Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Sony News

Sony To Put Chrome On Laptops 278

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-happened-to-firefox dept.
consonant writes "FT is reporting that Google has reached a deal with Sony to ship Chrome on the Vaio line of PCs. Google confirmed that Sony PCs carrying Chrome had started to go on sale and said it was in talks for similar deals with other computer makers. It said the arrangement was 'experimental' and part of wider efforts to boost distribution, including a deal to make Chrome available to internet users who download the RealPlayer software and the company's first use of television advertising. While mainstream media coverage and financial details were very sparse, El Reg terms it a 'Microsoft-snubbing deal.' Google also mentioned it was pushing for similar deals with other vendors. Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony To Put Chrome On Laptops

Comments Filter:
  • by EponymousCustard (1442693) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:36AM (#29274085)
    It refers to the Chrome browser, not the OS
    • by adonoman (624929)
      I was hoping for the coating - as in "Oooh shiny!", but no. I'll just have to stick with brushed aluminum or various shades of plastic...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by the_womble (580291)

        I was hoping for the coating - as in "Oooh shiny!", but no. I'll just have to stick with brushed aluminum or various shades of plastic...

        The average user would regard that as a far more important feature of their PC than the software. You can use whatever crap the manufacturer bundled, but what it looks like - now that is important.

    • For those who don't read the article

      It's actually pretty apparent from TFS:

      Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

      Although it is the end of TFS...

    • by Mikkeles (698461)

      Ah; so it's not a new rootkit?

  • by operator_error (1363139) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:36AM (#29274087)

    Google *paid* Sony to pre-install Chrome, just like Symantec pays for Norton bloatware to be pre-installed on HP (etc.) notebooks. There seems to be a sort of OEM market here; for years already. Nothing to see here; move along.

    • Head asplodes (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      What happens when Good [wikipedia.org] and evil [wikipedia.org] combine? And why would anyone buy a computer of all things from a company that has placed rootkits on their paying customers' gear?

      This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.

      • by toolie (22684)

        This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.

        Because a company that lives off data mining everything you do through them (sifting email for target advertising, web searches for the same) is as pure as freshly driven snow, right? The fact that anybody would use a browser from them so they can see *EVERYTHING* you browse is mind boggling.

        The hypocrisy is incredible.

      • by erpbridge (64037) <steve&erpbridge,com> on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:59AM (#29274425) Journal

        What happens when Good [wikipedia.org] and evil [wikipedia.org] combine?

        Good+Evil = Goovil?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Ah! I see where you are coming from. An advertising company's systems are being pre-installed by a company that has resorted to using hidden rootkits.

        Free indeed.

        Just follow the money. Who exactly are Google's clients again? Wait, who exactly is that browser designed for again?

        Let me just pontificate on the eViL of Google Analytics (GA) here, while I've still got the ink. Let's say website owner Jill sets up GA, signs Google's EULA, and is basically a happy camper. Jill is happy, and agreed to be happy. So

      • by Ilgaz (86384)

        If I just knew what makes Google "good guys"... It is like everyone else knows something but I am missing it.

        You can't reach size of Google by being "good". Just tell me a prophet who died rich? (except that sci stuff)

      • by Verunks (1000826)

        What happens when Good [wikipedia.org] and evil [wikipedia.org] combine? And why would anyone buy a computer of all things from a company that has placed rootkits on their paying customers' gear?

        This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.

        this has been said many times but people don't listen, sony is a huge company with many departments that don't even know each other, if sony music does something it doesn't mean that the sony that makes laptops wants to do the same

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sopssa (1498795) *

      As well as Google pays Firefox, Opera and other browsers to have Google as the default search engine. This is their main marketing method, to have their services as default. There has been occasional other ad's, but they're quite minority with google. And well, it seems to work great for them.

      • As well as Google pays Firefox, Opera and other browsers to have Google as the default search engine. This is their main marketing method, to have their services as default. There has been occasional other ad's, but they're quite minority with google. And well, it seems to work great for them.

        Better Google than Bing or Yahoo!.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      Yup, that's probably it. Dell et al preload their machines with all sorts of unwanted, never asked for crap including Norton, MS Works etc. I just bought a new Dell and spent quite some cleaning all the unwanted junk & default links off the thing.

      The Norton app was especially offensive because it pops up a box (with the close button helpfully disabled) forcing you to activate your 30 days whether you want to or not. Then it pops up again later to ask for registration info. I'm sure if I continued with

      • Honestly MS-Works doesn't bug me so much as those ignorant 90/180day evaluation copies of MS Office... Maybe Sun should pimp out copies of Star Office, and then have an annual *nag* in that version about purchasing an upgrade to the new version. This could fund the copies placed on OEM PCs and fund further development for OpenOffice.org

      • by Jaysyn (203771)
        How I "fix" Norton 360 on a new PC

        Shut it down, pskill the services, delete it from your start up routine, delete the program folder out of Explorer, run a registry cleaner to get rid of the vestiges.

        Takes about the same time as doing it normally, but is oh so much more satisfying.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Desler (1608317)
      Exactly there is nothing novel about this. Companies have been setting up deals to get their software installed by OEMs for decades. The only reason this was posted was to try to push an anti-Microsoft spin and nothing else.
    • by Locutus (9039)
      that is how it is done and having any kind of monopoly has no restriction on doing this, or so it seems since Microsoft does this over and over again. The retail stores are the same, they get paid by vendors for placing product and paid for shelf space. The idea that the customer makes choices is long gone here in the US. The only exception is the very small fraction of the population which are considered trend setters and do the work finding what they really want or remaking products into that fits their
  • Doesn't sound like it. Market forces at play ... except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place. We'll need to see more details before wondering if this could be anti-competitive (leveraging one monopoly illegally in another area).

    • by _KiTA_ (241027)

      Doesn't sound like it. Market forces at play ... except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place. We'll need to see more details before wondering if this could be anti-competitive (leveraging one monopoly illegally in another area).

      Except I don't get a huge popup warning every time I go to Google.com or a splash page saying something like:

      "WARNING: YOUR GOOGLE EXPERIENCE IS SUB-OPTIMAL AND YOU ARE AT RISK OF INTERNET VIRUSES AND PERMANENT COMPUTER DAMAGE. PLEASE INSTALL THIS WINDOWS SECURITY UPDATE: CHROME.EXE TODAY!"

      Google isn't anywhere CLOSE to DrDosing MS at this point.

    • by bunratty (545641)
      I don't think Google has a monopoly in any area, nor does this look like an instance of Google leveraging their success in search or advertising to gain an advantage for their browser. Google is simply paying Sony to install Chrome, as has been done with pre-installed software for many years.
      • by hkmwbz (531650)
        Or is Google offering a 50/50 revenue split on search revenue? If so, how are other browsers going to compete with that? At best they can offer a 33/33/33 split.
    • From the text:

      Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

      No. Not likely.

      But why is Google getting these deals? I'm betting it is because the OEMs want some of that sweet search revenue from Google. Google is dominant in the online advertising market, and now they are using that dominance to get OEM deals to distribute Chrome.

      Sounds a bit like Microsoft, doesn't it?

      How are other browser vendors going to compete with Google here exactly? How can they possibly compete with Google's 50/50 revenue s

      • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @02:30PM (#29276523)

        But why is Google getting these deals? I'm betting it is because the OEMs want some of that sweet search revenue from Google.

        Google buying a spot on a desktop is not leveraging an existing monopoly regardless of where they obtained the money to do it. That's because they're buying the spot from a separate company in competition with other companies that might want to do the same, on the open market. It would be leveraging a monopoly if they forced Sony to do it without being paid, by say, telling Sony that otherwise Google was going to return no results for any search including the string "sony". You' might note MS isn't paying Sony to include IE with Sony computers, but is instead bundling it with Windows, leveraging their influence on that market and forcing Sony to work both technically and against market forces to use something else. If MS were to stop bundling IE with Windows, but instead paid companies directly on the open market for including IE as a separate transaction from licensing Windows and with clear delineation of those transactions, then MS would get rid of most of their antitrust issues going forward.

        Sounds a bit like Microsoft, doesn't it?

        Only if you don't understand the illegal and economically undesirable aspect of what MS is doing.

        How are other browser vendors going to compete with Google here exactly?

        By offering more money or a browser that makes Sony's customers happier and gets Sony more computer sales. That's competition.

        Is that a similar unfair advantage to Microsoft's operating system monopoly and the destruction of the browser market?

        No. That's just the market favoring those with more money and/or better products.

    • Well, maybe, except what leverage does Google have against Sony? "You darn well better load up our browser, or we'll......" We'll what? What is Google going to do to Sony that would hurt Sony?

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      How are they using their near monopoly in search to extend it to Chrome? Now, if they only made their searches available to Chrome users, or made them render badly in other browsers you would have a point -- that's the sort of shenanigans Microsoft is famous for.

      Microsoft got its dominance with IE by giving it away with Windows. I don't see how it applys here.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs [youtube.com]

    On behalf of all the web developers and security people out there, let me post this for them.

  • Or? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trifish (826353) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:37AM (#29274107)

    Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?

    Or the end of privacy?

  • Chrome OS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by agrif (960591) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:38AM (#29274115) Homepage

    For some reason, I thought it was talking about the Chrome OS, which was particularly interesting because that'd be a big thing for a new OS, and because we haven't really seen much of the OS so far.

    Shame on Google for naming two different things Chrome. It only causes confusion.

    • Re:Chrome OS? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by randomsearch (1207102) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:48AM (#29274257) Journal

      Don't you think the confusing naming is deliberate?

      Long-term strategy must be to build a brand. A few years down the line:

      "I use Chrome to surf the internet" says person in electronics store. "Oh, you'll love this phone/pc/tv/netbook/washing machine, then... it has Chrome OS".

      "I'll take that one, the Chrome thing."

      Result: Google is King.

      RS

  • by cybrthng (22291) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:38AM (#29274123) Journal

    Probably nothing worthwhile..

    I work with lots of laptops and sony is never one of them. I'd say Apple laptops are making a larger dent in IE than Sony ever could.

    • Probably true... the irony is since the rootkit issue I haven't purchased *ANY* products produced by Sony. The irony, I spend *FAR* more on hardware (AV and PC gear) than I ever spend on music. I really wish I could get more people to do the same.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by chrb (1083577)

      Sony did have 25% of the laptop market 8 years ago and I used to see Vaios everywhere so it's a bit surprising that Sony have fallen so far. The 2008 sales figures [cnet.com]:

      Rank Vendor Market share
      1 HP 20.8%
      2 Dell 15.1%
      3 Acer 14.6%
      4 Toshiba 9.3%
      5 Lenovo 7.5%
      6 Fujitsu 5.2%
      7 Apple 4.6%
      8 Asus 4.3%
      9 Sony 4.2%

      Almost every one of those other manufacturers will be shipping IE. So technically you're right, Apple at 4.6% is a slightly

      • by jp10558 (748604)

        Just like everything else, the popular are crap...

        I'm very surprised, for me there are two choices:
        Thinkpad if you want Windows
        MacBook if you want OSX

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by DrData99 (916924)
        Not really that surprising. When Sony had the huge market share they also had severe quality control problems. Lot of people got computers with issues. Then replaced them with another brand.
        Market share goes down the tubes...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DragonWriter (970822)

      I'd say Apple laptops are making a larger dent in IE than Sony ever could.

      Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure Apple + Sony will make a bigger dent than Apple alone.

      Its not like Apple is going to stop shipping Safari and start bundling IE when Sony starts bundling Chrome.

  • by everynerd (1252610) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:38AM (#29274125)
    Pimp my laptop! Spinners on the fans, remote unfold, a cappucino maker in the CD-ROM bay, and chrome eeeverywhere. Whaaaaat!
  • Does this mean they will be more durable? Made with REAL CHROME!
  • Old news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Graelin (309958) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:43AM (#29274185)

    I purchased a Viao a few months back and was surprised to see Chrome appear on the desktop instead of IE. If Google wants to buy browser market share more power to them. I had not tried Chrome before and I'm glad I have, its a great browser.

    • I've tried it, but its apparent lack of bookmark keywords and, by extension, search keywords were a major drawback for me. "imdb dagon" gets me the entry for Dagon on imdb. "gf goog" gets me a stock quote on GOOG, etc. Has Chrome implemented anything like this? Did I just miss it?
  • by rliden (1473185) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:47AM (#29274239)

    The FT article (short and worth reading) is basically saying that Chrome's adoption is low and they are making OEM deals, advertising, and doing a "crapware" bundle with RealPlayer install. According to Google they are "frustrat[ed] at what they consider a lack of interest among internet users about browsers." and want to push awareness. According to Google they want to push browser development and competition:

    "It's not so important everyone uses Google Chrome, it's more important browser technology evolves as fast as it can." said Mr Rakowski. Chrome set new records in terms of its speed, prompting a race among rivals to boost the performance of their own software.

    The "browser snub" headline is just an attention grabber by the Register (go figure). I don't see this being much different than any other OEM making deals with third party application vendors to install and use their software as a default.

    The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options. I like to use Firefox. I would much rather install it by dowloading from IE than having some random third party vendor. I like Chrome, but I don't trust Google and I don't like how their software is installed along with their updater. I also hate the crapware opt-outs I have to watch for although to be fair vendors other than Google participate in that practice (Sun, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc).

    • The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use.

      They aren't deciding which software you use, they are deciding which software they provide you.

      You can use whatever software you want, and people who care more than a tiny bit will often use very different software than the OEM bundles.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rliden (1473185)

        Yes, you're right you don't have to use the software. You do have to remove it and/or deal with any registry and file associations and redirects setup by the OEM. There is a decent chance you will have it go through first run before going "WTF" and removing it. OEM software installs always seem to leave a bunch of junk in the registry and in userland directories. I would rather they didn't leave a bunch of cruft laying about and screw with file associations that's all.

        • I'd suggest you're in the minority with a preference for having no browser at point of delivery, rather than just the wrong browser.

          Much of the rest of the crap I agree with you on, there's a whole load of crap I'll never need. But a browser is something I just expect to have on a new, complete, system and I'm quite prepared to change it if it's the 'wrong' one. I think I'm in the majority here.

    • The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options.

      There are many OEMs, and you don't have to go to the bigger ones. Small ones often do cater to geek market, and sell boxes with clean OS installs, or with something like FreeDOS so that you can do everything on your own.

  • by RingDev (879105) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:48AM (#29274243) Homepage Journal

    I'm all for Google getting Chrome on to vendor boxes, but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! It should open up more competition and force MS (Chrome and Fire Fox too!) to improve their standards compliance though.

    If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords? Wow, that's a great improvement...

    We are much better served by having multiple main stream browsers that all force each other to maintain tight adhesion to standards and to continue to push innovation.

    -Rick

    • If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped?

      Uh, Microsoft is forced to make IE worth using? Duh...

    • If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords?

      The problem isn't that Microsoft is an overlord, but that Internet Explorer is a crappy piece of software that causes headaches for web developers. If they cannot come up with a better browser, it's their fault.

      Everybody is better off without IE.

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        If you're a web developer and you're not keeping up on web browser releases, then shame on you. Microsoft *has* come up with a better browser; it's called IE8.

        Your problem is with IE6, not with IE. Unfortunately, while Microsoft has the ability to release better versions of IE, they don't have the magical ability to go back in time and remove IE6 from existence, which is I think the only thing that would make wags like you happy.

        Look, Microsoft wants to upgrade people to newer versions of IE as much as you

        • height:100%

    • by geekoid (135745)

      ", but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! "
      Yes it should IE is a horrible browser.

      Consumers are helped becasue the best Browser won.

      Of course, there will still be plenty of other option besides IE.

      Naturally if MS actually improves IE, that's also good.

    • The problem for MS is that a lot of content depends on IE's legacy behavior. Standards compliance is primarily a developer's issue in particular for developers that don't use IE for browsing or even run Windows (except for testing). The later you introduce a browser the easier it is to be compliant because you don't have any legacy users to piss off.

    • Because, monopoly or otherwise, right now, the Google overlords are better than the MS overlords.

      I don't want another monopoly either, however, I'll take Google over MS at this point, its the lesser of two evils.

  • Microsoft will start paying companies to keep IE just like they paid people to put IE on computers in the Netscape days. They paid vendors to put XP on netbooks when Linux was the only OS used so it's just a matter of time. And watch for the studies stating 4x the hassles when using Chrome over IE.

    LoB
    • Yep, if history is any guide, this is just a negotiating ploy by Sony to get better OEM pricing for Windows or marketing dollars from Microsoft. This will follow the usual playbook - deal is reached, then Sony will claim they were just "studying the idea" and the results will show that users overwhelmingly prefer IE and how great a partner Microsoft is.
  • Why are we even continuing to ask this question? IE will never go away, and we all know this. As long as Microsoft has adequate competition, they will devote adequate resources to develop an adequate browser. And IE8 is that; perfectly adequate. Is it great at Acid3? Absolutely not. Does it do what most people want it to, most of the time? Sure; and the end result of that is that most people will never care enough to switch.

    Will this deal be the beginning of the end for IE6? Now that's a question

  • Bad Title (Score:5, Funny)

    by Comatose51 (687974) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:49AM (#29274289) Homepage
    When I first read it, I thought Sony has gone off the deep end and added more "bling" to their laptops.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @11:51AM (#29274299)

    Chrome as it currently stands won't ever garner wide enterprise acceptance.

    In Windows, Chrome installs itself into the user's profile folder under the Local Settings folder, rather than into the traditional Program Files folder location.

    This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions, often imposed by network administrators to prevent users from installing unauthorized software. While this may work in some settings, any well crafted software restriction policy will prevent this attempt to bypass security restrictions.

    As well, by failing to follow proscribed methods for installing software on Windows, Google is actually making it difficult for enterprises that might choose to distribute Chrome on their networks.

    Until Google addresses this issue by creating an IT department friendly version of Chrome, it doesn't stand a chance of making any inroads on enterprise networks.

    • This is partly why we've disallowed Chrome here. It's too subversive.

      We used to allow Picasa (our staff generally have a _lot_ of images, and it makes sense to let them manage them as they see fit with some caveats), but since Picasa attempts to force the install of Chrome, and Chrome is known to be subversive, we've dropped Picasa and stopped rolling out Sketch Up.

      MS are getting better and better and Google are getting less and less accommodating. I don't think there's anything here for the IE team to worr

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tweenk (1274968)

      This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions

      On UNIX you can just mount the users' home directories 'noexec' and they won't be able to run unauthorized code - an equivalent mechanism should exist in Windows. I also imagine that Chrome has some means to specify the installation directory like most other Windows programs. I don't think those are major issues, and even if they are, they can be fixed easily by Google. The real reasons that IE is still prevalent in the enterprise are:
      1. Legacy intranet apps that were written before Web standards
      2. Laziness

      • "Laziness of IT staff" can often be described as "Saving the company money". Why should they spend time and money rewriting intranet apps that work fine just so they can get rid of IE. What's the business case for that?

    • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @12:43PM (#29275099) Journal

      In Windows, Chrome installs itself into the user's profile folder under the Local Settings folder, rather than into the traditional Program Files folder location.

      This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions, often imposed by network administrators to prevent users from installing unauthorized software. While this may work in some settings, any well crafted software restriction policy will prevent this attempt to bypass security restrictions.

      As well, by failing to follow proscribed methods for installing software on Windows, Google is actually making it difficult for enterprises that might choose to distribute Chrome on their networks.

      Per-user installation is a well-documented [microsoft.com] feature of Windows Installer, and is one of the "proscribed methods". It's not a hack or a workaround for anything.

      • Per-user installation is a well-documented [microsoft.com] feature of Windows Installer, and is one of the "proscribed methods". It's not a hack or a workaround for anything.

        From the Free Dictionary online
        Proscribe:
        1. to denounce or condemn
        2. to prohibit; forbid
        From Meriam Webster online
        Proscibe:
        1. to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
        2. to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful
        So, what definition of "proscribed method" are you using to say that it is not a hack or workaround?

  • So will end users see it as "Google Chrome" or "Browse the internet"?

  • PC Decrapifierr (Score:2, Interesting)

    by flyingfsck (986395)
    Thank all the computer gads for the PCDecrapifier http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/ [pcdecrapifier.com] Now we can add Google's browser to the list of unwanted pre-installed gunkware.
    • by MikeDX (560598)
      Wow, thats some awesome list of apps it removes!

      * user warning: Unknown column 'parent_id' in 'where clause' query: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pcdcfeedback_apps a WHERE parent_id = 0 in /var/www/vhosts/pcdecrapifier.com/httpdocs/sites/pcdecrapifier.com/modules/pcdcfeedback/pcdcfeedback.module on line 437.
      * user warning: Unknown column 'parent_id' in 'where clause' query: SELECT app_id, name, description, comments FROM pcdcfeedback_apps a WHERE parent_id = 0 ORDER BY a.name ASC LIMIT 0,
  • Presently, I am no fan of Microsoft and am somewhere close to neutral about Google. We know what to expect of Microsoft. Google is quickly becoming a wildcard and they are primarily an advertiser and ultimately sells its soul to the highest bidders.

    The way I see it, the more Google software you install on your computer, the more information Google has to collect and use with their privacy promises always subject to change like everyone else's. (Ever notice you don't even get to know exactly what is being

    • by geekoid (135745)

      "...sells its soul to the highest bidders."
      hyperbole much? clearly you are not neutral, that was a poor attempt to try to seem non biased to validate your point.

    • by TheBig1 (966884) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @03:42PM (#29277345) Homepage

      For once I would like to see a computer with just the OS and a disk of things that "could" be installed by the user. Let the machine run as fast and as efficiently as possible to begin with.

      And that is why I just replaced my laptop OS with a Debian Testing Netinstall; only the software which I want is installed. 8-)

  • ... I'll be impressed when I Toyota agrees to put Chrome in the Prius.
  • And of course a huge spoiler!

  • One of the World's most compact, lightweight and fast browsers will be included in that gigantic bundle DVD (yes, CD not enough) which I noticed most Sony users/fans hate, especially after Vista/Win7.

    I am afraid to ask if Sony will provide updates or Google? In case of Google, welcome to "check updates for every 2 hours", in case of Sony, security updates not shipped for weeks...

    This really makes no sense both for Google and Sony, maker of high end multimedia laptops. Normally, each Chrome install benefits

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @12:41PM (#29275067)

    What would prevent Microsoft from striking similar deals with other OEMs, effectively numbing the effects of European regulators? They should go for it.

    Meanwhile, Google should improve their Chrome browser's interface so that it is more appealing to the first time user. It is not that beautiful at first sight.

    Mock-ups [mozilla.org] from folks at Mozilla could be an inspiration.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...