Google Chrome OEM Strategy To Take On IE

ruphus13 writes "In an effort to take on IE and make strong headway in its share of the browser market, Google is taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook and working on deals with PC OEMs to include Chrome in their devices. From the article: '[Google] is likely to pursue deals with major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to put Chrome on their computers and devices. ... If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever. ... Google, much more so than Mozilla, has enough global brand recognition, money, and savvy to make a big deal of this. ... Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops. Chrome currently has just under one percent market share, according to NetApplications. That number could rise significantly through this effort. Mozilla doesn't have the kind of money required to get the significant deals in this space, but Google definitely does.'"

Will it really matter ?

Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

Why not just get them to include firefox and google apps, giving something of more perceived value?

Re:Will it really matter ?

I bet it will be by the time any deal get's done and there ready to start putting it in there process.

Re:Will it really matter ?

Chrome isn't ready for prime time

Agreed. It's quite interesting that it is still loads better than IE, though.

Re:Will it really matter ?

It's quite interesting that it is still loads better than IE, though.

You've got IE to LOAD?

Re:Will it really matter ?

But will they still call it beta?

Re:Will it really matter ?

But will they still call it beta?

Uncertain. I don't know how Google's "permanent beta" policy would fly with Windows' "our beta is alpha, our RC is beta, and our SP1 is what we should have released".

Re:Will it really matter ?

Chrome doesn't have adblock, and probably never will. Extensions are king, and firefox has that mindshare. Linkify, Greasemonkey, noscript, webdeveloper, firebug, etc.

I played with Chrome for about an hour and then removed it. It's a pretty horrible experience after firefox which makes it a rather pointless web browser.

Re:Will it really matter ?

I installed Chrome, and forced myself to use nothing else for a week just to give it a fair try. Since then, I've not used anything else. I love the layout and the functionality - the way it uses tabs, and the fact that one tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser, is great. Sounds like I'm in a minority, though. Ah well.

Re:Will it really matter ?

Hmmm...
IE crashes [google.com] - 1,380,000 Results.
Firefox crashes [google.com] - 630,000 Results.
Safari crashes [google.com] - 1,110,000 Results.
What planet are you living on?

Googleology

In Safari's defence, I'm sure half those million+ results are in regards to land rovers hitting elephants and other African fauna.

863,000 +safari +crashes
728,000 +safari +crashes -elephant
697,000 +safari +crashes -elephant -lions
655,000 +safari +crashes -elephant -lions -banana

Apparently, there are many crashes involving elephants and lions which have been mistakenly added to these results. Also, it appears at least 40,000 crashes involved bananas - this warrants further investigation.

Planning

Chrome isn't ready for prime time ... not a good idea at this point.

You don't, usually, start working on how you are going to distribute a product after you know it is ready for the market. You work on what you need to do to secure the distribution channels you want to have while you are getting the product ready, so when it is ready, those will be in place.

Presumably, Google has an idea of where it wants Chrome to go and a plan to get it there. If it doesn't then, sure, this discussion of OEM deals may be premature, but you certainly can't conclude that from the fact (which I certainly don't dispute, though I use Chrome for almost all of my home browsing now) that Chrome isn't ready today to be most people's sole browser.

And IE is?

Chrome isn't ready for prime time

And IE is? :)

Re:Will it really matter ?

I used Chrome for two weeks straight and got used to it. However, once I switched back to Firefox, it was such a vast improvement I cannot begin to describe it. Even Firefox's omnibar is better at finding 'partial' URLs than Chrome's, and that's unforgivable considering how highly they were touting it.

Other posters are right. Chrome should not be dealing with OEMs to root out IE. It should be Firefox.

Firefox actually seems to be better known

I think more people know what firefox is, as the "browser that works better and has less viruses" to the general public.

  Mozilla is relatively unknown to people outside of our little slashosphere.

Re:Firefox actually seems to be better known

I think this is going to play havoc on people's understanding of the internet. Most people already think IE is the internet, but at least they knew that google was a thing on the internet. Now Google is going to be another internet that looks like a sort of three-colored button, next to the old internet that looks like a blue "e", and on both you can have Google, but you can't have the blue e on the Google internet.

Expect some calls from confused family members, people.

Television Ads

That will be the ONLY thing to get the public to understand that the world is forced to break the web in order to look right for MSIE. Furthermore, a coordinated effort needs to be made to unite web developers to stop supporting Microsoft's intentional breaking of web standards.

"Get the Facts: The W3C is the organization that defines how the world wide web is supposed to work and every web browser maker tries to remain adherent to standards so that the internet runs smoothely... that is everyone except Microsoft with its billion-dollar-budget of programmers that somehow can't get it right."

I would find it interesting what Microsoft would tell the public in response to that. "We are Microsoft and we define the standards?"

Re:Television Ads

You didn't say how the W3C doesn't define the standards. You don't say how they aren't valid. There are lots of controlling and regulating bodies that are not elected by the people. While you attempt to paint a grim picture by grouping the W3C in with two other organizations that aren't exactly shining examples of effectiveness or moral integrity, I'd have to protest the tactic on the grounds that it simply fails to disprove or invalidate my comment directly. Furthermore, you indicate how ICANN is out for its own gain, but not the other two. It would have been more interesting, however, if you managed to include ISO in the mix...

Or rather

"Microsoft wooed Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Acer and many other companies into making its browser the default choice on Windows desktops."

Or rather, they just didn't install a second browser at all, since the only browser kinda HAS to be the default. I really doubt much wooing was involved.

History lesson

How is this insightful? Have we really forgotten the early 90s already?

Being the "old guy," I'll teach you some history. Netscape was THE browser for the first iteration of Windows 95. NO browser was bundled OR part of the OS, although AOL was often preinstalled. (I'm not sure you'd call that...thing that came with it a browser.) Basically everyone who used a browser ran Netscape (some ran Mosaic).

Then IE 3 came out (like most Microsoft software, versions 1 and 2 were too shoddy for actual use by human beings, even end users).

Microsoft made IE free to "compete" with Netscape. It still wasn't bundled with the OS until Windows 95 OSR 2.1 -- although it was installed along with Office and other MS apps. But you didn't HAVE to have IE on a Win95 system. That started with Windows 98.

Here's the thing: Netscape Navigator was then made free also, and it WAS bundled on many a PC maker's system. It's true Microsoft didn't *woo* anybody -- threats were more like it. Doesn't anybody remember the whole first antitrust thing?

Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers

Remember, that without the browser, Google is nothing. Without ADs, Google is nothing. (unless they start to sell and market other things besides ads) So, I view this browser situation as a 2 edged sword. On one end, defining a new standard in high quality browsers, coupled with GEARS and a super fast Javascript engine, could usher in Javascript games, AJAX apps and so much more. This would, without a doubt grow Google AD revenued. However, on the other edge of the sword is the fear of the AD Blocker add on, that will no doubt block a lot of google ad revenue. The browser, which google depends, could turn into it's worse enemy. We have already seen this with Firefox's ad blocking add on. Some argue, that only savvy internet users activate it. however, if you use Ubuntu, the add on is installed by default. A way to ensure Google does not jeapordize their AD revenues is key. I think that would be pretty easy to get around, technologically speaking. Maybe that is why Google is not putting more resources into Chrome???

Re:Google may be afraid of Ad Blockers

I use Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu since Edgy (2006) and have Intrepid on 3 computers right now, and Hardy on 2 others. I've installed it many times for myself, and more than a couple times for friends and family. It does not come with an ad blocker by default.

Unless, for some odd reason, you're including Firefox's pop-up blocker as an ad-blocker.

Good

Google is being an innovator in this field at the moment, and so I'm glad that they're positioned to get more "default" marketshare via OEMs.

It will push Microsoft to innovate with their own browser in order to keep their search engine hits up.

One feature that I expect to see in the release version of Chrome is video chat. They released a plug-in to make Firefox compatible with their Google Talk chat's new video feature, but I'm betting that functionality will come built-in to Chrome.

Re:Microsoft will play hardball

I think Google is large enough make doing that embarrassing to MS, and get the attention of the Attorney general.

Hell, maybe they want MS to get some anti-trust investigation against MS.

Google doesn't need MS, at all. They have nothing to fear from them.

If it ain't broke don't fix it

With a change in the political winds and a new adminstration, it's entirely plausible that Google is gunning to restart anti-trust litigation.

.
For Google, anti-trust is playing with fire ---

--- and heading into what could be a very deep recession, I don't expect to see the new administration all gung-ho and ready to move against one of the bare handful of US industrials that is actually showing a pulse, paying dividends, a company with strong export sales and a AAA credit rating.

Re:Google

Last computer I bough came with Google toolbar, Google Earth and google Picassa installed. Last time I downloaded IrfanView, it came with Google toolbar bundled. When mu girlfriend (yes I DO have one) downloaded Adobe reader, it installed the freaking toolbar again... What's happening with this world? What's next, Apple installing Safari bundled with iTunes? oh wait...

I'll one up you with Java Runtime Enviro wanting to downloand and install a FUCKING OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY SUITE! I respect pushing OOo, but that's fucking absurd.