Google Chrome - A fresh look on browsers

[Nick Geraedts]

So... Google's decided to enter the web browser market with their own OSS browser. Their methods are quite different than most of what we've seen so far.

Google Chrome - Comic Book

Google Chrome - Main Page

I've gotta say, I like it. For a first release, it's very slick, fast, and there are only a handful of bugs that are really noticeable.

[nici]

Thanks, typing this using Chrome now. Based on my 30 seconds of experience with it i like it. Looks pretty simple, and having the tabs in the top bar is pretty neat. And it hasn't crashed yet... Though the text act slightly weird when i type this, adds empty space instead of letters. It's fixed when i click another tab and return to this one.

[andyb]

I will wait until it is mostly bug free before I use it again. It lasted <5 minutes on my PC as it caused mt great annoyance via my Firewall (PC Tools).

The firewall popped up asking for access every single time I searched for something, this never happens with other programs, so the problem must be with Chrome. This is hardly surprising as it is a Beta.


Andy

[Greg F.]

I think it needs some serious fine tuning. It copied all of my History from FF, as I wanted it to do, but to remove the History was cumbersome as I had to delete each day's History one at a time. If there is a bulk delete for the History they need to make it more apparent.
I also couldn't find the View, and other toolbar icons. It just needs more time, I think. I do like Incognito, but I wonder if it really is "incognito". I think there might be some trust issues with Google.
I like the new IE8 in private mode. both have some ways to go to supplant FF3, IMHO.

[wim]

runs good ! this is super fast.
but i forgot how ugly the web is with all the ads everywhere.. any adblock app for chrome??

[proc]

Since I use Linux I didn't have the opportunity to try Chrome, but I'm afraid we won't see an adblock clone from Google

[blackworx]

Used it for the first time yesterday and yes, it's nice and fast and pretty and everything but, as others have said, the web is very ugly with adverts.

I allow ads on my favourite community sites like SPCR and even click them occasionally, but everything else is adblocked, especially commercial sites where you sometimes can't concentrate on reading for the amount of attention-grabbing, flashy adverts (don't get me started on those ones that roll over whatever it is you're trying to read).

So yeah, Google Chrome is a complete non-starter from that PoV.

You could use a http filter like The Proxomitron, but it's really not for the masses. You have to be willing to keep up to date with your filters and tolerate the occasional b0rken page.

One thing I've not seen mentioned so far is that, unless GC falls flat on its arse (highly unlikely) this probably spells the beginning of the end for Mozilla's Google-shaped cash cow. Plugins like AdBlock Plus really don't go down well at the Googleplex. Anything that hurts the advertisers hurts Google; this is their opportunity to start moving away from that minor embarrassment.

Mind you, GC is OSS so in reality adblocking code is not going to be difficult to incorporate - the resultant browser just won't be called Google Chrome any more.

Edit: And what are the odds Google will start bringing out non-OSS "must have" addons for your GMail or Google Maps or whatever - bells and whistles that only work with the Real McCoy Google Chrome?

[nick705]

If I'm reading the EULA right, any content to which I own the copyright, and which I post or even access via Chrome, is subsequently Google's to do with as they see fit, as long as it's "for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services" (which could be interpreted to mean almost anything in practice).

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. 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.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

Thanks but no thanks.

[nici]

I just browsed thru the EULA before installing, but im not really surprised to see somehting like htat in there.

[nick705]

I just browsed thru the EULA before installing, but im not really surprised to see somehting like htat in there.

I am - this goes *way* beyond anything I've ever seen before. Just imagine if the EULA for Windows or MS Office contained a clause that any document *you* created using Word would be Microsoft's property to freely reproduce, make publicly available and profit from at their convenience.

I'm sure most people will say "so what" if they even bother to read the conditions, but sooner or later we're all going to wake up and find every aspect of our lives is owned (in a quite literal sense) by some mega-corporation or other.

[blackworx]

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

What are "services" in the context of the EULA? They must state specifically in the preamble what it is they are referring to when they say "Services", otherwise you cannot be held to these terms and there would be no point in Googlecorp even including them.

[andyb]

Nick, you make a very valid and worrying point there. Chances are that Google would sit on that info for many months until it has enough collective info from millions of users to make money out of their users.

I can see this being used in a similar way to cookies, but they can also use this information for malicious or subversive purposes.

I certainly wont accuse Google of planning to actually do this, but that EULA is wide open for interpritation and indeed "use".


Andy

[nutball]

I am - this goes *way* beyond anything I've ever seen before.

Then I'm guessing you've not read the EULAs and T's&C's on other Google services? Because it's fairly routine with them.

Why else do people think Google is spending the time and money to make a browser?

Just imagine if the EULA for Windows or MS Office contained a clause that any document *you* created using Word would be Microsoft's property to freely reproduce, make publicly available and profit from at their convenience.

MS did try it a few years ago, there was a s**tstorm. It'll be interesting to see the reaction to this, Google has been getting a free pass for the past few years on stuff which would have Microsoft crucified.

[nick705]

What are "services" in the context of the EULA? They must state specifically in the preamble what it is they are referring to when they say "Services", otherwise you cannot be held to these terms and there would be no point in Googlecorp even including them.

They do, right at the beginning: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html

Google Chrome Terms of Service

These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software licence agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.

1. Your relationship with Google

1.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and websites (referred to collectively as the “Servicesâ€

[nutball]

Here was MS's attempt

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/30 ... a_and_biz/

My (perhaps jaded) recollection is that at that time MS was selling Passport as precisely the sort of services which Google is now wowing the masses by giving away, eg. "store all your data on our servers and access them from anywhere".

[blackworx]

[quote]Your use of Google’s products, software, services and websites (referred to collectively as the “Servicesâ€

[nick705]

Here was MS's attempt

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/30 ... a_and_biz/

My (perhaps jaded) recollection is that at that time MS was selling Passport as precisely the sort of services which Google is now wowing the masses by giving away, eg. "store all your data on our servers and access them from anywhere".

Yes, that looks spookily similar. "All your data are belong to us"...

Then I'm guessing you've not read the EULAs and T's&C's on other Google services? Because it's fairly routine with them.

No, I haven't read them in detail until now to be honest, although I use Gmail. I did find that the clause is part of their generic ToS, but in the case of Gmail at least it's overridden by the Terms of Use, which explicitly states:

5. Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.

I wonder what happens if you use Chrome to access your Gmail account...

[nutball]

Yes GMail is different I think, but Google Maps, Picasa, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Talk all seems to be covered by the generic ToS.

[blackworx]

I wonder what happens if you use Chrome to access your Gmail account...

A metaphysical dichotomy will force it to overload and shut down...

[widowmaker]

Putting the EULA issue aside, I still can't decide which is a better browser. I love how fast Chrome is as well as all its internal features, but I love Opera's mouse gestures. I want to be able to switch tabs, open new tabs, close tabs, go back and forth all with 1 mouse button and a hand movement. I don't like how you cannot customize every single button in Chrome while you can in Opera. I think I'll be sticking with Opera for now since I can get a cleaner look with the customization. You also get more viewing space.
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179 ... sopera.jpg

Oh yeah, and the awful blue. That needs to be customizable.
Oh yeah 2.0, You can't smooth scroll by pressing the middle mouse button either. It's only scroll wheel.

[jaganath]

@blackworx: ROFL! first Red Dwarf reference I have ever seen on here! give that man a medal! (or failing that, a pint!)

[wim]

looks like section 11 in the EULA got the smack down pretty quickly
see for example http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2329414,00.asp

[wim]

some also point out that the eula is unenforcable because its open source software, you could download the source and compile your own version of the browser and the eula would no longer apply

[blackworx]

@blackworx: ROFL! first Red Dwarf reference I have ever seen on here! give that man a medal! (or failing that, a pint!)

I thank you. I could murder a pint right now, but I suppose I'll wait till the sun's over the yardarm

[yefi]

I will wait until it is mostly bug free before I use it again. It lasted <5 minutes on my PC as it caused mt great annoyance via my Firewall (PC Tools).

Andy

Presumably that would be because the browser is launching each tab as a separate process, so your firewall is treating each as a separate program.

Reading the comic, which is actually very informative, that seems like a much cleaner way of managing tabs. For one thing, you wouldn't get the memory leaks like you do in Firefox where it eats up all your system memory, because when you close a tab in Chrome you close all references to it. You are not left with rogue references.

Also the process isolation means the browser is more secure. I get the impression with Mozilla that security is curative, measured by releasing patches faster the Microsoft, rather than preventative.

[nick705]

looks like section 11 in the EULA got the smack down pretty quickly
see for example http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2329414,00.asp

Yes, the shitstorm promised by nutball hit the fan (pardon my mixed metaphor).

So apparently Google's (no doubt highly qualified and highly paid) legal team just cut & pasted their universal ToS into Chrome's EULA, without fully realising what it implied. That really is stretching credulity to breaking point, and in any case, the boilerplate ToS, which *hasn't* (yet?) been altered, is just as iniquitous when applied to their other products.

some also point out that the eula is unenforcable because its open source software, you could download the source and compile your own version of the browser and the eula would no longer apply

That's true but, let's face it, the people who download the source code and roll their own will be in a small minority compared to those who use Google's pre-compiled executable for which the EULA *can* presumably be enforced, and I guess most casual net/Google users would simply install Chrome even when there are a whole bunch of third-party "no-bullshit" alternative compiles available.

Still, at least the whole fiasco has brought Google some extremely well-deserved bad publicity, and I reckon it'll get many people (such as myself) looking at their EULAs *very* closely in future, where previously they might not have bothered.

[xan_user]

Didn't take long.


"
....
The old Terms of Service agreement was seen by many in the Internet community as Google being evil by asserting ownership over its users' work.

By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek
September 4, 2008 02:50 PM

In an effort to dispel fears that it might claim ownership rights over all work done using its new Chrome browser, Google has revised Chrome's Terms of Service agreement.
.....
"





http://www.informationweek.com/news/int ... plications

[wim]

instantly crash chrome:
try type ":%" into the address bar (no quote).. Whoa!

[blackworx]

Well, since you mention it...

Then, when you click OK, it tries to invoke Internet Explorer to take you to a survey page. Nice.

[iamloco187]

i cant get in the install to work for me for some reason