Credit Card Companies Gagged Mythbusters Over RFID Vulnerabilities?

Google's Browser Is A Warning Shot At Windows, Not At Internet Explorer

from the browser-wars-get-a-new-entrant dept

Tue, Sep 2nd 2008 6:49am — Mike Masnick

About four years ago there were all sorts of rumors that Google was getting ready to enter the browser wars with its own offering, most likely built on Mozilla's code. However, after years of nothing (and an increasingly close relationship between Mozilla and Google), many had thought that idea was dead. Apparently not. After some leaks of a comic book (a comic book?!?) detailing the new Google browser found their way to the web, Google quickly admitted that it is, indeed, getting into the browser business, releasing a brand new open source browser, called Google Chrome.

Rather than being built on Mozilla, as many expected, it's been built on top of WebKit, which is also the core of Apple's Safari browser -- but which Google was also using for its own mobile browser. In the end, this isn't all that surprising. While many will interpret it as Google trying to take on Microsoft in the browser market, in reality, this is probably a lot more about Google trying to help everyone move beyond the operating system market. As we first suggested four years ago when rumors of a Google browser first came around, Google knows that the way to beat Microsoft is to become the operating system for the internet, and you do that by relegating the actual OS obsolete. And, these days, the path to doing that is through the browser.

So, yes, this is a shot at Microsoft -- but not at Internet Exporer. It's a shot at Windows.

That doesn't mean Google Chrome will be successful, but a quick look at the features itself show that the features it highlights (being able to run apps separately, better memory management, etc.) are the sorts of things that allow people to make browser-based apps much more useful, rather than feeling the need to rely on client-side applications. People have predicted for years that we're getting closer to a world where all computing can be done over the network, and it looks like Google is trying to push that process right along.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: browser, chrome, open source, operating systems, webkit
Companies: google, microsoft

81 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Twinrova, 2 Sep 2008 @ 7:19am

Given its core is built on Webkit...
... consider it a failure already as Safari is troubled with issues of "compliance".

I'll stick with Firefox 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Colin Scroggins, 2 Sep 2008 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: Given its core is built on Webkit...
  @Twinrova: Safari is actually great at standards compliance (ie: look at its performance in the Acid 2 & 3 tests). It is the handling of non-complaint content that is where most folks complain about Safari.
  
  Google has actually addressed this as well. See slides #9&10 of the comic
  
  http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Craig, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: Given its core is built on Webkit...
  ...and people also told the Wright brothers that their new-fangled "airplane" would never fly.
  
  Amazing how people are so quick to make conclusions with little or no information or hands-on experience. If everyone in the world thought like you we wouldn't be having this exchange at all, we'd be living in caves and painting walls with ochre and animal fat "paint".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: Given its core is built on Webkit...
    hey... if you mix ochre with 'm' (rather than animal fat), you get chrome...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nick, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:45am
  
  Re: Given its core is built on Webkit...
  Yeah....stick with Firefox 3, trust me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mobiGeek, 2 Sep 2008 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re: Given its core is built on Webkit...
  Actually, I find Chrome to be quite an awesome experience so far. I miss adblock and No Script; I'll be tracking the Chrome add-on/plugin projects closely.
  http://www.google.com/chrome
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Given its core is built on Webkit...
    I miss adblock and No Script; I'll be tracking the Chrome add-on/plugin projects closely.
    What "add-on/plugin projects"? Don't forget, Google makes its money from advertising; don't expect them to let you filter that out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JB, 2 Sep 2008 @ 7:32am

Firefox and Questions
I think this is more damaging for Firefox. The people who have left IE for Firefox know how to install and switch to another browser. It is this same group of people that would be inclined to switch to Chrome.

I have read a bunch of speculation but nowhere have I seen a definitive answer to the big Google privacy issue - Google keeps track of everything they possibly can and they tie it back to your Google login ID where possible, I wonder if Chrome does any tracking and reporting.

I remember a few years back when Google made a big stink because MSN search was the default search engine in IE. What is the default search engine in Chrome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Isaac K (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 7:47am
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  There is a difference: IE comes automatically on x% of all computers sold. so x% of all users are automatically being defaulted to MSN Search.
  
  Chrome is Google's optional browser. being defaulted is only an issue if people are CHOOSING to INSTALL it to begin with. This is fair competition - if Msoft wants to keep a handle on the market - they should make their OS better, make their web browser better, and make their search engine better. If they fail to do so, and people switch over to Google and Chrome, they have NO ONE to blame but themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- peter, 2 Sep 2008 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  I don't think the MSN search screeching was so much about which search engine, but more about allowing people to choose which one they use, VS. being told which one to use. Personally, if MSN could deliver more relevant search results, I would use it, but alas, they suck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- C, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  I don't think it was the fact that MSN was the default. If I remember correctly, it was because it was difficult to change that default. You really had to go in and make a fuss to get yahoo or google as the default search. It's much easier now, and it's still a pain to do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  The big difference about the MSN search engine is that IE comes installed as a default component of the Windows OS which comes installed on over 90% of all PCs. As Google did not come pre-installed on any PCs, then that difference is called a monopoly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Heywood, 2 Sep 2008 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  I just installed Chrome. The first thing it did when it started was to inform me that Google was currently set to be the default search engine, and it asked me if I wanted to keep it or change it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  [i]I have read a bunch of speculation but nowhere have I seen a definitive answer to the big Google privacy issue - Google keeps track of everything they possibly can and they tie it back to your Google login ID where possible, I wonder if Chrome does any tracking and reporting.[/i] spyware any1?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ConceptJunkie (profile), 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: Firefox and Questions
  The browser is open-source and the source has already been made available. No shenanigans will be possible because people will know.
  
  I've tried Chrome and while it won't make me switch from Firefox, the initial release is really fast and smooth, minus a couple minor hiccups in UI, etc. Meanwhile, that 800-pund zombie gorilla IE is still lumbering around moaning for "Brains!". Anything that can help put that monstrosity out of its (and our) misery is welcome, including competition for good browsers like Firefox and Opera.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Firefox and Questions
    The browser is open-source and the source has already been made available. No shenanigans will be possible because people will know.
    I haven't heard of anyone yet who has been able to get the supposed source to compile to an identical binary.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isaac K (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 7:44am

Interesting...
I find this porspect exciting. Looking forward to see what comes out of it.
in response to JB; People who switch to Firefox have to navigate to that site directly to intentionally install.
How many people navigate to Google a DAY?
Put up a link/ad on their search engines main page as a method to encourage casual users to "Boost your internet connection for NO COST!"
This isn't just Firefox that they're "threatening," but a serious warning shot into the entire battlefield of Web Browsers and connectivity applications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doc Rings, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:13am

Looking forward to it.
I'm an avid (rabid) Firefox user, but am looking forward to the process improvements in Chrome, and avoiding having to shut down the whole browser for any crashes.

Chrome will have to implement plug-ins and skins, though, as easy as Firefox to be a winner and market-changing browser.

It also needs some killer apps, like the office tools, etc., to really make a difference to business and mom-and-pop home computer users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nismoto, 2 Sep 2008 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Looking forward to it.
  Already does. Ever heard of Google Docs?
  
  Besides, I would argue that mom-and-pop home computer users do not need "office products" and that alone would not be some kind of deal-breaker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim Gaudet (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:19am

Let's do IT
"Google Lives on the Internet" so why not create the browser and make it better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:28am

Reference Design
I see Google Chrome as akin to the type of thing that Intel does with it's reference designs for computer manufacturers. Google wants to serve up robust online content, but current browsers aren't really up to the task. This is basically Google saying "this is how it needs to be done". I get the feeling Google would not be sad at all if Chrome flopped, so long as other browser developers adopted some of the concepts they've introduced, hence the reason they're putting so much emphasis on it being open source. There is no money for Google in distributing their own browser. There is money if all browsers are more capable and therefore allow them to distribute more robust content (ie ads) for more revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:30am

I love Opera at home, and I use IE7 at work. I've never had any love for Firefox (but I'm a huge fan of Thunderbird). I don't like dealing with too many plugins (I only have one plugin, and that's IE7Pro). So I can't wait to give Chrome a test run. It looks like a lot of things that I like about IE7 and Opera, and it does not have a lot of things that I don't like. Multithreading is nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TT, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:30am

There's still a problem about this, that's beyond Google and Microsoft's control.

How will webapps survive if not by a pay model? And does a pay model actually work on the web?

Unlike traditional desktop apps, where you just need to code it and release an executable, a webapp has to be hosted somewhere. If it's a popular webapp, it'll need tons of servers and bandwith (more then the clouds can provide). That kind of hardware scaling has big costs associated with it. Who pays?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:47am

queue goobuntu conspiracy in 3,2,1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/20/the-google-set-top-box-t hink-android-for-tv/

there has been talk of a google browser, google OS, and google computers/set top boxes for years. perhaps this is the first step.

if it's open source and cross platform, it might be worth checking out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:47am

The sad thing about this story...
...is that MS saw this coming 10 years ago and has not taken steps to head it off. They spent their time fighting to keep things as they are rather than take it to the next step themselves. In the end competition is a good thing and this can only help the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keith Jolie, 2 Sep 2008 @ 8:48am

Beyond the browser
This is interesting in that it moves us one step closer to being rid of "browsers" entirely. At it's core, the internet is distributed information and services, and if you can access that information and those services with devices other than a dedicated pc or laptop, then why would you.

I think the biggest revolution in technology in the next few years will be the evolution of form factor. I think embedded applications will bring information and web applications to the places where we used them. Imagine for instance a fridge magnet that helps you manage your shopping and finds the best prices at stores in your neighborhood. Or a recipe book that communicates with your oven to set the timers and temperatures. Or a car radio that pulls mp3's off your home wireless network (I can't believe this isn't being done already...)

It's odd to me that not too long ago, PC's and Cell phones and laptops didn't exist...and now we can't get past those three basic form factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron, 2 Sep 2008 @ 9:17am

But where is it?
All the links have disappeared from google search and cache
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe's Dirt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 9:29am

Online/OS
How in the world is a browser release going to challenge an operating system? On-line content is just what it says... on-line. How am I to work off-line when the apps I need are hosted elsewhere? What if the internet "fails"? What if I can't get broadband where I live? Not everyone has a highspeed connection. This is just marketing hype akin to the apple/MS wars. It will be a long long time before we have to log on to google to access our computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Online/OS
  Who works offline anymore? Ok, I realize that may be a bit too optimistic of me, but I find your objections to online applications remarkably short sighted. The trend for the last decade has been more and more online integration with the desktop, and this trend shows no signs of abating in the near future. Outlook, Word, Excel, Quicken, Encarta... all of these previously local applications and more have been replaced by online equivalents in my daily life. And for those concerned about access offline there's always Gears. But that's beside the point. When 99% of the time people spend on a computers they're connected to the Internet, the question becomes why aren't we designing more applications to run online.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:16am
    
    Re: Re: Online/OS
    I find the amount of faith you have disturbing.
    
    More stuff being online and free is good and all. Sure that may be where it is heading. However, it still has a very very long ways to go.
    For my argument I base it on the ISPs themselves. Do you really want TWC / Verizon / Comcast being able to eavesdrop on the documents you are editing? Okay, lets solve that issue by making all of the applications automatically include encryption. Now you are taking up insane amounts of bandwidth for the apps.
    Now look at all of their current directions for restricting how much bandwidth you get in a month, and using insanely small bandwith caps (for the most part) before becoming upset with you. Those reasons will drastically hold back the future.
    Do not misunderstand me, I believe the idea of having more online is possible, and probably will happen, just still not for a very long time at the currect direction we are heading.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Online/OS
      eTrade, your bank, etc already have your finances and you trust them right? Why would you not trust Google? Don't get me wrong, the trust thing is a big issue for most of us, but it is only a matter of time before we trust Google and others as well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Online/OS
        eTrade, your bank, etc already have your finances and you trust them right? Why would you not trust Google?
        You have GOT to be kidding me, right? To answer your question: No, and I do not just let them tell me "This is how much money you have" at the end of each month. I expect them to provide me with documentation for all transactions. Furthermore, I do not give my bank access to any of my private records that they have no business with, like my medical records for example. And vice versa for my doctor; I don't give him access to my bank account. I don't trust Google with any of that or lots of other stuff either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tim Gingell, 3 Feb 2009 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Online/OS
        Does anybody trust banks anymore? Some people are back to hiding the notes in the mattress!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Online/OS
      Okay, lets solve that issue by making all of the applications automatically include encryption. Now you are taking up insane amounts of bandwidth for the apps.
      No, you aren't. Encryption adds some overhead but it isn't a great deal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Damien, 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:53am
    
    Re: Re: Online/OS
    "Who works offline anymore? Ok, I realize that may be a bit too optimistic of me, but I find your objections to online applications remarkably short sighted. The trend for the last decade has been more and more online integration with the desktop, and this trend shows no signs of abating in the near future. Outlook, Word, Excel, Quicken, Encarta... all of these previously local applications and more have been replaced by online equivalents in my daily life."
    I'm going to go out on a limb a make a guess. You work in the tech industry and consider yourself an early adopter, right? The situation you just described not only doesn't apply to the vast majority of computer users, it doesn't even apply to most techies.
    
    Step out of the "tech crowd" bubble for a second and analyze the situation, it's not nearly as revolutionary or fast as you seem to imagine. Eventually either gears or something like it may take the place of standard document creation programs, but don't act like it's already happened.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Online/OS
      "I'm going to go out on a limb a make a guess. You work in the tech industry and consider yourself an early adopter, right? The situation you just described not only doesn't apply to the vast majority of computer users, it doesn't even apply to most techies.
      
      Step out of the "tech crowd" bubble for a second and analyze the situation, it's not nearly as revolutionary or fast as you seem to imagine. Eventually either gears or something like it may take the place of standard document creation programs, but don't act like it's already happened."
      
      No I don't work in the tech industry, and no I don't consider myself an early adopter. US broadband penetration is now over 50%, and over 70% of all Internet connected households use a broadband connection. And Jupiter Research predicts US broadband to cross 70% of all households by 2012. And that's just residential broadband, commercial numbers are even higher. The large majority of people in the US compute on a broadband connected machine, be it at work or at home. That's not the "tech bubble", that's just modern day America.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chris (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Online/OS
      The situation you just described not only doesn't apply to the vast majority of computer users, it doesn't even apply to most techies.
      
      yeah, people work offline all the time. that's why most corporate offices grind to a halt when the email system is down. if you don't work in a corporate office then imagine what would happen if SAP went down.
      
      if both systems went offline at the same time, most office workers would start killing and eating each other within an hour.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:22am
  
  Re: Online/OS
  How am I to work off-line when the apps I need are hosted elsewhere?
  
  http://gears.google.com/
  
  Lets online apps run offline...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 2 Sep 2008 @ 9:48am

"and you do that by relegating the actual OS obsolete."

Not true. What you meant to say is that the underlying OS will become irrelevant. Even Chrome will need an underlying OS. However, the particular OS will simply no longer matter to the user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:24am
  
  OS? What OS?
  That reminds me, I'm getting into the market for a new motherboard. I need
  to see if that "browser in the bios" feature has reached my price level.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:38am

Yes Chrome is going to come pre-installed with Gears. Pretty much this will make your OS obsolete... if it succeeds. You look at the netbook market and see what you can do with such a cheap price well bring the price down to just enough to run chrome and your set. You use Google Apps for everything else.

If Walmart takes that $300 gOS computer and makes it into a netbook with Asus Gateway... What Windows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keith Jolie, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:04am
  
  Re:
  gOS is just a version of Ubuntu - you can download it and install it on your computer if you want - get rid of windows now. But it's still an operating system.
  
  I like it a lot though..use it on an 11year old laptop that wouldn't run Windows 98.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future View, 2 Sep 2008 @ 10:57am

Server virtualization and cross-platform global desktops are coming of age. This allows for inexpensive thin terminals that need only a network connection. They make individual PCs, with full-blown O/Ss obsolete. We've been implementing this technology for months and users like that the applications on their customized home page may be hosted on a Windows or UNIX back-end and they don't need to know. They just use it. The future is rather bleak for Microsoft; they put all their eggs in the wrong basket, when they sunk $8B into the development of Vista.

But do you want Google to record your keystrokes? I certainly don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Hundt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:50am

A shot at Windows?
The assertion that Chrome is a shot at the Windows (or any OS, for that matter) is more than a little ridiculous as is the speculation that anything Google does will render operating systems obsolete.

I don't see web browsers running on the "bare metal" anytime in the near future, do you?

Consider the enormity of such a project: it would need to include a kernel, which means drivers for every sound card, display adapter, peripheral, etc. And all that just so that you could have a huge, monolithic, glorified web browser on which to run all your applications?

Doubtful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re: A shot at Windows?
  The assertion that Chrome is a shot at the Windows (or any OS, for that matter) is more than a little ridiculous as is the speculation that anything Google does will render operating systems obsolete.
  
  I don't see web browsers running on the "bare metal" anytime in the near future, do you?
  
  Consider the enormity of such a project: it would need to include a kernel, which means drivers for every sound card, display adapter, peripheral, etc. And all that just so that you could have a huge, monolithic, glorified web browser on which to run all your applications?
  
  Doubtful.
  
  It's not an issue of the browser replacing the OS, it's an issue of the browser making which underlying OS you use irrelevant.
  
  For the last 2 decades MSFT has maintained a stranglehold on OS marketshare by virtue of having the largest library of applications compatible with their OS. Likewise, Windows development has been hampered due to a need to be backwards compatible with legacy applications written for a 2 decade old OS. Online applications free developers and users of those constraints. Someone running Firefox on Linux can use Google Docs just as easily as someone running IE7 on Windows and someone using Safari on a Mac. The point of Google Chrome is to make the browser more stable in order to allow for more robust applications to be hosted over the net instead of on the local OS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard Hundt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re: A shot at Windows?
    Point well made and point taken :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:16pm
    
    Re: Re: A shot at Windows?
    It's not an issue of the browser replacing the OS, it's an issue of the browser making which underlying OS you use irrelevant.
    You do realized that Google Chrome only runs under Windows, don't you? I fail to see how that make "which underlying OS you use irrelevant".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A shot at Windows?
      The beta only runs in Windows. Google has already announced that both Linux and OSX versions are in the works.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A shot at Windows?
        The beta only runs in Windows. Google has already announced that both Linux and OSX versions are in the works.
        And I'm working on becoming the world's richest person. Come back and tell us when it's a reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keith Jolie, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:52am

I've tried it and I like it - a lot
just the way it uses screen real-estate is excellent. When will they have it out for linux...?

It seems to be really fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 2 Sep 2008 @ 11:54am

Google is the new Microsoft
It is interesting that people bash anything Microsoft and jump on the bandwagon of anything that isn't Microsoft. Now they are starting to fear Google. Where was this fear a year or two ago?

People are finally starting to see that there are no good corporate citizens; just ones with power and ones without. When the ones with out power gain power, they will abuse it like the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re: Google is the new Microsoft
  personally, I have never trusted google, I use a different search engine that doesn't keep metrics on their users and gets just as good, if not better, results ( www.ixquick.com for those interested, it has won awards for its privacy policies ). I don't use third party desktop search engines, and I only use Google docs for things I WANT published and shared.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
    And if you read the about page, it states "when you search Ixquick, you are searching many popular search engines - anonymously - at the same time." ... So that's why it gets "just as good, if not better, results".. It's searching the same search engines as you would otherwise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 1:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
      yes, but they also filter and modify the results to further improve them and they don't pass the user's information on to other search engines.
      
      it is the anonymous part that is nice and attractive, I don't care how they get me results as long as the results are high quality, quick, and is done anonymously. ixquick is one of the very few search engines that fulfill all three criteria.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        , I don't care how they get me results as long as the results are high quality, quick, and is done anonymously. ixquick is one of the very few search engines that fulfill all three criteria.
        You keep calling it a search engine but it isn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 4:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        yes it is, look it up. Ixquick is a metasearch engine based in New York and the Netherlands... and "A meta-search engine is a search engine that ..." so, yes, Ixquick is a search engine. it belongs to a subclass of search engines, but it is still a search engine.
        
        but you know what? It doesn't matter squat to the end user what you want to call it because, to the end user, it functions LIKE a search engine. there is a saying that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, you guessed it, its a duck. people honestly don't care whether something is truly a search engine or not as long as it gets the results that they want. ixquick does that while maintaining user privacy. you are quibbling over trivial matters while ignoring the obvious benefits.
        
        People have always been fascinated by the concept of legion precisely because it is more than the sum of it's parts and ixquick, to an extent, does that, it filters out irrelevant data and prioritizes the rest better than most search engines and provides better results than if you queried each engine individually
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        yes it is, look it up.
        I did, it isn't. Their marketing people can try to claim otherwise but that doesn't make it true. Do you believe everything marketing people tell you? What ixquick does is relay search requests to a real search engine(s).
        
        It's like if you told me some medical symptoms you had and I mentioned them to a doctor friend of mine and then I relayed his comments back to you. Would that make me a doctor? No. I'm just passing the information along, not originating it. More to the point, even I could throw up some web page that relays search requests to some search engine. Would that make my website a search engine? No, no matter how much I might even like to pretend otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        learn to read, please.
        
        first, a metasearch engine is still a type of search engine, you are, of course, free to live in your own little world bereft of reality, but the rest of us can accept a simple definition of terms.
        
        second, the doctor analogy isn't really a good parallel. a better parallel would be if you were Dr. House, consulting multiple other doctors, each with their own specialties. each doctor throws out ideas and House sorts and ranks them.
        
        Ixquick, despite what your delusions would indicate, does not merely relay information, it performs metrics, weeds duplicate or irrelevant results, and/or ranks the results it gets, improving the overall results more than if it merely parroted exactly what it found by using other search engines.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        first, a metasearch engine is still a type of search engine, you are, of course, free to live in your own little world bereft of reality, but the rest of us can accept a simple definition of terms.
        You really are an arrogant little snot. Exactly who made you the spokesperson for the everyone else? Talk about living in your own little world. And is everyone at ixquick like you? If so, I wouldn't trust their unverified claims of no user data retention one little bit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        I'm not affiliated with Ixquick in anyway. I've never had the (dis?)pleasure of visiting new york, and I have never been to Germany. I merely have been correcting a few misunderstanding about my chosen search engine. I have also never actually spoken to anyone that works for ixquick (that I'm aware of, you never know for sure unless you ask, which I don't)
        
        you really have to start questioning the intelligence of people who can't accept a simple definition and instead of countering any other points made, they resort to an equivalent of "nuh-uh". If you look pretty much anywhere on the net, you can find a definition for "metasearch engine" that defines it as "a type of search engine that...". that someone completely refuses to accept that fact is in itself a form of arrogance, that they think they know better then the rest of the internet. that people should take their word on something just because they spout their opinion with nothing logical to back it up it.
        
        if someone wishes to actually discuss any of the other aspects of ixquick that actually matter (what you want to call it doesn't matter, as Shakespeare said "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.") I'm happy to continue, but as the only point that has been brought up is "it's not a search engine" it is, so far, clear that the other side has no real basis to denounce ixquick except by claiming that it, somehow, is not a search engine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        I'm not affiliated with Ixquick in anyway.
        Really? Well, you sure sound like a shill. Remember when you wrote "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, you guessed it, its a duck"? Well, there you go.
        
        you really have to start questioning the intelligence of people who can't accept a simple definition
        Oh yes, anyone who would disagree with the mighty you must be certainly be of low intelligence.
        
        that someone completely refuses to accept that fact is in itself a form of arrogance, that they think they know better then the rest of the internet.
        There you go speaking for everyone else again. Until you attain a position of such authority, how about you stick to speaking for yourself?
        
        I'm happy to continue...
        I'm sure you are.
        
        ...it is, so far, clear that the other side has no real basis to denounce ixquick...
        Until you started shilling for them I never had any reason to be suspect of ixquick or denounce them. And I certainly never said that it wasn't a useful service, so you can put strawman back in your closet too. I just said that they weren't a real search engine, but rather a meta-search service. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        Really? Well, you sure sound like a shill. Remember when you wrote "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, you guessed it, its a duck"? Well, there you go.
        
        again, I do not have any affiliation with Ixquick, i can't prove I don't, and nor can you prove that I do. so it is better to just drop that aspect. you are, of course, welcome to keep your delusions about who I am or where I work for.
        
        There you go speaking for everyone else again. Until you attain a position of such authority, how about you stick to speaking for yourself?
        
        here's a deal. I already provided links that show that Ixquick is a search engine. you have not backed up what you've said with anything. Either provide some factual basis for your continued delusions or stop bringing it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        again, I do not have any affiliation with Ixquick...
        Listen! What's that quacking sound?
        
        I already provided links that show that Ixquick is a search engine.
        You don't seem to know how to use Wikipedia either. Unverified statements there should not be considered to be reliable.
        
        Either provide some factual basis for your continued delusions or stop bringing it up.
        Talk about delusions, your's seems to be a "delusion of grandeur", as the shrinks call it. As before, until you attain a position of such authority, people don't need your permission to bring things up and you can go climb a tree for all I care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gus, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        but you know what? It doesn't matter squat to the end user what you want to call it
        
        Then why are you so hung on calling it a search engine? You sound like somebody who works for a company pretending to be something it isn't.
        
        because, to the end user, it functions LIKE a search engine.
        
        To end user it functions LIKE a metasearch service because that's what it is. Now there are a lot of those out there so ixquick is trying to pretend it isn't one of that multitude and is a search "engine" instead. Except, it isn't. There's a big difference between being a proxy and being the real thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        Then why are you so hung on calling it a search engine?
        
        as I said, I don't care what you call it, but the fact remains that it is still a type of search engine. There happen to be quite a few different types of search engines, one of which is the metasearch engine. So while you are free to have your own little delusions, you shouldn't spread them upon the rest of the internet as fact.
        
        really, just because it is a metasearch engine it doesn't invalidate the points that it the results it provides are, in general, better.
        
        There's a big difference between being a proxy and being the real thing.
        
        and once again you ignore the fact that ixquick does not merely pass on the results. it run its own metrics on the results that it gets from other engines. that it also works to keep users anonymous is a good bonus that is important to some.
        
        Honestly though, I don't care if you use the Ixquick search engine or not, I, and others like me, use it and find it does its job very well. You are free to choose something else, I don't care.
        
        Likewise, you are free to tell yourself that metasearch engines aren't really search engines or that they can't possibly provide good results, again, I don't care. The problem occurs when you try to pass off your fantasy world as reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        William S., 4 Sep 2008 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        "...as I said, I don't care..."
        "...Honestly though, I don't care..."
        "...again, I don't care."
        
        Me thinks he doth protest too much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is the new Microsoft
        WOW!! did you come up with that retort yourself? I'm so proud! /sarcasm
        
        I'm not trying to convince anyone that ixquick is the best search engine ever, I started posting because some sheeple had serious misconceptions that they were spouting as truth. if you want to use Google or Microsoft or Yahoo, go ahead, just don't spread mental manure under the guise of factual information. If you notice, I have not said anything against any other search engine and I never will besides a mere opinion along the lines of "I prefer not to use them".
        
        I am growing tired of the inane attempts at rebuttal that don't actually counter any of the points I have brought up, if you wish to seriously address any of the points I've brought up feel free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future View, 2 Sep 2008 @ 12:52pm

To Richard Hundt: Richard, the technology to allow thin clients with a bare metal kernel, to serve up a browser-based GUIs has been in development for at least 10 years. It is now a reality. I know several companies that are dumping there PCs for thin client solutions that serve customized virtual desktops. My own company is doing it and our IT costs are falling already.

There's a huge market out there for this type of solution for home use. Most people really don't want a full-blown PC, with a big bloated (aqnd often broken) O/S. Hosted applications served to home users is the next step in the evolution of the Internet. That's why Google and others are investing os heavily it it. MST is so far behind on this that they'll never catch up in time. They made the same mistake years ago, when they decided not to give Windows NT a UNIX-based kernel and now, Linux is eating their lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Hundt, 2 Sep 2008 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re:
  Future View: of course, thin clients have been around for a long time, and as you say, you still need a kernel (and most probably a collection of system libraries to link the application to). From that standpoint, I concede that MSFT is behind on the thin client market by a long shot; but my point was that the article seems to paint it as Google aiming for the eventual obsolescence of the OS *in general* and even with a thin client architecture you still need an OS running *somewhere*.
  
  Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but it seems too broad and dramatic a claim to be making, if I've understood it correctly.
  
  Having said that, I'll quickly add that I'm rather a fan of the whole thin client paradigm, ranging from AJAX or XUL solutions to thin Linux X clients on a LAN, and I *do* believe that widespread adoption of these will be the trend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re:
  the technology to allow thin clients with a bare metal kernel, to serve up a browser-based GUIs has been in development for at least 10 years. It is now a reality.
  Great, where can I get one of these machines that will run a good web browser with no operating system?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob (profile), 2 Sep 2008 @ 1:01pm

This browser...
is pretty dang clean.

Though I don't know if I could ever replace Firefox, using chrome kind of feels like I'm in a Kiosk mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Valle, 2 Sep 2008 @ 1:59pm

Google
The launch of Chrome only serves to further confirm my suspicions: Google will turn into Skynet very, very soon. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 2:04pm

from http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2.html . Although you retain any copyrights to content you own and use in the browser, Google says it has a right to display some of your content, in conjunction with promoting its services. Here's their exact wording. "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Bob, 2 Sep 2008 @ 2:10pm

I'm very Disappointed that Google’s Chrome browser does not support MathML (Math Markup Language). Mozilla’s Firefox does!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Robot, 2 Sep 2008 @ 2:29pm

When it comes down to it, who do you trust more, Google or Microsoft? Give me Google anyday. We've already switched our mail server hosting to Google (they were giving us more that 3X the storage space per account that our hosted server was giving us), and other than the odd bump (there seems to be a limit to folder name length used in outlook when using Gmail to host your domain's mail, and of course Outlook doesn't know this), it's worked fine. With enough cores and virtualization, it won't be long until a basic kernel can run an app in any OS it needs to on one desktop, and tie everything together, truly making today's OS's obsolete. Of course, open source and free are nice, but let's not forget that hosted apps are by nature a lot more difficult to pirate, and therefor bound to be more profitable for their authors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2008 @ 5:48pm

Pure Arrogance
Hi -

I can't wait to watch Google discover how f-ing hard it is to make usable, compliant browser that can be used at work and at home. I clearly remember the Gecko/Mozilla group saying "we needed a clean break" from the Netscape engine and code -- and they'll be the first to tell you how unbelievably difficult a task that was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeremy, 3 Sep 2008 @ 12:03am

Chrome breaks sites by obeying alternate styles
Google Chrome breaks sites by obeying alternate style rules as if active.

Basics here:

http://jeremyjarratt.com/2008/09/03/google-chrome-obeys-alternate-css/

Basically, avoid style conflicts, and list your alternate links BEFORE your active ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Melted Metal Web Radio, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:28am

Google Chrome: A New Technological Turn For The Entire Internet
With Chrome, Google has made a move that will change the entire web market. First, it is doubtful that MS can create the same options without stepping on Google's patents. Also, Google wants a close alliance with Firefox for a very good reason, and Firefox need not be worried.

The fact that Chrome creates separate processes for every action opens the way for any application to run independently. The next steps are to create those applications, and modify existing applications to run with Chrome.

In the end, there will be on need for any particular OS, because all apps will run within Chrome. The future is very, very, exciting, and this is a new technological turn for the entire internet.

Imagine when p2p technologies allow one browser to peer with another 'specific browser', or a specific browser to peer with a specific server, or specific server app. My Mind goes bonkers with ideas by just thinking about it!

Bill Wilkins, CEO
Melted Metal Web Radio
http://www.meltedmetal.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 6 Sep 2008 @ 8:38pm

As much as pple hate it M$ will always rule there are just to many people will always use windows... sorry i like linux but taking over windows wont happen..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spike, 7 Sep 2008 @ 8:31pm

Yuck
I downloaded it and used it for a day. I can't stand it. It's like driving a car from 1952 and trying to get the heating right. No controls where you need them. I'm sticking with Firefox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zonator, 8 Sep 2008 @ 7:14pm

Chrome
While using Chrome I found that a lot of sites sites don't work, due to missing plugins for the new platform. Sometimes just quitting the site is not an option so I created an easy way to open the page in your "old" browser. Just drag and drop the URL from the Chrome URL bar into the Mirror form and you can continue your Chrome browsing.

Download: http://www.zonator.com/mirror.zip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]