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."
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?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
My work here is dung.
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Better to have Chrome ads on TV, than to have TV ads in Chrome!
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
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.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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.
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.
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.
No Google toolbar and some other important plug ins.
*Every* toolbar in chrome is a google toolbar
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.