Kolya on 16/1/2011 at 09:35
Lately Google has pushed a big PR campaign here for Chrome, (
http://andyger.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/p305-scaled1000.jpg) posters are plastered over the city, (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak8UKuQvM98) TV spots too.
This raises some questions I think. Mainly what does Google want. It used to be that they helped establish Firefox as an Open Source alternative to Microsoft's Internet Explorer. They probably still do. But now they have their own browser and are apparently willing to spend a lot of money on it, while the product is given away for free.
So what's the advantage for Google if people are using Chrome instead of Firefox? Their main source of income are text ads as far as I know. These can be seen or blocked in both browsers. What's the point?
It could be better integration with their cloud services of which they have many. But if those stopped running on different browsers someday... Well would you switch to Chrome? Possibly.
I'm not fearful of Google, a lot of smart people seem to work there. But still I'm wondering what that latest move means for the future of Google and us internet users.
Sulphur on 16/1/2011 at 09:40
Mindshare is always a good thing, no? Maybe this is the first push for an eventual multi-pronged attack on the current monopolies for a free, ad-enabled desktop OS of the future.
SubJeff on 16/1/2011 at 11:00
Don't forget some future integration with Android. Between Android and iPhones, RIM and Symbian are being squeezed out.
Inline Image:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1437/5235135161_71a2f04246_o.gifWhat we'll end up with is:
* Google OS on your phone - Android
* Google OS on your laptop/netbook/tablet - Chrome OS or Android
* A portal into Google on your Windows or Mac OS machine - Chrome browser
All using Google apps, all using Google cloud services and most importantly, all having those Google ads disseminated all over the place.
What does it matter that a few people block the ads? They already make money with them so increasing the market penetration even further can only increase the revenue.
Yeah, it'd be insidious if I didn't like their products. You have to admire their vision because with Chrome they are essentially circumnavigating the OS you have on your machine, or even if you have a PC or a Mac; integration of their services across all your tech items.
And don't forget Google TV.
It's a frakking epic vision to be fair and having loads of hardware developers on board is pretty amazing. Check out the (
http://www.google.com/tv/) Google TV site, it's an awesome idea. Using your phone as the remote and for text input? With Swype (easily the best text input app on any smartphone anywhere) it's going to be a breeze.
Yeah, I'm gay for Google. And Sony.
Edit: The more I think about this the cooler it is. They don't need to make hardware as other people will do it for them. Apple have to get the software and the hardware right and although they are doing it (ish) at the moment iTunes on a is a hog (well it was the last time I used and I refuse to get it now) that I'm always hearing bad stuff, regarding syncing and losing stuff, about. And because Google have focused on their site and all the services it provides it makes sense to just let it ... pervade. Does Apple have it's own email system? Most people I know with iPhones still use gmail and sync the iPhone calendar with a google calendar. Eating Apple from the inside!
Shug on 16/1/2011 at 16:54
Heh, I wouldn't be dropping Sony in alongside Google. They have a solid history of shitting all over their users, particularly that (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal) nasty rootkit debacle.
Google have an excellent track record of not abusing the power they've created for themselves, but it's obviously still a concerning development having one organisation presiding over so much of your life, considering the 'right' people may not always be in charge.
demagogue on 16/1/2011 at 17:58
It's a little discomforting how much personal information Google controls on everybody, or for that matter how much information they control on everything -- even for people that want to opt out (they'll just get it from other sources; you can get a lot of info just tracking search-terms by IP address, and who is just not going to use Google search?).
It's not that you have to question their intentions, but control of information entails certain responsibilities, and it's good if those responsibilities are subject to helpful checks and balances in the public's interest (that information could do a lot of good for the world too), and not only the interests of stockholders. I realize they have privacy rules and most people don't seem that concerned if it's just about targeted ads, but there comes a point when you have access to basically everything there is to know, it has the potential to distort the playing field for one company.
Phatose on 16/1/2011 at 20:39
Chrome is fundamentally a tool for Google to have a much greater say in the development of the Web while still maintaining the illusion of being something other then an evil corporation. They are betting very heavily on the web as the future of computing, and they cannot count on Firefox doing what's best for Google. So they create Chrome, push it heavily, and use the market share to influence standardization.
Very typical of them, really. And they're already using that control, as the whole WebM affair is clearly demonstrating.
At the end of the day, they're fundamentally a profit-oriented corporation, out for their own pocketbooks. Forget that at your peril.
Thief13x on 16/1/2011 at 21:13
Quote Posted by demagogue
It's a little discomforting how much personal information Google controls on everybody, or for that matter how much information they control on everything -- even for people that want to opt out (they'll just get it from other sources; you can get a lot of info just tracking search-terms by IP address, and who is just not going to use Google search?).
It's not that you have to question their intentions, but control of information entails certain responsibilities, and it's good if those responsibilities are subject to helpful checks and balances in the public's interest (that information could do a lot of good for the world too), and not only the interests of stockholders. I realize they have privacy rules and most people don't seem that concerned if it's just about targeted ads, but there comes a point when you have access to basically everything there is to know, it has the potential to distort the playing field for one company.
Google does not actually store information on anyone (at least not in the way a lot of people think). Google simply retrieves information that's already been stored on a webserver somewhere and can be usually accessed by anyone with or without Google.
It seems like most people blame Google, but to me, search results are just a symptom of a bigger problem. The real problem is that your information is
out there (usually because you put it there).
and Facebook's not helping!Kolya on 16/1/2011 at 21:31
I'll rather trust Google with my private data than my government.
SubJeff on 16/1/2011 at 21:44
Quote Posted by Phatose
Very typical of them, really. And they're already using that control, as the whole WebM affair is clearly demonstrating.
Ja ja, but don't overlook the fact that it will be free for Firefox unlike other standards.
Phatose on 16/1/2011 at 22:27
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Ja ja, but don't overlook the fact that it will be free for Firefox unlike other standards.
As it stands right now, there's a free, functional h264 plugin for Firefox, provided by Microsoft for those sites that feel the need to use the not yet standardized HTML5 video tag. For those that don't, Flash has supported h264 for years. WebM is still in future builds.
And that's only if no patent challenges emerge to WebM. The nature of video compression these days means there is plenty of reason to doubt WebM is completely unencumbered by patents, and even one is enough to force Firefox to have to remove native support.
For web video these days, h264 is the right choice if you're making websites. Native h264 on the iDevices, h264 wrapped in flash for everything else.
