Google steps on Firefox with its new Zune...err, Chrome browser
Despite Google's recent extension of its partnership with Mozilla, it was just a matter of time before Google got too big for anyone else's browser and decided to write its own. Or, rather, it was just a matter of time before Google decided to borrow the best of others' open-source projects and extend them, as this is what Google generally does.
And so Google has done with its newly announced open-source Chrome browser:
What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for web pages and applications, and that's what we set out to build.
So writes Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management at Google, and so plans Google. The difference this time is that Google will actually have to contribute code back, making its Chrome browser an experiment in community building, rather than merely community borrowing. It's also an experiment in distributing software, not merely services, an area in which Google has not made much of a dent to date.
CNET News Poll
Ars technica thinks Chrome sounds really innovative, what with its ability to segment the processes running in different browser tabs, among other things. Mozilla's John Lilly welcomes the competition and continued partnership with Google, but can't help but strike an ominous chord:
...[T]he parts where [Google and Mozilla are] different, with different missions, will continue to be separate. Mozilla's mission is to keep the Web open and participatory....
Lilly doesn't say it, but presumably he could have finished the sentence this way: "...And Google's mission is to drive as much traffic and advertisements through its sites and services." This is where I believe Chrome could both thrive and stagnate.
Google has been bankrolling Mozilla's Firefox, and it may well be that Google sees further life, at least in the short term, for a strong Firefox, as ZDNet's Larry Dignan suggests. But I can't imagine Google enjoying this whole "sharing" thing for very long. Not if it's successful with Chrome.
A
Zune moment?
Nor can I imagine Web developers getting excited about developing for yet another browser. It took years for anyone to start developing for Firefox, and no one got excited about developing for Flock or other spin-offs of Firefox. Google has the brand equity to make people pay attention to Chrome in the way start-up Flock never did, but could Chrome be Google's Zune moment?
In the media player world, the iPod reigned despite Microsoft coming out with a good-but-not-good-enough alternative. Firefox has managed to gain a 20 percent market share after years of fighting: 72 percent of Web users still slum with Internet Explorer. Are these folks magically going to dump IE just because Google showed up to the party? Unlikely.
Indeed, successful as Google has been, it's even more notable for its many failures. Take a look at all the products and services it offers. How many do you use? For that matter, how many have you even heard of? A handful?
Many will suggest that Google's entrance to this market, like others that it has entered (Froogle with comparison shopping, anyone?), is game over for Firefox. I couldn't disagree more, and here's a key reason:
Google has failed in its attempts to become a software distributor. Yes, the Google Desktop has attracted some fans, but nowhere near a respectable minority. Google knows how to piggyback on others' desktop clients. It knows how to monetize Web services fantastically well. It knows far less about driving downloads and uptake of its products, excepting its core search functionality.
The only Chrome lining I see in this experiment from Google, at least in the short term, is that Google will have to contribute source code back to Mozilla, Apple, and the other projects and organizations from which it will be borrowing code. Google has done much better lately with the open-source development community, more freely contributing back to a range of projects. Google Chrome will accentuate and improve this.
But for now, Google Chrome is unlikely to change anyone's lives...or market share. I think Google's forays into new markets like this is good for the industry, and good for Google. I welcome the move. I'm just not holding my breath for world domination anytime soon.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Which meaning do you, skillingsucks think is right? leech obvioulsy is the right term.
that reminds me...ie8 download after the jump...no chrome for me,,,
Some web developers complain that they will have to add support for another browser, if I am not wrong, Chrome use webkit for rendering web pages, and webkit it the engine that scored highest on Acid 3 test, Safari uses Webkit too, so if it work with safari, it will also work with Chrome.
And I am not a native Englsih speaker, so please pardon for any mistakes I may have caused.
Not sure about Firefox, Safari & others but this is a feature that's already in IE 8. In addition to the added security boundary it makes the browser more survivable if 3rd party add ons fail (The #1 source of crashes). If one tab crashes the browser will continue running. In fact if the whole browser process goes down it will recover with all tabs and history intact.
I don't really think the world needs another browser. Firefox rocks and it's put fire under Microsoft to reinvest into a software that had gotten R&D neglect for too long.
Google just wants to be sure that it's monopoly on search and advertising do not get any competition.
All your speculation is great but the one thing I have seen in my 10 years observing the internet and how people use it, is that good things get adopted and frivolous things do not. People went to Zune for 2 major reasons: 1. They hate(d) Apple, and 2. The itunes interface.
I for one anticipate the introduction of a new browser. I do not like Firefox as I don't like things not working until I hunt down the appropriate plug in and install it. There are some things that are nice in Firefox and some things that are nice in Internet Explorer, and while I use both I have to use Internet Explorer to do some of my work as I cannot get Firefox to "find" the correct plugin for me to use.
As to Google apps, I use some of their web based applications and I think you will see more of that as the marketplace adopts more portable devices with limited storage space.
While I appreciated most of what you had to say, I think it may have been a little early to deliver too much of an opinion.
Mike McFee
"In the media player world, the iPod reined despite Microsoft coming out with a good-but-not-good-enough"
Most folks that use IE couldn't care less what browser they run, and most that do already run Firefox.
All this will do is dilute share for alternatives to IE making it harder for them to compete.
I'm mostly curious about this wave of Javascript performance boosts that seem to be hitting browsers. I first heard about SquirrelFish, then TraceMonkey and now V8.
Also, with a spouse who is superbly non-technical, if she starts to hear this "runs Google better", she may switch. She is hooked to Google.
- by eheia1 September 2, 2008 8:49 AM PDT
- This is the dumbest article. Developers didn't care about 'developing for flock' because it runs on the gecko engine. if it works in FF it works in Flock. Same with this. Chrome will use the same engine as Safari, which developers should already be developing for. I for one welcome any browser that runs on a standards-compliant engine and could take away market share from IE.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (62 Comments)