Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
A question for Google -- why are you so desperate to have me switch to Chrome?
Renegade:
Probably for the same reasons that Microsoft bought a little browser then turned around and made it free. Applications are moving to the web, and they want to be there. That's where the money is.
Paul Keith:
I think you have to look at a slightly different and 'earlier' angle (ie the benefits of spying), web is almost mature enough to be able to question the value of data mining. At best it means relevant ads, what else is gained by google even if it is actively spying?
--- End quote ---
Hmm...I'm not sure I follow. I think we're implying the same thing except for the conclusion. Google still has to move on away from ads and it needs to find a revenue model for that and in it's earlier incarnation the reason Google even has the ad market is because they sort of improve the way ads are presented anyway so it's not like spying doesn't have any value outside of ads.
A clear example of how spying can help is to look at Facebook logins. There's no relevant ads there inherently but because programs can auto-import contacts and other functionalities, you can "train" your customers to willingly share their tastes and information as opposed to just data mining it which is all in all a more exposed and less controversial way of flat out building a list for ads as well as grabbing the interests of businesses who purely see it as a way to advertise their services.
More to the point of this thread, I would like to add the following:
Google tablet, netbook or whatever should and will be measured by its own sales not by its OS (Chrome and apps) Google is after a hardware market, of course it is running its own nice little thing, but hardware sales will judge its success
--- End quote ---
Hardware is pretty important for Google but they can't out-marketshare the users that way. Even if they surpass Apple, there's a good chance someone will create a jailbreak open source alternative that, though it might not impact sales, would keep Google from acquiring a social consumer/web user monopoly-like wall garden similar to Facebook.
Again Chrome for desktop is a good example. It bridges the users that are purely IE users if the netbook succeeds as a hardware but it has already eaten up a once untouchable alternative in Firefox at a faster rate than Firefox could eat up IE.
Then again going back to ads and other things: Google may not have figured out Facebook but if it can co-exist as a parasite with Facebook but for more browser-centric needs, it can convince businesses to put something on their webapp store that's like a Chrome-exclusive site beautifier greasemonkey script that makes it harder to move away from Google unless people suddenly have an interest in Safari/Opera/Firefox as in browsers. (Google may have a lot of complaints regarding it's less flexible extension +buttons only system but if it's adopted by ignorant consumers, it's ui is the closest to IE6 "not a browser" just a window to the internet interface)
Even better for Google, in theory, all these downstream to hardware anyway. The more Chrome becomes integral to the perception of a cloud OS, the harder it is for any alternative to copy the barebones interface of a netbook OS as users will still be most likely looking for that "window to the internet but with other nifty stuff that the blue one didn't" i.e. not much different for how hardware vendors bundle OSX and Windows pre-installed on people's PCs.
It also serves as a back-up. Let's say Google's hardware doesn't sell and then what? It's a dead-end. However as long as Chrome exists, it's not a failed project. Every "next" Chrome netbook after that will always have users trying it out just to witness how Chrome integrates with the hardware and vis-a-vis that goal is also a vision that incentivizes Google to further eat away at browser marketshare therefore fail nor success Chrome (even without the data gathering say Chromium builds) is always a fallback application that would help Google grow and seep further into the nooks and crannies of web users' brains that it can always be an existing product Google will keep improving on. (unless browsers get totally replaced by something totally un-browser like)
zridling:
Probably for the same reasons that Microsoft bought a little browser then turned around and made it free. Applications are moving to the web, and they want to be there. That's where the money is.-Renegade (February 08, 2011, 12:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
Have to agree with Renegade and Paul Keith on this. The answer lies [somewhat] in 1995 and the lengths Microsoft went to make it so easy to use IE over any other browser. That crazy time with Navigator really set the open source movement on a path that has slowly evolved into Chrome. Apple doesn't give a frick what you think about Safari; they're in control like it or not. Microsoft is racing to install cloud services throughout its software lineup. But right now (beyond Opera), you have three choices: (1) buy into a closed proprietary system like Apple, (2) go with Microsoft, who refuses to implement key open source standards in its browser, or (3) go with Chrome, which is trying to shed as much proprietary baggage as possible for one simple reason: so you can "take your data with you" -- whether that be mobile/tablet, desktop, netbook, and even gaming within the browser.
One example is WebGL (Web-based Graphics Language). What it does is use JavaScript to implement the use of 3D graphics within the browser. Currently this can only be done in Chrome, which makes version 9 a significant step in browser technology. Firefox and Safari are both expected to support WebGL, although Microsoft has not said that they will implement it in IE. Google's Chrome Experiments page contains some cool examples of what they're trying to do. (You will need to turn off adblock and other filters.)
Finally, Google has learned user behaviors the hard way: once settled in and comfortable with an application, most users are loathe to switch. If you're accustomed to Google Apps and Services, you'll likely lobby your company to adopt the same for convenience. Microsoft wrote the book; Google is just following the script.
AndyM:
Finally, Google has learned user behaviors the hard way: once settled in and comfortable with an application, most users are loathe to switch. If you're accustomed to Google Apps and Services, you'll likely lobby your company to adopt the same for convenience. Microsoft wrote the book; Google is just following the script.
-zridling (February 09, 2011, 06:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
Bingo!
xtabber:
But right now (beyond Opera), you have three choices: (1) buy into a closed proprietary system like Apple, (2) go with Microsoft, who refuses to implement key open source standards in its browser, or (3) go with Chrome, which is trying to shed as much proprietary baggage as possible for one simple reason: so you can "take your data with you" -- whether that be mobile/tablet, desktop, netbook, and even gaming within the browser.
-zridling (February 09, 2011, 06:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
So which of these three choices includes Mozilla and its various open source offspring? Firefox currently has more than twice the market share of Chrome, and is the only officially supported non-IE browser for many online transaction sites like banks. Of course Opera (my primary browser, btw) is also a closed proprietary system.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version