Last week I wrote about my view that it would be a long time before Google's new Chrome browser would be important to me as a developer, because few users would adopt it quickly. The day after launch people got quite excited about the market share numbers Chrome was achieving. But Chrome's usage, as anyone with a brain could have predicted, has fallen back, as the tire kickers go back to their regularly scheduled programming.
And so now its time to think about what Chrome really will mean to the marketplace. The first thing is that I don't see how Chrome makes much of a difference to Internet Explorer users. I am sure Google can get a few of them, but most Chrome users will be more pioneering Firefox users. This caps Chrome's upper number around 20%. Of course to achieve 20% almost all Firefox users would need to defect, which of course will never happen.
More importantly, competing with Firefox is going to be really, really difficult, just based on the merits.
Why? Extensions.
Apple, Adobe, Google, and others have chosen WebKit as their HTML display engine over FireFox's Gecko because it is smaller, easier to understand, and has been faster. But Gecko is purpose-built, from the ground up, to do extensions. No one else has'em. The competitors have traded flexibility for performance. But for much of the cutting edge Firefox using crowd, extensions are really, really important.
To be clear, I am not saying it is impossible to get extensions into WebKit. I have no familiarity at all with the WebKit source code or architecture. But I strongly suspect it ain't trivial, otherwise they would have done it already. And if they do get extensions into WebKit, will WebKit, and therefore Chrome retain any performance benefits over Firefox.
Of course, presuming that Chrome/WebKit does get a mechanism for extensions, it then has to compete with years of Gecko based extensions. Many people will not switch until *their* extensions are available. And in the intervening period, don't believe that Firefox won't continue to get better. Already Firefox is testing the insanely fast Javascript engine called TraceMonkey.
Indeed this raising of the bar is, I suspect, Google's real end goal with Chrome. World browser domination is a pipe dream, but if Chrome can move the market forward and introduce code and ideas that make the world a better place to run web applications, I suspect Google will very happily claim victory.
9 comments:
I see Chrome as an inspiration more than a competitor in the browser arena. Just like Opera introduced new UI concepts (like tabs and a smarter address bar) that are now pretty much mandatory in a browser, I see Chrome aiming to do the same for the "under the hood" stuff (processes, gc).
Also, I believe someone has already hacked together a semi-working Greasemonkey extension for Chrome. Chrome extensions could catch up faster than we'd expect.
I'll happily switch back to Firefox if they add tabs-in-their-own-process and mimic the speed and simplicity of Chrome. I do miss my mouse gestures and other useful extensions but I'll make do for the extra speed and the reduce blocking and locking.
Extensions build customer loyalty. Gecko to Webkit is functionality/flexibility versus speed/simplicity. I want both.
If Chrome stays pretty simple and Firefox 4 adds the things I like about Chrome, I will gladly switch back.
In any case, the bar has been raised and it's the users who win.
Amen to your post =)
Actually what I'm trying to understand is how exactly this whole "from the ground up" marketing approach actually results in a better product?
Apparently Google Chrome is bringing the browser into the 21st century... although it as of yet introduces just one unique feature... the task manager. This 'from the ground up' approach seems to have given Chrome a few milliseconds advantage in Javascript loading, barely noticeable for end users and apparently easy enough for Mozilla to catch up with even with their 'older' browser
The same kind of logic seems to get constantly applied to MS and Apple... 'MS should start from scratch' etc...
I can't remember who said it, Paul Thurrot referenced the comment though... good product development simply assesses whats there, keep what works, remove the bad and improve what needs improving...
The last point that you make i.e about Google just wanting the world to be a better place via a better browser is a fair statement with one caveat Google wants the world to be a better place on it's terms not what is fair for the World necessarily.
At the end they (Google) want to be able to sell more advertising. I bet google does not care which browser a person uses as long as they can push advertisements to the user.
@Conundrum - did you read through Scott McCloud's comic on the enhancements of Chrome? Perhaps you don't run into any issues with Firefox, but it's a dog and I'm always trying to run the latest beta. I keep my extensions minimal so I avoid any slowdowns. Locking up my entire browser for a single bad website is ridiculous. It's a noticeably different experience on Chrome. Like many technologists - I'm very practical. I will call crap when I see it. Chrome still needs additional functionlity (like app-specific proxy settings), but it's a step in the right direction.
@WhoInDatGarden - Google is a business. It's a public company. Their first RESPONSIBILITY is to their shareholders and shareholders expect returns. They are doing this and you, the end consumer are benefiting. Why are you even complaining - you're getting this for free. It's open-source and people have already added functional to do ad-blocking through the Chromium browser. Google benefits when more people use the web or get a better experience using the web. It's simple business - if you have a good experience driving a car, perhaps you would want to drive more. If you have a good experience eating at restaurant with friends, perhaps you'd want to eat out more often. If you don't like Google - don't use it. You have a choice. You use Google services because they provide the most value to you.
Nice point!
In daily use of someone "who uses his/her brain" while browsing, Gecko is the engine of choice. Ne real web user wants to browse without extensions.
I need my delicious extension.
I need Firebug - including YSlow.
I need Greasemonkey which makes Firefox to browser which adpats to you as an individual and not the other way round.
I need JSView.
...
You still cannot use extensions in any webkit based browser which is on the market, this is the point and the cause why they are not my first browser.
No doubt. I tried chrome. My opinion is FIREFOX ,the vest browser.
The only point of Chrome, in my opinion, is to raise the bar of JavaScript execution (and general rendering) speed. Right now, I'd say about half of the rich internet applications out there use Flash instead of JavaScript, and mainly because of speed. But that's bad for Google; they can't index it if it's made in Flash. If the execution speed of the major browsers were increased, it would give web application developers more incentive to go with JavaScript, which eventually means Google has even more of the internet to scour. They are competing with Adobe more than Mozilla.
Also, I think the extra info that Chrome secretly sends them about users' browsing habits doesn't hurt, either.
I think ultimately all these compelling opensource launches will really raise the bar of what we as customers will experience and what technologists and technology will be able to achieve.
Lets take all of this as a "step-in-the-future-direction". These initiatives will really "Bring-it-on" on the technology front.. On the Macro scale, we all benefit. a
Post a Comment