Google to Launch Webkit Based Web Browser Called 'Chrome' [Archive]

MacRumors

Sep 1, 2008, 06:04 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/09/01/175138-chrome.jpg

Google announced today (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html) that they would be releasing a new open source web browser called Google Chrome. The new browser will be available for download as a beta starting tomorrow.

Google states that the reason for a new web browser is that the company believes that it "can add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web." The new browser is said to be "streamlined and simple" and "clean and fast". The underlying rendering engine is based on Webkit (http://webkit.org) which is also used by Apple's Safari.

Other features were revealed (http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-01-n47.html) in a comic book that detailed the new browser. Features include:

- New JavaScript engine called V8 for faster performance
- "Special tabs" above the window, not below the address bar (see image above)
- Address bar auto-completion
- Opera-like "Speed Dial" with thumbnails of your most visited 9 websites
- Privacy mode
- Web apps can be launched in their own window without addressbar/toolbar

The entire comic book is published (http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080901/heres-the-google-chrome-browser-comic-book-hey-microsoft-kaa-pow/) at AllThingsD.com.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/01/google-to-launch-webkit-based-web-browser-called-chrome/)

LillieDesigns

Sep 1, 2008, 06:06 PM

I like trying new browsers so I'll see what this has to offer tomorrow.

Juo100

Sep 1, 2008, 06:07 PM

Sucks that we have to wait for the Mac version.

SimonTheSoundMa

Sep 1, 2008, 06:08 PM

Would be better if they used Gecko rather than Webkit. Oh well, can't please all.

Full of Win

Sep 1, 2008, 06:08 PM

Hmmmm... so we really want this type of thing to be open source, from a standpoint of security. Just asking...

DipDog3

Sep 1, 2008, 06:09 PM

Can't be any worse than IE!

G5Unit

Sep 1, 2008, 06:09 PM

Seems like Google is following in Apples' footsteps on this one. With Snow Leopard being all about cutting down the fat it's nice to see Google is releasing a browser that doesn't hog performance on older machines like my powermac.

Can't wait!

Schizoid

Sep 1, 2008, 06:10 PM

...anything that further enrages Steve Ballmer is great in my book!

56johnl

Sep 1, 2008, 06:10 PM

wow that looks like it sucks i like opera

olternaut

Sep 1, 2008, 06:11 PM

This is awesome and slightly unexpected. Though, I too wonder whether they should have based it on gecko instead of webkit. By the way, guess which browser they are going to support in android. I betcha it won't be mobile firefox.

zap2

Sep 1, 2008, 06:12 PM

Hmmmm... so we really want this type of thing to be open source, from a standpoint of security. Just asking...

Yes.

Looks at FireFox, looks at IE/
Looks at OS X(Open Source based) and Linux, looks at Windows.

Yes.

To bad Linux and OS X have to wait. Also I'm surprised, Google was pretty close with FireFox, and they made a mark in IE's usage. Now FF market share might take a hit due to this. Hopefully Google will pressure Dell, HP, etc to make Chrome ships with PCs, so IE takes a big hit.

Copland

Sep 1, 2008, 06:12 PM

This could be awesome, I can't wait for the Mac version!

I love Safari's speed, but I am really not fond of two things:
1. There isn't an (easy) way to make Private Browsing the default.
2. You can't have more than one username/password for any one site.

I hope sincerely that Google can deliver on those two gripes I have. If so, they win my support!

rdowns

Sep 1, 2008, 06:12 PM

I'll definitely be trying it when they release a Mac version. Competition is a good thing.

WillJS

Sep 1, 2008, 06:13 PM

Preclaro_tipo

Sep 1, 2008, 06:19 PM

Is the javascript rendering engine squirrelfish a part of Webkit. (i thought so)

Is V8 google's name for squirrelfish?

Is the rendering engine for javascript separate from webkit?

I'm glad to see another webkit based browser.

gifford

Sep 1, 2008, 06:20 PM

Would be better if they used Gecko rather than Webkit. Oh well, can't please all.

Would you like to elaborate?
For future compatibility reasons alone Webkit would seem a wise choice.

junker

Sep 1, 2008, 06:24 PM

Sorry to be rude - but: So what!?!

As far as I can tell, browsers are really about the same. Granted, I can more speed out of Safari, but more limits to site and sometimes, limited functionality. Firefox is fine and dandy. Opera...meh. IE, don't use it anymore.

Other than processor intensive javascript, I'm fine on safari. Sure, I like something new to play with here and there... but really - a new browser?

EricNau

Sep 1, 2008, 06:25 PM

I guess another browser based on Webkit is a good thing, as it will spur further developments for Safari.

iSee

Sep 1, 2008, 06:26 PM

Interesting direction for Google.

When Apple does something like this, it's almost always a well-thought-out piece of a larger overall strategy.

When Google does it, I'm never quite sure if it's just something one group is just trying or if there is a grander plan.

I mean sure, Google is about web advertising, and it's straightforward to see how having a Google browser could enhance that. But on a grander scale this could:

* Be the Google "OS" -- well, really the Google application platform. For example, the Google apps are neat. But browser technology really limits just how useful these can really become. Control the app platform, however, and the sky's the limit. Of course, this would be a lot bigger than just the Google apps. They'd want to take a significant share of the client app platform market.
* If the Chrome platform can't reach critical mass, they will at least want to push other browsers to be a better application platform.

Microsoft/IE is in a tricky position. On one hand, browsers are assailing its market dominance from the left and right. On the other hand, MS simply cannot/will not provide the basis for its competitors' application platforms. They can play the stalling game, dribbling in real features (along with large cosmetic changes) at the slowest rate they think they can get away with--IE 7, IE 8--while at the same time pushing their own, proprietary web app platform as hard as possible (Silverlight, or whatever they replace that with). Time will tell if MS, Adobe, or Google, will win this war. Apple isn't a serious player here, but it will be interesting to see if they want to become one.

kobefan234

Sep 1, 2008, 06:27 PM

when is the mac version coming?

Porco

Sep 1, 2008, 06:28 PM

Can't wait to see how it handles Ad-blockers :D

thejadedmonkey

Sep 1, 2008, 06:28 PM

Would be better if they used Gecko rather than Webkit. Oh well, can't please all.

Would you like to elaborate?
For future compatibility reasons alone Webkit would seem a wise choice.

Would you like to elaborate?

I guess I'll have to get a PC to test it now ;)

EricNau

Sep 1, 2008, 06:29 PM

Interesting direction for Google.
Is there any direction which Google is not pursuing?

swingerofbirch

Sep 1, 2008, 06:29 PM

Veri

Sep 1, 2008, 06:30 PM

LeviG

Sep 1, 2008, 06:31 PM

wonder how long this will take before they have their web apps 'integrated'.

Will try it but if its anything like safari on windows will be going back to opera (moved from firefox due to stupid address bar)

xix

Sep 1, 2008, 06:32 PM

Sounds more like an application runtime than a full fledged browser.

Windows-only? FAIL.

gifford

Sep 1, 2008, 06:32 PM

Apple isn't a serious player here, but it will be interesting to see if they want to become one.

I think Apple is a very serious contender. And thanks to iphone/ipod i believe this ones already in the bag.

PlaceofDis

Sep 1, 2008, 06:35 PM

should be interesting to see how this pans out.

more choice definitely is not a bad thing, but it could easily fail too. who knows where google is trying to go with this. i just wish they would release more finished products off the bat. and for all OSes too.

anubis

Sep 1, 2008, 06:37 PM

Bring on the competition

dizastor

Sep 1, 2008, 06:37 PM

seems to me that like apple with the iPhone, google is creating it's own browser to be the native browser for the android platform... and this is the natural extension to the desktop.

sellitman

Sep 1, 2008, 06:40 PM

Another Browser?

Ho hum.

Joe Hill

Sep 1, 2008, 06:41 PM

I hope this turns out well, since Firefox is a little like riding a mammoth, and Safari is probably the slowest piece of software I've used recently.

It hangs and freezes all the time. Scroll down a site, beach ball. Click a link, beach ball. Hold your mouse over a bookmark in the bookmark bar, beach ball. Enter an address in the address bar, beach ball. Enter information in a text field on a web page, beach ball. Download a file, beach ball.

Granted, the beach ball will only last a couple of seconds and then Safari will unfreeze, but when this happens like a million times a minute, no matter what you're doing, it's ridiculous.

Only happens in Safari, no other application.

sebastianlewis

Sep 1, 2008, 06:42 PM

scoobydoo99

Sep 1, 2008, 06:46 PM

a non-apple company is releasing a beta of a non-apple application -- and this is Page 1 news on macrumors?

while mildly interesting, this should be nowhere near Page 1 news.

Cassie

Sep 1, 2008, 06:49 PM

Interesting. I'll have to try this out tomorrow.

Chaszmyr

Sep 1, 2008, 06:49 PM

Cassie

Sep 1, 2008, 06:50 PM

a non-apple company is releasing a beta of a non-apple application -- and this is Page 1 news on macrumors?

while mildly interesting, this should be nowhere near Page 1 news.

Google has been pretty tied into Apple lately, so I'm not surprised. Plus, it seems page 1 is becoming more and more of a general technology blog instead of Apple only these days.

MacGohil

Sep 1, 2008, 06:51 PM

Pros:
Would give a great integrated User experience as they will be able to make the browser run more efficiently for all online apps that google makes.
If Google can team up with Mozilla which they have done (more-or-less) with Firefox-3 then we have the best team in browser business and the best team in online apps delivering great functionality. However this will provide Google more leverage in terms of more funtionality that they will be able to have their own platform and later run a merger with Mozilla through knowledge sharing from their new venture(Chrome). This can easily be a deal breaker as well if relationships go sour between Google and Mozilla.
Competition is a good thing and this will loosen MSFT's grip further and allow Google to try out more things which they could not on rival platform (MSFT's IE) otherwise.

Cons:If the Google's Chrome takes off then they will have a total control over what we see in our browser cause using the google search engine inside google's browser means they can restrict what they want to show us or block competitors out.
Google could grown into a giant monopolistic online venture and smother the small companies which might have more innovative ideas like MSFT has been doing for years now.

WindowsGuy

Sep 1, 2008, 06:53 PM

wow that looks like it sucks i like opera

You can tell it sucks by a cartoon. I can see you have a very open mind to new ideas. Maybe you should stick with IE.

decksnap

Sep 1, 2008, 06:57 PM

coolfactor

Sep 1, 2008, 06:57 PM

Would be better if they used Gecko rather than Webkit. Oh well, can't please all.

Why?

Both are good engines, but you suggest that Gecko is better.

Omni Geno

Sep 1, 2008, 07:00 PM

Is there any direction which Google is not pursuing?

I'm saving up for my Google hybrid car next year. :cool:

joshwalker

Sep 1, 2008, 07:00 PM

It sounds to me like some Googlers have been using WebKit for the Android platform, creating some new enhancements and features. So they decided to try some new ideas for the UI of a browser and put it out there. Similar to Flock or another 'next gen' browser. It is also a good way to release thier ideas to the open source world so that pieces can be used by Safari/Firefox.

Google basically funds Mozilla.org by paying big bucks to be the default search engine. They also hire a number of prominent Firefox coders. I don't see this as a big threat to the main browsers, just another thing they are flinging to the wall to see what sticks. Probably won't.

PlaceofDis

Sep 1, 2008, 07:02 PM

JAYGEE

Sep 1, 2008, 07:03 PM

Should be Interesting to see how it works and looks. I doubt I will use it as my main browser, unless it has some features that makes it stand out from the others.

coolfactor

Sep 1, 2008, 07:05 PM

Rod76

Sep 1, 2008, 07:05 PM

I think this will be an excellent way to help with "targeted" ads for their ad business.

And as an added bonus, webkit will get more developers. It's a win/win for the Mac community.

mike12806

Sep 1, 2008, 07:06 PM

a non-apple company is releasing a beta of a non-apple application -- and this is Page 1 news on macrumors?

while mildly interesting, this should be nowhere near Page 1 news.

Agreed...and why can't a company with the capital of google develop a mac and windows version simultaneously?? WEAKKKK

MacGohil

Sep 1, 2008, 07:07 PM

Google is using Apple's webkit, and making us wait for a Mac version? I would have expected better from Google...

Moreover, the fact that the Windows version is being released first suggests that the Mac version is an afterthought, and may or may not be as solid and feature-packed as the Windows version.

Google is seeing MSFT's IE-8 as a threat to its business as MS can slam the doors on googles face by blocking their access to the statistics which google use widely for searches, etc, etc. Also MS can lockdown google apps like Google Docs, etc which are a direct threat to MSFT's business. This has prompted google to be more proactive and keep secure their business interest. If they can dethrone IE as a major browser with their own business that means they will have control over the platform on which their apps run, not MSFT.

Most of the MAC users and Linux users are anti-MSFT (talking into account majority here) and use mostly Mozilla, Firefox or Opera and thus Google is already safegaurded in this user base and thus the delays in this user-market are still sustainable to google. But we will see a Google's Chrome version soon, not as much as a urgency as the Windows-user base which Google wants a safe guard against.

Things are not looking good for MSFT as all companies are threatening MSFT in every sector of their business. But all these changes in the past 2 years and the next few yrs will change the face of the computer industry and internet in more ways than we can imagine.... And just may be, may be.... Everybody will be sane enough to dump Windows and move to Mac OS or Linux. :apple::D:)

coolfactor

Sep 1, 2008, 07:08 PM

It's interesting how they address (my) main issue with Safari as the main underlying feature of Chrome. The way Safari chews up more and more ram until you close it. I wonder if Apple will adopt the same approach.

It would be cool for Safari to adopt that approach, but we'll have to see how responsive Chrome is to opening and closing tabs. Also, each process will have its own overhead, so if you have 20 tabs open, it's possible that it'll consume more memory than Safari with the same 20 tabs.

Safari has improved greatly over the past couple of years in this respect. It no longer needs a restart every day. I quite often have it running for a week or more without a problem, and as a web developer, I have lots of tabs open at once.

WindowsGuy

Sep 1, 2008, 07:10 PM

iSee

Sep 1, 2008, 07:13 PM

I think Apple is a very serious contender. And thanks to iphone/ipod i believe this ones already in the bag.

I mean as a general application platform vendor. Apple really only targets OS X (desktop and mobile). There is Safari for Windows. But they haven't done anything with it to make me think they are trying to do anything besides enhance Safari compatibility. Google seems to want to become the platform--for everything. Apple, on the other hand, is much more focused and seems to support development platforms only as much as they need to to sell their end-to-end systems.

MacGohil

Sep 1, 2008, 07:14 PM

Apple's webkit? no.

webkit is open source. Apple just happen to use it too.

Not totally Apple's but Apple exploited Webkit to its true potential when they adopted it from Konqueror browser and revamped it. Apple, Google and others later developed further....

Hang in.... here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit

CrossedBearings

Sep 1, 2008, 07:16 PM

Hmmmm... so we really want this type of thing to be open source, from a standpoint of security. Just asking...

Absolutely, that way we can make sure it is secure. Security by obscurity, is not a valid security model. Unless you believe in M$.

Only software that uses demonstrated and published secure algorithms is really secure. It places reliance on the strengths on your keys and algorithms, which is according to industry wisdom, where it should be.

inkswamp

Sep 1, 2008, 07:17 PM

It's almost like there are two Googles at work, one of them smart and one of them not-so-smart, and this one seems to be coming from the latter. If you look at Google's track record, they do great things when they strike out on their own with something novel and reasonably original (search, online liner ads, maps, etc.) but fail horribly when doing any kind of me-too product (video being the immediate example that comes to mind, but I know there are others.)

I don't wish Google any bad luck in their endeavors but I wouldn't bet my money on Chrome's success.

kockgunner

Sep 1, 2008, 07:17 PM

do we really need another browser?

Doctor Q

Sep 1, 2008, 07:17 PM

Can Chrome attract much of a share of the web browser market? Some people are willing to try new things, but many more people are fairly set in their web ways. It'll take both features and publicity to attract them to a new web browser.

cloudnine

Sep 1, 2008, 07:18 PM

A beta? From Google? I totally don't believe it.

deannnnn

Sep 1, 2008, 07:18 PM

It's interesting that Google would want to do this...
But if anybody knows how to make programs relating to the internet... it's Google.

I'll check it out when the Mac version is released.

bobertoq

Sep 1, 2008, 07:18 PM

Can't wait! Too bad I can't download it on my cruddy iBook, but I can download it on my PC. Let's hope it's good. Hopefully the PPC and Intel Mac version will be separate to minimize file size.

WindowsGuy

Sep 1, 2008, 07:23 PM

Agreed...and why can't a company with the capital of google develop a mac and windows version simultaneously?? WEAKKKK

90% Usage
7% Usage

Do the math.

wronski

Sep 1, 2008, 07:27 PM

do we really need another browser?

No point in the status quo if someone proves they can do it better.

tobian

Sep 1, 2008, 07:30 PM

I think Apple is a very serious contender. And thanks to iphone/ipod i believe this ones already in the bag.

Don't think so. Apple surely is very serious contender in mobile web browsing.. already nr. 1.. but Safari on Windows seems not very popular yet.

I hope this turns out well, since Firefox is a little like riding a mammoth, and Safari is probably the slowest piece of software I've used recently.

It hangs and freezes all the time. Scroll down a site, beach ball. Click a link, beach ball. Hold your mouse over a bookmark in the bookmark bar, beach ball. Enter an address in the address bar, beach ball. Enter information in a text field on a web page, beach ball. Download a file, beach ball.

Granted, the beach ball will only last a couple of seconds and then Safari will unfreeze, but when this happens like a million times a minute, no matter what you're doing, it's ridiculous.

Only happens in Safari, no other application.

Sad. It looks something is wrong with your webkit.. my Safari does no beachballs in this case (867MHz G4).. expect of loading any QuickTime media, > beachball until it loads file header (so when internet connection stops working, Safari stops responding).

Apple's webkit? no.

webkit is open source. Apple just happen to use it too.

WebKit is an opensource project, partly financed and hosted by Apple.
Good to see more usage of webkit, ..that means better development. Google can help a lot in this project.

hob

Sep 1, 2008, 07:33 PM

Think I just found the official site. I was having trouble, but then I am very tired.

If it is as hard to find as I think then here! Enjoy!

http://gears.google.com/chrome/intl/en/features.html?hl=en

Update: Infact, it looks like it's pre-live... all the videos are private!

Trajectory

Sep 1, 2008, 07:34 PM

Oh god, please, not another damn browser that websites have to support! There are enough already. I hope it fails.

localoid

Sep 1, 2008, 07:37 PM

wheezy

Sep 1, 2008, 07:44 PM

Yay! Give Google an even greater opportunity to know everything you do on the web. Sure, they want to know all your traffic patterns, what you visit, how long you're there and Google Analytics does that for sites it's installed on, but imagine the information power they'll get having analytics in your browser.

They want information on sites that don't have their analytics installed, and this is how they plan to get it.

I'll pass. Safari works great for me.

wronski

Sep 1, 2008, 07:47 PM

Oh god, please, not another damn browser that websites have to support! There are enough already. I hope it fails.

I like how you're so quick to judge before even trying it out; what if it's absolutely revolutionary? Also, it's based on Webkit do I don't think developers are going to have to do much to make their sites work in Chrome if they already work in Safari.

The comic makes it sound pretty well thought out.

Yay! Give Google an even greater opportunity to know everything you do on the web.

Yes, it's all a dirty conspiracy. Considering it's entirely open source I really doubt that would be the case.

bobertoq

Sep 1, 2008, 07:47 PM

Larger resolution ver. of the Google Chrome comic book, here... (http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/)

Google’s official reprint of the comic at Google Books, here... (http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=frontcover)Thanks. I really like the whole look of the tabs on the top. Haha... hah... I also like this part of the comic:
http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/6 in the bottom right corner. It happens to me occasionally. FX and Safari.

kaiwai

Sep 1, 2008, 07:47 PM

Sounds more like an application runtime than a full fledged browser.

Windows-only? FAIL.

*beat xix around the head with a dirty sock*

Why should it even matter. There is a common core, Webkit; the focus by Google is to drop having to hack their services around for every damn web browser under the sun. Come up with one browser that is linked to their website and avoid all the crap of incompatibilities entirely. The fact that there is a common code base means that any changes done to Webkit by Google will find its way back into Safari.

AppleMojo

Sep 1, 2008, 07:54 PM

Absolutely, that way we can make sure it is secure. Security by obscurity, is not a valid security model. Unless you believe in M$.

Only software that uses demonstrated and published secure algorithms is really secure. It places reliance on the strengths on your keys and algorithms, which is according to industry wisdom, where it should be.

Two points, off topic -- but should be said.

Security through obscurity, is in fact a very valid security model. It is quite effective, however it should only be used in combination with other perimeter defenses and not solely relied upon.

An example, give you local FBI office a call and you will be pleasantly surprised with the lack of information you get. They obscure nearly everything except the actual agents name you are speaking with; no department, no division, etc.

Another example, contact most IT administrators and ask for a current network topology and brand names or models of perimeter devices. Don't be surprised when this isn't provided.

Security through obscurity is a very common practice and is quite widely accepted in the security industry as an additional layer of security, but never the only layer.

Last point; Open source does not equate to secure.

Because an application relies upon closed source, does not make it less secure. Security in an application is based upon architecture, development techniques and experience as well as proper peer review, code auditing, etc.

There are many applications which are extremely secure and are closed source.

Now, back on topic.

I probably won't use Chrome (happy with my current browser), however I do think that as long as the new competition sticks with the current rendering engines, then this can only be good for all of us.

Saladinos

Sep 1, 2008, 07:57 PM

The world doesn't need another browser. That said, Google will be contributing to the WebKit project, which is great news.

WebKit will overtake Gecko. It works well on desktop and portable devices, has fantastic javascript performance, and outstanding standards support.

Nevertheless, this fits with Google's open web policy. Hopefully it works.

arn

Sep 1, 2008, 07:59 PM

a non-apple company is releasing a beta of a non-apple application -- and this is Page 1 news on macrumors?

while mildly interesting, this should be nowhere near Page 1 news.

This is huge news and has the potential to change a lot of things. This "non-Apple" company has the potential to overtake a massive piece of the browser market, perhaps finally wresting control from IE.

Over time, the web is the direction everything has been going. Apple has been investing significantly in Safari and a establishing themselves to deliver web-apps like MobileMe.

Over time, many apps will be entirely web-based and platform independent.

arn

zub3qin

Sep 1, 2008, 08:00 PM

Google is not good at free standing software.

Google IS good at webapps and search engines.

Case in point:
Google Earth- great app, but bloated on Mac
Google App on iPhone- not useful at all.

I don't hold out too much hope on this (or android for that matter).

passingXstorm

Sep 1, 2008, 08:00 PM

Funny, I thought I went to Mac rumors, not Google news?

ZiggyPastorius

Sep 1, 2008, 08:02 PM

Though any features they implement that are new will certainly be cool...I think Google has waited a long time for other browsers (and by other browsers, I mean 98% Opera) to do all the innovation, now it's going to come in and add a useful feature or two and make themselves look like they've done something really amazing.

It's no Opera.

bob_the_gorilla

Sep 1, 2008, 08:04 PM

Apple's webkit? no.

webkit is open source. Apple just happen to use it too.

Sure, if you're looking at it fresh in the last few years. It is, of course, an Apple project which was then open-sourced, and is still guided by folks at Apple. It's more than just a tweaked KHTML.

Oh god, please, not another damn browser that websites have to support! There are enough already. I hope it fails.

You're actually being a bit of a pillock here. If it's Webkit-based, it's the same as Safari. And if it gains popularity that is good news for Safari users, who will see more websites built with Webkit compatibility in mind.

Myself, I hope this takes off. I trust they'll be being good OSS citizens; the stuff about javascript scares me, and I hope they're just talking about current Webkit projects (and not something new they want to bring to the table to create division); or at least, if it's new that it's so much better it becomes the new hotness in Webkit over all platforms.

As for a new browser on the Mac, I'm pretty much in the "What's the point?" group. Seems like it'd have to be pretty decent to drag me from Safari; but if it's much better I'd switch without hesitation. It's Webkit I love, not Safari (sorry guys).

Why not Gecko? Gecko is a beast, and hard to deal with. Webkit is designed to be lightweight, and (these days) relatively platform-agnostic. Why do you think so many Webkit ports (iPhone, Android, Qt, etc etc) have sprung up? It's comparatively easy, and the fastest-improving of all the rendering engines (my completely subjective opinion).

wronski

Sep 1, 2008, 08:05 PM

Google is not good at free standing software. Well then now is their time to shine. Again, wait until you've used it to judge.

Funny, I thought I went to Mac rumors, not Google news?

Significant industry news that could change much. Get out if you don't like it.

dornoforpyros

Sep 1, 2008, 08:08 PM

Hmmm... another browser to test for at work.

lamadude

Sep 1, 2008, 08:09 PM

I'm guessing the chances of getting adblock on a google browser are pretty slim? I need adblock (or something similar) on my browser.

ibjoshua

Sep 1, 2008, 08:11 PM

And no, Google, most people don't use the web for "apps" - beyond maybe a mail client. Locally hosted software works just great, and it takes advantage of all that tasty local native speed, reliability and security, just as it has since the early '80s when your intended model last went out of fashion. But keep up the good work with search - it's what you do well.
I think you miss the point. More and more people are starting to use online applications, and Google should know, they host one of the most popular suites, Google Docs. Maybe you haven't heard of it yet?

It's almost like there are two Googles at work, one of them smart and one of them not-so-smart, and this one seems to be coming from the latter. If you look at Google's track record, they do great things when they strike out on their own with something novel and reasonably original (search, online liner ads, maps, etc.) but fail horribly when doing any kind of me-too product (video being the immediate example that comes to mind, but I know there are others.)
So you don't use Gmail? Personally, I preferred it so much to Hotmail and the paid hosting service I was using that I dropped them both.
As far as video is concerned, I thought Google Video was better than YouTube but I guess that's just one of those Beta/VHS scenarios.

A beta? From Google? I totally don't believe it.
ha ha, unusually mature sarcasm for these forums
:)

ibjoshua

AppleMojo

Sep 1, 2008, 08:12 PM

This is huge news and has the potential to change a lot of things. This "non-Apple" company has the potential to overtake a massive piece of the browser market, perhaps finally wresting control from IE.

Over time, the web is the direction everything has been going. Apple has been investing significantly in Safari and a establishing themselves to deliver web-apps like MobileMe.

Over time, many apps will be entirely web-based and platform independent.

arn

I can see what Scooby is saying, but I am more on Arn's side here.

We are all speculating at this point, but the RIA market is growing very quickly and Adobe has recently (within the last 8 months) grabbed significant market share with Flex and AIR. Flex development is exploding rather quickly and as I am sure Adobe planned well in advance for this, their platform is already mature.

MS, Google and Apple are not going to sit on the sidelines and let Adobe take control of this rather lucrative vertical.

MS is working very hard with Silverlight and although is several major releases behind and lacking fundamental features, they are at least providing something for their developer base and promised features in the near future. They are not out of the fight, they have a large base of developers and a brand that will carry them.

Apple has their own proprietary markup language similar to Flex based on their Quicktime platform, and although it is internal and not published, we can probably expect something shortly from them.

Google is of course the one we do expect to be more interested in this area as they are working very hard to be king of browser applications.

This could be a significant change if they are more likely to deploy Chrome (mentioned earlier) more as a cross-platform runtime rather than just another browser.

I am not sure how they will compete or provide Google only features, but we'll see.

Maybe it's time for Google's G++, Objective-G or Gava. ;-)

twoodcc

Sep 1, 2008, 08:13 PM

seems pretty cool to me. though this won't help safari out very much

Me1000

Sep 1, 2008, 08:14 PM

Funny, I thought I went to Mac rumors, not Google news?

Apple puts a lot of resources into developing webkit. Google will be a major player her, it is very much related to Apple. Not to mention Google is likely to devote some resources to help the development of webkit which will only make Safari a better browser.

--

I really hope this is a firefox killer! I hate gecko, and look forward to the day it is gone. Firefox needs to be rewritten using Cocoa and use webkit as the engine!

elppa

Sep 1, 2008, 08:16 PM

WebKit will overtake Gecko. It works well on desktop and portable devices, has fantastic javascript performance, and outstanding standards support.

As unlikely as many people think this sounds, you are probably right. Aside from OS X Leopard and OS X iPhone, Webkit is found in the following places:

Nokia/Symbain S60 — Webkit
Google Android — Webkit
Google Chrome — Webkit
Adobe Air — Webkit
Adobe Dreamweaver CS4 Live View — Webkit

lamadude

Sep 1, 2008, 08:16 PM

http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/13

Does Google think that Denmark has expanded to include Germany, Switzerland and the Benelux countries? (And parts of Austria and Hungary)

wheezy

Sep 1, 2008, 08:18 PM

Yes, it's all a dirty conspiracy. Considering it's entirely open source I really doubt that would be the case.

I'm not calling in a dirty conspiracy, or even a clean one. Google is all about information, having their own browser that will record how many times you visit a site, etc, will 'help' them improve how their software works.

Google's mission is "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." source (http://www.google.com/corporate/)

Having their own browser, to me, is the superstar of gathering that information.

wheezy

Sep 1, 2008, 08:20 PM

Maybe it's time for Google's G++, Objective-G or Gava. ;-)

That's funny! Can't wait to develop in GTML and GSS. Okay, that didn't work as well as yours did.

Westside guy

Sep 1, 2008, 08:21 PM

Assuming they really do keep the Mac (and Linux) end up to date with the Windows version - I think this is a good thing. I'd love to see a Firefox-like extensible browser that uses Webkit rather than Gecko. Having one "problem" page crash only one tab rather than taking the whole browser down is a good thing as well. The new security model seems, at the surface, to be a smart idea too.

aristotle

Sep 1, 2008, 08:30 PM

Hmmmm... so we really want this type of thing to be open source, from a standpoint of security. Just asking...
Webkit is open source. How do you think Google, Nokia and Samsung would be able to use it to base browsers around otherwise?

rhett7660

Sep 1, 2008, 08:31 PM

I will wait to see and use before I make a judgment if I like it or not. This is very interesting thou. Google, has some good ideas but has a hard time making them come to light. IE google mail. Can we get out of the beta already............ :)

gifford

Sep 1, 2008, 08:35 PM

Don't think so. Apple surely is very serious contender in mobile web browsing.. already nr. 1.. but Safari on Windows seems not very popular yet.

The point is, who cares? There are more mobiles than computers, its all about mobiles and ipods, not PC's and windows. Windows was yesterdays war.

TwinCities Dan

Sep 1, 2008, 08:54 PM

Can't wait to see how it handles Ad-blockers :D

Ha! Clever lil' devil! ;) :cool:

blantonl

Sep 1, 2008, 09:02 PM

This is solely to prevent the huge payouts to the Mozilla team for Firefox search. Why pay them when you can do it yourself?

iSee

Sep 1, 2008, 09:06 PM

...Maybe it's time for Google's G++, Objective-G or Gava. ;-)

Gava: LOL

Animalk

Sep 1, 2008, 09:07 PM

Though I agree competition is good, this is getting out of hand. There is too much time spent reinventing the wheel instead of improving it when you look at the big picture of web development at the moment. Everyone wants to be the guy to go to for everything. Too much time and effort is wasted in the software industry repeating what has already been done. We would be surfing on a much livelier web if there wasn't so much effort wasted. They should have simply contributed their "additions" to firefox or opera. The rest is just fluff.

HiRez

Sep 1, 2008, 09:08 PM

Looks fugly in the screenshot. I don't really think we need another browser as the current batch is quite good and early indications are that IE8 might actually be pretty decent (*gasp!*). Oh well, can't hurt to have more ideas and competition out there as long as they don't start screwing up standards as previously M$ did, bring it on!

Iroganai

Sep 1, 2008, 09:10 PM

iSee

Sep 1, 2008, 09:15 PM

The point is, who cares? There are more mobiles than computers, its all about mobiles and ipods, not PC's and windows. Windows was yesterdays war.

No, the desktop is and will remain the centerpiece of people's technology usage. It's capabilities influence your other devices because there aren't a lot of things people want to do only on one device. The desktop should support and extend anything you do on your mobile(s).

Anyone who wants to own mobile has to have a strong desktop position as well.

Analog Kid

Sep 1, 2008, 09:19 PM

...
Granted, the beach ball will only last a couple of seconds and then Safari will unfreeze, but when this happens like a million times a minute
...
Whoah... trippy... time warping beach balls... minutes become months...

chickenninja

Sep 1, 2008, 09:22 PM

if it goona be chrome then it better have a grill

iSee

Sep 1, 2008, 09:23 PM

http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/13

Does Google think that Denmark has expanded to include Germany, Switzerland and the Benelux countries? (And parts of Austria and Hungary)

Wow, I didn't think they had it in them.

TODO before Sept:
1. Create an optimized JavaScript VM.
2. Annex Germany

They've already got a head start on their Oct. 1 milestone!

gifford

Sep 1, 2008, 09:32 PM

No, the desktop is and will remain the centerpiece of people's technology usage. It's capabilities influence your other devices because there aren't a lot of things people want to do only on one device. The desktop should support and extend anything you do on your mobile(s).

Anyone who wants to own mobile has to have a strong desktop position as well.

Thoroughly disagree. For many, listening to music, facebooking, ebay, and light research makes up the larger chunk of net usage, and is more suited to mobile devices. The central 'hub' will be Apples online offerings, not the desktop/laptop.

Traditional PC's will become just one of many devices that connect to your online 'hub'. Such as Apple tv, and all the other goodies Apple will come out with.

okrelayer

Sep 1, 2008, 09:37 PM

as much as I love browsers and the internet, desktop computing will always be the hub for all of our digital needs. iTunes/Zune Software, iPhoto/ Windows Pictures/Google Picasa, All of our documents of course.

Of course everything is going into the "cloud", and the web portal will continue to grow, but you still need a device that will connect you TO that cloud, unless we put a chip into a brains!

Analog Kid

Sep 1, 2008, 09:40 PM

Dunno, I've gotta vote bad news on this one... I'm all for spinning Balmer into a mad rage, but in the end this is going to lead to a more divided web. This smacks of MS/Netscape all over again as each gorilla starts trying to lock in web developers-- most of whom are helpless bystanders.

I'm imagining all those webkit specific extensions that weren't meant for use on the web suddenly being used on the web. I hope Apple can keep webkit focused and clean.

Google has too many conflicts of interest for this to turn out well. Ad blockers and traffic tracking are two things that have been mentioned already. Google is an advertising company that fancies itself an application provider which is now fancying itself a platform vendor.

I predict a few years of "don't be evil" altruism followed by years of enhancing shareholder value.

http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/13

Does Google think that Denmark has expanded to include Germany, Switzerland and the Benelux countries? (And parts of Austria and Hungary)Now that is funny...

mike12806

Sep 1, 2008, 09:51 PM

90% Usage
7% Usage

Do the math.

I wasn't saying that they shouldn't develop for windows, clearly the windows market serves the majority of users in the world. What I was intending to say was that a company with the size, money, and engineering/tech talent that Google has should be able to co-develop for both platforms simultaneously. Especially given Googles penchant for developing for the mac and integrating it's products into the mac ecosystem.

mike12806

Sep 1, 2008, 09:56 PM

winterspan

Sep 1, 2008, 10:02 PM

I certainly agree with the opinion that anything that takes away marketshare from internet explorer is good, as is anything that works to enhance the standards-compliant web browser experience. I don't agree with many people's characterization of Firefox, however, I have to admit that I'm currently on a Windows XP machine, so perhaps the OSX Firefox experience is much inferior.

I think it's great that Google is making all these new components available as open source to be integrated into other browsers and applications, but I don't understand why Google is actually making their own browser implementation. They already heavily support Firefox, as does a huge part of the web community (in addition to Opera and Safari), so why would they want to compete with them for marketshare? IMHO, they should have just created these new libraries and components to be added into the next version of Firefox. Perhaps that will happen anyways, obviously with the exception of WebKit, and that would be good to see. I just hope a lot of people don't abandon Firefox for google's browser just as Firefox is starting to get a great hold on the browser market. Although a diversity of standards-compliant browsers is a good thing and puts pressure on Microsoft to fully comply with the open standards specs, I don't think diluting firefox's marketshare is a good idea. Remember, most of their money comes from Google searches in the browser, and it very important Mozilla continues to have decent funding for their projects. Also, It will make Internet explorer appear more dominant if all the other browsers in the market have a single-digit marketshare, even if they all added up to more than IE's share.

Anyways, it's good to see more progress. As a developer, it will be great to count on some of the new features being natively installed in new browsers e.g. Google Gears.

TheBobGoat

Sep 1, 2008, 10:17 PM

winterspan - google wants access to everything you do. They dont care if they dilute firefox's market share since using the google browser will provide them with more insight into your online life.

dont think for one second they are just trying to take marketshare away from someone else. things like this browser are what will enable google to charge even more to advertisers than they already do.

every company involved is interested in what you do with every minute of your life....so they can make money off of you (this includes apple btw)

okrelayer

Sep 1, 2008, 10:21 PM

i will definitely give Chrome a spin on my PC tomorrow. But i am in love with Mac's Safari/inquisitor combo. It will be hard to pull me away

pgwalsh

Sep 1, 2008, 10:23 PM

Over time, many apps will be entirely web-based and platform independent.

arn
Beyond that, I'll hypothesize that this will ensure google apps can be used in offline mode regardless of support by other browsers. If you can't use a google application offline with IE7,IE8, Safari, Firefox or Opera, you'll be able to use them with chrome. This will also push vendors to support googles apps for offline use. Think of it as a insurance policy.

So I don't think of this as Google launching just another browser, but google making sure there's full support for their corporate applications without relying on a third party vendor.

ezekielrage_99

Sep 1, 2008, 10:24 PM

All I can say is great viral marketing campaign "leak" for the new Google browser, IMHO the marketing department at Google was working overtime.

Hopefully it will chip away at the IE market share even more :cool:

moz5835

Sep 1, 2008, 10:26 PM

Google getting access to even more of everyone's use characteristics and underlying information. Yay.

Count me out of this one.

/steps back

bnlv.com (http://bnlv.com)

hulugu

Sep 1, 2008, 10:28 PM

...When Google does it, I'm never quite sure if it's just something one group is just trying or if there is a grander plan.

I mean sure, Google is about web advertising, and it's straightforward to see how having a Google browser could enhance that. But on a grander scale this could:

* Be the Google "OS" -- well, really the Google application platform. For example, the Google apps are neat. But browser technology really limits just how useful these can really become. Control the app platform, however, and the sky's the limit. Of course, this would be a lot bigger than just the Google apps. They'd want to take a significant share of the client app platform market.
* If the Chrome platform can't reach critical mass, they will at least want to push other browsers to be a better application platform.

Microsoft/IE is in a tricky position. On one hand, browsers are assailing its market dominance from the left and right. On the other hand, MS simply cannot/will not provide the basis for its competitors' application platforms. They can play the stalling game, dribbling in real features (along with large cosmetic changes) at the slowest rate they think they can get away with--IE 7, IE 8--while at the same time pushing their own, proprietary web app platform as hard as possible (Silverlight, or whatever they replace that with). Time will tell if MS, Adobe, or Google, will win this war. Apple isn't a serious player here, but it will be interesting to see if they want to become one.

In some ways by virtue of 'Chrome' being based on WebKit, this just makes Apple's life easier. Good things in 'Chrome' will come to Safari much easier than it will for either Firefox or IE.

seems to me that like apple with the iPhone, google is creating it's own browser to be the native browser for the android platform... and this is the natural extension to the desktop.

An interesting point. As iSee rightfully wrote, is this part of a long-term strategy or just more of Google's "ooh-neat, shiny Beta" ADD? I'm beginning to think that this constitutes a coherent strategy, binding together everything from Google Docs to Android together.

*beat xix around the head with a dirty sock*

Why should it even matter. There is a common core, Webkit; the focus by Google is to drop having to hack their services around for every damn web browser under the sun. Come up with one browser that is linked to their website and avoid all the crap of incompatibilities entirely. The fact that there is a common code base means that any changes done to Webkit by Google will find its way back into Safari.

I think you're right. 'Chrome' gives Google a consistent platform by which to launch their world domination.

gifford

Sep 1, 2008, 10:33 PM

as much as I love browsers and the internet, desktop computing will always be the hub for all of our digital needs. iTunes/Zune Software, iPhoto/ Windows Pictures/Google Picasa, All of our documents of course.

All the above sounds more suited to an apple TV than traditional desktop.

ProwlingTiger

Sep 1, 2008, 10:43 PM

YAY! 1 more browser to add to the market. If its anywhere near as good as Firefox is for me, I'll consider switching. But until then, no need for another one.

I'm Dan, and I approve this message.

zombitronic

Sep 1, 2008, 10:48 PM

Nice to see someone rehashing that clean System 6 look.

clevin

Sep 1, 2008, 10:48 PM

Would you like to elaborate?
For future compatibility reasons alone Webkit would seem a wise choice.

thats bogus claim, there is nothing future proof about webkit, it supports roughly same, if not less standards than gecko, and its js is two versions behind. 1.5/1.6 vs 1.8, future proof? what future are you talking about?

pic is up.
http://cache.valleywag.com/assets/images/valleywag/2008/09/dlpage_lg.jpg

Im not sure if webkit has to come with a non-windows UI? I will have to test it to find out.

I can see it probably tightly bundled with alot of google services. Just need to test app stability, functionality, overall speed and extensibility. Hopefully we can get a clean webkit based windows browser soon!

alphaod

Sep 1, 2008, 10:49 PM

Why?!

macaron1

Sep 1, 2008, 10:50 PM

I'm saving up for my Google hybrid car next year. :cool:

I am sure Tesco here in the UK already sells one.

localoid

Sep 1, 2008, 10:56 PM

Why?!

‘Some men see things as they are and ask "Why?" Others dream things that never were and ask "Why not?"‘ (George Bernard Shaw)

Yvan256

Sep 1, 2008, 10:59 PM

I wasn't saying that they shouldn't develop for windows, clearly the windows market serves the majority of users in the world. What I was intending to say was that a company with the size, money, and engineering/tech talent that Google has should be able to co-develop for both platforms simultaneously. Especially given Googles penchant for developing for the mac and integrating it's products into the mac ecosystem.

Nah, let the Windows users be the beta-testers. ;)

gifford

Sep 1, 2008, 11:02 PM

thats bogus claim, there is nothing future proof about webkit, it supports roughly same, if not less standards than gecko, and its js is two versions behind. 1.5/1.6 vs 1.8, future proof? what future are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that some very big companies are backing webkit, and it will soon be the dominant browser engine.

Eidorian

Sep 1, 2008, 11:03 PM

It's just another browser to try out and install. :rolleyes:

bobertoq

Sep 1, 2008, 11:22 PM

Do we know what time the browser will be released? Midnight? ;)

Squozen

Sep 1, 2008, 11:24 PM

Apple's webkit? no.

webkit is open source. Apple just happen to use it too.

In case nobody's pulled you up on that, Webkit is Apple's baby.

From Wikipedia:

WebKit began when Apple Inc. created a software fork of the KDE project’s HTML layout engine KHTML and KDE's JavaScript engine (KJS).

localoid

Sep 1, 2008, 11:35 PM

Do we know what time the browser will be released? Midnight? ;)

8 a.m. EDT.

Maybe. :p

yukio

Sep 1, 2008, 11:50 PM

Sideonecincy

Sep 1, 2008, 11:50 PM

I look forward to this. Google seems to be going in all different directions and I am surprised that the Android is going to T-Mobile. I wonder if there will be a cellphone version of this on the Android.

ATimson

Sep 1, 2008, 11:54 PM

Now I don't see the rush in announcing it before a version for all OS's is available. If it based on the same thing Safari is based off of, is a Mac version really that complicated? :confused:

Keep in mind, I have zip developmental skills, as just an "Average" browser user, so if there is a lot more then meets the eye in the process just let me know.
Yes, it is that complicated--the UI that's wrapped around Webkit pretty much has to be independently developed for all three platforms. Most code is "build once compile anywhere", but user interfaces are very platform specific.

(There are toolkits like GTK+ which can let developers avoid this, but besides only allowing "lowest common denominator" features, generally their Mac support is lacking.)

bobertoq

Sep 1, 2008, 11:54 PM

Google states that the reason for a new web browser is that the company believes that it "can add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web."

What do you bet that there's nothing like AdBlock Plus for this baby?Mhhh... Now that you have reminded me of AdBlock Plus.... I'm not to sure about permanently switching. It's said to have plug-in support right?

NEiMac

Sep 1, 2008, 11:59 PM

Personally I welcome this new browser, any and all pressure put on Microsoft to improve there products the better everyone will be. God knows they have shown little desire to fix them when they are not pressured to do so. Im not a Microsoft basher but they really do need a kick in the a$$ once in while. I don't know If ill use this at all on my Mac's, I use the daily builds of webkit and love it, but Ill surely give it whirl on my small windows partion.

puckhead193

Sep 2, 2008, 12:02 AM

Features include:

- Privacy mode

great an easier way for people to hide their porn tracks lol :p

cdinca

Sep 2, 2008, 12:07 AM

We enlisted google to achieve DOMination. Of course the mac version is an afterthought.

wheezy

Sep 2, 2008, 12:14 AM

thats bogus claim, there is nothing future proof about webkit, it supports roughly same, if not less standards than gecko, and its js is two versions behind. 1.5/1.6 vs 1.8, future proof? what future are you talking about?

Webkit is much more future proof than Gecko, as has been pointed out in other threads, it's in more 'products' than Gecko is, and to me, renders pages much cleaner. There are standards that Safari 3 is the only one that has them working right, several CSS3 features (yes, it's still not the current standard) that only Safari handles. I like that Webkit is taking the time to not only develop these upcoming standards, but building them into current systems.

PS - This is post 500 for me... 6502a here I come! I can finally add an avatar! EDIT - Nope... it's 499. Dang!

moslayne

Sep 2, 2008, 12:20 AM

Wow. I think this is great. There could be a better browser. That's really the way the web is headed. It's not just pages anymore people. It's apps. And google can see that.

lgoodlove

Sep 2, 2008, 12:26 AM

Hmmmm... so we really want this type of thing to be open source, from a standpoint of security. Just asking...

why wouldn't we want it to be open source? seems to me open source browsers happen to be more secure...

(safari is paricley open source btw i still don't know how much though)

I can't wait i always wanted someone to challenge firefox's open source stance
I hope it can enter a new area competition between browsers. Also does anyone else think maybe google and mozilla could work together? maybe help fix some problems together?

well i just have to say from a designer stance even though its another browser to have to make sure its compatible... CAN"T BE WORSE THAN IE!!!!!!!

nsjoker

Sep 2, 2008, 12:45 AM

well i just have to say from a designer stance even though its another browser to have to make sure its compatible... CAN"T BE WORSE THAN IE!!!!!!!

It's based on WebKit, so theoretically if it renders properly in Safari it should look the same under Chrome barring any unforeseen "Google quirks". But yeah, in any case it cannot be worse than the monolithic dinosaur that is IE.

bwpix36e

Sep 2, 2008, 12:50 AM

This is a waste of resources. How may open-source browsers do we need?

Evangelion

Sep 2, 2008, 12:59 AM

Don't know much about this. So Webkit is an open source technology Apple uses in Safari that Google is now using in a browser. I get that. But if you go to http://www.webkit.org why do they use the Safari icon for generic Webkit builds if it's independent of Apple?

Short course in history. Webkit is based on rendering-engine called KHTML. KHTML is created by the KDE-project (http://kde.org/). Apple took KHTML, and created Webkit from it. KHTML and Webkit are quite similar to each other and improvements and bug-fixes flow to both directions between the two projects. Since KHTML is free software, Apple is required to share the changes they have made to it. Therefore Webkit is free software as well. Anyone can use Webkit (and KHTML) in their browser. So far we have had Safari, Omniweb and other third-party browsers that use Webkit. Interestingly, Google's Android also uses Webkit. And that's why it makes sense for Google to use Webkit in their "normal" browser as well.

Bubba Satori

Sep 2, 2008, 01:01 AM

This is a waste of resources. How may open-source browsers do we need?

Why ? And whose resources ? Is this "waste of resources" going to cause a decline in our standard of living ? Are developers and users being coerced into making and using this new browser ? I guess users will decide how many browsers are needed.

moondoggie

Sep 2, 2008, 01:02 AM

yep, as usual, we're the ones who have to wait, and without a release date, either. drag. :mad:

inkswamp

Sep 2, 2008, 01:33 AM

Over time, the web is the direction everything has been going. Apple has been investing significantly in Safari and a establishing themselves to deliver web-apps like MobileMe.

Over time, many apps will be entirely web-based and platform independent.

People have been predicting this for so long but it has yet failed to materialize. It's the Web's version of Duke Nukem Forever. I used to be very excited by the prospect of this but I've come to the more likely conclusion that the Web will never fully turn into its own platform in the way we think of platforms. If it happens, it's a lot further off than most of us at first assumed and it will be radically different than anything we can conceive of at this point.

And I know through the years we've seen lots of applications online based on Flash and Java, but those are separate and distinct development environments shoehorned into the Web. As far as native Web-based development of applications, the mix of XML/(D)HTML/Javascript/AJAX/[add latest buzzwords here] has been pretty impressive but come up considerably short of what was envisioned.

So I agree with you but I think it's still too far off to attribute Google Chrome's arrival to that.

So you don't use Gmail? Personally, I preferred it so much to Hotmail and the paid hosting service I was using that I dropped them both. As far as video is concerned, I thought Google Video was better than YouTube but I guess that's just one of those Beta/VHS scenarios.

I love Gmail and use it every day. There was nothing new about web-based email, but nobody had done it the way it needed to be done when Gmail came along. That's what I meant by my comment that Google seems to do best when they come up with something "novel and reasonably original." I'm not sure this browser fits that description. I don't see anything here that beats the current batch of browsers in the same way Gmail beats Hotmail and thousands of other web-based email services.

And FWIW, I loathed Google video. It was clunky as far as UI and playback went, and very hard to use. YouTube was light-years ahead of them in every aspect.

batitombo

Sep 2, 2008, 01:45 AM

Why Not Mac For Tomorrow!! Bah!

aristotle

Sep 2, 2008, 01:59 AM

I'm talking about the fact that some very big companies are backing webkit, and it will soon be the dominant browser engine.
+
This is a definite benefit for Apple and mac users since the default browser on the mac platform (Safari) uses webkit.

MacTheSpoon

Sep 2, 2008, 02:03 AM

Okay, well, that's cool, I guess... good for Google. The more browsers the merrier, I suppose. Hope they bring some cool ideas to the table, and take market share from Explorer, not the other players.

gikku

Sep 2, 2008, 02:08 AM

love the map of Europe on page 13 of the Google Chrome comic, with Iceland talking to Russia, borders redrawn and several countries missing or amalgamated.
hope it doesn't start anything too serious :)

illitrate23

Sep 2, 2008, 02:14 AM

the tabs above the address bar look silly with the Vista window title bar behind them. the idea would work if they were able to hide that completely so that the tabs were the only thing at the top of the window
if the tabs aren't going to be for the entire window, just the content within it, then i don't see the point in putting them above the address bar - it's just further to move your mouse to switch between them

and i agree, i think it's unlikely there'll be anyway to avoid adverts in the browser - or at least, not ones that Google generates
what's the betting that after they go live with this, there's a big panel at the bottom of window that constantly displays google ads?

bananas

Sep 2, 2008, 02:31 AM

Having every tab as a separate process is the best idea ever.

MattInOz

Sep 2, 2008, 02:31 AM

Anyone else get the impression from the comic Google aren't really fans of Flash either.

While on Linux version as yet it's all open source it will interesting to see if someone might borrow the code build the lightest Linux install they can below it and start selling a cloud client.

bananas

Sep 2, 2008, 02:34 AM

Google states that the reason for a new web browser is that the company believes that it "can add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web."

What do you bet that there's nothing like AdBlock Plus for this baby?

Since it's open source, I'm sure there will be Adblock for it soon.

MacTraveller

Sep 2, 2008, 02:43 AM

So I see that "cloud computing" is forming even more clouds above Ballmer's head. Hehe.

Westside guy

Sep 2, 2008, 02:44 AM

...and i agree, i think it's unlikely there'll be anyway to avoid adverts in the browser - or at least, not ones that Google generates
what's the betting that after they go live with this, there's a big panel at the bottom of window that constantly displays google ads?

There's no way on earth Google is going to use an ad-driven browser. They want people to adopt Chrome because they're working to drive some of their other endeavors, such as Google Apps. There are a lot of issues with the support of the so-called "Web 2.0" apps in all current browsers. It's in Google's self interest to work to improve the situation, and Chrome is one means to that end.

Shadow

Sep 2, 2008, 02:51 AM

I like what they're trying to do from a security standpoint (sandboxing, each tab in a process etc), which is refreshing. Shame about the look though, hopefully the Mac version will look much better.

marksman

Sep 2, 2008, 02:52 AM

It's not quite analogous, but I'm suddenly reminded of what happened when Spyglass dealt with Microsoft... bah, anything that annoys the Mozilla Foundation is worth a laugh in my books :cool:.

I bags ("this isn't public school, Wilson!") first development on Google AdWords ad blocker. And no, Google, most people don't use the web for "apps" - beyond maybe a mail client. Locally hosted software works just great, and it takes advantage of all that tasty local native speed, reliability and security, just as it has since the early '80s when your intended model last went out of fashion. But keep up the good work with search - it's what you do well.

I am afraid you are the one missing the train.

Everything is going to be in the cloud going forward so everyone can have access to everything they need, no matter where they are.

This is not possible with hardwired desktop clients and software.

Might want to join the future.

sushi

Sep 2, 2008, 03:13 AM

Isn't this good news standards wise?

MattInOz

Sep 2, 2008, 03:16 AM

Since it's open source, I'm sure there will be Adblock for it soon.

I would have thought when the cartoon man said there are no pop-up windows and going on to described each tabs sandboxing extends to it ability to draw on screen.

So if it's tab is hidden by another tab bad luck, you'll have to wait to the user decides to look at you.

It's seems like each tab has it's only virtual screen it knows not of the world out side that screen.

MattInOz

Sep 2, 2008, 03:17 AM

I like what they're trying to do from a security standpoint (sandboxing, each tab in a process etc), which is refreshing. Shame about the look though, hopefully the Mac version will look much better.

I wonder if the Mac version will be Safari?

Chaszmyr

Sep 2, 2008, 03:22 AM

G4DP

Sep 2, 2008, 03:23 AM

I didn't think anything could be uglier than Fire Fix, but congratulations to Google, they've done it.

igazza

Sep 2, 2008, 03:43 AM

Whats the beat it comes out for mac next year :p

OS X Dude

Sep 2, 2008, 03:51 AM

Reminds me of Konqueror - perhaps a homage to the very browser that inspired Apple to create the WebKit API?

You know, I don't think Windows is Apple's greatest threat anymore - with all these new things coming from Google (Apps, Chrome and that Second Life wannabe thing they have), I think Google is.

Analog Kid

Sep 2, 2008, 04:04 AM

Webkit is much more future proof than Gecko...
I'm not the first to make this observation, but here goes:
Waterproof prevents water
Fireproof prevents fire
Theft proof prevents theft

I'm looking forward to the future, can we agree not to call anything future proof?
I am afraid you are the one missing the train.

Everything is going to be in the cloud going forward so everyone can have access to everything they need, no matter where they are.

This is not possible with hardwired desktop clients and software.

Might want to join the future.
No, everything isn't going to the cloud. Nothing I nor my company does is going to get hosted on foreign servers. Cloud computing is a marketing push by companies with something to gain from it-- Cisco loves it, Sun loves it, Google loves it, as do a few hundred little Javascript startups.

There's no reason I need to host my data on Google's servers to be combed over and collated when I have a few terrabytes of storage and a few megabits of bandwidth in my home. The first time people realize that the ads they're receiving learned their interests from a love letter or patent application, they'll unplug from the cloud.
Isn't this good news standards wise?
Not clear. This could be Browser Wars II: This Time It's Personal.

donga

Sep 2, 2008, 04:12 AM

pretty cool to be unveiled in comic form, hope it lives up to the hype and comes quickly to the mac

OS X Dude

Sep 2, 2008, 04:14 AM

Don't know much about this. So Webkit is an open source technology Apple uses in Safari that Google is now using in a browser. I get that. But if you go to http://www.webkit.org why do they use the Safari icon for generic Webkit builds if it's independent of Apple?

dont know if this has been answered but oh well.

The Konqueror browser had a very clean, efficient and (relatively) short amount of code for a web browser at the time. It also handled JavaScript very well. Apple wanted to make a browser themselves and saw Konqueror and liked it for the code reasons above.

They wanted to copy it, which is fine as it's open source, but they then cannot make their browser closed source as it used open source material. In compromise, Apple took the elements of Konqueror they liked, and made an API out of it for themselves and others to use (so Safari could be closed source as it was now Apple's API not just copied code from Konqueror) and called it WebKit.

Now this was an obvious API for any tom, dick or harry wanting to make a browser - the materials were free, it was stable, fast and efficient. As Apple created WebKit however, they put the Safari icon on it to show it's an Apple technoogy - even if lots of it was Konqueror derived.

There you go then, we Mac users owe a Linux browser our thanks as it gave us Safari :)

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 04:21 AM

Judgement reserved until I have it installed and working. It's Google though, so it's promising.

Very interesting move, especially after they *just* renewed their commitment to supporting/sponsoring Mozilla.

mattrobs

Sep 2, 2008, 04:34 AM

Did they forget to mention the search bar?!

Erwin-Br

Sep 2, 2008, 04:38 AM

No, everything isn't going to the cloud. Nothing I nor my company does is going to get hosted on foreign servers. Cloud computing is a marketing push by companies with something to gain from it-- Cisco loves it, Sun loves it, Google loves it, as do a few hundred little Javascript startups.

There's no reason I need to host my data on Google's servers to be combed over and collated when I have a few terrabytes of storage and a few megabits of bandwidth in my home.

Erm, that cloud doesn't have to belong to Google, you know. Your company could create its own cloud using its own servers. I think you're seeing things a bit too narrow here.

--Erwin

Evangelion

Sep 2, 2008, 04:40 AM

They wanted to copy it, which is fine as it's open source, but they then cannot make their browser closed source as it used open source material.

Yes they can. KHTML is licensed under the LGPL. Which means that the code is free software, and any modifications to the code need to be shared with others. And that's what Apple is doing with Webkit. But since it's LGPL (as opposed to the more common GPL) you can link proprietary applications to the code. Which means that you could biuld a closed-source browser that uses KHTML (or Webkit) as it's rendering-engine. You would not have to release the code of your browser, but you would have to release the changes you made to the rendering-engine.

Safari is actually not based on Konqueror. What they did that they took the rendering-engine KDE-project had created (and that was used by Konquerior, among other places) and built Webkit out of it. Konqueror is a browser (well, it's a lot more than just a browser, but still), KHTML is the rendering-engine it browser uses. Webkit is based on KHTML, and Safari is based on Webkit.

In compromise, Apple took the elements of Konqueror they liked, and made an API out of it for themselves and others to use (so Safari could be closed source as it was now Apple's API not just copied code from Konqueror) and called it WebKit.

No, Apple didn't touch Konqueror at all. They just took the rendering-engine it used. KHTML was already available for anybody to use, and Apple took advantage (that sounds negative, but it isn't) of that offer. Their version of KTHML is called Webkit

There you go then, we Mac users owe a Linux browser our thanks as it gave us Safari :)

That much is true. I remember when KDE-folks created KHTML, and lots of people thought it was stupid. They said "why not simply use Gecko?". Thanks to KDE, we got a high-quality HTML-renderer, and a whole bunch of hi-quality browsers, with more on the way.

For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML

Veri

Sep 2, 2008, 04:50 AM

I think you miss the point. More and more people are starting to use online applications, and Google should know, they host one of the most popular suites, Google Docs. Maybe you haven't heard of it yet

I know that Google try to pitch Writely^WGoogle Docs as not a competitor to Microsoft Office (http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/google-docs-spreadsheets-vs-microsoft.html), but that's precisely what it is - an office suite with very limited functionality requiring continuous connectivity to 3rd party servers. But perhaps you mean "popular" by comparison with other web apps (stats?), rather than "popular" by comparison with other apps trying to satisfy similar need; I'm not quite sure how that demonstrates the success of web apps, though.

Everything is going to be in the cloud going forward so everyone can have access to everything they need, no matter where they are.
What you're describing is amply fulfilled by a laptop running local software with some version control system to check in and out from a shared drive sitting somewhere on the Interwebs. OTOH, it's not satisfied by a webapp-based "cloud", which requires continuous reliable fast Internet connectivity.

It's especially not going to be satisfied by a 3rd party cheep'n'cheerful cloud like Google's, where you're relying on the availability and security non-guarantees that come with paying $0-50. As for the advantage of not having to install web apps, why would I be accessing company data via a machine that my company has no admin rights to? Do people really wander into a cybercafe to edit "Company Sales Strategy 2009.googledoc" without a care for whether there's a keylogger or screen grabber installed?

carlitofox

Sep 2, 2008, 05:33 AM

lots of people winging about the mac version not being out yet and how this is shocking seeing as A & G are such good friends

well maybe thats why ..........

Google don't want to come and stamp over Apples territory

Android - not an attack on the Iphone but windows mobile

browser - not a safari replacement but a IE replacement

apple will rule macs/Iphones
google takes PC's & phones

bobbleheadbob

Sep 2, 2008, 05:45 AM

Too bad that the Mac is getting treated like a second class citizen again. Especially with the growth in market share and continuing rise in usage of Macs, you'd think they could put out both versions together! :(

JG271

Sep 2, 2008, 05:48 AM

I can't see them bringing anything to web browsers that isn't already covered by Safari or Firefox.

Oh well - the mac version will probably be neglected anyway.

ikir

Sep 2, 2008, 06:12 AM

Would you like to elaborate?
For future compatibility reasons alone Webkit would seem a wise choice.

I agree, Webkit is the better choice.

knightlie

Sep 2, 2008, 06:35 AM

Sounds more like an application runtime than a full fledged browser.

It's both. So are other browsers.

Windows-only? FAIL.

Didn't read the bit that says otherwise? FAIL.

I wonder how many people have actually read Google's comic, which does a great job of explaining Chrome and why they are releasing it. I look forward to trying this.

Edit: They said they chose WebKit because it's simpler for developers to use. It's been stated elsewhere that Gecko is hideously complicated.

miniConvert

Sep 2, 2008, 07:15 AM

I'm quite excited that there'll be a Google Browser. Google are probably the only company capable to challenging the dominance of Internet Explorer (sorry Mozilla).

I think it'll take a little time to get up to speed, but if it's good then I hope Google will put their money where their mouth is and ensure it's shipped as the default browser on as many new Windows PC's as possible. I'm sorry, but there's no way Microsoft should control so much of the OS market AND the browser market. It's just not on, not when the market is massive enough to support many smaller players.

xUKHCx

Sep 2, 2008, 07:15 AM

Having read the entire comic I can say I can't wait to give this a go. This has some really interesting ideas behind it and has taken quite a lot from my favourite browser (opera) so it should be a good one to try out.

neonblue2

Sep 2, 2008, 07:16 AM

Edit: They said they chose WebKit because it's simpler for developers to use. It's been stated elsewhere that Gecko is hideously complicated.

And to use all features you need to rely heavily on XUL.

Wendy Watson

Sep 2, 2008, 07:53 AM

Sounds more like an application runtime than a full fledged browser.
Gee xix, what an insight... :rolleyes:

Introduced in the form of a comic by Scott McCloud. Based on WebKit, not Gecko. Sounds more like an application runtime than a web browser, though.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/09/01/google-chrome

Much Ado

Sep 2, 2008, 07:58 AM

Privacy mode? Yeah, right.

ro2nie

Sep 2, 2008, 07:59 AM

Anything that can destroy IE's dominance is good for everyone (including web developers)
I'm sure if they advertised it on google.com with a link saying "try the new google browser" they will get many people on board.

Shasterball

Sep 2, 2008, 08:00 AM

Is there any direction which Google is not pursuing?

Well, are they spreading themselves out too thin? You can only innovate in so many areas at once...

nick9191

Sep 2, 2008, 08:14 AM

Sounds like a way Google can get even more of our personal information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWxdW3fiML4

sushi

Sep 2, 2008, 08:23 AM

Isn't this good news standards wise?

Yes; and moreover, it's ultimately good for Mac users. Apple presumably wanted WebKit to be open source in the first place to promote standards, thereby making as many webpages as possible Mac-compatible (in the old days, browsing on a Mac kind of.. well... sucked).

Not clear. This could be Browser Wars II: This Time It's Personal.
I would tend to think that this is good, as Chaszmyr states. But I also see where Analog Kid is coming from.

IE has some definite issues with compliance and rendering pages. It seems to me, that the more standards are followed the more the Internet will grow in a positive way.

As a consumer, I would like to be able to visit any web site with my browser of choice and have it work correctly. Is that too much to ask?

Judgement reserved until I have it installed and working. It's Google though, so it's promising.

Very interesting move, especially after they *just* renewed their commitment to supporting/sponsoring Mozilla.
:)

Having read the entire comic I can say I can't wait to give this a go. This has some really interesting ideas behind it and has taken quite a lot from my favourite browser (opera) so it should be a good one to try out.
Likewise.

Anything that can destroy IE's dominance is good for everyone (including web developers)
I'm sure if they advertised it on google.com with a link saying "try the new google browser" they will get many people on board.
Agree. With Googles clout, I think that it would be accepted more easily.

We shall see.

wightstraker

Sep 2, 2008, 08:30 AM

Get ready for an "improved online experience" - more user targeted advertisements!

Hot damn!

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 08:39 AM

After reading through the the comic book Google have published, I'm actually very excited and impressed.

I just hope that there is some sort of ad-blocking extension. For me this is critical, hard to believe Google would allow it given their business model though. If they do, kudos to them, and I'll be on board, after having been a die hard Firefox fan since (Firebird) 0.8.

bongobongo

Sep 2, 2008, 09:12 AM

Fonts in Safari, at least on Windows ... really are HORRIBLE.

Normal font looks allmost bold.
Bold fonts are bolder than bold.
All fonts looks unsharp if you compare them with how the same fonts looks on Firefox or e.g. IE.

Exept for that Safari is fast.
For some tasks such as rendering lots of form-fields on a page, Safari can be as 4 to 5 times faster than Firefox (yes that is latest version of Firefox)...

Initially I was not to happy when reading that another browser is in the works.
But if it using WebKit it might not be so bad after all.
Bottom line, competition is good for most products....

When will IE catch up! Their browser sucks big time when it comes to how it looks and how horribly difficult it is to use their tools or whatever to customize it.
But the worst thing about IE ever is ... WHERE THE HECK do you report things that do not work. Come on Microsoft look at Firefox and Safari and how their feedback system works. No wonder why IE browser lacks behind... the developers are sitting behind closed walls without any connection to the end-users. Opera browser feedback system are allmost as bad as IE. For Opera you can actually file a bug or feature request... but then it is lost somewhere and you will never know if anything was done.... are beeing done... if they understood what was said... bla bla..

So please Chrome (Google), do not do the same mistakes as IE and Opera... community related that is....
And Google please, make sure the fonts are rendered as sharp and clean as they are in Firefox, IE, Opera etc.... AND NOT HOW THEY LOOK IN SAFARI.

Best luck...

*** UPDATE ***

WOHAAA
Have now tried this beast and what a wicked fast browser, supersimple layout giving most space to content (IE wake up).
Tested on a heavy duty page, with many many form fields.... the page was rendered in approx one second,
Firefox used 9 seconds or more to render it!

And guess what, it actually render the fonts as it should, no longer those ugly looking blurry overfat fonts that Safari (win) produces (wake up Safari)

What a nice newcomer. Firefox watch up you have gotten some serious competition.

Only downside so far is that I cannot see one place to report bugs, and feature requests.... but that might come.

Good work google...

** END UPDATE **

Mackan

Sep 2, 2008, 09:59 AM

Waiting for download link...

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 10:07 AM

i will post a review as soon as I get my hand on it... :D

Webkit is much more future proof than Gecko, as has been pointed out in other threads, it's in more 'products' than Gecko is, and to me, renders pages much cleaner. There are standards that Safari 3 is the only one that has them working right, several CSS3 features (yes, it's still not the current standard) that only Safari handles. I like that Webkit is taking the time to not only develop these upcoming standards, but building them into current systems.

PS - This is post 500 for me... 6502a here I come! I can finally add an avatar! EDIT - Nope... it's 499. Dang!

Congratulations for #500 ! :D

no, i don't see being used by more app as the proof of future proof. Gecko is used by even more apps that are actually far exceed "browsers", such as webtv app (miro), music, video manager (songbird), social browser (flock), mail client (thunderbird) etc. Its more and more into a platform, future proof? I dont know. I think the claim you made might be too bold.

about CSS3, check out wiki comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS) , there are standards that only gecko handles too, that doesn't mean anything! :)

Not to mention the so called "more important javascript", gecko is much more closer to ECMAscript 4, current at 1.8 (different numbering system), while webkit is still at 1.5/1.6 which is 4 years old.

TuffLuffJimmy

Sep 2, 2008, 10:13 AM

I'm soooo excited for this! I now have a reason to use my Windows Vista partition on my Macbook. Well... at least until a beta is released for OS X.

raythemoneyman

Sep 2, 2008, 10:20 AM

It will be a beautiful day when the PC crowd will buy a new computer with no Internet Explorer, Media player, etc. installed on the machine. Hopefully we are one step closer.

TuffLuffJimmy

Sep 2, 2008, 10:24 AM

It will be a beautiful day when the PC crowd will buy a new computer with no Internet Explorer, Media player, etc. installed on the machine. Hopefully we are one step closer.

Some would say the same about OS X coming with Safari and especially iTunes (why do so many people hate iTunes?!)

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 10:29 AM

Some would say the same about OS X coming with Safari and especially iTunes (why do so many people hate iTunes?!)
i think its because there is viable alternative to safari on OSX, but there is really no good alternative to iTunes

It will be a beautiful day when the PC crowd will buy a new computer with no Internet Explorer, Media player, etc. installed on the machine. Hopefully we are one step closer.

Its very difficult to say, a new computer without a browser, and without a media player for end users?

Its a difficult question I don't know how to answer.

PowerFullMac

Sep 2, 2008, 10:31 AM

Google is seriously trying to compete with everything, arnt they? They have a Wikipedia (Knol), an office program (Google Documents), they own YouTube, a e-mail service (Google Mail), a blogging site (Blogger), a phone OS (Android)... It could go on forever!

I'm not complaining, though, I like Google's stuff! :)

iVoid

Sep 2, 2008, 10:33 AM

Given that Google's primary business is advertising, I'd be a little wary of this browser. I already block cookies from Google and use adblock, so the paranoid part of me would be hard pressed to trust that this browser won't collect info.

DigiCatRedux

Sep 2, 2008, 10:33 AM

Wonderful. I've always wanted a browser that can mine my surfing habits and provide me ads and link suggestions in real time.

That its introduction is presented to me in comic-book form, gives me the impression that I'll stop using Firefox any day now. Right.

PowerFullMac

Sep 2, 2008, 10:36 AM

jmorrison0722

Sep 2, 2008, 10:38 AM

Anyone got a download link? I'm forced to use a PeeCeee at work and Safari just ain't cutting it for me.

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 10:39 AM

Anyone got a download link? I'm forced to use a PeeCeee at work and Safari just ain't cutting it for me.

its not out yet

MorzillA

Sep 2, 2008, 10:51 AM

its not out yet

wututalkinboutwillis!?

Is it not slated to be released on beta September the Second of Two thousand and eight?! that would make it TODAY, yes today!!! unless they are just getting to the office in Seattle, it's around 11 here in the East coast....

:apple:

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 10:57 AM

wututalkinboutwillis!?

Is it not slated to be released on beta September the Second of Two thousand and eight?! that would make it TODAY, yes today!!! unless they are just getting to the office in Seattle, it's around 11 here in the East coast....

:apple:

well, google is based in West Coast, and there are more than enough time...

Anyway, its a browser, beta version, its exciting, but no need to over the top...:D

I know firefox 4 is planned to be multi-threading, I know it would be beneficial, but I dont know how much benefit it would bring, compare to its downside. It would be very nice to see how google does it.

There is probably no contest when firefox addons are in the mix. But I would really be interested to test the default configurations. Hopefully Google won't disappoint me :D haven't have any real browser test for a long time..........

Cameront9

Sep 2, 2008, 11:01 AM

Anyone else catch in the comic that when a tab breaks, it displays a "Sad Tab" icon?

There are some Mac fans working on this....

Queso

Sep 2, 2008, 11:04 AM

There are some Mac fans working on this....
Webkit itself came out of Apple. A number of ex-Apple people will be working on this project.

bobertoq

Sep 2, 2008, 11:08 AM

:mad: Do we know what time?

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 11:11 AM

Webkit itself came out of Apple. A number of ex-Apple people will be working on this project.

webkit is a fork of KHTML, I would say most codes are developed by KDE group.

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 11:16 AM

Anyone got a download link? I'm forced to use a PeeCeee at work and Safari just ain't cutting it for me.It's not out until ~18:00 GMT I read somewhere (whatever that works out to where you are).

Floris

Sep 2, 2008, 11:31 AM

For those who want to run it on parallels to try it, haha .. (I WANt mAC NOW!) they can get 38% off parallels today through mac app a day or mac zot or whatever that site is.

The Tall One

Sep 2, 2008, 11:32 AM

I don't know if the universe needs MORE web browsers. But it looks cool.

SactoGuy18

Sep 2, 2008, 11:40 AM

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 11:44 AM

xUKHCx

Sep 2, 2008, 11:46 AM

With Firefox 3.1 now in advanced development with its much-improved Javascript rendering engine, why clutter up the screen and disk space with another web browser? :rolleyes:

With Safari being just about the same in speed with Firefox and a greater score on the Acid 3 test why clutter my disk space with Firefox. :rolleyes:

If you read the comic there are a lot of positive things that can come out of this and it looks like it will greatly benefit the web.

localoid

Sep 2, 2008, 11:53 AM

... If you read the comic there are a lot of positive things that can come out of this and it looks like it will greatly benefit the web.

The comic is much more readable (higher rez) here (http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/)... It's a real pain to try to read the (low rez) comic via the link in the original MacRumors article.

ChrisA

Sep 2, 2008, 12:04 PM

Google have a distinct advantage, they have a ranked index of (probably) the entire internet. They don't have to release betas for users to test (well they do, but perhaps not in the traditional sense). New builds can be tested against millions of high-hit/profile sites in no time to ensure things look right.

They can RUN their new browser against millions of high-hit/profile sites but but how long would it take to LOOK at each page and decide if it worked. Even if you put 100 employees on the task full time each of them would have to look at tens of thousands of pages. I don't think Google's index will help them much.

PowerFullMac

Sep 2, 2008, 12:04 PM

The comic is much more readable (higher rez) here (http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/)... It's a real pain to try to read the (low rez) comic via the link in the original MacRumors article.

Looks really cool, I might use this for everyday browsing if its as good as that comic makes it out to be!

xUKHCx

Sep 2, 2008, 12:11 PM

They can RUN their new browser against millions of high-hit/profile sites but but how long would it take to LOOK at each page and decide if it worked. Even if you put 100 employees on the task full time each of them would have to look at tens of thousands of pages. I don't think Google's index will help them much.

See pages 9 through 11

Granted this won't be the human test but it a big plus for Chrome.

Cameront9

Sep 2, 2008, 12:12 PM

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 12:12 PM

They can RUN their new browser against millions of high-hit/profile sites but but how long would it take to LOOK at each page and decide if it worked. Even if you put 100 employees on the task full time each of them would have to look at tens of thousands of pages. I don't think Google's index will help them much.Somehow they must have developed some way to tell if the page is displaying properly, otherwise what would be the point in running new builds through automated tests against millions of pages?

Anywho, we'll all find out soon enough :)

Man4allsea

Sep 2, 2008, 12:18 PM

Google is simply doing this because new IE 8 messes with Adwords. Microsoft of course did this simply to mess with google.

johndoh

Sep 2, 2008, 12:21 PM

As a web developer I was only thinking the other day how testing everything on IE6, IE7, Safari (Mac and PC), Firefox 2 (Mac and PC) and Firefox 3 (Mac and PC) was becoming so routine, that what would really be cool is yet another browser platform to test for. If this is going to spur innovation I'd really like to know how that works when a developer's time is increasingly given over to testing. What we need is for all the browsers to standardize on a common rendering engine so that incompatibilities in how CSS and HTML are interpreted become a thing of the past. Then we can start to expand the APIs. Does no-one else see that this is just a cynical land-grab by Google. If they can own the web apis, they can edge their competitors out. Simple as that. Nothing to do with innovation. That is just big company marketing drivel.:mad:

thejadedmonkey

Sep 2, 2008, 12:27 PM

I'm not the first to make this observation, but here goes:
Waterproof prevents water
Fireproof prevents fire
Theft proof prevents theft

I'm looking forward to the future, can we agree not to call anything future proof?

No. Waterproof prevents damage from water.
Fireproof prevents damage from fire
Theft-proof prevents damage (ie stealing) from thieves.

It goes to follow that future proof prevents damage from future, not stoping the future from happening. ;)

Google is simply doing this because new IE 8 messes with Adwords. Microsoft of course did this simply to mess with google.

Where can I read up more on this?

Cameront9

Sep 2, 2008, 12:27 PM

Xian Zhu Xuande

Sep 2, 2008, 12:40 PM

Oh god, please, not another damn browser that websites have to support! There are enough already. I hope it fails.
Are you even a web designer?
This is golden for web designers. Webkit's support for web standards is the best in the entire industry. Anything running Webkit is good for web designers. Anything running off the Gecko engine is great too. For this to be even remotely close to true Chrome would have to be using a new rendering engine -- which it is not.

Also, anything that puts more pressure on Microsoft to develop a better Internet Explorer is a good thing for everyone, including the poor bastards who still use the product.

(That would be you, right, WindowsGuy?
Seeing as how everything Microsoft makes is golden in your eyes?)

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 12:42 PM

Are you even a web designer?
This is golden for web designers. Webkit's support for web standards is the best in the entire industry.

when can I expect to stop hearing the blatant lies like this here at MR?

best standard support is in Opera, 200% better than webkit and gecko.

PowerFullMac

Sep 2, 2008, 12:46 PM

when can I expect to stop hearing the blatant lies like this here at MR?

best standard support is in Opera, 200% better than webkit and gecko.

Well, as much as I hate to say it, I think IE is probably the most supported browser... IE and Firefox, that is, and I like Firefox, its nice.

Xian Zhu Xuande

Sep 2, 2008, 12:47 PM

I'm not sure if Google should do this, because making a web browser both standards-compliant (e.g., pass the latest version of the Acid compatibility test) and be able to read most commercial web sites is not trivial undertaking, as the Mozilla team found out during the development of Firefox 3.0.
Webkit handles the standards compliance.
Google is free to focus on features and implementation with Chrome.

With Firefox 3.1 now in advanced development with its much-improved Javascript rendering engine, why clutter up the screen and disk space with another web browser? :rolleyes:
Did you read the comic? Google is putting out some incredible new browser features with this. Even if we don't use the browser -- I won't be, I imagine -- these features are going to be available to other browser manufacturers as they are open source. This is wonderful news for Firefox.

when can I expect to stop hearing the blatant lies like this here at MR?
best standard support is in Opera, 200% better than webkit and gecko.
200%? No. Sorry.
What would you even be basing this on?

Well, as much as I hate to say it, I think IE is possible to most supported browser... IE and Firefox, that is, and I like Firefox, its nice.
The question was one of standards support, an are in which Microsoft continues to lag far behind of the competition. Their implementation of the box model, a very basic principle of page rendering, is still flawed even in IE7. Many people design for IE, especially inexperienced web designers, but the only reason why you're seeing something similar in modern sites, for the most part, is because web designers are using conditional comments or hacks to accommodate Internet Explorer (though IE7 did a lot to resolve this). Most professional designers design first for standards-compliant browsers like Firefox and later for Internet Explorer.

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 12:50 PM

200%? No. Sorry.
What would you even be basing this on?

im surprised you can even bash other people before yourself getting more info on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XHTML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(graphics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Document_Object_Model)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(ECMAScript)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Scalable_Vector_Graphics)

enjoy the read.

bobertoq

Sep 2, 2008, 12:51 PM

Now we just need a Google Tunes + Google Tunes Store and a GLAC audio file. (Google loseless audio codec) :D Still waiting for the download link....
-----------
im surprised you can even bash other people before yourself getting more info on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XHTML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(graphics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Document_Object_Model)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(ECMAScript)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Scalable_Vector_Graphics)

enjoy the read.That's funny...
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

objc

Sep 2, 2008, 12:51 PM

when can I expect to stop hearing the blatant lies like this here at MR?

best standard support is in Opera, 200% better than webkit and gecko.

Either way, they're using an open-source rendering engine that is working hard to be standards compliant. Having Google people contribute to it should only improve its standards compliance.

Google has an interest in seeing better web browsers. Faster, more stable, better web browsers increase the number of people who will use google's web-based services like GMail and Docs.

I think that some ie users may install it because it's from Google, a name they recognize. Most non-techies haven't ever heard of Mozilla so that's a harder sell. Many will see friends using it and appreciate its speed and/or stability and download it themselves since they already like Google. Many will also stick with internet exploiter. But it will make Microsoft look bad and may spur them to further improve performance on web-based apps, and google wins that way too.

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 01:03 PM

Now we just need a Google Tunes + Google Tunes Store and a GLAC audio file. (Google loseless audio codec) :D Still waiting for the download link....
-----------
That's funny...

aha, strange MR stripped the last character of the link, let me see if I can fix it, or you can just add a ")" at the end of the links.

Update, FIXED, don't know what happened....tho
Either way, they're using an open-source rendering engine that is working hard to be standards compliant. Having Google people contribute to it should only improve its standards compliance.

Google has an interest in seeing better web browsers. Faster, more stable, better web browsers increase the number of people who will use google's web-based services like GMail and Docs.

I think that some ie users may install it because it's from Google, a name they recognize. Most non-techies haven't ever heard of Mozilla so that's a harder sell. Many will see friends using it and appreciate its speed and/or stability and download it themselves since they already like Google. Many will also stick with internet exploiter. But it will make Microsoft look bad and may spur them to further improve performance on web-based apps, and google wins that way too.

I agree with that, assume google has that goal in mind.

V8 is a new engine from scratch, so I m excited to compare it to SquirrelFish from webkit team and tracemonkey from Mozilla team. But in reality, unless it can save 2000 ms in sunspider (which is H-A-R-D to imagine), it won't make measurable difference in users' experiences.

The main thing about Chrome, I doubt is either standard or speed. I think its more about the multi-threading and integration with google services. Which, Im eager to try out!

christf10

Sep 2, 2008, 01:29 PM

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030025-2.html

Guessing Chrome will be available for download in about a half hour or shortly after the announcement ends.

Xian Zhu Xuande

Sep 2, 2008, 01:41 PM

im surprised you can even bash other people before yourself getting more info on this
My intention isn't to bash you at all. ;)

If 'web standards' is defined by green boxes in a line-item list, then we can have a discussion along these lines, and 200% is still a huge stretch even then. Entries on those lists are not created equally, though. A subset of CSS3 features which aren't being used anywhere (though, thank you, Opera and Webkit, for paving the way toward making that possible) aren't anywhere near as important as flawless implementation of CSS2 (for example). Real-world requirements are the best measurement, and while these non-IE rendering engines are all great, there is absolutely no great deficit.

OS X Dude

Sep 2, 2008, 01:48 PM

for anyone wanting to download this and try it (on windows obv), there are download link on google by googling "chrome download" but they link back to google's homepage currently, so it can't be long before it's released.

knightlie

Sep 2, 2008, 01:52 PM

Wonderful. I've always wanted a browser that can mine my surfing habits and provide me ads and link suggestions in real time.

What a nonsensical argument. Is there any indication outside of your imagination that this is likely? Google has already been accused of breaking privacy laws, do you really think they are stupid enough to do this? And besides, as has already been pointed out, it's open source, so you can go and check.

This Google-paranoia is pathetic. Tesco and your credit card company know more about you than Google does. :rolleyes:

That its introduction is presented to me in comic-book form, gives me the impression that I'll stop using Firefox any day now. Right.

The "comic-book form" is to convey complex topics clearly, and I thought it worked quite well until I read your post...

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 01:53 PM

Itching to DL and try it </dork> :o

knightlie

Sep 2, 2008, 01:54 PM

Well, as much as I hate to say it, I think IE is probably the most supported browser... IE and Firefox, that is, and I like Firefox, its nice.

You're claiming IE has the best standards support? I don't think I can find a smilie that conveys how incredulous I am at reading that....

PowerFullMac

Sep 2, 2008, 02:00 PM

You're claiming IE has the best standards support? I don't think I can find a smilie that conveys how incredulous I am at reading that....

What I am saying is as most people use PCs, and the average non-geek Windoze user will use whatever browser comes with their computer, which is IE.

So, websites will be tested with IE, as its very popular.

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 02:00 PM

My intention isn't to bash you at all. ;)

If 'web standards' is defined by green boxes in a line-item list, then we can have a discussion along these lines, and 200% is still a huge stretch even then. Entries on those lists are not created equally, though. A subset of CSS3 features which aren't being used anywhere (though, thank you, Opera and Webkit, for paving the way toward making that possible) aren't anywhere near as important as flawless implementation of CSS2 (for example). Real-world requirements are the best measurement, and while these non-IE rendering engines are all great, there is absolutely no great deficit.

well, I said it before in other discussion, as Im going to repeat again here.

Standard is a MESSY issue, if we take "useful" standard as "meaningful" standard. IE isn't doing bad at all.

Not to mention the fractions of standard working groups are sometimes very sensitive to changes proposed by others, the result is the near death of animated PNG and empty promise from video tag in HTML5. Standard is messy, if there were one thing we can measure, that would be the number of items each engine supports, on that hand, Opera is far better than gecko and webkit, with the latter two doing about the same. Not 200%? , 150%. :)

Acid3 was constructed under a premise that "no current browser should pass at that time", rather than the premise of "selecting most useful items from the standard pool". Somebody likes to use that test result as evidence too, too bad its sampling mechanism is wrongly headed, the developer himself admit the construction of ACID4 test should avoid giving engine developing teams inside knowledge so they can't do those "shortcut, just for test" optimizations. Like webkit did in acid3.

bobertoq

Sep 2, 2008, 02:01 PM

You're claiming IE has the best standards support? I don't think I can find a smilie that conveys how incredulous I am at reading that....I don't think he meant standards support.

Anyways... It's 11.... c'mon hurry up. :o I got off of my iBook and onto my PC for this....

christf10

Sep 2, 2008, 02:09 PM

Just under an hour to go before it is avail according to a live blog at the press conf. :D

bobertoq

Sep 2, 2008, 02:10 PM

Just under an hour to go before it is avail according to a live blog at the press conf. :Dawww man... I was told 11:00

Edit: I wish Google specified the time.... Now I have to wait. I thought I could wake up and download the second I woke up.

bladehavoc

Sep 2, 2008, 02:20 PM

Live video coverage here (http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=1#).

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 02:21 PM

Live WebCast (http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=1#).

Download will be available at 12PM PDT.

^ edit: beaten to it!

clevin

Sep 2, 2008, 02:22 PM

Live WebCast (http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=1#).

Download will be available at 12PM PDT.

^ edit: beaten to it!

hopefully google has better server than mozilla did with firefox 3.:D

PS. Am I allowed to post my review on industry board later? or I have to post as reply to this already lengthy thread?

edesignuk

Sep 2, 2008, 02:26 PM

hopefully google has better server than mozilla did with firefox 3.:DNo buffering for me, nice and smooth playback.

ChrisA

Sep 2, 2008, 02:29 PM

Privacy mode? Yeah, right.

Google's new browser in open source. This means you don't have to wine and moand about how long you have to wait for some new feature f bug. If you want it bad enough you have the source code, you do it.

So if you want some kind of "Privacy mode" and it's not there, then you put it there.

What if you don't have the required skills? If the feature is inportent others will want it too and you can organize a group to do the job. That's the whole idea of open source software -- everyone has access to the same exact tools and data as the developers.