Microsoft bashes Google's Chrome-in-IE plan
Microsoft on Thursday lashed out against Google Chrome Frame--an Internet Explorer plug-in that supplants IE's rendering engine with Google's.
The software maker, in a statement, said users are better off moving to a later version of Internet Explorer if they want the latest technology as opposed to using Chrome Frame.
Google plans to use Chrome Frame to, among other things, allow people to run Google Wave from within Internet Explorer.
(Credit: Google)"With Internet Explorer 8, we made significant advancements and updates to make the browser safer for our customers," Microsoft said. "Given the security issues with plug-ins in general and Google Chrome in particular, Google Chrome Frame running as a plug-in has doubled the attach area for malware and malicious scripts. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."
However, some took Microsoft to task for criticizing plug-ins, noting that Redmond itself has more than a few.
"Microsoft scared of security of plug-ins. Uninstall Silverlight now," Mozilla's Dion Almaer wrote in a Twitter posting.
Google announced Chrome Frame on Tuesday, saying it can be used with Internet Explorer 6, IE7, or IE8 to use Chrome to render Web pages and execute their JavaScript programs. To work, users have to install the plug-in and Web developers must insert a line of code onto their Web sites that engages Chrome Frame when a person visits the site.
Update, 12:35 p.m. PT: I had a chance to chat with Amy Barzdukas, general manager for IE.
In addition to reiterating the security risks associated with running what she called "a browser within a browser," Barzdukas said that using Chrome Frame also interferes with the private-browsing and clear-browser-history features within Internet Explorer 8.
"That is not made clear," Barzdukas said. "That is a trade-off that customers would really want to make with eyes wide open."
Barzdukas also rejected the notion that it offers a good option for those still using Internet Explorer 6.
"If you are a user of IE6, you should get off IE6, not install another add-on," she said. "It just compounds your problem."
Update 3:20 p.m. PT: Google offered up a statement on its own, explaining its thinking behind Chrome Frame.
"Google Chrome Frame is an open source plug-in that is currently in an early developer release and was designed with security in mind from the beginning," Google said. "While we encourage users to use a more modern and standards compliant browser such as Firefox, Safari, Opera or Google Chrome rather than a plug-in, for those who don't, Google Chrome Frame is designed to provide better performance, strong security features, and more choice to both developers and users, across all versions of Internet Explorer."
Although it does increase the surface area, Google notes it brings some security features of its own, particularly for those running IE6. "Accessing sites using Google Chrome Frame brings Google Chrome's security features to Internet Explorer users, providing strong phishing and malware protection (absent in IE6), robust sandboxing technology, and defenses from emerging online threats that are available in days rather than months," Google said.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Google Chrome Frame would allow these companies to:
1. maintain support for their existing IE6-dependent apps/sites.
2. begin building new intra-net apps/sites that leverage modern web technologies like HTML5.
Plus, their employees would no longer be browsing the internet, with a non-standards-compliant browser.
In the end, this solution could be exactly what they need.
Replacing the rendering engine in IE is just dumb. If Chrome is so great it would be used more than it is. This is just Google trying to ride on the coat tails of something bigger that is distributed farther and wider and is more widely accepted.
If Google can't do any better than this they should just skip it and give up.
Here's an odd notion- if you want Chrome- *USE CHROME*. There's no need for a shell running inside IE to do this.
It's great to hear that you are able to use a browser, other than IE. Unfortunately, not all companies allow this (although they should, since browser technology is advancing VERY quickly, these days).
Google Chrome Frame appears to address the more "restricted" companies, rather than those like yours.
Jesus man, the browser is JUST out and it already beat some browsers that have been out for years.
I'd say that is a win for Google.
Firefox certainly wasn't anywhere near as good as this in the same time-frame, Firefox was awful at this same point in time after release actually. (not including the newer abilities such as HTML5)
Not sure of the others really.
We've seen this disgusting business model fro Google before... most lately in Google Books where the US Department of Justice is stepping in to keep them from copying already copyrighted books.
The big joke is "Google Earth." When did Google ever launch at satellite to get pictures? Never. They use images paid for by tax dollars and in the public domain, but you must show the Google logo and/or pay a license to Google to use them. That is bloodsucking taken to a high level.
There needs to be a major government investigation of Google's many projects. Google can't be trusted.
Also, this is not a Google browser: it is just a fork of WebKit. As such comparing Firefox (who picked up decade old Netscape/Mozilla code and started modernized it) at release is just not fair.
"the browser is JUST out and it already beat some browsers that have been out for years."
Yes, Chrome might have beaten Opera or Safari, but it still have to beat IE6 from 2001 and that's saying something
Dude comes up with a plausible scenario, and every Microsoft cheerleader in the house (you know who you are), comes rushing out with hot and frothy denunciations of anything having to do with Google soiling the One True Holy Browser of Redmond (TM, pat. pending).
For my own part, hey - it could be useful in some situations, probably not in others. No makey either way.
But man - such venom... kinda sad, really.
Secondly, this is just Google's way of reaching out to those stuck with IE for some reason or other and giving them the increased speeds and other benefits of a webkit rendering engine.
Like 'em or not, they're tops in what they do.
They're third in email, and lately gmail has been glitchy. They are insignificant in internet telephony. The only thing their photo editor has going is that it is free. Same for sketch up. Last time I traveled to Norfolk, their map directions had a terrible glitch just inside Delaware.
Other than that, they totally rule!
Google Wave, etc. works just fine in many non-IE browsers, as evidenced by the fact that the developers demoed Wave with Safari and Firefox.
Google is trying to delude usersinto using their platform through the misleading speed claims to grant them more control the browsing environment.
Not true.
Google is trying to make sure that users can use Web Apps. That is all.
They don't trust Microsoft to make a browser that will run these apps as fast as a Windows app.
If Google are not proactive, then Microsoft will keep the browser slow to hinder the adoption of Web apps.
Microsoft has always been about Windows and they don't want you to use the Web for apps.
Why doesn't google simplify and streamline and put chrome on Android for starters? or on the iPhone?
The important thing is that android and iphone users already have the stuff they need: standards based browsers that support such things as canvas etc. The problem is IE users, which don't, and is a huge problem for web developers that can't move forward with new stuff because much of their audience is still stuck in non-standard browsers that don't support powerful features.
TY.
KDE, Be Free
LMAO
People who need to use a web site that only works on IE (ever notice how many major sites have SUBMIT buttons which do not even show up in Firefox?)
The second, and even bigger group, are all the people who buy a PC to use the internet and don't understand it. They're not even going to be aware that they can choose to use a different browser (even among the ones who know what a "browser" is).
according to this over 70 percent use IE and almost 15 percent still use IE6.
sadly when it comes to browsers MS has the market, and not just because it's the base browser installed on almost 85 percent of computers online. Sure it's kinda slow a little ugly doesn't play well with others and thrusts it's self on everyone with a windows computer, but it will gladly take you to where ever you want to go on the web(including the download pages for a cornucopia of free browsers). it's staggeringly familiar to use seeing as again going to the stats about 85 percent of the OS's even if you chose another browser you at least used it once to get your browser of choice. lastly as a majority holder everything gets written for IE first if not exclusively. web app developers for intranet systems in businesses assume a boring preloaded corporate computer as the target environment hence IE.
It would be suicidal for any company not to target their products to work with windows and IE. Chrome is nice I used it I prefer FF and even with my choice I still have IE tab because I can't escape the need. Google is just going about this backwards, Instead of getting IE in their Chrome they're getting Chrome in your IE.
Sadly MS is completely right, because IE does not play nice with others it will open holes and create instability in IE to add the Chrome infusion. Google will patch it over and over and MS will make sure not to support it every time they update your IE. Thus the IE spiral begins, constant updating followed by constant updating to make it work again after the update removes the unsupported functions. Corporate conclusion "it's to much hassle just install straight IE", novice home user conclusion "Argh this never seems to work right since I got that Google thing I should get rid of it" and us on the boards "Wait! Why am I useing IE?!? well at least it's partly Google, time to upgrade and patch"
Good move Google it may give you and your browser a slightly better foot hold I wish you the best of luck.
Funny, I've always said the same thing about Internet Explorer.
MS is worried about friends and family?
LMAO
Micro$loth concerned about users? What a joke!
I think it is a smart strategy: lower the barrier to switching from IE. For people in corporate situations, it makes a lot of sense. Using multiple browsers (with separate bookmarks, different UI, etc) is a pain. This makes for a much more seamless solution for people who want to use modern stuff that requires canvas, SVG, etc, but also need to run IE6 to support some corporate app.
More importantly, it is a lot easier to get approval to install a plug in than to replace your default browser, in many companies.
How about this, MS... make IE8 standards compliant and we don't need a chrome plugin.
In fact, IE8 fails many IE6 compliant web sites unless you add the compatibility plugin. That is, IE8 now chokes on the same pages that Firefox does. So how is IE8 not standards compliant?
Running a different rendering engine via a plug-in assumes that the outside container is worth a crap...
...and that is a pretty big assumption with IE.
Looks like sour grapes to me on Google's part. Envious that they still can't make any inroads against IE.
Personally I use FF at home, FF on the Internet at work, and IE6 for our internal network apps. Since it's internal, we have no need to install Google's garbage in our systems.
Google is in a position to use their name to reach more people and hopefully it'll at least cause some people to realize there are alternatives out there.. Firefox has a good share of the market and most of that was gained via word of mouth. But you can't reach every corner of the world like that.. Google can reach more people by virtue of their brand, and if they can get just a handful of people to stop using MIcrosoft browsers with this stunt, I'll be happy.
If you have permissions on your work PC to install this plugin, why not just install Chrome separately?
To enable the chrome frame features, the web page has to include a meta tag:
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
Without this tag, chrome frame is not enabled for that page, so those IE6-only intranet pages will not skip a beat.
Amazing how an out-of-context quote, carefully edited down, is closer to the truth than the spew vomiting forth from Redmond, isn't it.
Think of it this way- if you have a safe to keep your valuables in, then cut a hole in the side of the safe and put in a separate door which has a combination controlled by a different company and you have no control over what is done, doesn't that affect the security of your original safe? Such a backdoor essentially is a huge security risk.
But it does give Microsoft an excuse though. If any system gets compromised by a browser fault and it turns out the customer has the Google plugin installed, then MSFT can easily point to that saying that MSFT has no control over the security or design of this Google product and that the customer may need to contact Google for any and all support, content issues, or lawsuits.
Invalid point. Since this, and any other plugin, uses (or abuses) the ActiveX framework a safe isolation (sandboxing) would be the hosts fault, not the client. Since the client runs using the security permissions of the IE, there is no reason it would be more vulnerable than IE itself if the proper safeguards are in place. Most Enterprise users don't give Admin rights to users accounts and most of the time IE6 runs under strict policies set by IEAK or SMS.
Moreover, Google Chrome Frame could, and should, be a controlled deployment overviews by the Ops departments, just as other Plugins like SilverLight, WebEx, LogMeIn, etc.
My take is that Google should start thinking of Chrome as a different HTML beast and, accordingly, just encourage site developers to provide a different MIME type for Chrome-exclusive content (heavy JS, canvas, intense SVG, etc) which should activate the plugin, just as an "application/x-shockwave-flash" triggers flash and silverlight defaults to "application/x-silverlight-app", so could a new "application/x-html5-app" appear (although WHATWG recommends text/html for HTML5 and application/xhtml+xml for XHTML5, but they have probed to be too conservative to push HTML where it should go).
Last but not least is IE's lack of SVG support, which has crippled this area for IE6 exclusive Intranets. If Chrome Frame could be taught to listen to "image/svg+xml" it would be an interesting take for iFrames used for dynamically generated graphics created by HTML specialists who want to avoid Flash's learning curve or using alternatives like FushionCharts or others.
Okay, I'll bite. By your logic, Google should also now be allowed to create new plugins or appls that replace the core of iTunes with their own version, correct? And Apple should have nothing to say about it, right?
For that matter, perhaps Microsoft should write a special plugin for Chrome that rips out the browser's engine and replaces it with one from IE? Again, without regard to what Google has to say about it, right?
Let me try another tactic- should I be permitted to open the hood of your car, yank out the engine and replace it with one from another brand entirely... and still require you to support it?
That's the issue I see at hand here. If Google and Microsoft had collaborated on this, then there woudlnt be any issue. The fact that Google is doing this *against* the wishes of the creator / provider of the browser software itself is a problem that could result in legal action.
1. They are employed by Microsoft or Apple.
2. They are afraid that Google invades privacy too much (if you are afraid that someone might be tracking you, you are probably doing something bad in the first place. Innocent people aren't afraid to be searched)
3. They are afraid of change.
The statement that people who don't want to be tracked are "probably doing something bad in the first place" is far from the truth. Plenty of people value their privacy regardless of whether or not they are doing anything "bad." Innocent people don't like the inconvenience of being searched or the idea of prying eyes unless they believe that every single person who might be involved is completely honest.
Call it fear if you want to, I prefer to say the less people know about me the better.
- by ScampMichael September 24, 2009 11:33 AM PDT
- As a developer, I think this is fantastic. All browsers should create plugins for all other browsers. Developers can then create for their favorite without having to worry about cross-browser compatibility. What a creative relief from tedium.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (106 Comments)The result would be developers would choose the rendering engine in lieu of marketing types and lawyers playing their proprietary games.