Comments on: What Chrome means for Microsoft

Redmond gets back to work on Tuesday with more than just another browser to contend with.

[Glyld]

The way I see it, I don't know if I agree with this new mindset of 'working in the cloud', and it sounds and looks like that is where Chrome is going. Google has pretty much made it clear that it believes things are heading in that direction as well. I live in a decent sized city with high speed broadband, and I would still say that my Internet connection is lost more than my homes power. So if I start relying on 'the cloud' for my applications, then what? I do understand the portability that working with web applications gives a specific part of a workforce, but I am still waiting to see the real potential for the everyday user. Sometimes I get the feeling that the majority of people forget about the everyday user market, which there are more of than business/professional users. Add in the fact that some cable companies are looking to add caps to your browsing and it may not take long to see some pretty hefty bills for cloud-computing if the cable companies look to tighten down usage even further knowing that you NEED to connect to the Internet to do pretty much anything.

And a quick note since the subject is always breeched about Microsoft and open-source or open-whatever, I just have two comments:

1. If MS is so closed, and people like to use the example of Apple so open, why can I drive to computer parts store and build my own PC that runs Windows (or yes Linux) but I can't do the same with the 'oh so open' Apple? Why do I HAVE to have only Apple approved (and highly priced) hardware to run their OS? Maybe that is what helps Windows dominance over Apple in the PC market?

2. And why is it that PCs and their operating systems are the only consumer product with such a heated debate over open and closed 'source'? Isn't 'source' basically what makes each product a different brand of the same product? If we are going to complain about Windows, Linux, and Apple why not also pitch a fit over Coca-Cola not letting Pepsi make a soda that tastes just like theirs, or vice-versa? Or for that fact, why won't Coke or Pepsi give me their recipe so I can try and make my own soda at home and bottle it? If people think they should be allowed to know and do everything with or about an operating system, why can't we feel the same about every single product we buy?

[stalepie2]

Hey, Glyld, all of your points are extremely valid. Hope others are reading them!!

[richard mitnick]

Egad!! the Hype Machine. Wait six months and let's see what happens.

[Solaris_User]

A lot of you people think that Chrome will be taking over the Linux Desktop, that's not very likely.. more likely is Epiphany Webkit (Basically the same engine as Chrome) will implement things the same way as Chrome.

[jeromatron]

"That said, people have predicted the browser would overtake the operating system since the Netscape days and the OS has remained important. The key question for Microsoft is can it create enough experiences that are better outside of a browser/Web app engine to maintain the OS as not just relevant, but worth an extra $100 in the cost of a PC. "

The extra $100? It is *very* difficult to buy a PC or laptop without Windows *without* paying that extra $100. That's Microsoft's advantage, one they were convicted of, if I remember correctly. So to say they're really competing at all is questionable. At least they started the IE team again with 7/8.

[oludir]

I downloaded chrome, used it and uninstalled it. As chrome currently is, internet explorer has nothing to fear. Have you tried IE8 beta? Phenominal.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Google Tallk or Gbuy anyone ??? Bwahahahaha !!!!!

[rgor]

The public will decide, for me, the best application, is the one my hard drive with files located where I need them. If all my stuff is online, what happens if google wants to search my word docs for non identifying key phrases and have an ad pop up when I open that particular doc. Yes, it is all free...but no really. You are watching ads, they scan stuff (without trying to identify it is you) you own and try to sell you things. At what point do they decide that customers that never click on ads or buy anything should be weaned away...or how far can they go with your data residing on their servers. If you thought email was private, then you should have no problem putting mortgage letters, credit card statements, and social security numbers on their servers. Microsoft could clamp down on the hardware AND software that will run on their OS but then they would be no different than a Macs.
Google is on the far end of the "open" spectrum (but with no privacy) while Macs are the most closed computing system you will ever run into. Microsoft is in the middle. Legally they can get too closed or they get nailed by the Justice Dept and the EU. Financially they can't get too open, or they go broke. The tech market is healthy right now. Good competition, open source is flourishing, the standards bearer (MS) is innovating, and Apple is evolving. It will either go up or down, only time will tell.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Google is actually a front for Homeland Security ! And they ARE spying on us.

[googlechrome]

google chrome microsoft
http://www.certbible.org/what-chrome-means-for-microsoft/

[lmldias]

Many comments in here are plain lunacy or ignorance. Google's move is brilliant, but it is a chess-like move that will only bring benefits in the long range. What they are doing is to place them at the front-end of browser innovation (have you people SEEN the velocity that this baby gets against other browsers in Java? It's INSANE! Search for it) and promote AJAX with Google Gears and other good open standards and open source stuff, that will compete against proprietary formats (silverlight, flash) that are usually very slow and memory hogs, and require that you make some bjobs to the "creators" of those techs.

This is a way to promote web-based apps. If Java is fast enough (and it sure IS), then Flash and Silverlight are dead in the water, and web-based apps can become as fast and reliable as desktop apps (think of mobileme for a clue), then forget about the current web apps that Google has. They are history! Think more of MS Office - like quality of web based apps! And if you can imagine it, then to figure out that people will use it instead of paying the huge sums of cash that MS requires for it is a no-brainer. It will also mean the death of MS Windows, for it is PLATFORM INDEPENDENT!!

MS will then have decreasing monopoly leverage power to use against its users. And without such a lever, they will have to compete with competence and low cost, two things that aren't MS at all (think of the Zune and XBox. Yeah, XBox seems competent, until you realize that it loses money, instead of making a profit). The main cash cows that are MS Windows and MS Office will die of obesity and obsolescence.

Yeah, I'm making an exhageration. MS will backfire (they always do), but there's no "Netscaping" this time. They'll have to play by the rules.

[lmldias]

And the comments about IE8 being amazing and "phenominal", pfff, I mean, when did MS bots became so dull and stupid?

About Chrome not being able to "win" the browser war, that's irrelevant. What's important is that they make a difference and lead the pack with innovation. Firefox and Safari will eventually catch on with it pretty fast, for Chrome is Open Sourced, so anyone can see and reuse its code. Don't you see? They are only making sure people notice that the fast Java technology exists, and it's free and usable, and if the competition doesn't use it its because they don't want to use it (Microsoft would rather have Silverlight be faster than JAVA anytime).

When Web based apps get more and more quality, they will pose a serious threat to MS's cash cows. Eventually, small or medium companies will think again before spending thousands of dollars in MS Office. And further than that, they will even question why they need windows in the first place.

[chris_d]

---------------------
About Chrome not being able to "win" the browser war, that's irrelevant. What's important is that they make a difference and lead the pack with innovation. Firefox and Safari will eventually catch on with it pretty fast, for Chrome is Open Sourced, so anyone can see and reuse its code. Don't you see? They are only making sure people notice that the fast Java technology exists, and it's free and usable, and if the competition doesn't use it its because they don't want to use it (Microsoft would rather have Silverlight be faster than JAVA anytime).
---------------------
Finally! Someone gets it. Microsoft doesn't want Javascript to be fast because they don't control it. It's why ie is so dog slow at javascript. If they improve it, they might lose a sale of a desktop app. So why bother? What Chrome is all about is putting Microsoft between a rock and a hard place. If they don't improve their performance, enough people will hear/see about how fast Chrome is with popular google apps like GMail and download it themselves, further eroding Microsoft's web influence. If they do improve, it makes web-based apps like GMail all the more appealing, which erodes Microsoft on the desktop.

Google will likely have an easier time with average users because everyone knows the brand name. Not so with Mozilla. Chrome is designed for the average user, not the power user. Google has gotten so much press coverage I would assume that quite a few ie users have downloaded it. Don't underestimate the power of a well-recognized brand.

I downloaded it and the thing that impresses me the most is the javascript performance. I benchmarked it with Sun Spider and got 2x the performance of Firefox 3.0.1. Not quite as impressive as Google's chosen benchmarks, but still VERY good.

[BlogManiac]

1. IE is not going to be threatened as long as new browsers do not replicate IE's functionality EXACTLY plus offer more compelling features - remember thats how IE wrenched control out of Netscape's once dominant position. All this "Oh, I stick to standards" nonsense is not going to take them anywhere. They can shove their standards up their orifices - after all, if 80% of the people are using something, what the heck is the standard doing something other than that ?
2. Google is an ad company - ad revenue is what drives it - not search, not gears, not apps, not gmail. get this - they just simply want a browser that is slick and good and compels people to use it much like gmail - fast, responsive and innovative- and thats what drives ads to people's desktop and attention. Heck, I even switched over from hotmail to gmail for good. My suspicion is that since they have browsers blocking ads based on user preferences, google wants to protect that segment - therefore, voila - chrome - and soon Argentinum, Aurum and Platinum and may be Wolfram too :) which conveniently quite likely block OTHER people's ads but not google's own - in case they fall prey to antitrust, they will then evolve another model - you click a link via chrome browser, it would enable google to make the receiving partners pay - say you access amazon - amazon may have to pay some amount to google to get your custom via chrome.

Get over the myopic microsoft google nonsense folks. To us, they all are bloodsuckers - one way or another - i am just a user trying to use something to make my life better. if microsoft bsods on me, i will switch to linux or mac or qnx. if mac beach balls on me, i will switch to using XP.

Amen.

[Kwasiowusu]

Chrome is a threat to Windows?
Will you excuse me while I laugh?
Chrome is not even a threat to IE 8, which is clearly the best browser out there right now, let alone a threat to Windows.
Linux was out even before Windows NT came out, and Linux has still had ZERO impact on Windows's dominance of the desktop. The very slow, buggy Chrome is a threat only to Google themselves, as they waste their money on going head to head with Firefox, a no won battle.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ duncwa, Oh rubbush!
Google has taken on Microsoft on everything ranging from Google Mail to Googke Talk to Googke Docs, and mot even one Google endeavour outside search, has had the slightest impactt on Microsoft's offerings.
Hotmail is still the most dominant web based email service on the planet, MSN IM still totally dominates Google Talk.
Take away search, and Google has a record of abject failure on practically anything they have tried.
A few years ago, there was all this noise about how Google docs was going to take out Microsoft office. 3 years later, Microsoft Office is every bit as dominant as ever.

[David.Jennings]

Anything that drives users away from IE 6, 7, 8+ is fine by me. I downloaded Chrome yesterday and tested a dozen or so sites I had created. I found them to be rendered perfectly and functioning as expected. It's is nice to see a new browser, from Google or anyone, that performs better than IE 6, and 7 straight out of the box.

I have positive hopes for IE8 but would still rather see my clients use Firefox, Safari, or now Chrome rather than anything created by Microsoft. The MS history of bad browsers has cost me and my company thousands of hours of extra work to build sites that function correctly on the their horrible family of browsers. Just because IE is the most popular, sure as hell doesn't make it the best... not by a LONG shot.

[onlyauser]

Do not trust Google Chrome.

Chrome is spyware mascaraing as a browser.

[e92]

What everyone forgets, is, the average user isn't going to download a browser. There is that 20-30 percent that realizes that they can do much better than IE, but most people, don't see why they should care. Windows has such a high market share, because most people don't have an option. They go to a store and buy whatever the person working there tells them to. Then, they use IE, because for most people, it is good enough, and it is bundled with the OS.

As for chrome, It seems great, amazing considering this is a beta release of a brand new piece of software. Google has to fix its privacy issues though. I don't trust a browser that logs everything I do. Everyone is also calling this the first step to a browser being the operating system. Imagine if windows recorded everything you did and sent it to Microsoft? Anyway, I hope that Google fixes this privacy issue. I'll start using chrome when they do.

[i_made_this]

"... key question for Microsoft is can it ... maintain the OS as not just relevant, but worth an extra $100 in the cost of a PC?" Ms Fried, I'm very slow so please forgive me. I own Vista and XP and 98SE and 95 before it. But no one's ever asked me to pay $100 for the Windows browser, Internet Explorer. I bought loads of Apples too, for my kids before they graduated college. And for what it's worth, no one ever asked me to pay $100 for the OS X browser, Safari. There was a time when some people even used IE on Mac's and Safari on Windows (I think lol). And no one ever had to pay for their browsers.

Maybe the retail price of VISTA Home Basic's retail price is $100? Please help me understand because you've made a very fascinating and extremely provocative statement in the article.

To my knowledge, none of the major five or six browsers costs $100. None of them costs anything, including Google's Chrome.

If Chrome is a preview of the desktop / laptop o/s they've openly acknowledged they're working on for the past couple years, Google's got a long way to go. Until Google and AMD enter into merger talks, I figure that we don't have much to fear about they're being the new Borg.

[Bob_299]

This is the very same competitive threat that incited Microsoft against Netscape, only several generations advanced in technological development. One of Microsoft's browser problems is its apparent inability to conceptualize a browser that is not a resource hog. When Microsoft's automatic updates installed IE6 over IE5, hordes of users were driven to Firefox simply because IE6 was too slow on their machines. Once on Firefox, they liked it and stayed with it. Maybe the problem is the Microsoft is closely tied in with hardware suppliers who want "improvements" that push existing hardware towards obsolescence. If this is the case, then Google's relative independence from hardware makers may lead it to be more oriented towards performance and less oriented towards driving demand for new hardware. If that is what happens, then the differences between the two business models can be predicted to benefit Google over Microsoft in the long run.

[Stuart080561]

Do we hate MS because of REAL dead-end products or is it deeper? How many times have you, my buds said this? [ God&$-it, MS ain't gonna tell me what I can and can't do with my own pc!! ] NEXT..we;re Americans! (unless you're not) Defiance! [ I'll show 'em, MS don't tell me nothin, this machine does what I tell it to or else! ] "This stupid IE browser, I hate it." NEXT.. we find a different browser with it's own problems, our OS crashes or we just know a glitch will happen and where are we? Right back to IE except, we've wasted a day rebuilding in frustration and pissed off at MS. Between the media player wars, browser wars and TV Steve Mac taunting Bill PC, who suffers? Who gains? I realize cyber-mart is full of the coolest stuff, I love trying new things too and most us are correct in the belief GOOGLE is the King of search results and BTW, thanks Google for EARTH. Let this old guy help ya, if your pc or mac is used at home for school or work, don't play with BETA products. Summertime, holidays, vacations play with dynamite all you want or suffer the new school - homework dog. My pc ate my homework.... sobbing. Get an F or get fired, let old dudes like me work the bugs out while you stick with ONE browser and I know, Realplayer and Windows media Player, we all gotta have both don't we? Just be cool, it will all be there when your ready.

[AppleSuxLeo]

GoogleTalk anyone ? Gbuy anyone ? Gears ? Bwhahahahahaha Check out with Gbuy ?*** ? All that money and all those minds and all there is , is Google search. Snicker , snicker.