Comments on: Be sure to read Chrome's fine print

The software maker reserves the right to install updates automatically, among other things.

[mikeburek]

How are these auto-update downloads going to go over when ISPs have caps?

[Maccess]

Ditto for me too - There are some things I write online (such as web e-mails and online banking) that are not for public display or consumption, and I can't give rights to websites that display in their browser simply because I'm just a reader and the content isn't mine, so I can't agree to that EULA.

[Gemmo]

Download went smoothly and installation was totally trouble free. I was impressed by its load-up speed and it knocked spots off FF. When trying to connect to Peter Butler's cnet newsletter, FF was so slow that I had clicked a number of times and ended up with 11 tabs when it finally came in. Chrome whizzed in with hardly a delay.
The front end is as I like it, no superfluous lines of icons or text and I can make the whole screen available for useful content rather than be wasted on items rarely used. For example, in IE7 I can switch off the Menu Bar File, Edit, View etc and only turn them on when I need them; I cannot of course do this in FF and it's a bit of a bugbear for me with FF as I lose the space taken by 4 bars at the top of the screen because I need the Navigation bar constantly.
However, I cannot get at my favourites/bookmarks in Chrome WITHOUT having a row of them at the top of the screen. Why not an icon to click to drop down as in IE7 (it's the same but not as slick in FF and the font is too large and clunky) so that more screen is available. I have been using the internet professionally and at home since the early nineties and my favourites/bookmarks list is quite extensive but I know what's in there and only need to click a couple of times to get where I want to go so I don't need to see the first half a dozen of my 640 links taking up a whole bar at the top. It might seem a lot of favourites, but all are used during the month at some time or other and after all that's the purpose of a computer, to store massive amounts in the background but be able to access any item quickly.
I?ve tried IE8 beta but this still has the problem of persistent cookies going missing (i.e. being non-persistent) so that every time a site is entered login details have to be entered. These have ported across with no problem.
I have to say though that the overall package looks good as it is uncluttered and quick and should give the others a run for their money.

[RobertAPierce]

Interesting. I admin I skipped through the EULA as well. This line is the one that really jumped out at me: "any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services". In other words, basically anything I ever open up in the browser, even if I open a file on my own PC using the browser, now becomes essentially Google's property? Am I missing something? So if I take a picture and own it, upload it to a website using Chrome, Google now owns the rights to that picture?

The auto-update feature is a double edged sword. Updating the software to patch holes is good, but what if I don't want to update to the latest version all the time? Newer versions often break functionality that works fine in existing versions.

No adblock makes Chrome a non-starter for me. Once a suitable adblock is available I'd take a look at it.

[stevent1992]

So you're saying that Google may cache certain web pages to display ads on them????

[kteis]

Can't run Adblock, Java doesn't appear to work, required plugin not available. Options are absolutely minimal. I'm all in favour of stripping out the excesses that accompany most browsers but this is a step too far. Sorry Google but I'll be sticking with Firefox and Opera.

[honorable1]

Did it occur to anyone NOT to use Chrome for the obvious reason that it allows Google to see EVERYTHING you do and build a super detailed picture of your 'life' online? Google, Vint Cerf and others like to tell us that "There Is NO PRIVACY" and to just "GET OVER IT". Why would anyone trust a company like Google who has shown complete contempt for all things privacy unless 'forced' to do so.

Just a fair warning in advance. You WILL one day find that it is too late and I Told You So. I will not be downloading this product ever. And the Google Toolbar ? This is another 'line tap' on your life online. Google cannot be trusted, and will never be able to repair that image in our lifetime.

But, there are solutions coming...

[umbrae]

I am sure there will be no Adblock Plus plugin for Chrome like there is for Firefox.

[couldntcareless]

For those who think this type of thing is standard, it ISN'T. Check the below link, which explains it nicely. There's no way I'll even try Chrome until these crazy sections are removed from the EULA. FF for me, baby!

http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

[skiracer712]

My big concern, security. Lets face it, one thing google dosent have an arm in yet is the security sector. Until I see alot of testing done this browser, Im not going to give in on Googles first try. I have it, i thought it was ok, opera still loads pages faster. I do like the seperate tabs acting as seperate browsers, but given that google is freely sharing this "technology" you will see it in upcoming versions of just about everything.

If you use alot of google stuff, it could be for you. Personally, I use pIcasa, and that is the only google "product" i use. I dont even search with google anymore because you get to many useless hits. The fact that i get 87,000 hits when I type in "George Washington Cherry Tree Myth: is great. But the I get the same results for the first ten hits as anywhere else. And if I need to keep looking past the first 10 hits, than I need to narrow down my search further, not click through pages upon pages of hits.

Im not anti google, im not anti MS, im not anti Mac. I dont really care. Its like Ford vs Chevy, it dosent matter. I just see Google making this to big to fast, and I think its the end users who are going to suffer from Googles inexperience in the browser world.

[cascadia4]

Hmm... haven't EULAs basically been turned into pointless statements by the courts with so many rulings shooting holes right through EULAs? So even if the EULA says that you agree to allow Google to own your soul and marry your first daughter for profit doesn't mean it will stand up in court.

If it's innocuous traffic gathering I'm not sure anyone will moan. If they're actively screenprinting your view and mailing it to a google analyst, then the EFF will be along shortly to stick the proverbial boot to them.

Point is, if you don't like it, don't use it. Just know that with or without google chrome, you're traffic stats are monitored by all websites, even those really tiny ones that get 1/1000000000000 the traffic cnet does.

[isaac.rivera]

So wait. Point #2 of the Terms of Service is interesting"

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."

Two questions arise:

1) How could the end user grant Google permission over the "content", namely websites, which are presumably not owned by the end user?

2) Does this mean that your private information submitted via order form to say, Amazon.com, is now licensed to Google? For instance, my credit card numbers?

Its like the best of MS' and AOL's business plans combined!!!

You agree your data is theirs if it goes through their browser!!!

[onlyauser]

Do not trust Google Chrome.

Chrome is spyware mascaraing as a browser.

[cybergal619]

Anybody else have problems with YouTube vids or vids and audio clips in general showing and/or playing? And yes, I have the most recent Adobe player and plug-in (per Chrome and Adobe) installed. I run a blog and vids and audio clips are essential. I'm back to IE until Chrome and the vids work together.

[SethGrimes]

If you don't like the terms of service, download the code, recompile it, and redistribute the executable under whatever terms of service you like. I believe that Chrome's BSD software license allows that. See my blog article at http://www.intelligententerprise.com/blog/archives/2008/09/bsd_licensing_p.html .

[gibrushtripwood]

are you a lier?

section 2 of your anti-google propaganda says that google may republish any content... bla bla....
THERE IS NO SUCH TERM IN THE USER-LICENCE AGREEMENT WHEN DOWNLOADIN CHROME!

eather you invented it or google chose to remove it, eather way, its not there.

[BillyA.]

after install I started getting periodic background noise when playing music. I uninstalled CHROME and the noise stopped. If anyone recalls having similar occurrances please let me know. BillyA.

[David01110]

This all seems very ambiguous to me. Does this mean that Google has the right to print the content of my e-mails? Or the credit card numbers that I enter to a website using their browser?

[mojojam]

Interesting thing happened when I installed Chrome. It worked fine until I closed it then I couldn't find it anywhere on my pc. Not even in the Add/Remove programs. Had to reinstall it. During reinstall Spybot S&D "Encountered and terminated CoolWWWSearch.hjg in C:\Users\School\Desktop\ChromeSetup.exe!" I also disabled (temporarily) the automatic chrome updater through SpybotS&D (I'll update it manually instead of let google update it whenever they want.) I've also installed privoxy and setup the proxy in chrome since there is no adblock for chrome. Haven't noticed more or less ads yet but I'm used to running FF with adblock.

[cipals15]

@Serrr: "good to know. i'm glad someone reads that stuff." ??? We need to read it before using stuff. :D

Anyway, it was a good discovery to all of us.