Slashdot Mirror
Sony To Put Chrome On Laptops
consonant writes "FT is reporting that Google has reached a deal with Sony to ship Chrome on the Vaio line of PCs. Google confirmed that Sony PCs carrying Chrome had started to go on sale and said it was in talks for similar deals with other computer makers. It said the arrangement was 'experimental' and part of wider efforts to boost distribution, including a deal to make Chrome available to internet users who download the RealPlayer software and the company's first use of television advertising. While mainstream media coverage and financial details were very sparse, El Reg terms it a 'Microsoft-snubbing deal.'
Google also mentioned it was pushing for similar deals with other vendors. Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?"
Google *paid* Sony to pre-install Chrome, just like Symantec pays for Norton bloatware to be pre-installed on HP (etc.) notebooks. There seems to be a sort of OEM market here; for years already. Nothing to see here; move along.
Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?
Or the end of privacy?
For some reason, I thought it was talking about the Chrome OS, which was particularly interesting because that'd be a big thing for a new OS, and because we haven't really seen much of the OS so far.
Shame on Google for naming two different things Chrome. It only causes confusion.
The FT article (short and worth reading) is basically saying that Chrome's adoption is low and they are making OEM deals, advertising, and doing a "crapware" bundle with RealPlayer install. According to Google they are "frustrat[ed] at what they consider a lack of interest among internet users about browsers." and want to push awareness. According to Google they want to push browser development and competition:
"It's not so important everyone uses Google Chrome, it's more important browser technology evolves as fast as it can." said Mr Rakowski. Chrome set new records in terms of its speed, prompting a race among rivals to boost the performance of their own software.
The "browser snub" headline is just an attention grabber by the Register (go figure). I don't see this being much different than any other OEM making deals with third party application vendors to install and use their software as a default.
The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options. I like to use Firefox. I would much rather install it by dowloading from IE than having some random third party vendor. I like Chrome, but I don't trust Google and I don't like how their software is installed along with their updater. I also hate the crapware opt-outs I have to watch for although to be fair vendors other than Google participate in that practice (Sun, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc).
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
I'm all for Google getting Chrome on to vendor boxes, but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! It should open up more competition and force MS (Chrome and Fire Fox too!) to improve their standards compliance though.
If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords? Wow, that's a great improvement...
We are much better served by having multiple main stream browsers that all force each other to maintain tight adhesion to standards and to continue to push innovation.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
But why is Google getting these deals? I'm betting it is because the OEMs want some of that sweet search revenue from Google.
Google buying a spot on a desktop is not leveraging an existing monopoly regardless of where they obtained the money to do it. That's because they're buying the spot from a separate company in competition with other companies that might want to do the same, on the open market. It would be leveraging a monopoly if they forced Sony to do it without being paid, by say, telling Sony that otherwise Google was going to return no results for any search including the string "sony". You' might note MS isn't paying Sony to include IE with Sony computers, but is instead bundling it with Windows, leveraging their influence on that market and forcing Sony to work both technically and against market forces to use something else. If MS were to stop bundling IE with Windows, but instead paid companies directly on the open market for including IE as a separate transaction from licensing Windows and with clear delineation of those transactions, then MS would get rid of most of their antitrust issues going forward.
Sounds a bit like Microsoft, doesn't it?
Only if you don't understand the illegal and economically undesirable aspect of what MS is doing.
How are other browser vendors going to compete with Google here exactly?
By offering more money or a browser that makes Sony's customers happier and gets Sony more computer sales. That's competition.
Is that a similar unfair advantage to Microsoft's operating system monopoly and the destruction of the browser market?
No. That's just the market favoring those with more money and/or better products.
And that is why I just replaced my laptop OS with a Debian Testing Netinstall; only the software which I want is installed. 8-)