Why the later launches of Chrome for Mac, Linux?

Google is finally acceding to customer demands for Mac and Linux versions of its open-source Chrome browser, promising to release full versions of Chrome for Mac and Linux in the first half of 2009.

According to Brian Rakowski, Chrome's product manager, more work is needed first:

That (Mac development) team now is able to render most Web pages pretty well. But in terms of the user experience, it's very basic. We have not spent any time building out features. We're still iterating on making it stable and getting the architecture right.

So progress needs to be made, but at least it's firmly on the agenda. The real question for me is, why wasn't it top of the agenda from the beginning? No offense to Windows users, but Mac and Linux users have tended to include a wide range of early adopters (especially in the Mac camp) and technically savvy people (especially in the Linux camp).

Aren't these the sorts of groups that Google would want using its software?

I understand the desire to cater to the mainstream majority that uses Internet Explorer, and I also can appreciate a subversive interest in smacking Microsoft around a little by offering a competing browser on the Windows platform, but I still find it odd to introduce a disruptive browser on that most nondisruptive of operating systems, Windows.

The evangelists live on the Mac. The geeks that will hack new extensions live on Linux. Both are devout and generally faithful to (formerly) underappreciated operating systems.

I would have started with these, but at least Google has now set a date for spreading to them.

[Argyll]

Amen!

[lmasanti]

Google (and all the web users/developers) benefits the most of web standards.
Which browser is the less standard-compliant? Internet Explorer! (IE8 even works bad in Windows 7, see Ars Technica review!)

Mac users have Safari/Firefox/Opera.
Linux users have Firefox/whatever...

Although Firefox has gained a lot of traction on Windows, MS is still strong. So, a bigger name must push the line!

I'm a Mac user. I would like to use it now. But I'm almost fully (and fast) served with Safari and Firefox.

[tm_anon]

Actually, Linux users have Firefox, IE whatever number you choose, Safari (pretty sure on that), as well as several other browsers built by the community on the Gecko engine and Flock. We also have the ability to create a web browser more standards compliant than either of the other 2 OS's because we understand what standards compliance means. Oh, for those Opera users, yes we have that too. The only browser we don't currently have running directly on Linux without the use of WINE is Chrome, but I for one haven't missed it. I have more than enough choices to keep me busy for quite a while.

[jackrichardson3]

You ask a very good question and I like your articles, but why do you slant them so much. Your opening statement makes it sound like Google finally threw in the towel and will NOW start developing for other platforms, when they've said from the beginning that those versions were in the works. Please just report without the fluff drama that is not based in truth.

[MSSlayer]

If Google had a clue they could have developed it for all platforms at the same time, with much less effort.

[bourgtai]

What still boggles my mind is that WebKit is completely native to OSX. You can actually download the nightly build of WebKit from their open-source site and it will run with a UI identical to Safari's, but with the most up-to-date web standard compliances. So if WebKit is already 100% compatible with OSX, why is Chrome having trouble with the most basic task of rendering web pages?

[MSSlayer]

Because Google stupidly used Windows sys calls directly in the browser, and even used some undocumented ones.

[sbrixie]

I think your a bit off with your argument here without some numbers. I would guess that the number of early adopters that use Windows is far, far greater than the number of early adopters using Mac and Linux combined. Remember Windows owns almost 90% of the PC market.
Also, why would you need to introduce a "disruptive" browser to a "disruptive" OS? It's preaching to the choir.

[tm_anon]

Because Linux users will be critical of your work and help you figure out what's wrong with it in a very open manner as we do with everything and because OSX users would help you figure out if your browser will catch on quickly. Mac users are the heart and Linux users are the brains. Why would you ever want to start in the Liver?

[Mr. Dee]

Windows has the most market share and Google see's it as the best operating system in the whole wide world. Also, I would suggest you throw that crap away named Chrome, its crappy browser trying to make a statement, download IE 8 Beta 2 and start using something with substance.

[Hugh_Isaacs_II]

Since when was IE 8 something with substance, what just passing the Acid 2 test = substance.
Google Chrome is already on Acid 3 and they're working on an extensions feature to rival Firefox.

IE 8 beta 2 just manages to get the first part right, and then tacks on a sorry attempt at extending functionality called accelerators (yea it's nice, but the sad part is the feature could be recreated in a Firefox extension).

And if Google saw Windows as the best operating system in the world, they wouldn't be using Linux for their servers, or would they be supporting Ubuntu, or have created Android, etc...

[rapier1]

From a business stand point who are you going to focus on? 88% of the market or the remaining 12%? If I'm looking to make as much of an impact as possible I'd probably focus on that 88%. Especially if I'm looking to over take a non-compliant but dominant competitor.

[t8]

I suspect that Google is also interested in learning about the ways people surf the net so that Microsoft doesn't have that information edge over them. Releasing on Windows gives them data for the average Joe Blogs and it doesn't matter if they have 1% of the market coz that still gives them access to the surfing habits of millions who perhaps do not use Google's services and are not tracked by a Google cookie. Of course I am sure that they are ambitious enough to try increase Chromes market share.

[MSSlayer]

All this shows is how bad the Chrome team is. If it were designed correctly, they would have undocumented Windows calls in the browser and all OS specific code would be neatly abstracted away so most of the Chrome code would be cross-platform. Less work this way, and you reach all areas.

Of course, Chrome is just spyware so who cares how well it is written?

[InsaneNinja]

The obvious reason is that they are more concerned with getting more market share out from IE. Since any webkit (safari) browser is already upgraded enough to present their javascript systems faster.