Sony To Put Chrome On Laptops 278
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?"
Let's get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Or? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?
Or the end of privacy?
Chrome OS? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Will it make a dent? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Typical OEM Software Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Why must every article sensationalize "the end"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
"The End of IE?" Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 I want an affirmative answer to. I'd hope so, but it wont. That pos is being kept alive by the needs of organizations who are stuck using internal web apps that overworked programmers kludged together for IE 6. And it's going to take a whole lot more than a new Vaio (That will be slicked and re-imaged before the suits even notice this 'Chrome' thingy), to penetrate the rancid cloud of decay emanating from their decrepit web browser of choice before they pay to have those reworked.
Re:Chrome Won't Make It In The Enterprise (Score:3, Insightful)
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: ...er, migration anxiety
1. Legacy intranet apps that were written before Web standards
2. Laziness of IT staff
3. Castra-
4. And of course the unimaginable option that the employees don't actually need a web browser to get their work done, so there is little reason to give them some other than the default.
Re:Or? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?
Or the end of privacy?
You mean that hasn't happened yet???
Re:Uh oh (Score:1, Insightful)
See, if it were MS paying other companies to push their wares, it'd be evil. But seeing as Microsoft is a monopoly and Google is just a minnow, it's OK, right?
Re:For those who don't read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:End of IE? Start of Chrome antitrust pains? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the end for MSIE. Just more crapware. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why I just replaced my laptop OS with a Debian Testing Netinstall; only the software which I want is installed. 8-)
Re:Why must every article sensationalize "the end" (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Foam at the mouth, much?
Who sold those IT departments IE6 as the panacea?
Companies like Oracle and Siemens and IBM and others. Companies that offered intranet applications that relied on ActiveX and other IE6-only technologies. Oh, were you expecting me to say "Microsoft?" Sorry.
Which company wrote lazy software that assumed a completely open, no security, no check, ActiveX enabled all the way to hell and back IE6 as the front end to corporate clients?
Ok. ActiveX ranting.
Was ActiveX insecure? Yes. Ok? Let's get over that point right now.
Now, as to Microsoft including it in IE... HTML was originally designed to be extensible. We now (as an IT community) realize that this was a bad idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be extensible. HTML was *designed* to have companies add a MARQUEE or BLINK tag to it. HTML was *designed* so that you could script your webpage in any programming language.
Microsoft's adding ActiveX to their browser is simply embracing that concept. There was nothing wrong with that at the time they added it. In versions released after IE 5.5, ActiveX has been restricted more and more and more in every version-- Microsoft's doing everything they can to get vendors to stop using it.
But those vendors (like Siemens, Oracle, IBM listed above) are the ones writing those lazy apps you mentioned, and they still won't get rid of it. All they do is add an item to the Read Me that says "oh BTW, go into IE settings and disable the pop-up blocker, all security warnings, our app won't work otherwise." Believe me; I've "installed" tons of these apps, the "installation" basically consisting of disabling most of IE's security features.
Which company was so blinded by Netscape's rise that it did despo things just to kill Netscape and in that process created a mess that it can not clean up?
I have no clue what you're even referring to here. The worst thing IE is guilty of, as far as I see it, is implementing CSS before the spec was finalized, and therefore getting the box model "wrong." ("Wrong" meaning in this context "correct for the version of the spec they used, but the spec changed later to make it wrong.")
If you're talking about proprietary tags/DOM commands, then Netscape added at least as many of those as IE did. And one of the ones IE came up with, XMLHttpRequest, basically re-vitalized the entire web development community and became part of the standard, so you have to chalk that one up as a "win" in their column.
It was the shortsightedness of Microsoft that spawned this monster IE6. Microsoft could not tell the difference between ease of use and lack of security.
Microsoft writes the software their customers demand. Customers didn't demand security, so Microsoft didn't write security.
And yes, other companies need to get the blame! If you work in a corporation using IE6 on the desktop, go talk to your IT department and say, "which intranet app requires IE6?" I can guarantee the answer is *not* any Microsoft app. It'll have come from Siemens, Oracle, IBM-- THOSE are the lazy developers you should be foaming-at-the-mouth mad at, not Microsoft.
Do you seriously think Microsoft *wants* people using IE6 when IE8 is out? Are you honestly that deluded?