Google Chrome: Browser competition back in high gear
Google Chrome is a warning shot over the bows of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Opera.
The open-source software project, to be detailed later Tuesday at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., should dispel any lingering thoughts that the browser wars are over. To be sure, it's less cutthroat now than in the 1990s, but one of technology's most powerful companies is now on the battlefield.
So how does Chrome change the competitive landscape?
Google Chrome has many competitors to contend with, according to these August stats.
(Credit: Net Applications)Initially at least, it's not likely to change the market share rankings. According to Net Applications' browser market share statistics for August, IE has 72 percent share, Firefox 20 percent, Safari 6 percent, and Opera 1 percent.
But even before Google's browser became available for download, its repercussions were traversing the industry. There are plenty of implications from a company as large as Google that builds a browser tuned to advance the company's agenda of Web-based applications.
Here are some possible implications for the four major alternatives to Chrome.
Internet Explorer
IE still claims the dominant share of the browser market, and it still has the hard-to-beat distribution channel of being built into the most widely used operating system.
CNET News Poll
Firefox has been chipping away at IE's share for years, but the dominance has remained fairly secure, and unless Chrome offers revolutionary new abilities, it's not likely to do more than perhaps increase the chipping rate a bit.
Microsoft has lit a fire under its IE team, and given that Google is such a powerful Microsoft rival, that fire doubtless will burn all the hotter because of Chrome. The forthcoming IE 8, with beta 2 released last week and the final version officially due to ship by the end of January, is a sign of how serious Microsoft is.
Officially, Microsoft welcomes the competition. "The browser landscape is highly competitive, but people will choose Internet Explorer 8 for the way it puts the services they want right at their fingertips, respects their personal choices about how they want to browse and, more than any other browsing technology, puts them in control of their personal data online," Dean Hachamovitch, Internet Explorer general manager, said in a statement.
Vast numbers of people haven't upgraded from IE 6, which is ancient in Internet years. That cuts both ways for Microsoft: it's hard to get people to upgrade to IE 7 much less to IE 8, but those folks aren't moving to the competition either.
Of course, with Google's Web application agenda, the bigger long-term threat is to Microsoft's Office team, not to its IE team.
Firefox
Firefox potentially stands to lose the most from Chrome.
It's the leading alternative to IE and the standard bearer for those who love open-source software and revile Microsoft's technology, its business practices, and its philosophy. If you're hell-bent on taking down Microsoft, you could pick worse allies than Google.
Mozilla has something for the philosophical purists that Google lacks, though: a measure of independence. "Uniquely in this market, we're a public-benefit, nonprofit group, with no other agenda or profit motive at all," Mozilla Corp. Chief Executive John Lilly said in a blog posting Monday.
Survival is a powerful motive even if profit isn't, though, and the Mozilla Foundation, the parent of the Mozilla Corp., relies on Google for tens of millions of dollars each year in exchange for prominent placement of Google in the browser's search. Happily for Mozilla, Google just signed up for three more years of subsidizing Mozilla, so Firefox and other foundation activities should be financially sound at least for the time being.
Firefox has built a massive grassroots fan base, though. And even Google, for all its charisma, money, and power, will have a hard time replicating that.
Finally, though Chrome at first blush is bad news for Firefox, there's a subtler reality at play: IE is the dominant browser, and the greater the number of credible underdogs that exist, the more that dominance can't be taken for granted. Don't be surprised to hear Mozilla and Google present themselves more as allies than foes.
Safari
Apple has expanded its Safari ambitions from Mac OS X to Windows, most notably by letting the browser hitch a ride along with the iTunes update software. However, Safari has yet to become a force to be reckoned with.
But Safari could benefit indirectly from Chrome: both browsers are based on the open-source WebKit rendering engine.
If Google sponsors aggressive Webkit development--and doesn't end up wrestling with Apple for power over the project--both browsers stand to gain. Google's Android browser for mobile phones, it should be noted, also is based on WebKit.
Opera
Opera has a small share of the browser market, so it's the most likely to drop in position if Google Chrome catches on. It already fights for relevance against the bigger players.
But Opera is a scrappy company. Not surprisingly, it prefers to look at its own growth rather than its sliver of share, and CEO Jon Tetzchner points out that its share has grown each time a new browser has emerged as a viable competitor to Internet Explorer.
"Last year, we had more than 50 percent growth in our user base," Tetzchner said. "I think we'll do quite well this year as well. It seems every time there's talk of new browsers, that's been a positive thing for us. It has been good there is focus on browser alternatives."
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. 






He who controls the distribution, has a Huge advantage.
I wonder what Chrome has that makes it compelling ENOUGH THAT CONSUMERS will download it? Most people won't download it from fear of losing their current "working" browser or other reasons.
I think the bigger battle is one step beyond browser competition. This is another salvo in the battle to break Microsoft's hold on the desktop OS. How many more pieces of the OS/applications puzzle do we need before we don't need anything from Microsoft any more?
-Michael Adams, www.chromevoice.com
I love the new features in IE8 and I think it's ready to fight any competition!
As I read somewhere on user comments in CNET, it's sad from web designer perspective to make existing and new pages compliant on one more browser.
Man you linux and Apple fanbois cant get enough of yourselves. Years of trying and still MS is still dominating.
The simple alternative is for developers to code their sites to W3C standards. It's about the same amount of work to code, but then their site works with all compliant browsers on all operating systems. Nearly 100% instead of only 72%.
So it's not really about being a fanboy. It's about bang-for-the-buck and common sense.
the hits to april fools jokes of past with google established there would be a demand for a google browser. turning a "joke" into market research, what a concept. firefox leaving open source to go subscription under the google name? doubtful, but the companies seem to be headed in same direction - regardless of hints to the contrary in various press releases.
Allowing the accessories available on the other browsers from Google and others, to be 'switchable', or temporarily dis-counted, from the main browser will be important. I use many accessory devices on IE, and a few on FireFox, but the drain on browser potential makes online bidding, page opening, and new searches noticeably slower and less stable.
As to 'sean_001's' comment on a space project, I'm waiting for more 'X' Prize and other competitions, and yes, in time, perhaps a privately funded mission to a well selected location- something like the Stardust mission, with real physical returns for the investment, as a possibility...
in a quote appropriate to the style, "Godspeed to Google".
I might be a little faster than FF3. However, it is far less intuitive than FF3. Also, it is overly simplistic, to the point it reminds me of a stripped down sandbox version of a real browser that is undergoing development. Definitely not a browser I'd switch to.
My ranking is:
1. FF3
2. Opera - distant second
3. IE
4. Chrome
Question: does chrome have the little applications fire does? I love pic lens and window preview and gmail checker and all that. If i could get all that in google's browser, i might try it out longer
Chrome does look faster than other browsers. It also seems to be less developed than others for regular use. It reminds me of stripped-down sports cars: they are ok for a few laps on a weekend, but for daily commute I'd choose a little slower but much more comfortable road vehicle with heated seats, power windows and cd player. Same goes here, I don't see using Chrome for regularly. I rather wait 0.01 of a second more, but have something less spartan.
Also agree that Firefox has the most to lose...if only because its existence is based on being the alternative browser. If one of the biggest and most powerful companies makes their own alternative, then people will consider that more of an option. For better or worse, IE is supreme because it is standard.
http://zwadia.com/
Google did not make a browser to compete with other browsers. They built a browser to help improve the situation for web applications. In the press conference, they said that they profited by having more people use the web more. The real competition is with Adobe Flex/Flash and all other non-HTML application environments. As Flex/Flash and desktop applications continue to improve, web applications will fall behind. Although Firefox did just make improvements in Javascript speed, Google worked on more than just that.
As long as we are stuck trying to compare the browsers for bells and whistles we miss the point of Chrome. For web applications to continue to improve, the browsers need to do the work reserved for specialized applications. As was mentioned by Google, all the other browser developers can take anything and everything to improve their own browsers.
I feel strongly that web applications are preferable, all other things being equal. Right now Adobe has built a Flex/Flash application to replicate Photoshop. Perhaps with SVG (which Chrome can show) and downloadable @font-faces (not yet in Chrome), it would be possible to come up with an equal to the Flex-Photoshop. This is the real competition and if HTML wins, then Google build on its core strengths of searching HTML pages, HTML ads and HTML applications.
---------------------------
Daniel Bennett
--
Why are people so concentrated on "who is going to loose" like they are rooting for a baseball team of something? Competition is a GREAT things because people who use the web no matter what browser they use will win.
It hurts Microsoft 70%, Firefox 20%, Apple 7% and Opera 3% .. but the thing you need to realize is it helps internet users 100%.
Chrome's default installs are equally offensive as Apple's sneaking Safari on Windows users last year without being asked. Stuff like this makes me want to stick with FF and Opera more and more.
When Google wants to get this show on the road for real - a full featured 32 / 64 bit, desktop and laptop operating system with Chrome as a core element, fair enough - I'll reconsider But for now, I just don't see any benefits in using Chrome.
- by David Dudley September 3, 2008 12:18 AM PDT
- I'd like to say that the one browser that likely won't suffer is Flock. I love it, but it has no user base at all and therefore has very little to lose. Ultimately, I think the walled garden that is Chrome will keep a lot of power users away from it as the lack of extensibility is an unfortunate feature that is lacking from Chrome, and at the same time, one of the biggest selling points of Firefox.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (29 Comments)