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

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

Better to...

[Lord Lode]

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

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.

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: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: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.

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.