Linux

Re:Too simple

[ChienAndalu]

No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.

*Every* toolbar in chrome is a google toolbar

Re:Too simple

[Goaway]

It really is funny how pretty much the exact same arguments Mozilla users made against Phoenix back in they day are now being made by Firefox users against Chrome.

I used Phoenix then, and I use Chrome now, whenever I use a machine it actually runs on.

Re:Too simple

[Dragonslicer]

Chrome is still too simplifistic

Apparently so is English.

Re:Too simple

[Thinboy00]

They put the search bar and awesome bar (URL etc. bar a la firefox) together to make a super-awesome bar (the next step is some form of hyper-awesome bar). You don't need Google toolbar; use the super-awesome bar.

Re:Too simple

[Thinboy00]

Chrome is still too simplifistic

Apparently so is English.

He obviously meant a long s; he just has no key for it (and slashdot doesn't like unicode and has a love/hate relationship with (X|HT)ML entities).

Re:Too simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too simplistic to use even as a standard tabbed browser because, as soon as you have more than 20 tabs open the tabs become too small and impossible to use or discern form other tabs and so completely negate all that is good about a tabbed browser.

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[nschubach]

I just don't understand what's so interesting/damning here. So a company is pitching it's product. Good for them. Maybe it will educate people (average people) to the fact that there are options.

I haven't used it myself as there's no Debian package for it and I'm not compiling it from source. Sorry.

While on the browser discussion, has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[devman]

Welcome to many years ago? Slashdot has been doing that since I started reading it.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[nschubach]

It only happens if I'm logged in and it just started for me recently so it has to be some setting... I just don't know which.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[LukePH]

Not complete, but getting there:
https://launchpad.net/chromium-project
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa
Not sure if it will run on debian but

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[PleaseFearMe]

It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google. And this one is especially nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnrFwlTPvY&feature=channel_page

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[nschubach]

There's a comment on that video that I found rather humorous, if not a little creepy: "See the three 6's in the pong ball?"

Until they said that, I never noticed that the circle in the middle with the three lines branching out could be interpreted as a "6". Personally, I don't care, but there are people that do.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[wisty]

It's a big deal, because google has jumped the shark and become a big company. Why do they need to buy TV adds? They *are* an advertising company.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[mikesd81]

I think they're stretching.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[siloko]

It is interesting because advertising its own products is not something we generally associate with Google

I'm not sure how you navigate the tubes but every time I do a search I see their logo plastered all over the page. It must cost them a fortune.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[paazin]

I haven't used it myself as there's no Debian package for it and I'm not compiling it from source. Sorry.

Not compiling from source!?

Hand in your nerd badge, please.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[Yvan256]

It does. Do you know how much a pixel is worth these days?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[CSMatt]

It is very unlikely that you will ever see Chromium in the Debain repositories. Two outside programs that the browser uses are under the BSD Protection License, which Debian has not classified as a license that passes the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[RudeIota]

google has jumped the shark and become a big company

Google has become a big company?! Oh no! :O

Google might be an advertising agency, but they don't have any connection to the world of traditional media - they are (nearly) entirely dependent on the Internet.

The Internet is a great place to advertise, but I feel a television campaign can really open up the flood gates for the "casual user" demographic.

This also fits with Google's mantra when you boil down everything they do -- throw your money at it. They have the resources, why not?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[smoker2]

While on the browser discussion, has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

Not for me, but I'm not running Iceweasel. Or Windows.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[AndrewNeo]

He just said he was using Debian, not Gentoo!

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[ameyer17]

has anyone else noticed that the slashdot.org homepage triggers the live bookmark in Iceweasel/Firefox?

And completely fails in Mobile Safari.
Also, for what it's worth, the setting seems to be "use beta index" under "index beta settings" on http://news.slashdot.org/help

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[Kingrames]

They're not doing it to generate a new userbase or to get new customers. They already pretty much have the whole world as users.
They're doing it so that we can all go up to our bosses and legitimately say, "You need to remove internet explorer from the workplace, here are some alternatives that are actually secure and work better." And we won't get outright dismissed as biased or wrong, because they saw it on TV.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[jonaskoelker]

I just don't understand what's so interesting/damning here.

Do you do web development? Do you support an intranet web app that only runs on IE 6.0?

I don't. But what I hear is that you first develop for standards-conforming browsers, then spend a lot of time hacking your site to be IE-compatible too.

A lot of development hours could be saved if IE was more compliant with the standards. A lot of system administration hours could be saved if users could be made to use a more secure browser than IE 6.0. ("a lot" was pulled from my ass.)

Possibly, more competition might motivate Microsoft to write a more standards-compliant browser.

Alternatively, Chrome taking over the market might mean the demise of Micro$oft :D

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[wisty]

They are advertising to pointy haired bosses, in order to give employees the tools they need to do their jobs?

Hmm, still sounds like a big company. Maybe they could also do some adds for Kubuntu?

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[Firehed]

As someone that DOES do web development, I'll say that "a lot" is probably a good 50% of the total front-end time. Thankfully javascript libraries have almost completely eliminated the cross-browser scripting incompatibilities, but hacking around its incomplete and inaccurate rendering abilities still takes a huge amount of time.

As such, I fully welcome IE8. Not because I like Microsoft or its products, but because it does a pretty good job adhering to standards (those that it misses tend to be pretty non-critical presentation issues, many of which are still upcoming/"beta" standards) and also has its backwards-compatibility mode so there's now ZERO reason not to upgrade. Would I prefer that people used better, faster, and more secure browsers? Yes. Do I? Yes. But when 75% or so of the world is using IE, it makes my life a hell of a lot easier when they're using a version that doesn't completely suck.

Of course, if all of the early IE6-only intranets were built in a way that jives with what you said (build to standards then add hacks where necessary), this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Unfortunately, back in 2001, it was pretty much the only option. More of a problem is that there's no financial incentive to revamp all of these old IE6 web apps to standards-compliant things, so it doesn't happen (thankfully since IE6 is now TWO versions out of date, plenty of public sites are now giving the finger to IE6 so companies may finally be forced to make the upgrade).

Chrome gaining market share will do little to dent Microsoft's dominance, but it's certainly in Google's best interest as a web company to eliminate the need for browser-specific hacks. Half of my time on a project spent trying to guess what hacks I need to make my site IE6-friendly might cost a few grand; half of a Google development team's time being wasted on such a task could easily cost millions.

Re:I'm not sure why this is such a big deal

[hkmwbz]

They're not doing it to generate a new userbase or to get new customers. They already pretty much have the whole world as users.

Uh, no, Chrome has less than 2% of the browser market. They want more users.

On the Contrary

[eldavojohn]

Chrome is still too simplifistic for everyday use.

I would wager that a simplified computing experience is not only what the general public desires but would also be a very refreshing change of pace.

I'm sure that's part of Google's strategy with their general public campaigns. Remember Slashdot is maybe ~1% of web browser users and our tastes are atypical.

Re:On the Contrary

[causality]

Remember Slashdot is maybe ~1% of web browser users and our tastes are atypical.

Because they're based on informed decisions?

Not that two informed people can't disagree with each other, because on a matter of taste, they can. It's just that each of them would have a reason for doing so other than "it's what the computer came with."

Re:On the Contrary

[Philip K Dickhead]

Hi! I'm Chrome! I come without all the plugins you depend on to protect your privacy, and without those to accelerate every other browser function except JavaScript execution!

  AdBlock Plus
  BetterPrivacy
  Cache Search
  FoxyProxy/TorButton
  Ghostery
  Greasemonkey
  DownloadThemAll
  FasterFox
  Firebug
  Launchy
  Stealthier
  TabMixPlus
  YSlow

I don't run FireFox, but an individualized web tool kit that Chrome will NEVER provide. Why re-invent the wheel a a way to simply stealth more advertising and information theft by Google, the largest private investment the NSA ever made?

Re:On the Contrary

[Philip K Dickhead]

Why'd they use the corporate "edgy rock experience" music that is tone and not the exact same as teh pseudo-indy sound behind every schlock Microsoft and Starbucks corporate-stooge video montage?

I feel so energetic and inspired to do valuable work! How much do I now need to spend?

Still, the girl with the afro and the dominoes gave me a boner.

Re:On the Contrary

[fluffernutter]

You say this like it's a novel point but it is exactly true. ~99% of the market out there is uninformed and does not want to be informed. I believe this is what the previous poster was referring to. As much as this makes every slashdotter wince with blinding pain, it's true. People just want to be told what to use. Microsoft knows that, and now it's obvious that Google knows that. I wish Linux would come to terms with that but that's another post.

I dare say people will start blindly following this advertising and maybe fall back to pre-installed IE8 when Chrome does not work.

Re:On the Contrary

[causality]

You say this like it's a novel point but it is exactly true.

I claimed no novelty. It was merely an observation.

People just want to be told what to use. Microsoft knows that, and now it's obvious that Google knows that. I wish Linux would come to terms with that but that's another post.

That Linux hasn't accepted that as though it were the only possible way could be one of the main reasons why I use it. That's part of why I never felt like it was Linux's job to appeal to the masses or to replace the monopoly position of Windows. I don't see how it could do that without becoming just like what it would replace. Sort of like that saying "be careful about whom you hate, for you will end up resembling them."

Re:On the Contrary

[ushdfgakj]

Brilliant. Mod parent up.

Re:On the Contrary

[something_wicked_thi]

Why? It's either a troll or satire.

The "individualized web toolkit" is webkit, which is used by KDE, Nokia, and Safari.

Chrome is getting extension support (albeit not Firefox compatible) real soon now.

Furthermore, Chrome has Greasemonkey support to a degree already. See http://mashable.com/2008/12/15/google-chrome-greasemonkey-scripts/

Finally, Chrome has better privacy than Firefox in some ways because it has an anonymous browsing mode, and it's more secure because of the process and sandbox model they use. Firefox is working on that, but they're a long way behind.

Really, Firefox is falling pretty far behind many of the other browsers at this point. Don't get me wrong - it's still a good browser, and way better than IE, but all that it's got going for it now is the extension framework. Safari and Chrome are both way faster than Firefox. Even IE has a better process model (Firefox runs everything in a single thread, which is why it gets really sluggish with a lot of open tabs, or when one tab is really CPU heavy). Firefox is also a huge memory hog and, at least on Linux, is pretty unstable.

Again, most of these things will be fixed if they can fix their process model, but I expect that's a long ways off. They've got a lot of catching up to do.

Re:On the Contrary

[ushdfgakj]

Firefox is unstable on Linux, as best as I can tell, only because of either extremely poorly written add-ons or (especially) the Flash plugin. Personally, I prefer Links in graphics mode, since I like my webpages more often without a lot of flashy bullshit.

My concerns with Chrome stem mostly out of the massive privacy concerns, hence the brilliance of the NSA comment. 'Anonymous mode' is no substitute for customizability. My Firefox doesn't leak referrers, can get plugged into Tor with ease, doesn't run scripts unless I tell it to, and has the Web Developer plugin. Meanwhile, Chrome is doing shit like reporting back all the websites I visit to a centralized database.

Use your damn heads.

Re:On the Contrary

[Dragonslicer]

Why would the average home user (the vast majority of, if not all, Slashdot readers do not count as the average home user) ever need Firebug or YSlow?

Re:On the Contrary

[Thinboy00]

[snip] Firefox [...], at least on Linux, is pretty unstable.

Use Ubuntu. Now turn off all the addons that didn't come with it. Now disable the unstable Ubuntu repositories (-backports, -proposed etc.) and downgrade to the latest stable version. Now run whatever "scientific" test you ran last time. It's solid as a rock for me, but maybe I'm just lucky. Try it yourself; see what happens.

Re:On the Contrary

[Thinboy00]

The purpose of any open source project is writing good software. Not converting people. Not waxing philosophical. Not appealing to the masses. And not arguing about naming.

Re:On the Contrary

[Demonantis]

I think its good for us to argue as we are only atypical in are interest to understand all things technological. That said everyone has different tastes. I enjoy chrome for everyday browsing because it is simplistic. The instant search thing is so useful I start trying to do it when I have firefox open. That said I do have issues with it because its not very tweakable, but then I have firefox that I can open in those situations so what do I care if chrome can't.

Re:On the Contrary

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 3.5 beta has Private Browsing.

Re:On the Contrary

[Snaller]

"I would wager that a simplified computing experience is not only what the general public desires but would also be a very refreshing change of pace."

There is a difference between "simple" and "primitive" - the Google browser is primitive in the extreme.

But then most people are primitive, so perhaps its a perfect fit.

Re:On the Contrary

[Philip K Dickhead]

They probably don't.

But I find them indispensable. :-)

As for the rest - many of these break Google's insidious revenue model, which is the moral equivalent of sifting through your phone bills, credit card statements, GPS data and personal correspondence - then selling the results repeatedly to all bidders.

This stuff never goes away - the law of unintended consequences applies with dystopian implication, who's event horizon approaches as a logarithmic function with the passage of time.

Re:On the Contrary

[causality]

The purpose of any open source project is writing good software. Not converting people. Not waxing philosophical. Not appealing to the masses. And not arguing about naming.

If you look at my post to which you are replying, you'll find that you are preaching to the choir.

Re:On the Contrary

[something_wicked_thi]

Chrome is doing shit like reporting back all the websites I visit to a centralized database.

So is Firefox if you have phishing detection turned on.

Anyway, I expect that many of these things will be in Chrome soon enough, once extension support is done.

BTW, one point I should mention is that although Chrome doesn't support NoScript right now, there's less of a need for it because of its improved security model. At least in my case, that's a lot better because I tried NoScript and it drove me insane within a week, so I removed it. YMMV

Re:On the Contrary

[xouumalperxe]

As for the rest - many of these break Google's insidious revenue model, which is the moral equivalent of sifting through your phone bills, credit card statements, GPS data and personal correspondence - then selling the results repeatedly to all bidders.

Subtly wrong. The trick is that they don't actually sell your info, but rather sell services that use that info in a black box. Obviously, you still have to trust that Google themselves won't misuse the information, but nevermind privacy laws, they just can't afford to sell your raw info: the moment they do that, they lose the value-add their services (ie, advertising) have.

Re:On the Contrary

[Philip K Dickhead]

Varying values of "results" - thanks for clarifying the ambiguity in my posting!

Yes, Google is full of spooks. There's no such thing as a 'former' spook - not at those levels. You know that much when you quit, and you have an accident crossing the street.

Then, there are always the broad government powers, as revealed by the Russel Tice testimony per AT&T. American constitutional protections are not a basket into which I'd put all my eggs. Not even if I, and my information, all dwelled in the USA. Let us not mention what HMG is now doing, and what Google must do now, or in the near future, if they wish to continue delivering services to prisoners of her majesty...

Re:On the Contrary

[hkmwbz]

So Firefox is falling far behind Chrome because Chrome almost has extensions, almost GreaseMonkey support, uses WebKit, and has a privacy mode which Firefox will also have shortly? Interesting logic there...

WebKit is not an "individualized web toolkit". It's a browser engine Google borrowed from Apple.

By the way, the one process per tab thing in Chrome, now THAT'S a memory hog.

How about actually getting the mac version out?

[plasmacutter]

How about actually getting the mac version up and running before spending tons of time on tv ad production?

for christ sake they've been promising a beta for how long now?

Safari used to be zippy, but, despite being the best option for mac right now, has some nasty habits and memory leaks. I'd like to see what chrome can offer.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[paziek]

I think that Google doesn't care that much about bringing Chrome to the Mac or Linux, since they only bother is most likely IE, with is very backwards in its technology and pretty much restricts Google on what they can write for their users.

Safari seems to be pretty compatible with community-approved standards, and in fact, it even is ahead in many of them, implementing what is still in draft. While someone might argue, that this way they might actually break websites when - yet not finished - standards change, but I think that people who tinker which them actually know that, and design their pages in a way, that won't break them in the future, just cause they relied on some experimental feature.
Okay, seems like I'm getting off-topic here.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree. Oh, and how about Linux? I have a few computers that operate that OS. Google should wait on ANY product until it is available on Linux, Macs, and Windows.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[David Gerard]

Safari for Windows and Chrome for Windows have identical browser chrome. I mean, pixel-identical. WHAT.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[trazan]

They've promised a mac beta for fall 2009. That's about it.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[QuincyDurant]

Camino.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[Annymouse Cowherd]

Browser chrome means the browser UI. The term originated in Firefox, where it is used in the urls for extensions and browser XUL (e.g, chrome://browser/content/browser.xul )

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[saddino]

Chromium (the open source basis for Chrome) is available to download and compile, and you can also download unofficial binaries if you're really dying to see how Chrome for OS X is coming along.

And if you want to experience what a one-process-per-tab feels like on the Mac, you can check out the Chrome-inspired OS X browser, Stainless.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about actually getting the mac version up and running before spending tons of time on tv ad production?

PROTIP: Google's marketing department doesn't develop Chrome.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[fluffernutter]

What is a 'mac' ?

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[moon3]

has some nasty habits and memory leaks

Safari is another Apple jewelry, it's prime purpose is not a function.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[moon3]

is very backwards in its technology and pretty much restricts Google

Chrome is based on the Webkit, if i am not mistaken, and that means at least the core level HTML/CSS is the same as Safari. So the technology is very much the same. The reason why Google/Chrome does not see Linux or OSX as a priority is that 90% of all users do not use it anyway. As a startup browser they have priorities and goals set to try the major market first, whether it is even worth to invest in the franchise will be seen there quicky.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[AndrewNeo]

It's sad when usually-well informed people don't seem to know about this common practice in the business world. Why are they working on feature X instead of feature Y? Because X and Y are two different teams.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's Chrome project feeds back into Chromium, which natively runs on Linux. It still needs work, but lots of the good stuff going into Chrome feeds back into Chromium and I for one will be using Chromium if/when Firefox starts feeling slow.

Re:How about actually getting the mac version out?

[jojo78]

For those on Ubuntu:

$ sudo apt-get install chromium-browser

Also add the following to /etc/apt/sources.list:

deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/chromium-daily/ppa/ubuntu intrepid/jaunty main
deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/chromium-daily/ppa/ubuntu intrepid/jaunty main

It crashes quite a bit (it's not ready) but it's nice to follow its development.

Chrome Ads? Huh?

[Smidge207]

MUHUWHAHAHAHA! I have teh Slashdot Ads Disabled checked to over POwer Nine-Thoussssaaandddd!

In all seriousness: Get Chrome and lose a really nice set of wooden blocks? Ya, computer users can really relate to wooden blocks. The best that can be said about this ad is Google apparently didn't have to pay for it. But that doesn't make it a bargain. Meh, whadddya I know, I have AdBlock+. Haven't seen an ad on Slashdot for ages. So, really, who gives a flying fuck?

=Smidge=

Re:Chrome Ads? Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I got the "No Ads" option for the first time yesterday, and I was like, "/. has ads?"

AdBlock + FTW.

I run Chrome in my Win7 VM, but I really miss AdBlock + ... give me that and I could live w/o my other FF extensions.

Better to...

[Lord Lode]

Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!

Re:Better to...

[causality]

Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!

It's like a Russian reversal without the Russian.

Re:Better to...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they will advertise the spyware (ie. Google Updater) that comes with Chrome.

At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

un-removable updaters with unique id's ? check, keylogging via google suggest ? check , encrypted strings sent to the largest advertising company on the planet ? check.

i really dont understand the hard on people have for Chrome, if it was branded by Doubleclick everybody would condemm it (Google own Doubleclick so they are the same) yet if its branded by Google it must be ok, regardless of the facts.
I would think you have to be crazy to install any binary software made by an advertising company, perhaps Gator or Zango should release a browser as there seems to be thousands of people who would install it if it was branded something else
the force is strong, the stupidity of hipsters even more so

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us aren't totally fucking paranoid and use software because it's good.

If you're that afraid, use SRWare Iron, or compile it yourself. Google Chrome is BSD licensed.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[plasmacutter]

un-removable updaters with unique id's ? check, keylogging via google suggest ? check , encrypted strings sent to the largest advertising company on the planet ? check.

[citation needed}

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[eric-x]

Fact remains that Chrome gives you a very smooth experience. It's quick (major concern for me), very handy start page (there's probably a ff plugin that does that too), download manager is an improvement; tab dragging to open a new window is very useful. The only thing that sucks is the bookmark manager.

If you don't like the usage tracking then there's always the opensource clone SRWare Iron.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Staticnumeric]

I'm sorry sir, it seems that you've dropped your tinfoil hat- allow me to return that to you.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[eric-x]

I forgot: memory usage. As a java developer I have to run a few memory sucking applications such as an IDE. The main thing that made me switch to chrome was that I got tired of restarting ff because after a while it would have eaten a significant amount of memory.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahahahahaha! A java developer worried about memory usage. That's hilarious!

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

If I trusted \. I would log in and give you a thumbs up. The Internet: Mama always said don't trust that man in the shiny suit.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

The download manager is an improvement? I guess its all preference but I strongly have to disagree -- In chrome downloads are per tab, so its very easy to forget which tab you started along download in once you switch away or start navigating to other sites.

Also if you close chromes window the downloads stop.

Contrast to firefox which keeps the download manager separate

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Clarious]

I would think you have to be crazy to install any binary software made by an advertising company

You can alway download and remove those code if you are paranoid, i'm sure there are people who did that already.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[CSMatt]

SRWare Iron.

Chromium source code with all of the privacy-infringing stuff removed.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[mister_playboy]

Looks very promising... too bad it's not working for Linux yet. :(

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

Cited
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[smoker2]

Google Chrome is BSD licensed

So what is the compile option for "don't grass me up" ?

Personally, I'm going to dig out my copy of Phoenix and reinstall that. Firefox has jumped the shark.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow what a bunch of lies.

At least three points on their list are out right lies.
Example, install time stamp. Iron might claim not to provide that, but windows does, which is where chrome gets that value from as well.
Those two line items should match. Weather they both say 'does not exist' or 'does exist' is up to semantics really.

The same is true for error reporting. iron might not collect the data, but its likely sent back to microsoft (same being true for chrome), with chrome only sending said data back to google (the coders) if you leave a clearly labeled check box in place on install.

The unique ID is also incorrect. Chrome has nothing of the sort, unless of course you count support for Cookies. If that is the case, then that implies iron does not support any client side cookies at all, meaning it wont work with a large percentage of websites out there.
I've never looked if chrome allows you to disable cookies, I just assumed it would. But i would still rather cookie support as listed in the http spec instead of not having any at all like iron.

Like a half of those items start off 'depending on configuration' without mentioning those arnt the default settings.
Don't configure your software to do something you don't want it to do. Duh.

Why even bother with the rest.. this list is FUD and lies.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Waccoon]

Chrome treats you like an idiot. You can't configure the interface and anything more than the bare essentials is buried under a complex cascade of menus. I also hate how all the status messages are treated like pop-ups. Don't obscure the content, please.

It's just another slick-looking "you don't need to know" applications. That's hardly good interface design, unless the product is designed from the ground up just for marketing.

Testing my code in Chrome is a PITA. I hope the Iron developers start making some improvements to the interface, rather than just ripping out all the controversial stuff.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[asdfndsagse]

http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=107684

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

ctrl+j

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

Chromium for linux is working pretty well now; I'm using it as my primary browser. You should give some of the recent builds a go. (No flash yet though)

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[Anonymous Coward]

(Google own Doubleclick so they are the same)

Wow...that's an overly simplistic argument. In almost all cases the company that does the acquiring forces its acquirees to become like them, not the reverse.

Additionally, the amount of user profiling doubleclick does pales in comparison to what Google is able to do.

You're dumb.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[daver00]

In chrome downloads are per tab

You Fail!

Also, closing the tab does not stop the download, it just closes the tab. The download continues in the download manager.

Thats double fail.

Re:At last Spyware for everyone !

[hkmwbz]

I forgot: memory usage.

Chrome's one process per tab thing will ensure high memory usage, then.

TV ad spots are a great idea...

[blahplusplus]

... I think it's a really good idea personally as the average user does not know about these kinds of things. Also chrome is very high speed and less prone to freezing and crashing. IE tends to be one ofthe worst for that, although with IE8 they tried to make it so it doesn't take down the whole browser.

I think mass advertising of little known things to the average person is great, it's unfortunate that it's so expensive to do any many great things never get the exposure they deserve.

Personally I think including a basket of competing APPS with an operating system is the only really way to go and then have the apps load a homepage from their respective sites, etc. I've often wondered about forcing a company like Microsoft to include alternative browsers. It would also help having an installed base which would lead to better standardization.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea...

[mikesd81]

I'm hoping this will make Fire Fox advertise a little more. A quick 30 second clip during a prime time show. There was a contest about 3 years ago but I don't know whatever came of it.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea...

[Darkness404]

The average American though has no clue what a browser is. Google can spend some money advertising because Google is loaded. On the other hand, the Firefox project is community driven and really can't spend the resources advertising on TV.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea...

[mikesd81]

Go ask one of your friends that knows nothing about computers except how to turn them on what browser they use, and I bet they'll say IE. People know what a browser is, they just don't know much about them. And maybe it's hard in this economic time right now, but Fire Fox I'm sure could afford an ad or two here and there.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea...

[Darkness404]

Go ask one of your friends that knows nothing about computers except how to turn them on what browser they use, and I bet they'll say IE.

Tried it before. Either they say "I use the Internet" (meaning IE), "What is a browser?", "I use Windows", or some other thing that halfway makes sense but really doesn't. Sure, after a while you can get them to say that they use Internet Explorer, but for the most part they have no clue what a browser really is.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea...

[lazybeam]

I get "I use MSN" (meaning their homepage) or "I use Google" (meaning their homepage). It's even hard for them to separate their own computer and the Internet - for example going over quota most people will be "shaped" to around 64kbps - they think their entire computer will be slowed down by that.

Re:TV ad spots are a great idea...

[hkmwbz]

On the other hand, the Firefox project is community driven and really can't spend the resources advertising on TV.

Actually, Mozilla has tons of cash.

I can see the testimonials now

[David Gerard]

I can see the testimonials now:

"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome. That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." - John Lilly, Mozilla (through gritted teeth).

"Browsers don't need to be integrated with online apps. Certainly not like the operating system ... I'll just get back to you." - Ian Moulster, Microsoft IE Team.

"We're Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live." - Larry Page.

All I can say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome Rocks!!

- "The" Chrome Fan boy ;)

Install, did you say?

[Umangme]

So, I saw the add. It said at the end, "Install Google Chrome".

Good Morning Google, Wake Up! We haven't got Chrome as yet, just by the way...

I'll never understand why a lot FOSS is provided better (or only) on Windows and not Linux. Chrome, TortoiseSVN, KeePass, etc. Why is KeePassX so much worse than KeePass? Why are eSVN and RapidSVN just so bad?

Re:Install, did you say?

[A.K.A_Magnet]

Because they are "Open Source" business-minded and not "Free Software" supporters, meaning they don't give a fuck about providing a full Free stack. I have come to the tragic conclusion that most Open Source contributors are now running Windows.

On the other hand, would they care to make their software Free if it weren't for the Open Source movement? At least we can port the best written software (if its core is not too tightly-coupled to Win32 APIs), so still better than nothing. The biggest problem is that it completely overshadowed the moral aspects of Free Software, which are now to of many corporate Open Source developers nothing but a joke under the pretense of pragmatism and practicality.

Re:Install, did you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

because 90% of PCs run windows?

or should FOSS only run on FOSS OS's even if they have 1/90th the market-share?

of course, since it is open-source, there is nothing to stop you from getting it ported to linux, either via your time or via your donations to other programmers

Please not another minor browser

[chelsel]

as if supporting IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera isn't bad enough... Chrome is just not needed... please, for the love of web developers, Google, stop it.

Re:Please not another minor browser

[Anonymous Coward]

umm... if you support safari, you pretty much inherently support chrome - they both use the same redering engine - webkit - albeit differeing versions, possibly.

Re:Please not another minor browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, get better standards compliance.

Re:Please not another minor browser

[chelsel]

you said it all "... you pretty much inherently support chrome ...". That area not covered by "pretty much" is where all the work is involved...

Re:Please not another minor browser

[Yvan256]

Actually I've never really had a problem between Firefox, Opera and Safari. If anything, it's Firefox's font size difference that's the real problem.

Re:Please not another minor browser

[bunratty]

At some point you'll realize that you should support standards... by validating your pages and testing in multiple browsers. That's the way to ensure that your website works even in new browsers, new versions of existing browsers, new operating systems, and so on.

Re:Please not another minor browser

[Serious Callers Only]

If you code to standards, your only real issue will be IE.

If you don't, well, it's never too late to start.

Adding another Webkit based browser to the mix does not cause much extra pain. You also forgot to include mobile browsers in your list - the beauty of the web is that you don't have to know all the capabilities of the clients which will look at your content ahead of time, and yet your site can still be read by them. Yes it's nice to have things render the same on every browser, but it's not essential, and if that's really your goal, you should give up now, or use Flash or something.

The reason for this browser to exist is to unseat IE as the default way to run google web apps, and prevent Microsoft screwing google (and ruining the web as collatoral damage), as they have done so many times to rivals in the past. With Google threatening Microsoft on multiple fronts, it just doesn't make sense that they rely on MS as their main conduit for users, particularly given the modus operandi of Steve I'm-going-to-fucking-kill-Google Ballmer.

The (old) hope is presumably to reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers, which run Google software without getting in the way too much, for Google or the user.

That's also why you won't see them rush to put Chrome on Linux or OS X - there is no corresponding threat on those platforms, and healthy browsers exist there.

Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada.

[yourassOA]

Don't know about America but in Canada if you made a whack of money spend it on advertising and deduct it from your income and bam you made less money and won't have to give as much income tax to the government. And money you donate to charity is only partially deductible, figures huh? I do something similar with my small business if I make to much money for example $60,000 @ 22% = $13,200 tax. I figure a way to spend it that will benefit me and be deductible from my income (lease a vehicle in my case) so I only make $50,000 @ 15% tax = $7,500 tax. So I get to drive a new truck and pay less taxes. I sure google is doing something similar where advertising cost is saving them money not costing them.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada.

[Anonymous Coward]

You still aren't *saving* money. If you spend $100,000 on advertising it's certainly deductible, but that means you save about $35,000 of income tax.

Same goes for your business... you'd still make more money if you just didn't get the truck at all. And, since you're only using it for business purposes (right?) it's not like it saves you from needing your own personal car....

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada.

[yourassOA]

No there is a loophole the truck can be used for personal provided you keep a kilometer log and report to the government how much of your total kilometers was to earn business income. For example 50,000 KM cost me $14,000, 60% of KM were to earn business income so $8,400 is a tax deduction. And I get to drive a truck I couldn't afford otherwise thanks to a loophole for large construction and oil-field companies. Seriously when you see large company fleets they are usually just a way for the company to pay less taxes (some of these companies are writing off thousands of trucks) and hey driving a new truck around feels better than paying taxes.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada.

[fluffernutter]

Actually there is a percentage penalty if at least 70% of the kilometers of a company owned vehicle don't get used for company purposes that I don't see you mentioning here. You should probably look into that.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada.

[fluffernutter]

Sorry I wish I could alter my original post. The charge I refer to is the 'stand by charge' Basically you (personally) need to pay 2% of the value of the vehicle calculated by the PERCENTAGE OF TIME in each thirty day period that vehicle is sitting in your driveway or being used by you.

Also, on top of that it is a taxable benefit and you must pay income tax on the amount that you are saving by not having a vehicle (including an estimate of maintenance charges that you are saving).

Maybe still worth it, I don't know. I looked into it when I started my business and the accountant I was talking to told me not to even bother considering it, so I just use my personal vehicle and write off everything by percentage of KM driven for business.

I found good information here

Hope they don't mind getting slashdotted.

Re:Advertising is 100% tax deductible in Canada.

[abell]

if I make to much money for example $60,000 @ 22% = $13,200 tax. I figure a way to spend it that will benefit me and be deductible from my income (lease a vehicle in my case) so I only make $50,000 @ 15% tax = $7,500 tax.

I think you miscalculated your taxes. If they are progressive as they should reasonably be, going from $50000 to $60000 should only increase the tax rate on the $10000 and not on the whole amount. So if 22% is the marginal rate at $60000, the difference in taxes would be at most the 22% of $10000, that is $2200. If your calculations were right, you would have a tax increase of $13200 - $7500 = $5700 out of your income increase of $10000, that is a 57% rate.

Chrome OS

[carlosap]

search: microsoft word

Did you mean: Google Docs Top 1 result shown
1. Welcome to Google Docs Free web-based word processor and spreadsheet, which allow you share and collaborate online.
More results from google.com >>

Re:Chrome OS

[blackest_k]

seriously no but they do advertise against microsoft word no3 ad on the right side

Google Apps
Email, calendar, docs & more!
£33 user/year. Start free trial now
www.google.com/apps

guess even google can't make their ad quality good enough for google :/

Google Big Brother

[DownWithMedia1.0]

Thats great. Lets give Google more and more information about what we do online. As if doubleclick, Google toolbar, reading gmail, gTalk, and everything else they do wasnt enough.

Re:Google Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to post the same thing. Google will store your browsing history FOREVER. They give a s*** about user privacy.

I'm close to leaving their Gmail also, due to that, and the fact that their email has become very buggy and slow anymore.

Do they realize

[ethana2]

how much word-of-mouth advertising they're sacrificing by shafting OS X and Linux distributions?

Re:Do they realize

[Dragonslicer]

how much word-of-mouth advertising they're sacrificing by shafting OS X and Linux distributions?

Yes, which is why they don't care.

Uh, already ON TV

[AnAdventurer]

I saw one 2 days ago on TV, I think it was during "Bones"

Chrome Hate

[basementman]

Look, Chrome is significantly speedier than Firefox and terms of both usability and running the program. For me that's all that really matters, so I use chrome. I know, it's doesn't have addons, but that's really only a deal breaker for adblock, which I don't use anyway for moral reasons.

Hulu Add

[Aramil Moonmist]

I just saw the chrome add for hulu the other day, and I must say, I love chrome and I like the idea of them advertising it, but the comercial just kinda looked goofy.

YouTube Link

[StormReaver]

Why link to Blogspot for the video (which doesn't actually have it) instead of the actual video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5535Ts-iOP0

Re:YouTube Link

[StormReaver]

I was too quick on the reply button. It's because there are many links to different videos about browsers on that page.

It's different for small bussiness....

[yourassOA]

and construction, oilfield etc. I was mostly just giving a kind of generic example rather than actual numbers. However with leased vehicles the lease payment itself is tax deductible in my case the lease is $750/month plus $1000 fuel and $500 maintenance even after market parts to a degree (ie. bull bars, step-up-bars, mud flaps, police scanner, CB radio, etc) I work places where you need a big truck to sometimes even get to the job site never mind hauling big trailers with skid steers or supplies. Writing off 63% of $2250 every month is $1417.50 a month. Here follow the clicky. Ever think about sub-contracting? I would encourage anyone to start their own business even if your only sub-contracting out your own labor.

Yeah... Chrome might be real goog for browsing...

[WSOGMM]

But people will still use firefox for porn.

Google has WAY too much money

[penguinstorm]

There's no rational economic rationale for expensive television advertising a software product for which you charge no money.

Please don't say "Netscape!" either. That was an economic failure at the end of the day...it made a tonne of people very rich and, indeed, helped to change the world. These may have been noble goals, but it was an irrational bubble that created the wealth. The company failed...finally.

I think fear might explain this: fear of an antitrust probe (either into Google, or into its relationship with Mozilla...I think 75% of the reason Chrome exists is so Google can continue to lobby for Mozilla's "non-profit" status which provides a tax benefit to one of Google's major investments.)

Re:Google has WAY too much money

[CZakalwe]

There's no rational economic rationale for expensive television advertising a software product for which you charge no money.

well that's true but on the other hand can't they collect a lot of valuable info from users of Chrome? I mean more than usual

Re:Google has WAY too much money

[hkmwbz]

There's no rational economic rationale for expensive television advertising a software product for which you charge no money.

Google charges no money for their search engine. Does that mean that they aren't making money from it? Of course not.

Currently, Google either gets none of the search revenue through a broswser (Microsoft gets it all in IE), or not all of it (they have to share with Opera and Mozilla). With Chrome, they keep all the search revenue.

"Can you install Google on my computer?"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I hope Google doesn't run Chrome ads in the country where I live. I already am the involuntary user help desk, for relatives, friends, their friends, etc.

I can hear the calls already: "Hello? PolygamousRanchKid? I saw this ad from Google on TV . . . can you install Google on my computer? This means that I can watch all that stuff from Google without an Internet connection anymore, so I don't need to pay those monthly fees anymore, right?"

I am, of course, kidding, but only slightly.

Chrome is still behind Firefox

[societyofrobots]

I like Chrome as it's the fastest browser I've ever used. It's probably the safest, too. But the bookmarks aren't friendly, and it doesn't have crash protection like Firefox.

Yeap, Chrome crashed on me within a day . . . Firefox crashes too, but at least it reloads the windows when you restart it!

Chrome uses more RAM than Firefox, but only like 50mb or so.

Master Password!!

[indre1]

Chrome may be faster and better looking, but it lacks a master password for web form passwords. How can I lend my laptop for a moment to someone, when all my passwords are visible?

Re:Yeah... Chrome might be real goog for browsing.

[Z34107]

But people will still use firefox for porn.

CTRL+SHIFT+N brings up a new "incognito" tab - porn mode.

Sup dawg!

[jonaskoelker]

Yo, dawg! We heard you like ads, so we put an ad in your TV so you can have (our) ads while you browse.

Should've held off the ads till 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

With 2.0 seemingly almost out, I think they should've held off on the ad launch a few more weeks. There've been substantial improvements since 1.0, and you only get one chance at a first impression.

This is the new Google: using ads vs word-of-mouth

[code65536]

So what ever happened to Google promoting itself through word of mouth? What happened to the Google that prided itself on having grown entirely without needing to advertise?

For me, the problem with Chrome is that it is too minimal. It certainly doesn't help that for the things that it is supposed to do well (multiprocess to mitigate stability memory leaks), it doesn't actually do all that well (because it reuses processes and often groups multiple tabs), and I end up getting stability problems and memory leaks worse than other browsers.

Chrome has so far been a dud. Sure, some people love it, but overall, it looks like it's failed to gain traction, and I suspect that this is mostly because of Firefox. So if you can't compete, what do you do? You advertise. That didn't used to be the Google way. Say hello to the new Google.

Symantec Endpoint Protection

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they make it work on systems running Symantec Endpoint Protection? Last I tried it a couple weeks ago it still wasn't.

Re:Yeah... Chrome might be real goog for browsing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera, actually.
Space to advance through TGPs seals the deal for one-handed browsing.