i like the shorter ones

"It's not a question of if but when Google cuts off Mozilla's oxygen supply"

Tssss, too much time writing news about Microsoft.

All this is predicated on Google actually being able to get people to switch to Chrome. Which so far it has completely failed to do. Why cut off its own nose to spite its face? Why try to hobble Firefox when it's getting so much ad revenue from Firefox users?

There is no way for Google to get from here to there; Firefox has painstakingly built up its own market share over so many years; Google cannot simply come in and take that.

Chrome is really just a research project. That's why it's Windows-only; if Google were really serious about it, it would have gone cross-platform already. Sure it's got some interesting ideas, but you won't see those ideas widely adopted until they're incorporated into a more mainstream browser. Like Firefox.

"Tssss, too much time writing news about Microsoft."

Exactly....

The goal of business is not to always kill off the competition so you can become an incumbant monopolist.

Google gains if there is plenty of competition in the browser marketplace, thats why Chrome is open source. Their business model revolves around applications that run in the browser, killing off browsers would be counter-intuitive. Google, Chrome and Firefox can all work together and benefit.

Chrome was proof to the world that anyone can make a decent, fast, cross platform web browser in a few months. They are spurring on Microsoft and it seems to have worked.

i like the idea of a two headed monster that eats internet explorer

I could be wrong here, but I see several things that would hinder Chrome from decimating Firefox, if that is indeed its plan.

1.) Chrome is open source, correct? That means that any new features or improvements that prove themselves in Chrome can be added to Firefox.

2.) Chrome still does not yet exist natively on Linux or OSX. Until it does, it poses little threat to Firefox. I have yet to see Chrome take off, but I suspect it will start making another dent in IE share before it makes any serious incursion on Mozilla's territory.

3.) Even if somehow the plug was pulled on Mozilla, that doesn't mean that Firefox would die or be crippled. Remember that Firefox (originally codenamed "Phoenix") was born from the ashes of Netscape. The death of its predecessor company gave it birth, so how can one be certain that the death of its current parent foundation would kill it?

@Jack,
Yes, you could be wrong. But you're not.

And to your superb list I would add:

1) Until Chrome supports AdBlock Plus or its equivalent, Firefox won't lose many users.

2) Until Chrome supports DownloadHelper, FoxClocks, and other cool plug-ins, Firefox won't lose many users.

And of course, who is Firefox? A company with employees? No! It's a free open-source browser available on more platforms than all the others put together. If Firefox was down to only me as its sole user, I would still continue to use it as long as it's supported and working.

Market share is irrelevant in the FOSS world. An active development and vibrant community support are where it's at.

Plus everything that Jack so eloquently and astutely pointed out.

Seems like all of Firefox, Safari and Chrome are stepping up to the plate and innovating and competing like mad. Makes the web a much more interesting place. The one that seems to be being left behind is poor old IE. Amazing how this burst of activity in open source rendering/javascript engines has blossomed so quickly.

Google's real investment is that the open international standards of DHTML/Javascript is the way of the web. Google's main threat is that these technologies aren't being invested in and instead the investment goes to closed proprietary single vendor locked in tools like Silverlight. Google is really putting some bucks into standard browser technology, in this case by backing WebKit.

Joe,

Rather than sensationalizing, maybe you try to, you know, inform your audience.

"But Mozilla's dirty little public secret has been its dependence on Google search revenue."

Mozilla isn't dependent on Google search revenue. Mozilla is, (and it's a bit concerning, but not terribly so,) dependent on the search advertising marketplace that most of the web is dependent upon.

Any search provider would, (and others besides Google do,) pay for traffic that Firefox generates for them. Google is the lion's share of Mozilla's revenue not because they pay more to Mozilla for searches than the other providers, but because there are a whole lot more searches to pay for.

That's because Google is the default. If, for example, Yahoo was the default, it would be the lion's share of Mozilla's revenue.

It's not about Google and it never has been. It's about search advertising and the fact that _any_ search provider is not just willing, but thrilled to pay reasonable prices for for _any_ search traffic they can get.

I know this can be a bit confusing, but it's not rocket science and as you're paid to learn about things and help explain them to others, I'd expect a little more from you. Because, for whatever reason, you've failed to explain this honestly to your readers, let me take a crack at it.

A lot of your readers have blogs so I'll explain it on those terms. It's quite a good analog, actually.

If you have a blog and you run Google AdSense, Google pays you for the traffic you send them. That makes you "dangerously dependent on Google's money" but there's nothing to stop you from moving to Microsoft's or Yahoo's or some other ad platform. So you're not really dependent on Google so much as you're dependent on the basic text or banner advertising marketplace.

Now, you might decided to diversify because you want your readers to see more than one kind of ad or because different ad platforms offer different features so you add, say, BlogAds ads to your blog. But, you keep Google at the top banner spot because it's the most relevant content to must of your users and it's not all Flash-y and probably won't tick them off as much. Now you've got most of your ad click revenue coming from that Google banner at the top but you've got some other clicks on the BlogAds banner in the sidebar below the fold.

Now you've got diversity, but you're still dependent on the same basic marketplace.

You could rotate the ad providers, putting AdSense below the fold and BlogAds up in that top spot and you can bet your revenue proportions would change but you're basically still in the same place, dependent on advertising.

That's basically the Mozilla situation. Mozilla provides a variety of search services, driving traffic to a variety of search providers and deriving revenue from those transactions. Google is the search service at the top of the page (the default) and Yahoo and Ebay and Amazon and others are tucked under fold (alternative services listed in the search menu.)

"This open-source success story is as much about commercial financial support as community participation. Firefox fails, I predict for the future, lest Mozilla gets more donors or turns the browser back over to the open-source community."

Look, Mozilla makes a few products, Firefox chief among them. Volunteer coders contributing to Firefox out-number Mozilla employed coders contributing to Firefox by 10 to 1. Open source participation is critical to making and distributing Firefox.

Volunteers contribute about 40% of the code (a number that's stayed consistent over the last five years, even as full-time Mozilla employed coders have grown from just three to over 100.) Volunteers localize Firefox into 65 languages, and non-English (the languages created almost exclusively by volunteers) account for more than half of Firefox usage today. Surveys we've conducted say that 80% of Firefox users learned about it by word of mouth, and so volunteers make up a huge piece of the Mozilla project's marketing and outreach.

Firefox simply would not happen without the amazing community of volunteer contributors. It's never been possible to ship Firefox without this community effort. Neither has it ever been possible or ever been the case that a community minus Mozilla's full-time staff could ship and support Firefox. We all work together to make it happen. Take either away and it probably doesn't happen at all.

I think, based on your characterization of things in this article, that you're either misinformed, uninformed, or simply confused about how the Mozilla project operates and how money and employment play a role.

While I'm disappointed that you've opted for a sensationalist and wildly misleading approach to this story, I'd be happy to help you better understand if you're interested.

As always, I can be reached at asa@mozilla.org.

- A

Asa,

I'm glad you hit the nail on the head from these off the cuff remarks (as you said it sensationalist) from hit-mongering bloggers.

I think Joes, comments in essence to say that since Google does have a conflict of interest in giving money to Mozilla and building its own browser certainly will hold some validity. To say however that things will die without Google would be a fallacy. Indeed, I believe that many of the reasons people choose Firefox: development transparency, security, cleanliness of design and trust in design methodology are not something you will get from Google. Also, not everyone uses Firefox, because they are in the anything but Microsoft crowd. People do recognize quality work, especially when they're machines are hijacked for the umpteenth time.

Google is in the business to make money off of two things here: integrating as much capabilities for ad insertion based on sifting through your browsing, and building a platform that is independent from anyone else's browser (for more of the same).

If one would choose a balkanized browser platform from Google, it had better be a cut above everyone else's because I would be willing to bet you won't be able to decide in its future the level of privacy you'd want.

-Alan

Google has a long way to go and Microsoft is not sleeping at the wheel either. IE 8 is an innovative release Web Clips, InPrivate Mode, Inline searching, improved engine, compatibility mode all add up to an impressive release that will keep Firefox and Chrome at bay for a long time. The fact that IE is so entrenched in Enterprises will continue to make it be the browser that all browsers want to beat.

Thats true Google has a long way to go....lets see where it reaches?

http://www.safaribrowserwindows.com

6.5 billion people? most of those currently have a hard time finding something to eat and survive on, let alone picking a brower...

Asa, as someone who has gone from loving Firefox 2 to hating Firefox 3 to loving Firefox 3 more than I loved Firefox 2 after some version updates and fixed add-on compatibility, I could not agree more with what you said. I've seen it from both sides of the browser world. I watched IE 8 destroy my computer's ability to display one style sheet correctly - my own - this week. Somehow installing IE 8 Beta 2 recently made five browsers (IE 6, IE 7, IE 8, Chrome and Opera) unable to display my web pages correctly. IE 8 also destroyed my email client's ability to show me web pages in it - since it runs on IE's rendering engine, as well. This is after many other problems with IE that I wrote about on my personal blog this year - which got me into so much hot water with the entire Microsoft MSVP team that I deleted my posts about IE rather than argue with them any longer. In fact, I even apologized to them for what I wrote and just "let them win", agreeing with them about a dozen stupid things that should not have been argued, just to make the antics with them stop. IE, it was announced in the news today, is still in such an advanced spaghetti-code state that MS isn't even going to release it until well into 2009. What does *that* tell you (that maybe I'm right in my criticism of IE 8, but let me not push it lest I revive my MSVP stalkers again).

My point in all this is not to knock IE. I tried to like it many times over the years and simply could not. It doesn't run well enough or render well enough to make it worth using. It's last iteration almost made me lose my mind this week when I thought it was my own coding errors that led to my web pages failing to display correctly on my computer in five different browsers spanning three different rendering engines. I gave IE more than a fair shake, I promise.

My point is, IE sucks, no matter which way you cut it, and people are going to continue to stop using it in droves once they are ready to treat themselves to a much better browser. Firefox is not in danger of losing market share to the little known and privacy-leeching Chrome browser anytime soon. Safari is like IE for the Mac, only with less bugs and much better rendering - its not going to catch on in a big way on Windows anytime soon, either. It's too bland. That leaves Firefox, who's revenue is secure and who's future is brighter than anybody else's since Mozilla is offering the best, most versatile browser that there is. I think the OP is ridiculous, and darts about without connecting thoughts just to attract readers and discussions like this one.

This post is a bit sensational - maybe Google would love to rule the world, but they seem to have learnt from Microsoft's PR mistakes. Killing off a popular, open-source browser for their own financial gain may be too risky in the short term.

Chrome does seem to be about making access to Google Apps (and later 'the cloud') better. Google probably doesn't want to be dependent on a third-party for access to its new sources of revenue. People using it to access the wider internet may just be a bonus.

That it's included in Android seems irrelevant - Opera's mobile-browser market share doesn't feed through to the PC.

@Marah
The whole point of betas is to find problems so that the developers can try and do something about them before the real release. Sure, it sounds like you found some pretty big problems with IE8, but it seems to me that the fact that the release date has been pushed back implies that the developer team realise they've got a lot of work to do to get the program ready.

I personally prefer using IE (7 more than 6) to Firefox. I never bothered much with the downloads and add-ons for Firefox and I found IE nicer to use than Firefox without any add-ons. You said that you hated Firefox 3 initially, which presumably meant you had to do a lot of work to get it to the state where you loved it. A huge number of people won't be bothered to put that effort in. People's natural tendency towards laziness is always a factor to consider in these things.

I'm not even going to try and argue about IE from a web developer position because I'd probably lose. I don't design websites myself but I dated a guy who did and he spent a lot of time swearing at IE.

As a person browsing the internet, I would rather use IE than Firefox (I haven't tried Chrome) and most general users won't have the faintest idea which browsers it's easier to design websites for.

Yeah, Firefox is a standard browser and also good at browsing. So Google chrome can't replace Firefox.....

Yeah, Firefox is a standard browser and also good at browsing. So Google chrome can't replace Firefox.....

Google stores all your information. Chrome will of course take care of that in an extended way. If not: people will think so anyway. Because of that people will become suspicous and here Firefox has a winning selling point. And: not every market Google enters is in beforehand a success, although many people seem to think so. Check Google docs.

If it ain't broke....

Firefox is superlative & has a tremendous community of power users. For many it is an Anti-Corporate thing. While Micro$oft is the evil empire, Google is no better. Firefox allows one to operate independent of these. Things like AdBlockPlus & CustomizeGoogle are another way of saying: "Stick it to the man!" I won't jump out of the fire & into the frying pan!!!

Dirty little secret? I would expect that most of the readers of this post knew the secret long before it was "divulged" here.

Sorry but with the sensationalist title and the limp content this post seems like nothing more than chum for Techmeme.

"It's not a question of if but when Google will cut off Mozilla's oxygen supply."

No, it's a question of "if" as well.

If Chrome is a success from an adoption perspective then I think you are likely correct. If it's not, then Google will most certainly not cut Mozilla off.

There's also the possibility that if Chrome is a success that Google would seek to hand it over to Mozilla for maintenance. The questions then are would Mozilla take it and what would happen to Firefox if it did?

I seriously doubt Chrome will ever become mainstream. And if Google does ever cut-off Mozilla/Firefox, all they have to do is a deal with Microsoft/Yahoo to replace Google as the default.

I think Google knows that Firefox can go to another search engine to provide the same service. Search is more important to Google than a silly browser war. They will keep it alive for protection sake.

The dirty little secret remark is quite funny and very irresponsible. You're attempt to try and make people believe that an organization is sneaking around stuffing their pockets with cash behind their backs is weak especially when that organization operates transparently.

The success of Mozilla (and Firefox in particular) isn't a result of income taken in by Mozilla from Google nor will it ever be. Mozilla was already established before any deals were made with Google and they had a good product (Firefox) that was already popular before its first official release.
The deal with Google has just turned out to be a surprising bonus and while perhaps the numbers wouldn't be as high as the revenue is from Google, there would be another company in Google's slot benefiting from the traffic and exposure to the 200+ million Firefox users/consumers and as Asa mentioned, there are others and besides the consumer traffic, those companies must get something else out of giving money to a non-profit organization.

People didn't start using Firefox because it had anything to do with Google and they still don't. They choose to install and learn a brand new stand alone application because they want something better than what has always been forced upon them and now thanks to Mozilla and Firefox, people demand it and get it and that is holding true for many other applications and services. There is no longer the model of this is what you get, take it or leave it. Nowadays, if you use that approach, people will leave it, there are too many other choices to stand for that.

I can see Google's Chrome becoming a substantial competitor to Firefox, they have the funds and users to do that but it won't be Firefox's demise.

I'll tell you from my perspective as a long time Mozilla volunteer and advocate and Firefox user that Firefox users aren't mere consumers, we are very passionate about we consider to be our software because we build it, we support, we promote it, one by one all by choice and without monetary incentive or gain.
That's something that neither Google nor Microsoft will ever be able to emulate so don't expect Firefox users to dump Firefox anytime soon simply because Google has the resources to develop and market their browser.

Look, Firefox is the best. If it wasn't, the most brilliant people on the planet wouldn't be using it. THE main reason that Firefox isn't the most used browser is because the majority of Internet users still are not aware that a better choice exists or that they have a choice at all.
IE has had a very long head start and continues to be shoved right in front of PC users faces.
If I gave you a choice to access the Internet by using IE or nothing at all, what would you choose? Now put an IE and a Firefox shortcut on a desktop and you know what, chances are that you'll try them both and side by side, Firefox historically wins.

Chrome doesn't have the same luxury as IE but Google does have the resources to at least show that there is another choice but if anything, it'll be IE users flocking to Chrome not Firefox users so please feel free to continue to promote Chrome, I fully support you on that.

For the record, I'm not necessarily anti-Microsoft, I use and enjoy Windows but I don't subscribe to Microsoft's business practices, policies, and monopolistic endeavors and for those reasons and because I don't wish to put money into Microsoft's banks to further promote IE or their selfish missions, I will be switching to Mac or Linux.

Until they come up with a real browser...

that people who use Firefox would prefer, not people that use IE because 'they don't know better'...

Firefox will survive.

Microsoft has yet to 'originate'...

Firefox (and even Google) do of necessity.

Keeping in mind 'non-windows' environments are growing - propotionately...

the future is not to be lead by the media, like the last election.

Computer geeks find truth faster than media followers...

I suggest that the majority of Firefox users know how to access search engines other than Google and in many cases they replace Fx's single source Search box with a multi source search gadget.

So how much "value" does Google actually get from funding Mozilla; advertising revenue -- some but marginal; street cred -- heaps. If Google's intent is to kill Fx, then they may well become as unpopular as MS

And I wonder how many IE users use Live Search as their default search engine and how many use Google, I know where I'd put my money.

I hesitate to use even upgraded versions of Chrome, since my last experience using it (first version) left my computer compromised; have they fixed the security issues beyond all doubt?

I concur with movie fan's experience. Using Chrome, our computer's internet connection would drop. Since avoiding Chrome, it's never dropped. Not scientific, but it sure looks suspicious.

I once had admiration for Chrome, believing that it was Google's attempt to create a portable browser that also implemented enough client-side function to make their Google Docs and other web applications feel as if they were running locally. And maybe it will one day.

But after all this time, and after their stellar use of Linux and MapReduce on their servers, they can only seem to release Windows clients. Where are the Linux and Mac ports? The FOSS world abounds with stellar applications that run on Linux, Unix, and Windows. OpenOffice. Inkscape. Now even Scribus. Firefox. Come on, Google. What's up with that?

Chrome only runs on Windows (running on Wine on Linux doesn't count for anything, sorry). Picassa is a Windows-only application. Ditto for whatever their numbskull 3D application is. Whee. They think so little of Microsoft that they play right in Microsoft's backyard on Microsoft's terms.

Like Microsoft, Google is further proof that oceans of money doesn't produce good software without skill. And OpenOffice, Firefox, Inkscape, Linux itself, and a steady parade of others prove that with the right skill, you don't need oceans of money to produce good AND portable software.

Google does search better than nearly anyone. Google can't write a client to save its life. Message to Google: Look at OpenOffice and Inkscape and Scribus and Firefox whatever else you want, and realize that it's possible to write portable client software that's also compelling. You're not lacking money. But do you have enough brainpower? Then show evidence of it.

Google's motto may be Do No Evil. It's a shame that they forgot about Do No Knob-Headed Foolishness.

It's funny, Chrome is announced just days after Firefox announced Javascript optimization, am I right?

As I've said before, I read Chrome's entire comic and it's jam-packed with good points, they are dead on. Well, if you think the browser needs to be an OS. Does it? Well, if you really think we need "AJAX" but that's another discussion for another day.

Even though Chrome makes sense, in my opinion it will take at least 5 years to make a dent. Above comments are correct. The Firefox spellchecker alone is priceless, how many people add new words to it daily? And what would you do without Firebug? But forget plugins for a minute, now I design my websites for Firefox first, then I might go to IE to see what's broken. There's no way I'm going into a third browser, fringe browsers can take it or leave it.

We all worked so hard to get ordinary Joe on Firefox, do you really think we're going to throw that out the window now and early-adopt Chrome? No way, especially given Google's control of advertising. I read somewhere recently, about half of all the ad money spent online goes through Google. It's bad enough they control Internet advertising, and search, do they now need control of our PC too? People definitely fear Google now, they're not throwing money at Adwords because they like it.

Anyway, to comment above, that Firefox could simply switch to an MSIE or Yahoo default. Sure, but I see two problems:

1. If you switch the default to MSIE or Yahoo, won't most people switch it back to Google? I think they would. Personally, my Firefox default search is set to Dictionary.com.

2. Adsense probably has millions more ads running than Yahoo and Microsoft combined. Do you really think the payout will come close to what Google can afford, offers to pay?

Anyway, I had to point that out. However, the people that believe in Firefox are passionate and for most of them it's not about money. I watch these browsers come and go, I'm just telling it like it is. I can still remember Quarterdeck's browser, and way before that: Telix, Procomm Plus...

"All this is predicated on Google actually being able to get people to switch to Chrome. Which so far it has completely failed to do."

That's because it's an early beta. Give it time to mature. Windows didn't take over from NetWare in a flash either, but NetWare eventually became irrelevant.

"Why cut off its own nose to spite its face? Why try to hobble Firefox when it's getting so much ad revenue from Firefox users?"

If it can get that revenue from Chrome what does Google care?

"There is no way for Google to get from here to there;"

You're so very wrong.

"Firefox has painstakingly built up its own market share over so many years; Google cannot simply come in and take that."

Sure it can. If Google builds a better browser many that use Firefox would switch in a flash. Google has huge advantages that Mozilla didn't and still does not have. Chrome could bury Firefox and likely will if it's a quality browser.

I really don't think that attacking Mozilla is Google's intention. I think the real intention is to provide the open source community with enough tips and source that they can make their own browsers extremely robust and multi-threaded across a variety of platforms.

Google simply wants to remove the Microsoft monopoly on browsers so that the commonality stops being the OS and becomes the cloud.

Whichever browser wins in the long run - so long as it's not Internet Explorer, Google will win since they're way ahead of everyone on the cloud.

1. You are an idiot.

First off, you need to ask yourself why Google released Chrome? Simple, because Google's business relies on people clicking on their ads in the web. To use the web, they need a browser. Since Microsoft was stagnating on IE Google felt the need to do something about it. Yes, Mozilla/Firefox and Webkit/Safari is there but increasing competition benefits everyone. Google wants the web to be the programming platform of choice because that generally means more ad revenue for them.

2. You're reporting is terrible.

"IE 8 share is about 73 percent"
Last I checked, but IE8 hasn't been released yet.

I don't have time to go through the whole article and recheck for the many, many inaccuracies (and not to mention spelling mistakes). You're supposed to be a journalist so act like one!

3. You don't know what's going on.

Google did extend their search box deal with Mozilla for another 2 years (until 2010). Google's main goal is not browser dominance but search engine and ad dominance.

Also, if for some reason Google decided to not renew the search deal after 2010, Mozilla could go to Google's competitors (Microsoft, Yahoo, Ask, AOL, etc.) for a search deal.

Furthermore, unlike traditional corporations, profits are not the end all be all for Mozilla. The Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit charity. As well, I think about 40% of Firefox code is written by non-employees using the open source development model. So even if the Mozilla Corporation went bankrupt, Firefox would still exist and new versions would continue to be made by its volunteers.

Next time, do us all a favour and say nothing at all.

Upon further reflection (and inspection of Chrome's source code and its use of SCons), it appears to me that perhaps Google really does have a solid and well-thought plan and are only playing their cards close to the vest, so to speak.

1. Chrome's current cross-platform coding is very poor, heavily skewed towards Windows without a clear path toward adding Mac and Linux support. But it does get Chrome out into the market quickly and supporting the most-used platform. This would indicate to me that Chrome is meant to be much more than a browser, but that it first must get its browser functions compelling and solid before even attempting the next steps.

2. But Chrome's use of SCons (see www.scons.org) tells me that Google does appear to be thinking in the right direction relative to cross-platform support. Their choice of Webkit over Gecko is well-reasoned, and I am now thinking that their choice of cross-platform GUI support would be nothing less than just as well reasoned.

So perhaps Google's internal Chrome development, which is not yet evident in their current source release, is focused on a cross-platform GUI that is as well constructed as their use of Webkit and other C++ chromium libraries. No, I don't know and have no visibility into their company. But it's the only thing that makes sense to me now.

And while Chrome isn't going up against Firefox per se, as it is intended to be much more than just a browser. But Firefox's support of superb Adblock Plus plug-in (in combination with avoiding reading the top-most section of this blog, as I find myself in general agreement with Chris) makes Microsoft Watch quicker to load and relatively clean and breezy to follow.

But Adblock Plus cuts into Google's advertising revenue, and I would imagine that someone inside Google is as bothered with Adblock Plus on Firefox as Microsoft is bothered with Mac and Linux. And its addition of incognito mode into Chrome does appear to be an attempt to balance the lack of advertisement blocking with the benefit of easier anonymous browsing.

IMHO. YMMV and all that.

What is going un-noticed is that it is a bigger brawl. Opera is not going away. It is solidly in place and growing. As Opera mini shows its muscle on small devices, more and more folks will begin trying it on their laptops and desktops.

Opera must be considered. Why switch from Firefox to feature poor Chrome when Opera offers such versatility and faster speed as well.

Firefox is not dying. It is not going to run out of money because it's open source. I like Google for a search engine but I would much rather have Firefox as a browser. Unless Google can show me a statistical difference with it's browser I'm not switching. I have nothing against chrome I even tried it, I just like Firefox more.

I understand this is a commentary, but this is all purely speculation. With the evidence that you presented, one could also spin the info and say that Google could merge Mozilla into their organization, controlling Firefox, and possibly merging Firefox into Chrome (of course, this would also be purely speculation). With Google, sometimes you never know their intentions until actual announcements. Due to Google's previous behavior, I do not see enough evidence to warrant the side effect of reducing Firefox's market share. Instead, I still see it as another attack against IE and Microsoft. Unless I missed something, Google has been a big supporter of open source and it would not be a benefit to Google to destroy that relationship since it has the potential to continue to keep Microsoft distracted. Even though that potential is starting to fade day-by-day, as long as Microsoft remembers that its customers is what keeps the company alive. Customers no longer want mediocre software at high-quality prices.

Hm...
I'd use Chrome if it supported more of the enterprise type environment. I can't load Citrix web interface on it, and it is not compatible with Bomgar. So much for switching over...

Chrome
tried to load Adobe Flash Movie plug in program
but denial bec. of chrome,
any way to solve it?

Chrome is much faster and reliable then firefox. And Google Chrome has also introduce its extension which will compete firefox addons in future. So just wait for the final build of Chrome4 and you will be surprise to see it. :)