Google Launches "Chrome" Web Browser

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.google.com/chrome' target='_blank'>http://www.google.com/chrome</a><br /><br /></div><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1220454132.usr1.jpg" /></p><p>Yesterday, <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome" target="_blank">Google launched their own Web browser</a>. Since this is pretty big news, I decided it was worth posting network-wide. Do we really need another browser? Before yesterday, my answer would have been no - I'm a very satisfied <a href="http://www.firefox.com" target="_blank">Firefox</a> user, and <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/" target="_blank">Internet Explorer 8</a> is shaping up quite nicely. But after watching the 90 minute Google Webcast yesterday, I was very interested in with what Google had created.Â*There's a greatÂ*<a href="http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/" target="_blank">online comic</a>Â*that walks you through why Google created the browser, and what kinds of things were important to Google when creating Chrome. I think this comic is also how the browser was leaked before Google was ready to announce it. <MORE /></p><p>The <a href="http://tools.google.com/chrome/intl/en-US/features.html" target="_blank">features list</a> is pretty impressive for a beta, but the real proof is in using it: I just started doing that this morning, and I have to admit, the speed differeces that Google talked about really do make a difference. I have a fast cable modem connection (10 mbps, but I <a href="http://speedtest.shaw.ca/speedtest/runtest/" target="_blank">just tested it</a> and it benchmarked at 25.2 mbps) so I don't usually think of the Web as being slow in general, but after hitting a dozen or so sites with Chrome, everything really does seem faster. Web pages seem to snap into place quicker, and Chrome itself is extremely responsive. The work that Google has done focusing on speed seems to have paid off in a big way.</p><p>Beyond speed, the way that Chrome works from a stability standpoint is fascinating: each tab is actually a separate running process. That means that if one Web page crashes your browser, it only takes down that one tab, leaving the rest intact. I've lost more work than I care to admit through Firefox and Internet Explorer crashes, so this is hugely appealing to me. Being a beta, there are some <a href="There's a great online comic that walks you through why Google created the browser, and what kinds of things were important to Google when creating Chrome." target="_blank">bugs and quirks</a>, but I found that with the import of all my Firefox bookmarks, usernames, and passwords, I was up and running really quick. It includes an install of Flash (or maybe it's using what was already installed on my computer), so I was able to see and interact with everything on the Web easily.</p><p>The user interface and design of the browser is typical Google: minimalist, but well-thought out and quite effective. I really like the "Omnibox" which is a combination of address bar and search box. You just start typing something, and it quickly gives you options for searching Google (or whatever search engine you have configured) or going to that Web site. Chome still needs more polishing, but it's shaping up to be quite impressive. <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome" target="_blank">Check it out for yourself</a>.</p>

[paschott]

But the real question is when this will come out for Windows Mobile. :) (Probably the one OS in sore need of a real browser that runs quickly and doesn't mess with the notification settings. Bonus points if it actually can run and install only on a storage card.)

[Jason Dunn]

But the real question is when this will come out for Windows Mobile.

Good question. I think probably never. :( The Chrome team was asked about mobile browsers, and they replied saying that although Chrome is based off Webkit, which is what the Web browser in Android is based off of, they didn't consider mobile scenarios as part of their focus.

[Felix Torres]

Mind the fine print, folks:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html?tag=txt

There is no such thing as a free lunch:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9855&tag=nl.e539

Chrome is all about ads.
Serving them through the browser rather than the web page.
Easy to see Google serving up Ford ads in the browser when the user goes to a Toyota page...


Or, how about:

"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."

Lotsa fun to come.

[Jason Dunn]

"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."

That's sure a strange paragraph. If I post something online, unless I agree otherwise, I still own the copyright for that content. So Google is saying that they have the right to publish the content I post to my Web sites if I use Chrome? That's completely bizarre...:confused: Google couldn't possibly get away with that...could they?

[Damion Chaplin]

Sure they can. That's what an End-User License Agreement is: you own the software but you must use it their way. In addition, since it's a Beta and isn't a 'public distribution' yet, they can pretty much do whatever they want.

They have a similar clause in the EULA for gmail. Which is why no one should ever use gmail for business purposes (or anything else that's confidential). Google can read your email at any time for any reason... Which is why we'll probably never see a non-beta version of gmail...

That and they can't be sued if it borks your system. ;)

[EscapePod]

ZDNet is reporting that Chrome is as susceptable to "Carpet Bombing" as was Safari:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843&tag=nl.e539

[Prosper]

the speed and design is indeed nice, but it's (again) the google philosophy that makes me stay with a different free service - say, firefox. google is more and more trying to start a monopol with all its services. chrome is just the top of it. you see it by just reading the end-user agreement - they're doing things that cannot be quite right. i don't really trust the actions google is taking anymore.

[Jonathan1]

The biggest feature that is a "sale" for me is the fact that each tab is a sep process. No more crashing the entire browser when 1 site gets twitchy.

HOWEVER. While I've yet to read their EULA there have been several reports that the LIC is heavily draconian. As in whatever content is created in this browser we can use. They don't own it but they have rights to use it. I need to download Chrome and read the license text. This sounds like someone was in a hurry to create a LIC and didn't think this through. IF its in there I expect a stink to be thrown up around the net shortly and Google to change it.

At any rate this looks like a good browser. Now if they only supported FF extensions (Adblocker, noscript, etc.)

[efjay]

Mind the fine print, folks:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html?tag=txt

There is no such thing as a free lunch:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9855&tag=nl.e539

Chrome is all about ads.
Serving them through the browser rather than the web page.
Easy to see Google serving up Ford ads in the browser when the user goes to a Toyota page...


Or, how about:

"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."

Lotsa fun to come.

Very interesting reads. I am surprised anyone would consider this browser after reading those articles. Yet I'm sure none of that will stop those who are influenced by hype, the fact that its a product from google and not the evil MS empire and of course the word "free". I would rather experience a few crashes than give google basically full control of my internet experience.

[jeffd]

internaly hosted web ads huh? I'll pass. I use noscript so javascript hangups are a rare occurrence (Not that im not a big fan of separate program instances. That was one of the things I loved having explorer in).

It will take alot to get me to drop fire fox. Not only is it a good performer, but it has plugins I like and its secure. Allready out the gates and google has already shown their lax in security using out dated exploit riden code.

[Rocco Augusto]

The biggest feature that is a "sale" for me is the fact that each tab is a sep process. No more crashing the entire browser when 1 site gets twitchy.

This is my favorite feature as well. As a web developer this can do wonders for helping find memory leaks in websites instead of playing the guessing game at which site you're viewing is causing you to use 300MB in Firefox (who are we kidding, just opening up Firefox eats away at more memory than it should).

I can't seem to find it again but I read the plugins used their own processes as well. Just as spiffy as the tabs. Unfortunately, I don't see myself using this anytime soon. Like all of Google's services, they're nice to look at but I value my privacy a little to much to let them do whatever they want with it, which they do often.

Just my $0.02 :)

[Felix Torres]

Try this one:
Google's Omnibox could be Pandora's box | Beyond Binary - A blog by Ina Fried - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0)

"Provided that users leave Chrome's auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browser's Omnibox, even before a user hits enter. "

You don't have to actually *go* to a specific site for google to know you thought of it. And when you consider that statistical data-gathering is a built-in Chrome function...

I'm a-thinking Chrome's "privacy mode" is never going to be particularly private. Especially since one of the reasons Chrome exists, at all, is that Firefox and IE8 have solid privacy modes.

I don't think Chrome is going to be particularly welcome by corporate IT departments...

[MAK11]

The biggest feature that is a "sale" for me is the fact that each tab is a sep process. No more crashing the entire browser when 1 site gets twitchy.

Well then you should try IE 8 Beta 2
MS introduced this feature (and a few others) with Beta 1 quite a few months ago..
http://www.microsoft.com/ie8

[Jason Dunn]

That EULA just has to be a mistake - it's just too crazy otherwise.

[Rocco Augusto]

That EULA just has to be a mistake - it's just too crazy otherwise.

It might not be. Even if Google never uses any of the information that went through your browser, which chances are they most likely will not, being in the advertising business as deep as they are I see this EULA being more of a CYA tactic instead of a 'here is what we are going to do' situation.

[Stinger]

The crazier the EULA, the less likely it is to stand up in court.

Chrome seems very decent. Very fast and stable so far. I miss FF's search bar though - I can't find a quick way to swap search engines in Chrome.

[Janak Parekh]

It might not be. Even if Google never uses any of the information that went through your browser, which chances are they most likely will not, being in the advertising business as deep as they are I see this EULA being more of a CYA tactic instead of a 'here is what we are going to do' situation. It is a mistake. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

--janak

[Rob Alexander]

Beyond speed, the way that Chrome works from a stability standpoint is fascinating: each tab is actually a separate running process. That means that if one Web page crashes your browser, it only takes down that one tab, leaving the rest intact. I've lost more work than I care to admit through Firefox and Internet Explorer crashes, so this is hugely appealing to me.

It IS a great feature, and one that Internet Explorer 8 already has. It's one of the reasons I went ahead and moved to it, even though it's also only a beta. From looking around the links in here, Chrome looks pretty decent, but there is no way I am going to agree to the terms of that license.

[BevHoward]

Spent some time with the beta yesterday, but, came away with the impression that a large percentage of the functionality and configurability of Seamonkey (Mozilla Suite) is simply not there... for example, configuring how the tabs will work.

I do like the promise that it will handle the various content types transparently, so, would look forward to something such as an "Open Page in Chrome" plugin in order to view the many sites which don't think I have flash installed or that, in their opinion, I am not using a "proper" browser.

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

[Craig Horlacher]

It's the fastest browser by far that I've ever seen - especially with lot's of pages loaded. I love their tab implementation and the way you don't waste the screen real estate of the title bar when you maximize.

I loved firefox 3 but so far, Chrome beats it hands down for my usage! I've been waiting for one that would let one page crash and die without bringing down my other pages. The speed is just a neat surprise! I really like the crash protection and the interface.

And...Google changed the EULA according the /. post I have below.

Your Rights Online (http://yro.slashdot.org/): Google Updates Chrome's Terms of Service (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/04/2333205)



Posted by timothy (http://www.monkey.org/%7Etimothy/) on Thursday September 04, @08:24PM
from the credit-where-due dept.

(http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=217)
centuren writes "In response to the reaction to Chrome's terms of service (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/2130233&tid=95), Google has truncated the offending Section 11 (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html), apologizing for the oversight. The new Section 11 contains only the first sentence included in their Universal Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS), now stating: 'You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.'"

[Jason Dunn]

It is a mistake. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

*Whew*. That's what I was hoping for. Pretty bone-headed for Google to do something like that though...