Google gunning for IE with Chrome OEM deals

After Chrome exits beta in January, Google is planning to begin an aggressive push to boost the browser's market share.

Sundar Pichai, a Google vice president, told The Times Online that the company will explore ways to make Chrome more ubiquitous and "probably do distribution deals" with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) to get the browser onto new PCs.

Currently, Internet Explorer commands more than 70 percent of browser market share. Open source Firefox captures roughly 20 percent, with the rest going to others such as Safari, Chrome, and Opera.

OEM relationships will certainly help Chrome adoption, but it's hard to see how IE gets completely displaced due to the fact that it's is embedded in Windows.

Looking back, it was clear that IE would displace Netscape simply because it came pre-installed with Windows.

It's not clear how Google can make Chrome ubiquitous (at least not yet). There are certainly use cases--Netbooks, etc., where you are using far less Microsoft software (and often Linux instead) where the interaction of the OS and the browser are more clearly delineated.

Pichai added that versions of Chrome should also be available to computers using Macintosh or Linux software in the first half of next year, allowing the browser to be used on almost 99 percent of computers worldwide.

Via Ars Technica.

[canberra_photographer]

IE will never be completely displaced. It is required to use many Microsoft online services and comes installed with Windows. But ask most people what they use for browsing and they'll answer Firefox if they have a choice. If Google can get Chrome shipping pre-installed on corporate desktops which are the traditional stronghold of IE, then it would represent a huge blow to the usage of IE.

[Penguinisto]

That's easy enough - use IE for *.microsoft.com and *.live.com (if you actually use that), and Firefox for everything else. Problem solved.

[Someone-else]

IE-only sites (very few today) are the reason I have the IE-tab extension for FF.

And IMO, the only thing that is holding people on IE, along wit the fact it comes with Windows is that people just see no reason in changing. Of course, there are many reasons to get away from IE, that's why most tech-related sites have more people on FF than on IE.

[HlLLARY CLITON]

I could see Chrome beating out IE, may take a couple years but its possible

[PhaseDMA]

Since when is "most people" 20% ?

[NoamN123]

You missed the point... He said "...ask most people what they use for browsing and they'll answer Firefox if they have a choice..." IF THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

I've never seen a survey about this but I'd be surprised if more than 5% of surfers would CHOOSE to use IE. I think most IE users are oblivious to the existence of something called a browser - IE is just that icon you click to use the internet. Other IE users are those who must use it because it's not their computer or those who use it because the sites they use only work on IE due to poor website design (not following web-standards and only testing on one platform).

IE has no advantages. None.

When more people start using alternative browsers (due to a Google distribution deal along with more mobile users and more UMPC Linux users) website designers will have no choice but to conform to standards. Then there will be no reason at all to use IE, and it will slowly die.

[gerrrg]

Here's the real problem: ActiveX. A lot of websites and developers are using ActiveX, which makes for a lousy experience on ANY browser that isn't IE.

BUT, I do like IE for other reasons, including keeping all that cache where I can find it, IYKWIM. It's a shame that Chrome doesn't keep their cache easily available and recognizable as IE...sometimes you really do want to grab that cache and use it.

[jezzali]

In my experience as a Linux user since 2005 there are very few websites using ActiveX beyond Microsoft's own. I use Firefox and Konqueror most of the time and it is very rare that I come across an ActiveX site, and even then it is usually not important to me, and I just close the tab and move on. ActiveX is a security risk for Windows users and of no use to Mac and Linux users whatsoever.

[rhmamvet]

I happen to agree with jezzali on all of the points he listed! And I'll try Chrome when it comes to LINUX. I use Firfox for the AutoFill button. And Chrome for speed and other reasons on M$ Windows. Think LINUX......!

[eklectiqred]

I'll have to agree with gerrrg. I'm an IT in a security/surveillance company and I do many DVR installation and configuration and most of them use a web based ActiveX platform. I tend to install Firefox as the default browser on most of the machines I build but I always need to think if that user will need to log on to its DVR via its browser in which case I just cannot make any other browser than IE the default... and it's a shame. If all other browsers could incorporate this feature (yeah I know its proprietary) in an easy and straightforward way, that would definitely help move more people over.

And to the two persons above me, come on! This is the usual linux bs. What, you are missing a feature? Well, you don't need that! Don't get me wrong, I'm a linux user myself but I'm really sick of people asking for features and being told that they don't need it, that's ridiculous. If you want to attract users you need to adapt and make it as easy as possible for people to switch over. Adding ActiveX support would probably not help home user migration but would definitely help on the business side of things.

[Someone-else]

There is quite some time I don't see sites that need ActiveX (excluding the ones that use it to infect the computer with viruses)

[t8]

Chrome is the best browser available.It is light, fast, and well organised. When I try out the others after Chrome, they seem heavy and not having the tabs a the very top seems awkward. Google has done to browsing what they did to messenging.i.e., minimal and fast. Also because they make money from ads, they can do good deals for OEMs where revenue is shared.

[iertry]

I think IE8 will drive chrome/safari/firefox usage up. With IE8 they've done to IE what they did to Windows; made it bloated and full of crap. Who needs 'web slices' when it actually has to be coded into your site. Why would you do that if it's only a feature in one version of one browser. It's a waste of time. Activities have some benefit but Microsoft has, of course only got all their own services as default and built in. It is just bloatware.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Sounds like you need some Pepto-Bismol. Bloatware , bla bla bla bla bla !

[paulopmx]

Partnering with OEMs will be good for the consumer market, but in the corporate market I think Google should also look at IE's ability to implement group and network policy. I think its one of the big factors why some company's are still not implementing other browsers. It's a little old school I know, but some company's still like to control on what employees can do with their browser, and not just control it through the firewall, but browser behavior as well.

[Mr. Dee]

I like Chrome, I believe it has potential. A lot of the functionality that I seek in the web is already available through it, whether its YouTube, checking my Mail and so on. I do experience issues when I try to browse Microsoft websites with, for that I can turn to IE and I still have Firefox so the transition to it will take time, but at least its not gonna be a head ache. IE 8 looks good and works really nice though and not a performance hog like 7, it seems they have even fixed the AntiPhishing engine.

[john55440]

I have both IE7 and Firefox installed on my computer, but use/prefer IE7.

I have no interest in having Big Brother Google's software on my computer.

What happens to Firefox if/when Google cuts off their funding?

[NiallGandy]

Chromes aims were to improve the browser market, they wont cut of Firefox's funding, they want all browsers to improve so that their products can work better

[bigpicture]

You would rather have the "Genuine Advantage" MS "Little Brother?" installed then?

[Penguinisto]

"What happens to Firefox if/when Google cuts off their funding?"

It's open source, so any other company can pick up where Google may leave off, or it can simply become a community effort. MySQL did this for years before Sun bought 'em.

[Jack K1]

There will come a time when OEMs start building Office-compatible non-MS machines out of freeware. The promotions will go something like "why pay hundreds of dollars for an office suite when you can get the same functionality for free?" It's an attractive idea, and we already see a lot of work in that direction.

That's when IE will start to lose significant market share, and Chrome will be ready.

[bevangg]

I have used chrome since it was released and have not looked back since. I would never use IE unless there was no alternative, and have used firefox for years. Chrome loads almost immediately and the user interface is uncluttered and intuitive. The search box and url bar are combined allowing you to quickly and easily navigate.I have recommended it to everybody I know and there are many converts already.

[pro696]

What happened to Google not being evil?

[sparrowhyperion]

I usually try and evaluate new browsers when they come out. I currently use Firefox 3 for my main browser though. I tried Chrome, and I have to tell you, I was completely underwhelmed with it. I doubt that they will be able to unseat IE and Firefox. The browser just isn't that good.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Chrome will be as passe as...chrome LOL

[The_Decider]

IE - The most bug ridden, flawed security hole ever created.

Chrome - The most privacy invasive browser ever created. It is nothing but spyware.

I say no thank you to either third rate option.

Why is it that Google's entire business model depends on finding out as much as they can about you, yet people think they are benign? In many ways they are worse than MS.

[Zanfall]

Hows that tinfoil hat fitting you?

[The_Decider]

Open your eyes.

Google's entire business model depends on collecting as much data as possible. Their entire business model is based in advertising, and to maximize the advertising potential, they need to know about you.

Stop being stupid.

[timhdm]

mr "THE_Decider", i a humble 25yr old developer, who has only been in this game for a short while comparitavely. I have found your comments all over with only disparaging remarks, i do hope that with all your insight and knowledge we can look forward to the most secure OS the most user freindly and privacy conscious browser and a brand spanking new programming language for use with these world changing completely safe and private offerings soon to come out of your mums basment if i'm any judge of character!

[slecalvez]

timhdm : You're 25, you're naive, you're in love with the Google brand. We get it...

[dantynan]

imho: chrome needs a lot more polish (sorry) before it's ready for oem deals. otherwise I predict major headaches.

see http://blogs.computerworld.com/chrome_firefox

for more.

dt

[lokanadam]

why isn't google search engine open source ?

[magvine]

There are still problems with Chrome. For instance, where in the world is the home button? Where is the print button? IE works nice, so does Firefox, but Chrome is just plain weird.
Why did the build an interface that requires someone to look for their bookmarks? I'll take an interface I can use without thinking over shaving a few seconds over page load time. I like Google's search engine, but their products are just weird.

[forever4now]

The best scenario would probably be for IE, Firefox and Chrome to each have a 33% market share because:
1. ALL websites would be forced to stick to open web standards (eliminating Microsoft's proprietary crap).
2. There would be constant competitive pressure to improve the browsers (consumers win and Microsoft would not be able to fall asleep like the normally do every time they have monopoly market share).

The same 33% market share would be ideal for Windows/Linux/OS X as well.
1. Software developers would move toward building cross-platform applications like Firefox, OpenOffice, etc. (if they are not all ultimately replaced by web apps).
2. Developers would move toward using open standards (e.g. OpenGL versus Direct3D).
3. The OS vendors would forced to continuously innovate, in order to maintain market share.
4. Users would be able to choose the OS that provides the best value (cost, performance, usability, etc.).

[eagledrc]

Very true! Nice post.

[catch23]

What if Direct3D is simply a better solution (which it is)? Why should developers be forced down to the lowest common denominator, just to be 'standards' complaint?
As a developer, I choose the best tool for the job I'm working on.
Sometimes it isn't cross-platform. Too bad.

[forever4now]

@catch23

In the scenario I proposed, you are still free to use Direct3D, if you want. However, you would be limited to only 33% of the users. If that is fine, in your business model, then you should do it. I suspect others would prefer access to 100% of the users.

[HeavyJim]

FF is getting as bad as IE, latest version is crap, bloated, and the developers can't leave a good thing alone.