Mozilla VP: Chrome Frame is the wrong answer
Mozilla and Microsoft don't always see eye to eye when it comes to browser technology, but they agree broadly on one thing: thumbs down for Google Chrome Frame.
Chrome Frame is a plug-in that puts Google's browser engine under the hood of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, and Google argues that it can modernize IE versions 6, 7, and 8 with faster page loading and JavaScript performance. It kicks in only on Web pages that Web developers have labeled with a specific tag. After Google announced it, Microsoft criticized it as creating a potentially increased risk to browsing security.
Google Wave is one site that suggests IE users install Google Chrome Frame.
(Credit: Google)Mike Shaver, vice president of engineering for Firefox backer Mozilla, published a different concern in a blog post Monday night.
"I certainly share that longing for a Web in which the vast majority of Web users enjoy the performance and capabilities we see in Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Opera. Unfortunately, I don't think that Chrome Frame gets us closer to that Web," Shaver said.
Specifically, Shaver said Chrome Frame can disable IE features and muddle users' understanding of Web security matters. And users of the reviled IE 6 browser, he added, often won't be able to run Chrome Frame anyway because their computer is locked down to prohibit changes or lacks sufficient power in the first place.
"As a side effect, the user's understanding of the Web's security model and the behavior of their browser is seriously hindered by delegating the choice of software to the developers of individual sites they visit. It is a problem that we have seen repeatedly with other stack plug-ins like Flash, Silverlight and Java, and not one that I think we need to see replayed again under the banner of HTML5," he said.
Shaver's advice is to rely on that ages-old technique: an upgrade suggestion on the Web site.
"It would be better for the Web if developers who want to use the Chrome Frame snippet simply told users that their site worked better in Chrome and instructed them on how to install it," Shaver said. "The user would be educated about the benefits of an alternate browser, would understand better the choice they were making, and the kudos for Chrome's performance would accrue to Google rather than to Microsoft."
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
It is not in Microsoft's interest to make IE run Web apps fast, so Google is providing the solution.
Not to mention that Microsoft will probably be forced to have a fast browser than let users use Chrome Frame.
Whatever they decide it is a win for Google and the Web either way.
NO! you are 100% wrong buddy it is not a website problem. I am a web developer and I can tell you that if you code with standards such as WC3 standards then no the problem is Microsoft and their piece of garbage browser. It has nothing to do with the site. My bother upgraded his IE7 to IE8 guess what Netflix would not allow him in, but yet IE7 worked just fine. So no it is not a website problem it is a browser problem. I'm so sick of you don't know jack users. "oh no the site should just work". That is why tell everyone to use firefox because their browser works 100% on standards just like Safari, Chrome and Opera. But not IE I wonder why, hum...can we say LOCK IN.
We shouldn't get emotional about software and "lock in" conspiracy theory. And we shouldn't spread FUD from either side of the imaginary fences we create. IE8 is a decent browser. I happen to prefer another but I have to give credit to IE8 for almost being on par with the rest when it comes to *published* standards compliance. (HTML5 is not final and not part of this conversation.)
If you're a web developer, I'd strongly recommend you spend more time researching and understanding the technologies and platforms you deal with. I'd also recommend you get a handle on your emotions.
I can only assume that your web site works in IE and is not standard compliant.
Because if it was standard compliant, IE would have two thirds (66%) share like every other standard web site and not 95% as you say your site is. Theoretically you are missing out on around 30% more traffic. So you are not fully in the real world, (as you say).
1. Company apps/sites are dependent on IE and those companies don't allow any other browser to be installed.
2. People are too computer phobic/illiterate, to attempt a browser install.
3. People like IE, but they also would like to conform to web standards & support the latest web technologies.
To me, the advantages of having Google Chrome Frame available to install, in these cases, FAR outweigh any disadvantages it could introduce.
1. If they are locked down like this chances are they can't install a plugin either.
2. If they can't handle a browser install then what makes you think they can understand a plugin install?
3. If someone likes IE then why are you trying to suggest they use something else. If Web standards and the latest web technologies (whatever that means) was important to them wouldn't they already be using something else?
Other than possibly a speed boost what advantages are there to adding this plugin to IE.
Try accessing these HTML5 sites with IE "before" installing Google Chrome Frame and then with IE "after" installing Google Chrome Frame. I don't know, if you need to prefix the URLs with "cf:", or not (I use Chrome 4 on Ubuntu).
http://www.youtube.com/html5
http://demo.sproutcore.com/video/
http://www.rgraph.net/
http://html5gallery.com/
http://tinyvid.tv/
There's a whole new corner of the internet developing that IE users do not even have access to.
There's also a Javascript NES emulator here. You will definitely need Chrome, to play the games.
http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/
"1. If they are locked down like this chances are they can't install a plugin either. "
I think you're right in most cases. It's possible that some users may still be able to install the plugin, though.
"2. If they can't handle a browser install then what makes you think they can understand a plugin install?"
I was curious about this, so I decided to download it. It took me two clicks; much simpler and less intimidating than a browser install. Especially an IE8 browser install.
"3. If someone likes IE then why are you trying to suggest they use something else. If Web standards and the latest web technologies (whatever that means) was important to them wouldn't they already be using something else?"
IE still provides some things that Chrome does not. For instance, Chrome didn't have a full-screen mode when it was first introduced. For other examples, just search for "missing Chrome features." Plus, Chrome's GUI is drastically different from IE, so IE users may not want to move away from what's comfortable. Chrome frame allows these users to keep the things they like about IE, while adding the speed and standards support of Google Chrome.
@forevernow
While this may be the case I think it is the way that these things have progressed. MS eventually adopts the new stuff and implements it into IE. Though to be honest none of the sites you listed are on my radar except for youtube and that works fine in IE except for the special video you point to. If it was designed by Google then you would guess that it works with Chrome well. Besides HTML 5 hasn't even been ratified. IE will eventually support it. Also I installed the Chrome Frame on my Win7 machine and the sites you mention didn't work. Not sure what the issue is but in any case I guess what I'm saying is that this isn't ready for primetime yet. Plus it is a bit of poor form on Google's part to go enhancing a competitors browser. I am a fan of Google, use gmail and picasa, but I don't agree with everything they do. I also am a Mac and Windows user but I don't always agree with those 2 companies either.
not only am I reimaging their sh@#, but i'm locking them down even tighter. It took me hours of research to realize that it was that add on that disabled our security software. I wonder how many pedophiles slipped into area elementary schools because of a few jokers who hate IE6.
To my knowledge, IE8 is the only browser that requires you to restart your machine during installation. When I installed it after it had just been released, I had to restart my machine twice during the installation process. Even the automatic update isn't completely effortless, and it definitely takes more time than installing Chrome frame.
From a business standpoint, Google makes money on selling ads when folks use the Web, in particular Google properties on the Web.
The thinking behind Chrome Frame is that Google will be able to deliver much more sophisticated Google 'properties' (i.e. applications) than can be delivered with the creaky old basically 1990's technology that IE represents.
By making Chrome Frame available, this allows Google to deploy these much more sophisticated apps, with much less engineering effort (estimates from a friend at Google are that over 50% of engineering costs are in trying to get stuff to run on IE that already runs great on modern browsers... that's real money), to deliver higher-value apps that they can then run ads next to (or even charge a monthly fee for).
Not sure how this isn't great business... and that comes from a geek who started out with my business degree...
Cheers,
- Bill
At least this plugin might actually make people less afraid of potentially switching to another browser.
Mozilla are (well, Mike is ) just jealous they never thought of it first.
The less people using that horrible excuse of a browser, the better.
Despite all the claims of MS moving away from crippling the browser on purpose, they are still holding back as much as possible.
But eventually when they lose more marketshare, they are going to have to do something about it.
They already ruined a great chance with Win7, so i have my doubts.
http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/08/mozilla-drags-ie-into-the-future-with-canvas-element-plugin.ars
I think this was a smart move by google. It is one more way of putting pressure on microsoft to get their act together. It won't solve the problem by itself, but it is a way of transitioning some users to the modern world.
1. it allows IE to maintain support for existing, IE-dependent apps/sites.
2. it brings all versions of IE into full compliance, with the latest web standards.
3. it brings blazing-fast JavaScript performance, to all versions of IE.
4. it brings the latest HTML5 functionality, to all versions of IE.
5. it reduces web development & support costs ("hacks" to support IE are no longer required).
6. it reduces/eliminates the need for Flash/Silverlight (devs can use HTML5 audio/video/canvas, etc.).
7. it reduces/eliminates the need for users to change to another modern browser, to get these enhancements.
8. it eliminates the need to wait for Microsoft, to find a solution to this problem.
How exactly do all these benefits, for users & web developers, equate to "evil"?
I doubt this will ever be implemented in large networks(businesses , schools, etc.) due to constant maintenance limited support(MS: "I'm sorry we don't offer support on that plugin" G: "I'm sorry we don't support MS products"). In these areas of the tech industry the K.I.S.S. method is king. Keep It Simple Stupid. Is MS good? no. is it fast? no. Does it just F'in work? sadly yes.
home users:
Novice: lucky if they can find Google, miracle if they can install, lost with the idea of patching and updates, safer with IE.
Skilled User: "why don't I just use chrome/Firefox/opera/etc.?", "why does it need all these damn updates", "why did I install this instead of Chrome/Firefox/Opera/etc."
Advanced/Cnet User: "IE didn't come with Ubuntu ", "Mac is god", "well I don't have problems while running Windows 8 RC Beta on IE 9.5 beta on my Mini Cray" etc.
if google wants to do this i say "Go Big G!" Will I use it in either my personal or professional life? No. If I want google performance I'll install chrome. I tried and liked chrome but I'm sticking with the fox. I really think it is about preference. I know people who have tried every browser and still pick IE. it's sad when people don't pick your favorite and it causes a lot of bickering and competition but I think we can all agree cobbling together a franken-browser is not and probably never will be the way and the light.
Given the VERY strict software installation policies in most business and government entities, Google needs to realize that given most businesses and government agencies run Internet Explorer ONLY, and Google will have to wait until Internet Explorer get HTML 5 support before Google Wave is widely used.
I think while Google's stated concern is the truly ugly coding required to make Wave work (or any standards-based site) in IE, they also know that Microsoft will be dragged kicking & screaming to support HTML5 in a transparent way.
Google knows that a tiny number of users know about the site patching madness that web developers and browser makers go though every day; which means that when an IE user goes to try Wave and something breaks, they'll blame Google (the site), not IE (the browser maker).
Just check out how ugly it's been the last few years to manage site patching issues.
http://my.opera.com/core/blog/show.dml/3130540
On a sidenote, anyone notice Google leaving out Opera 10 off their browser pop-up for Wave...? Really lame; especially given Opera continuous fight for web standards for years that benefits them, while the CTO at Opera, Håkon Wium Lie, actually invented CSS.
It is my understanding that the Wave UI makes extensive use of HTML5. Perhaps, Opera 10 does not support all the necessary HTML5 functionality, required by Wave.
If so, then hopefully some Opera devs will be selected to participate in the Wave public beta, so they can make the necessary tweaks, to make Opera work compatibly.
Let's have a look at Flock ( http://www.flock.com), which is my favorite browser, based on the Mozilla Firefox engine and enhanced with various communicative features. A government would NEVER use a browser with such an interface. I am ready to challenge anyone to have a look to the browser to verify so. However, for me it enables fast and secure access to many things that I would never dare browse with IE in fear of security. I think Flock is better. Other experienced users believe Chrome, Firefox (Flock is its "brother") or Opera are better.
However, whenever someone says IE is better, I can think but only that they run some kind of business which requires strict protocols or that they like much better the interface. Compared to, let's say, firefox, I think: "Come one? You really believe that dozens or hundreds of terrific programmers are anything compared to the thousands studying and continuously bettering an open-source project?"
Of course, IE has some vital advantages. Wouldn't be better then to use them along with Chrome's advantages? And, anyway, were I (say) a good web developer, why shouldn't I write an app that uses so much javascript that it requires chrome's 40% faster processing? Would anyone banish my code for this? Of course not. But let's say that some company or government department takes a like and starts using my product. They are bound to have IE. Why shouldn't they run the code with the Chrome plug-in? If my code is the best of its kind should they still try to use an alterative, just out of some browser restriction?
Really, I see nothing wrong in what Google does.
I believe that really MS is concerned only about security or some market play I cannot comprehend.
But to those that think that we should mix company products I have just two questions:
Why does MS not complain about iTunes for windows? Why do they not complain about open-office?
But to those that think that we should not mix products from various companies, I have just two questions:
Why does MS not complain about iTunes for windows? Why do they not complain about open-office?
Firefox for life, Chrome and Wave for the grave.
- by sullivanjc October 1, 2009 9:32 AM PDT
- Doesn't IETab for Firefox do much the same thing in reverse?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(43 Comments)