61–70 of 112 posts
http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/22 What would you use this incognito feature for, except the obvious? Are they really creating a feature just for that one thing?
Plus the obvious.
Question: Is there any/much value in controlling the browser or owning the most popular browser in itself? *By 'in itself' I mean ignoring advantages such as Google's: 'We need web-apps to work' or Microsoft's: 'We need web-apps not to work' If default Search Engine settings are actually worth what Google paid ($55m for 15% of the market X 3 yrs) & no other revenue sources exist, the market's worth about $120m p/y. i…
I'd guess this is probably only secondarily for PCs, and probably more likely targeted at mobile platforms. Also, all current JS engines are doing conservative GC? Really?
Question: Is there any/much value in controlling the browser or owning the most popular browser in itself? *By 'in itself' I mean ignoring advantages such as Google's: 'We need web-apps to work' or Microsoft's: 'We need web-apps not to work' If default Search Engine settings are actually worth what Google paid ($55m for 15% of the market X 3 yrs) & no other revenue sources exist, the market's worth about $120m p/y. i…
Google gets most of its money from advertising. Eyeballs == Money.
BTW, I think that the big success of Google is in realising that's really true. Web Searches == money. But not inherently.
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…
I think you underestimate Google's ability to push their goods. They've shown time and time again that they can enter a cluttered market and make a name for themselves nonetheless. You seem to assume that the average person isn't going to want this rather than Firefox. That's patently false. I dislike Gecko: in my experience WebKit works better and faster. I dislike Mozilla: they seem to me to be manned with incompet…
User goes to the site and already has Chrome. My site automatically detects that, and they can download my Gears app.
User goes to the site and has Firefox. My site detects that and gives them an option of the "lite" and the "full" version of my Gears app. The "full" version just happens to come with an install of the Chrome.
User goes to the site and has IE. My site detects that and gives them the download link to my app that comes with a Chrome installer.
In all three cases, I get what I want -- users use my app, and preferably running on a platform that runs fast enough. If I'm targeting "mom and pop", I doubt they'd notice that it happens to come with Chrome.
Because I can write a Gears app that doesn't have the URL links or the menu links, as far as the user is concerned, they are simply running my app. I can easily see Google pushing an "office suite", which simply consists of a gears version of Gmail, GDoc, etc.
Personally, I liked Firefox 1 and 1.5. I thought Firefox 2 was horrible, and all the IEs worse. When Firefox 3 release candidates came out, I switched to it immediately. Reading through those feature lists, as soon as Chrome is available for Linux, I'm getting a copy of it. Maybe I won't have to keep disabling Javascript by default with Chrome.
but beyond that, google needs to compete with apples webkit on the mobile front. they need to embed a browser in android - preferably their browser ;) so far mozilla does not have an answer to the mobile webkit.
i dont see this as a dig on mozilla, google is funding them. i see mozilla remaining the best consumer app and goggles chrome becoming standard fair for mobile and desktop app browsing/computing for enterprise.
I don't think this is an attack on Firefox over 50 million bucks. I think this is Google looking at the web and saying we need a faster, more stable, more rich, browser that has these 20 features to allow us to push our web apps forward. Their game is to make web apps equal to desktop apps so that they can sell advertising on them - and hammer Microsoft. This goes towards that goal. I'm looking forward to it. Firefox…
Think about it. People always make fun of how our computers are thousands and millions of times faster than computers of yore and seem to do basically the same thing... except that my word processor has live spell checking, and so on and so forth. Speed is technology enabling. Being able to add features to your site that won't make it pathetically slow when it would have been previously is huge.
Screw buzzwords, infrastructure is king. You are only as good as what lies beneath you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem to be using their own javascript engine, so it might need separate testing because of that. Although if it becomes popular enough, most javascript libraries and frameworks will surely support it.
You can bet they will. The V8 engine is unlikely to present much of an obstacle. We have a large JS codebase and the Opera, WebKit (Safari), Spidermonkey (Gecko/Firebird), Rhino (Spidermonkey port to Java) and JScript (IE6/7) engines are no hassle to support. The hard part is DOM interaction and styling. But as they're using WebKit and are putting a lot of effort into compatibility - this should be a breeze. The real…