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?"
It refers to the Chrome browser, not the OS
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.
Probably nothing worthwhile..
I work with lots of laptops and sony is never one of them. I'd say Apple laptops are making a larger dent in IE than Sony ever could.
Pimp my laptop! Spinners on the fans, remote unfold, a cappucino maker in the CD-ROM bay, and chrome eeeverywhere. Whaaaaat!
I purchased a Viao a few months back and was surprised to see Chrome appear on the desktop instead of IE. If Google wants to buy browser market share more power to them. I had not tried Chrome before and I'm glad I have, its a great browser.
What happens when Good and evil combine? And why would anyone buy a computer of all things from a company that has placed rootkits on their paying customers' gear?
This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.
Free Martian Whores!
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
Why are we even continuing to ask this question? IE will never go away, and we all know this. As long as Microsoft has adequate competition, they will devote adequate resources to develop an adequate browser. And IE8 is that; perfectly adequate. Is it great at Acid3? Absolutely not. Does it do what most people want it to, most of the time? Sure; and the end result of that is that most people will never care enough to switch.
Will this deal be the beginning of the end for IE6? Now that's a question I want an affirmative answer to. I'd hope so, but it wont. That pos is being kept alive by the needs of organizations who are stuck using internal web apps that overworked programmers kludged together for IE 6. And it's going to take a whole lot more than a new Vaio (That will be slicked and re-imaged before the suits even notice this 'Chrome' thingy), to penetrate the rancid cloud of decay emanating from their decrepit web browser of choice before they pay to have those reworked.
When I first read it, I thought Sony has gone off the deep end and added more "bling" to their laptops.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Chrome as it currently stands won't ever garner wide enterprise acceptance.
In Windows, Chrome installs itself into the user's profile folder under the Local Settings folder, rather than into the traditional Program Files folder location.
This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions, often imposed by network administrators to prevent users from installing unauthorized software. While this may work in some settings, any well crafted software restriction policy will prevent this attempt to bypass security restrictions.
As well, by failing to follow proscribed methods for installing software on Windows, Google is actually making it difficult for enterprises that might choose to distribute Chrome on their networks.
Until Google addresses this issue by creating an IT department friendly version of Chrome, it doesn't stand a chance of making any inroads on enterprise networks.
Good or bad Software, I hate being marketed-to during a software install.
Then stop using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or for that matter any browser. Google is already paying those browser makers to include themself as the default search engine, so Google gets you to use them and see their ads. You are already being marketed right after you've installed those. It doesn't even matter if its open or closed source, firefox and opera are on both ends.
...which is more than I can say of Microsoft.
No it's not
I don't mind as long as installing the software is unchecked by default.
What would prevent Microsoft from striking similar deals with other OEMs, effectively numbing the effects of European regulators? They should go for it.
Meanwhile, Google should improve their Chrome browser's interface so that it is more appealing to the first time user. It is not that beautiful at first sight.
Mock-ups from folks at Mozilla could be an inspiration.
How are they using their near monopoly in search to extend it to Chrome? Now, if they only made their searches available to Chrome users, or made them render badly in other browsers you would have a point -- that's the sort of shenanigans Microsoft is famous for.
Microsoft got its dominance with IE by giving it away with Windows. I don't see how it applys here.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Chrome doesn't have a shareware version and it can be removed unlike IE.
And that is why I just replaced my laptop OS with a Debian Testing Netinstall; only the software which I want is installed. 8-)
Wow. Foam at the mouth, much?
Who sold those IT departments IE6 as the panacea?
Companies like Oracle and Siemens and IBM and others. Companies that offered intranet applications that relied on ActiveX and other IE6-only technologies. Oh, were you expecting me to say "Microsoft?" Sorry.
Which company wrote lazy software that assumed a completely open, no security, no check, ActiveX enabled all the way to hell and back IE6 as the front end to corporate clients?
Ok. ActiveX ranting.
Was ActiveX insecure? Yes. Ok? Let's get over that point right now.
Now, as to Microsoft including it in IE... HTML was originally designed to be extensible. We now (as an IT community) realize that this was a bad idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be extensible. HTML was *designed* to have companies add a MARQUEE or BLINK tag to it. HTML was *designed* so that you could script your webpage in any programming language.
Microsoft's adding ActiveX to their browser is simply embracing that concept. There was nothing wrong with that at the time they added it. In versions released after IE 5.5, ActiveX has been restricted more and more and more in every version-- Microsoft's doing everything they can to get vendors to stop using it.
But those vendors (like Siemens, Oracle, IBM listed above) are the ones writing those lazy apps you mentioned, and they still won't get rid of it. All they do is add an item to the Read Me that says "oh BTW, go into IE settings and disable the pop-up blocker, all security warnings, our app won't work otherwise." Believe me; I've "installed" tons of these apps, the "installation" basically consisting of disabling most of IE's security features.
Which company was so blinded by Netscape's rise that it did despo things just to kill Netscape and in that process created a mess that it can not clean up?
I have no clue what you're even referring to here. The worst thing IE is guilty of, as far as I see it, is implementing CSS before the spec was finalized, and therefore getting the box model "wrong." ("Wrong" meaning in this context "correct for the version of the spec they used, but the spec changed later to make it wrong.")
If you're talking about proprietary tags/DOM commands, then Netscape added at least as many of those as IE did. And one of the ones IE came up with, XMLHttpRequest, basically re-vitalized the entire web development community and became part of the standard, so you have to chalk that one up as a "win" in their column.
It was the shortsightedness of Microsoft that spawned this monster IE6. Microsoft could not tell the difference between ease of use and lack of security.
Microsoft writes the software their customers demand. Customers didn't demand security, so Microsoft didn't write security.
And yes, other companies need to get the blame! If you work in a corporation using IE6 on the desktop, go talk to your IT department and say, "which intranet app requires IE6?" I can guarantee the answer is *not* any Microsoft app. It'll have come from Siemens, Oracle, IBM-- THOSE are the lazy developers you should be foaming-at-the-mouth mad at, not Microsoft.
Do you seriously think Microsoft *wants* people using IE6 when IE8 is out? Are you honestly that deluded?
Comment of the year