Duh, that did sound sensationalist, didn't it? I mean, anyone seriously thinks that the purpose of Google Chrome is "turning on the browsers that helped nurse it and eating them alive"? It's hard not to think that Chrome is more targetted to IE8 and its incapability to build fast web apps than to Firefox. How competition can be considered "evil" by itself? And you seriously think that 62% or 75% of a market share is "monopolistic"???

Google is not a monopoly, they do have a major share however. The difference is huge. When one buys a new computer in most cases a person has to buy it with Microsoft installed...there is no choice unless one buys a Mac or one of the few Linux machines out there.

It would be safe to say in most cases for a basic PC its Windows or nothing in all standard "brick and mortar" retail chains.

Also it is nearly impossible to get a hassle free and easy refund for a unused Windows license. That is a monopoly, much like you are forced to use only one power company.

When one buys a new computer they are not just stuck with using Google...there lies the difference. A consumer can instantly use Yahoo or any other search engine they wish.... for free with just a few mouse clicks.

One however could argue that E-bay is a monopoly as it seemingly is the only game in town for online auctions.

So Google is going to release a browser for only Windows, maybe Mac later on...and no Linux? Expect a backlash from Linux users, we don't need Chrome or Google for that matter. As a result Firefox will continue to grow and Google's lame attempt will fall flat its face.

Chrome is going to be totally open source so Firefox can tale it all, add their XUL extensions and get a brand new shiny browser for free.

Firefox can take any part of this new browser that they like. It is hardly Google killing off Firefox since they are giving it away. There will be a Linux version soon I am sure, the code is all there so it shouldn't be hard.

Personally I am very excited by this new browser, it should make the web a lot better in the future. Microsoft must be upset, their poorly written IE 8 will start to look very crusty soon.

One of Firefox's best selling points is extensions, so until Chrome gets that, it is unlikely to dominate. It is more of a base for others to build a better browser from. Firefox is much better than IE8 but there is always a lot of improvement that can be made.

Joe, your thinking is predatory and aggressive, but thats not how open source works. Think of it as Firefox + Chrome + Webkit vs IE8. IE does not stand a chance.

P.S. Google also announced that they would extend their funding deal until 2011. A lot can happen in 3 years of tech so I wouldn't write off Firefox just yet.

The chief exec of Mozilla seems to love the idea. More competition is always good for browsers as long as they all support standards.

http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/09/01/thoughts-on-chrome-more/

Most people love competition, maybe writing about Microsoft has changed your perception? They are the only company I know that thrives by killing competition.

"...and Microsoft had taken Internet Explorer out of mouth balls and rekindled development."

Uhm, What are mouth balls?

I think you're a little over the top on this one Joe. Competition is a good thing. The end of "Pax Microsoft" is a good thing. A decent JavaScript engine will prove to be a much better thing for users than lock-ins (sorry plug-ins) from single source software vendors.

Joe, aren't you overlooking the most obvious counterpoints to your alarming prognostications?

First, in order to have a monopoly, you must have a mechanism for consumer lock-in. Google doesn't have that. We can always switch search engines if we don't like what Google is doing. We can always switch browsers (as long as all browsers stick to web standards).

With Windows, if you are inured to Windows apps, you are locked into Windows. You can't switch operating systems. That was how Microsoft built their *true* monopoly.

Second, Chrome is Open Source. How can you possibly achieve lock-in with an Open Source product?

Third, Google doesn't own the information in the cloud. You said so yourself. This absolutely guarantees competition, which Google cannot quell.

Microsoft has a monopoly because they could, and *did*, suppress competition. The differences between Google and Microsoft are like night and day.

Joe, you hit the nail on the head here. Google may not have a search monopoly, but they have a de facto monopoly on search-based advertising. If Google controls the browser, they also get to keep the royalties they pay to Apple (Safari) and Mozilla Foundation (Firefox). This will be interesting to watch.

Joe, I think Richard said it best with;
"First, in order to have a monopoly, you must have a mechanism for consumer lock-in. Google doesn't have that. We can always switch search engines if we don't like what Google is doing. We can always switch browsers (as long as all browsers stick to web standards)."
----------------------------------------------------
So I don't see any real problem with google making their own browser, unless as you imply, google will stop paying Firefox to use google search, as that is where the money really comes from to pay for the development of Firefox. Just curious if you know this is going happen, or you think its just a real possibility?

And a far as Microsoft being crushed with Chrome, well the superior Firefox has not completely crushed IE yet, althought it continues to gain market share all the time. Even if google Chrome did crush IE, wouldn't we all be better off?

BTW, Joe, not only is there supposed to be a Mac port of Chrome, but also a Linux port.

Internet Explorer?? Wasn't that a browser popular back in the 20th century? I hear it's code base deteriorated into an obsolete, insecure mess, and users found better alternatives.

I don't really think Google is so stupid as to screw firefox. Google is ultimately in this to sell advertising. If they can sell advertising on both Chrome AND firefox, why kill off firefox? The money they are giving to firefox is peanuts compared to the value of staying on top as the dominate search & advertising engine.

I suspect that the big-picture purpose behind Chrome is to leverage it as a platform for the services they are offering. Imagine if a lot of the heavy lifting work for gmail or their online office tools were hard wired into the browser. All of a sudden you end up with something a lot more compelling to use in the corporate world. Especially to cash-strapped start-up businesses.

Furthermore, I think Firefox is becoming more and more geared to double as a development tool. I must admit, I've become quite dependant on tools like firebug (with it's own extensions), web developer, HTML validator and other extensions. And it looks like Mozilla is taking notice of these projects and adding elements to it's API that allow extensions to become all the more powerful as development tools.

Shall I remove VCSY comments and ban the commenters?

Joe

To Chips and Richard:

A monopoly is not about lock-in, but dominance. A monopoly arises when a single company owns nearly all, or all, of the market for a product(s) or service(s). The dominance creates barriers to entry for other products or services. A monopoly is not illegal under U.S. law, but abuse of monopoly power is. Some examples are price fixing and the use of a monopoly in one market to gain dominance in another one.

Joe

Google has a long way to go with this initiative. Internet Explorer still commands a very serious and respectable market share. There is no default browser on peoples desktops in this world. I and others often switch between Firefox and Internet Explorer. Not to mention that versions of a browser are competitive, take for instance, Windows 2000 Pro machines in my lab running IE 5.0 compete with Firefox 3.0. The promise that Google does present formidable challenge with Chrome though, particularly of making the web the place to do productivity, personal and entertainment activities. How will Microsoft see this and also capitalize on it? Internet Explorer 8 has the backbone to compete, but does it have the services infrastructure to give end users that complete solution? Interesting times ahead.

Chrome may not have Lock-In right now as some have posted...

But Google could then make specialized Google Apps, Google Earth, etc. etc just for their browser.

Also, others have commented that the advertising revenue that flowed to Firefox from Google will stay in Google's coffer.

Well, Google owns only 62 percent -- that's hardly "nearly all" of the market. They're a long way off from dominance.

Windows' dominance did create barriers to entry, but this is because Microsoft had a captive audience. Nothing prevents me from leaving Google. Nothing prevents me from using Firefox or Safari (or -- gasp! -- IE). If the browser is the user interface to the cloud, then how can Google force me to use their products? Lock-in has to be considered a major factor in monopoly control.

"But Google could then make specialized Google Apps, Google Earth, etc. etc just for their browser."

Chrome is Open Source. We will have all the source code. Any other browser can freely reverse engineer Chrome's capabilities.

I could add little to that that was very well said:

The 'problemo', Joe, is that you are thinking as a MS' analyst ("Embrace, extend and extinguish")
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030184-2.html
Open Source doesn't think thus:
Mozilla CEO: Chrome was inevitable (Mozilla CEO John Lilly)
Quoting:"It should come as no real surprise that Google has done something here: their business is the Web, and they've got clear opinions on how things should be," Lilly wrote in his blog Tuesday. "Chrome will be a browser optimized for the things that they see as important."

Paul Kim, vice president of marketing for Mozilla, said that Google staff would be allowed to continue to contribute to the Mozilla Foundation's projects. "As a 100 percent open-source project, we welcome contributions to Firefox from everyone," he said.

"More smart people thinking about ways to make the Web good for normal human beings is good, absolutely," Lilly said.

-------------------
Spanish expression related to religion: Being more Papist than the Pope. (Someone who wants to be stricter than the one who started the ‘strictness’ in the first place).
Joe: Are you being more Papist than the Pope?
Or.... are you being more Lillist than Lilly?

Shall I remove VCSY comments and ban the commenters?
It’s really hard to have an opinion about it. As Chips said: ‘once we start banning people, when do we stop?’

But you asked, therefore I’ll answer. As everything in life, there is a limit. And the only person to distinguish that limit in this forum is you (something I believe all those present here accept). My 2 cents would be to follow the following steps in order:
1. To put an end and delete all impersonations (which creates an excess of discussion).
2. To warn those whose posts are more like spam than like actual posts to moderate their attitude, otherwise you’ll ban them.
3. In the case that you are not respected as a moderator, follow your threats through.
Again I reiterate that these are only my two cents and the only person to distinguish that limit in this forum is you.

Joe asks:
"Shall I remove VCSY comments and ban the commenters?"

@Joe:
Yes and no.

Yes, to removing the comments. They really don't add to your blog nor to its lively and otherwise informative discussions.

No, to banning the commenters. Unless you know something we can't see, I've seen some good points come out of those discussions. Kind of like, when Robin Williams performed for the British Royal Family and had to keep his language clean, he was 100 times funnier than when his audience permitted cursing.

Just my 2 cents.

Philosopher: actually I like your idea.

Joe,

You don't have to ban anybody. But delete the posts that are overtly spam and the obvious mocking fakes. That's all. That way, no one is actually banned, but the garbage is cleaned up.

Evil? Google wants to keep the money it pays for Mozilla/Firefox? What HAVE you been smoking?

Microsoft owns the browser market (by unfairly destroying Netscape) and now Google owns search. According to your numbers it's less dominant in search than Microsoft is in browsing. Google is afraid that IE8 will be used to divert traffic from Google. Microsoft may now be afraid that Chrome will kill IE8. So... both have jugulars.

However, the fact that Chrome is open source and even Microsoft can improve on it makes it anything but evil. Have you been supping with the devil so long you define evil on his terms?

Google's support for Firefox etc. is not entirely philanthropic. Without such alternatives Microsoft would be completely dominant. And with it... evil would be rampant. I refer to the malicious software that I am now FAR more protected from using Chrome.

The triumph in the market of better ideas is not evil, especially when people are free individually to chose which ideas succeed.

Microsoft's best answer will not be bleating to regulators but a better search engine.

IE is used tby people who don't know much about computers. They use it because it is there. They don't know that something better exists.

Those who know will be splitted between Firefox and Chrome. So yes Chrome will hurt Firefox more than Microsoft, unless they can find a way to get it installed on almost every manufacturer preinstallaed Windows.

@Eats Wombats:
Thanks for the link! Your site rocks!!!! I've already passed links of various articles of yours to folks in my office.

Some key difference here.

This is open source, so FF and any other browser can use this code base to improve. It uses WebKit, same as Safari, another open source library. Also, Google employs FF developers who will continue to work on FF.

So not only are they making the browser community better, they are continuing to contribute to it and investing in the future of open source browser technologies.

Bottom line, you're an idiot.

The rumors of Firefox's death have been greatly exaggerated.

lol @ firefox/google fanboys.

It's amazing how fast they come to the defense of their loved one.

Bias is a funny thing, it makes people act irrationally. All the responses above are full of shit and ignore logic.

First off:

"IE is used tby [sic] people who don't know much about computers. They use it because it is there. They don't know that something better exists."

Bullshit. Bias. Not to mention complete contradiction to what Chrome is.

Firefox is only "better" if the user finds purpose in its extra features; if it improves their expectations. Somebody who, as you say, doesn't know much about computers, probably has little interest in extra features like extensions or a simplified Options pane (the user you described probably won't even modify options) to begin with. If somebody buys a basic and cheap car JUST to get from point A to point B, replacing it with a Ferrari won't be any "better"-- that's orthogonal to their expectations and requirements in a car. Your definition of "better" is therefore biased to your specific needs as a firefox fanboy. Please don't impose your bullshit feelings on others, let them make up their own minds.

This article makes a point most people simply don't understand: Google *is* competing with Firefox: Unlike the above user claims, the only people this browser targets are the people who "know something better exists", ie. Firefox users. This is *not* going to target IE users who use IE because it's there (majority of users). It's going to target the people who switch browsers, which is a market Firefox and Firefox alone has been dominating for a long time. That means they *will* divert money that Firefox makes from search. They *will* hurt Firefox financially. They *might* "improve the browser world" with innovation, though it doesn't seem to be their focus. Besides, as a web developer I've seen it, we're already getting enough "browser innovation", Chrome won't be doing much-- in fact, Chrome seems to go backwards in time rather than forwards (how the FUCK do I read a page title longer than 10 characters without a titlebar?).

In any event, I find it funny that all the fanboys find it imperative to gang up on a microsoft blog, as if in 10 seconds after leaving the site they'll actually care what the author actually said.

This is a notice to all commenters:

This afternoon I deleted some comments about VCSY, and I unpublished 22 comments believed to be from the Fake I-Man (based on the IP address). I have not removed comments from portuno as some commenters requested. I did remove links in some portuno comments pointing to blogs he wrote about VCSY.

There is no censorship at Microsoft Watch, but spam is deleted. The posts on VCSY are endless, and they should have stopped when the settlement was reached. Any future VCSY comments will be treated as spam and deleted. If they persist, the poster will be banned.

Douglas Taylor and Tom Berber asked for some respite from portuno. Again, I don't censor comments. If it were my choice--and it's not--there would be no anonymous commenting at Microsoft Watch. Douglas and Tom both identify themselves through links. Portuno does not. The weak often hide and from their secrecy attack those in the open.

Portuno is right when he says that I have his e-mail address. But that doesn't really identify who he is, although the information wasn't that hard for me to get. I strongly suggest that portuno clearly identify himself and his associations if he wants to attack the integrity of others.

As for the others, like Douglas and Tom, don't let portuno's insinuations and accusations bother you. He's looking for reaction, methinks. Why feed his need to bleed you?

I found the VCSY posts to be mildly assuming and somewhat annoying. I watched the banter with other commenters and portuno, who clearly sought reaction. Neither he nor either of the I-Mans is getting a reaction from me. I've stepped in because plenty enough time has passed since the VCSY settlement and enough regular commenters have requested action for me to do something. So I'm taking action and will step in again and again until all this nonsense stops.

I am posting this comment on the 10 most recent Microsoft Watch blog posts.

My thanks to all the regular commenters,

Joe

So when Google is the dominate player 10 years from now, will all the Google fanboys look for the next underdog to stand by? What's funny about all of this is that Google is no different than MS. They entered the market with a superior product and are using that product to position themselves to dominate in every other area...sound familiar? Whether you want to believe it or not, they will use their own technology to make the web what they want it to look like. Regardless of whether it is open source or not it is still one company controlling the what and the how. Firefox is not an add-on to Google's browser, people will choose one or the other not both. Of course this will cut into MS share as well, but for anyone to say it will not affect Firefox on the negative is completely irrational.

Joe, you are missing one thing, Chrome is open source. Windows, and IE, are not. That's why people are not reminded of IE when they see Chrome.

Google has obviously had this in the works for awhile. My guess is they heard about the next version of Internet Explorer (after 8.x) and realized what a threat it was going to be for anyone other then Microsoft, including their business model.

Browsers that not only do not crash when a third party application or plugin crashes are GREAT! We will see these either this year or early next year from all the major browsers. However plugins, web applets, tabs, whatever-you-want to call them that refuse to work with non-Microsoft applications, operating systems, services and/or search engines would obviously be a real threat to them.

Google Chrome was simply a matter of survival for Google in the face of new browser development. In the long term having one more choice is very good for consumers and the market.

Reducing choice is bad for all consumers, increasing choice can only be good.

Personally I believe the ultra notebooks selling for either $399, $299 or $100 with less then 1 GB of RAM is impacting the drop in Internet Explorer browser market share to a greater extent then Chrome ever will. The drop in I.E. browser share for world-wide, non-government entities has been dropping since the 4th quarter last year (2007).

I will not be surprised to see the browser market share to be divided up so that no one vendor has greater then 30% of the market...my guess is this will occur by late 2009 or early 2010. Remember there are over 15 browsers in the market! This is very positive for the market and innovations with web products!

The gauntlet has been thrown down, you want to dominate the market, you must INNOVATE and earn it, as it should be. IMO, its long over due!

In the long term this is going to help Microsoft as well!

I believe you have achieved a reasonable position on the VCSY issue. I would likely not have been as charitable myself, as I have commented before. My main gripe has always been that the posts were on topics -- like nearly all of them -- that were totally unrelated to either their views of the legal situation or their shills for buying stock (obvious spam in sheep's clothing). There were and are surely forums for such posts, but (for example) this post about the browser wars ain't it. Moderating a forum is not censorship, as long as everyone knows the rules in advance.

From what I have read about Chrome so far, it is not quite ready for prime time -- an actual "beta" product from Google as opposed to a "production beta" such as Gmail. It will be interesting to see how robust it is when it is finally RTP. Safari on Windows at least has proved to be a security disappointment.