Microsoft meets its match in Google: Chrome to go retail

Whatever we may think about the causes of the current market meltdown, free markets do tend to heal themselves over time. Hence, it was only a matter of time before someone would come along and give Microsoft a run for its money in its core businesses, Windows and Office.

What was less clear, however, was just how much a giveaway--the browser--was going to become central to it all, as applications and data are increasingly being run in "the cloud" with the browser being used to access them.

As I noted on Friday, Microsoft is under considerable threat from Mozilla's Firefox browser as it continues to gain market share at the expense of Internet Explorer. Compounding Microsoft's woes, however, is a new salvo from Google: it plans to take its open-source Chrome browser retail through OEM deals with computer manufacturers, as Ars Technica reports:

"We will probably do distribution deals," (Google Vice President of Product Management Sundar) Pinchai told The Times. "We could work with an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and have them ship computers with Chrome preinstalled."

Doing so could significantly change the browser market's competitive landscape...Many consumers don't actually do much choosing of Internet Explorer. History suggests that the vast majority of users are actually remarkably agnostic over what browser they use, and often opt for whatever ships on the system. If Google does cut deals to distribute Chrome as the default browser, it would be an interesting test of whether or not Microsoft's brand-loyalty perception is grounded in anything even resembling fact.

Firefox is changing the game, and Google is apparently preparing to compete with Microsoft at its own game (i.e., bundling its browser on new PCs). Once installed, there's a very good chance that consumers will end up using Chrome. Once it's there, all it takes is one article talking about Firefox or Chrome as being superior to IE in security or some other feature and consumers may well ditch the IE icon.

The browser market just got even frothier. Advantage? Consumers.

[Dalmatian28]

I don't know about that, that was maybe true five years ago!!! These days....almost everyone is doing customization of their computer. Those that aren't doing it, those people are as likely to do business on line as you are winning a lottery! Simply put it....their share of browser market is useless to anyone! (ok maybe for owner's bragging rights) Yeah, Google will be able to get some add money at the beginning but soon advertisers will realize that getting click from those users is like burning money and they will begin to look for other ways to advertise. Interestingly enough, when I configure computers at work none of my clients has ever asked for Crome browser. I think I have done over a thousand of configurations and since I started working for my current employer, I am yet to encounter on individual to ask me specifically for Crome. 90% is Firefax and Opera and I do get couple that wants Safari. I am pretty sure that Google will learn same lessons that Microsoft did...just because it is there doesn't mean customers will use it, customers from five years ago are not same as those of today and in browser market "good enough" is NOT good enough!!!!!

[paulej]

You clearly work in a special place if FF is on 90% of the systems. Everybody knows that FF's share of the market is nowhere near that large. IE dominates the market still, because it ships with Windows. Most people do not care to change. And, those that do are usually a bit more tech-savvy.

If Dell, HP, or other major manufacturers started shipping machines with Chrome installed as the default browser, there may be a lot more Chrome users out there.

Of course, the question I have -- and is still the one I have for MS -- is: who cares? There was some kind of strange fear years ago that the network computer was going to take over the world. Today, there is still that fear, I guess. But, who really cares which browser is king? In what way does it help any company's bottom line? (Perhaps it has and I do not know it. I just have my doubts.)

Revenue one might earn from a browser war comes from the services in the network, not the browser. Sure, the browser might lead one to certain services more readily, so perhaps that is the strategic reason for fighting over the browser?

Personally, I think the world thinks about the Internet too narrowly. The browser is great, but it is just one means of connecting users with other users, services, data, etc. Sadly, it seems like people now believe that it is the only way. And the hacks necessary to get the browser to do things that look like real applications just makes me shudder.

Perhaps I am unusual in that I think we try to do too much with the browser, but I just do not understand why people might want to use a browser to make a phone call, or to create spreadsheets, or transfer files, or chat, or to play music. I have far better tools to do those things. If I want to do those things, my preference is to use a computer program written for the job, or use a physcial device designed for the job.

[Dalmatian28]

90% reflects only those that asked for different browser and NOT the overall customer base! Most customers are fine with IE. I guess you have misunderstood that one Mr. paulej.

[Dalmatian28]

upps...after reading the rest of your reply, I felt need to point out that over 80 % of Mozila's Income comes from that small Google Search box in the corner of every Firefox browser. If 100+ million that Firefox made last year from it are not important than I am not sure what it is. If you do little research on what Mozilla business model is...you will realize why who owns browser becomes important! We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in add revenue that Google has to pay to Mozilla for bringing the customers to their site through that little search box!!!!

[forever4now]

I'm just happy to see other Microsoft alternatives being offered pre-installed on PCs. Ubuntu is now being offered pre-installed on Dell, HP (custom), Toshiba and Magnavox machines, while other Linux distributions are being offered on other vendor machines. Having Chrome (or even Firefox or Opera) offered as browser alternatives would be another positive development.

Windows is by no means synonymous with desktop computing, but since that has been all people have been getting, until recently, many think it is. Fortunately times are changing...

[tm_anon]

I'd much rather see a computer come completely custom with no charge. A lot of browsers as well as other software are already made to be crossplatform and, especially if the customer asks for open source software such as firefox, the cost for these customized PCs would be less than a preinstalled version of microsofts latest blunder. In addition, with a setup like this, the market for software would be able to see much more clearly what their customers are actually going after. If you offer the choice for a PC with open source, cheaper alternatives, to microsoft which for the most part work at least as well, on their worst days, most consumers will go for the cheaper alternative, especially when they get to customize the PC how they'd prefer. Microsoft has the lions share because Microsoft comes on everything. The first company to offer full customization (not just OS, but everything), and allow the customer to choose whatever software and hardware they want and charge accordingly, will see a huge customer base. Offering Ubuntu is great, now let's really open up the idea.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Chrome is already tarnished and rusty.

[softwaredesignengineer]

You can't blame Google though since everyone from Jim Zemlin to Michael Arrington to Matt were predicting (and hoping) that Chrome would be the death knell for Windows. Unfortunately for Google and the rest of the I-hate-Microsoft crowd, all Chrome could muster up so far was less than 1% of market share.

Which brings us to these struggling browser times for Google. Google has to do what Microsoft has been doing for all these years - winning vendor support. But wait, does'nt everyone cry foul and "cheating cheating" for this type of business marketing when Microsoft does it?

I guess some of these I-hate-Microsoft guys are learning a bit on how economics work in a capitalistic world. Of course, it's acceptable if Google, Apple or anyone but Microsoft does it.

Best of luck to Chrome. The competition is good. But For your everyday desktop/windows user - I'll bet my hundred bucks that if they need to browse the net, they naturally click on that familiar blue 'E' icon over a volleyball icon.

And they are not going to bother themselves with reading that "one article talking about Firefox or Chrome as being superior to IE". That's the domain of geeks. Not your everyday average computer user.

"Chrome...what's that? some new HD monitor that came with my Dell?"

[ElArZ]

Consider it this way:

Chrome can't compete with Firefox (or Google's vision for chrome is not to compete with Firefox), because if they try then whatever market share it gets, it'll take it away from Firefox and it'll be a small share since Firefox has matured and its developers base is the largest.

What google is aiming for is Microsoft.
And in this specific battle, it's aiming for IE's share of the market. And most of the users forming that share are the ones that use the browser that comes with their PC.
And that's what Google is trying to achieve with Chrome, to come pre-installed on PCs instead of IE.

So Chrome will not be full of features like Opera and it will not have the amount of extensions that Firefox has, instead it will focus on stability, security and ease-of-use.

That way, both Chrome and Firefox will be taking from IE's share and not from each other.