Comments on: Google Chrome...is Windows inside, which may be a strategic error

Google may have started with the wrong desktop platform in trying to create a groundswell for its Chrome browser.

[Placebo1985]

zedomax

I wonder who is desperate enough for an internet browser of all things (you know, cause FF and Opera are hard to come by) that they'd download from some dubious website instead of waiting a couple months.

[Starfires]

Cummon this is so silly. I prefer Mac by far, but to say it influences market-share outside of the art and design markets is laughable! A universal program, or one seeking to have more street-cred would want to be associated with Mac for sure- even Microsoft's Office appears there in more advanced forms first.

But it has a relatively small market-share, only those willing to sacrifice a bit of compatability for the luxury of the most user-friendly OS out there!

[Fritz the cat]

Why does Mac and Linux need it?

Considering the same webkit that is used in Google Chrome is also used in the mac browser Safari and the Linux browser Konqueror.

Now I'll admit after testing Google Chrome on windows I loved it. It still has some bugs that Safari and Konqueror have but I won't complain since it's still a work in progress that needs time to build and grow.

[theveggiedude]

"Soon the internet wont be accessible by Apple nutcases. It will be a better place."

How can you have a better place without innovation? I remember back in '96, over 80% of websites were made with a Mac. Yes, the PC has caught up but things created on the Mac is still disproportionate to its tiny share in the marketplace. Even the web was invented by Tim Berners Lee on the OS which today is known as OS X. No, it would be a boring place.

[Sesetamhet]

"Due to privacy concerns, I wouldn't use the damn thing anyway."
...Chrome is far more secure than Safari.
Things that Chrome sends to google server (if you don't choose the share usage statistics option):
Hashes of websites visited suspected of malware. (These cannot be used to determine the website visited, only if the same website is visited twice)
Standard IP/OS information sent by every browser out there.
Every download comes with a unique UID, the purposes of which are limited to determining at what time one downloaded Chrome.

And if you're worried about security, read about the virtualization system and backend to Chrome! It's near flawless! When given the choice of Safari, a browser which was exploited in order to hack into MAC laptops at the recent international hacking competition, or Chrome, and Open source project with security far superior to anything come out to date, I would pick Chrome in an instant. As a MAC/Linux user, I eagerly await Chrome's release to those operating systems.

[GEO2003]

Yeah, keep supporting a browser that keeps track of all the sites you visit and not only tracks excesive details but keeps them for a very long time, and then see where you end up.

You will end up fighting for your freedom, rights and privacy.
THIS IS AN ONGOING ISSUE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW,

Don't support the kind of User License Agreement that Google is using

Already people are finding out how long Google keeps user history in their servers.
Already there is a movement against this kind of intrussion on user's privacy.

By supporting this kind of privacy intrussion, you are making it harder for yourselves and and everyone else in maintaining level field, between what an organization such a Google want's to force on people and that which is righfully ours to decide.

There is a big difference between tracking that you click on a link or ad so that they can get paid, and another when they just want to gather every piece of private information from users.

I can't believe that Cnet has engaged in promoting this browser in a way that makes users and readers feel is a great browser and commenting on how Goggle can improve it without clearly stating the facts of the User License Agreement.

I UNDERSTAND VERY CLEARLY THE FACT THAT CNET SHOULD AND WILL REVIEW THE BROWSER AS A POSSIBLE TECHNICAL ADVANCES IN THE BROWSER WAR.

I AM JUST ASKING THAT EVERYTIME CNET PROMOTES SOME GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE BROWSER AND FEATURES THAT ARE ADDED AS THE PROGRAMING PROGRESSES, THAT CNET ALSO STATES VERY CLEARLY ON THE SAME ARTICLES THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OR NOT TO THE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT.

IN THIS WAY, YOU ARE REMAINING NEUTRAL, YOU POINTS THE TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE BROWSER WHILE STILL INFORMING THE USER / READERS OF THE PRIVACY ISSUES THAT EXIST BY USING THIS BROWSER.

ALLOWING THE USER / READER TO BE WELL INFORMED IS CNET'S JOB.
I HAVE READ MANY ARTICLES FROM CNET POINTING OUT THAT USER'S DON'T BOTHER TO READ THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE TO HARD TO ADD A COUPLE OF LINES WARNING THE USER ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS OF THE USER AGREEMENT.
NOT JUST FOR THIS BUT EVERY REVIEW YOU DO.

IN DOING SO YOU ARE ALLOWING THE USER TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES TO SUBMIT (BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY THE TERM APPLICABLE TO GOOGLE'S LICENSE).
OR TO AVOID USING IT UNTIL GOOGLE LEARNS THAT WE THE PEOPLE

ARE NOT MINDLESS, AND HAVE RIGHTS.

IF I HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE, I WOULD JUST GO WITH SAFARI, FIREFOX WITH PRIVACY EXTENSIONS, OR WAIT UNTIL IE8 COMES OUT OF BETA.

THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT HIDING IS ABOUT ----- USER RIGHTS -----

Has anyone noticed, the dunnat shape icon, it has the same colors as microsoft flag key.

Nice going, when I see the Icon, I think Microsoft.

I don't mean for any of this to come out in a offensive way, but I do like speaking my mind.

Hope no one takes it personally.

Geo

[Visualdude]

Wow - I surmized that the Chrome logo was derived from a distorted look from the inside out of the Windows logo, go figure I was right. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1478&tag=nl.e055

[dherre]

"which may be a strategic error"
How is this strategy at fault when there seems to be no apparent sign of the market share collapse of Windows? If and when there is a shift, there will be time to re-evaluate. Until then, why in the world would you squander your resources?