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.
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.
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
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.
What happens when Good [wikipedia.org] and evil [wikipedia.org] combine?
Good+Evil = Goovil?
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.
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.
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-)
You have to be joking. Chrome is open-source. You can go and look through the source and VERIFY that it's not sending anything about you home.
Seriously, go look. We'll await your admission of being wrong.
According to the Chrome Wikipedia article, there are several tracking methods in Chrome, one is not optional, several are optional. The scary one is the RLZ Identifier.
The RLZ Identifier is non-optional, it can send back anything it wants in an encoded string, and it sends stuff back to Google 1) every 24 hours, 2) or on every Google search query, or 3) when a 'significant event' (no definition except 'such as a successful installation') occurs. Some of the stuff Google admits to being in there is the installion date, when the first time you used certain features and where you downloaded the install files from. The RLZ parameter is stored in the system registry (yay) and can be updated at any time Google wants. Another fun fact:
The code that makes this work is not included in the open source project (http://www.chromium.org) because it only applies to the version of the browser that Google distributes, Google Chrome.
From Google itself on the RLZ Parameter.
So tell me again how it isn't tracking you?
-- toolie