11–20 of 112 posts
This is cool and all, but did they have to choose "Chrome" for the name? No reason to do that other than to cause confusion, I think.
It's like the problem of too much choice. We all face it. We go to the store and are greeted with 10 slightly different versions of the same product. Mint toothpaste, mint with extra-whitening, mint-flavored baking soda toothpaste. I don't want to buy one that tastes bad. This stuff is going in my mouth 3x a day, after all. So I'm confused and cranky because I just want my normal toothpaste. My brain remembers the box had the certain logo and the certain white swish of box art. Found it! What size, big or small? Done, continue on to shopping decisions I actually want to think about like what's for dinner.
These days, the choice of a browser by 90% of people is the same kind of commodity thought given to toothpaste. They know what they're familiar with. They identify it via the shape and color of the icon, and maybe whether it says "internet" or not.
We've had to take 4 years to push Firefox to ~20% marketshare. Internet Explorer still has 75% total, with 30% of that being IE6. Safari, Opera, and all other browsers squeeze into the rough remaining 5% of the market. Adding YAB to the party won't serve anything except to dilute the last 5% some more.
What we need is not new browsers, OSS or not. We need marketing. Microsoft had easy marketing for IE. An icon on the desktop called "Internet".
We need Apple-style ads with Jason Long as Firefox and John Hodgeman as Internet Explored. Boil the message down to the barest essentials of the message and make it as clear to the "other 90%" as the Big Blue E meant "internet".
Anyone got a mirror? It's crawling...
pdf, courtesy Brian Enigma: http://brevity.org/pic/chrome/Google_on_Google_Chrome.pdf zip of pngs: http://brevity.org/pic/chrome/google-chrome-mccloud-comic.zi... or, all in individual png files: http://brevity.org/pic/chrome/
Also, all current JS engines are doing conservative GC? Really?
This is cool and all, but did they have to choose "Chrome" for the name? No reason to do that other than to cause confusion, I think.
Strikes me as a very catchy name for the typical user, who most likely doesn't have "browser chrome" in their vocabulary already. And I doubt it'll be that hard for the rest of us to keep straight.
So soon we'll have yet another browser to check for compatibility issues in CSS and javascript. Great.
Well, assuming it uses a pristine WebKit backend, you should only have to test in one browser with the same WebKit build. :) I guess that might be idealistic thinking, but hopefully it pans out.
I don't like the idea of YAB, yet another browser. It's absolutely necessary that we have competition but it's way too easy to dilute the market. It's like the problem of too much choice. We all face it. We go to the store and are greeted with 10 slightly different versions of the same product. Mint toothpaste, mint with extra-whitening, mint-flavored baking soda toothpaste. I don't want to buy one that tastes bad. T…
Will Google continue to pay and support Mozilla Foundation? Because once that's gone...