Google Cofounder On Lack of Mac Chrome Browser: 'It's Embarrassing'

[MacRumors]

Valleywag excerpts a Kara Swisher interview with Google cofounder Sergey Brin. At one point, the Swisher asks about a Mac version:

Google cofounder Sergey Brin asked BoomTown's Kara Swisher if she'd try it out. "But you don't have a Mac version, baby, so no," Swisher tells him in this clip, excerpted from Swisher's longer interview. "I know, I know, it's embarrassing," says Brin.

Brin states he uses it under VMWare on his Mac and that he's asking the team every day for the Mac version. Brin hopes it will be a "matter of months."



Article Link

 

[Veri]

Brin states he uses it under VMWare on his Mac

Why doesn't he compile the Linux/Unix version and run it under X11 natively on his Mac? edit: oh, never mind, it's not nearly complete.

 

[Cameront9]

Months!?!?!

I was hoping for Weeks, but I guess that's out of the question...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

This is not the attitude I want from Google. It's lame.

 

[plumbingandtech]

Months?

Guess which browser I am NOT supporting for the web sites I build.

 

[rdhatch]

Brin hopes it will be a "matter of months."

Matter of months? Wow. That is not just "embarrassing"...that is unacceptable. Given the work Apple has done with Google and the fact that Chrome is a freaking WebKit based browser, a Mac version is a no brainer!

My bet is that they step it up...bigtime. I bet we have one inside of 14 days. They will stop smoking whatever they are smoking and get their act together (I hope). On a side note, Chrome is wonderful...I love to see engineering like this finally going into the browser market.

 

[GorillaPaws]

This is not the attitude I want from Google. It's lame.

Agreed. Google has done a lot of good things with its wealth/power, it's a shame to see them going down this path.

 

[emstoudenmire]

I agree it's not the best, but look at it this way: Google could have just waited another few months to release the browser simultaneously for both platforms but at least now some Windows users get sneak preview. It's a win/break-even situation.

 

[ergdegdeg]

Oh well, I couldn't care less. I wouldn't swap my de-Googled Firefox for anything

 

[fpbecker]

Let's be reasonable here. The Google Chrome team obviously focused on the GUI for the Windows version first, while keeping the core of the browser portable. Developing a proper GUI for the OS X and the Linux version will take some time.

Personally I'd rather they took their time to develop a great OS X version of Chrome than come out with some form of rush job. Don't you agree?

 

[Littleodie914]

Personally I'd rather they took their time to develop a great OS X version of Chrome than come out with some form of rush job. Don't you agree?

I agree that they need to polish the app, no doubt about it. This is Google, and they know the browser needs to be amazing from day one.

But WHY release the Windows version now, rather than keeping that a secret until all 3 were ready?

 

[Daveway]

Let's be reasonable here. The Google Chrome team obviously focused on the GUI for the Windows version first, while keeping the core of the browser portable. Developing a proper GUI for the OS X and the Linux version will take some time.

Personally I'd rather they took their time to develop a great OS X version of Chrome than come out with some form of rush job. Don't you agree?

I think you're on track here. The main pushing point of Chrome is the simplistic GUI. It works in windows, but it wouldn't with mac. Mac GUI guidelines call for a menu bar and a standardized close, minimize bar. These are things that Chrome alleviated. If you think about it, Chrome for the mac wouldn't look all that simplistic like it does on Windows.

 

[localoid]

All the non-programmers always think that code is written by use a magic wand...

It took Microsoft until 1995 to release the first Internet Explorer browser, about a year after the Netscape browser was released. (Prior to that, the Mosaic browser had been released in 1993). Then it took Microsoft until 1997 until IE Ver. 4 was released, the first version that was worth a damn.

 

[ppc_michael]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5C1 Safari/525.20)

Months?

Guess which browser I am NOT supporting for the web sites I build.

Safari? Chrome uses Webkit, just as Safari does.

 

[olliebraves20]

Well I'm not quite sure what to make of this. It would seem like they would want wait and release it when they have version for both the Mac and PC. In tested all four browsers in terms of JavaScript benchmarks it finishes behind Firefox 3 and Safari but well ahead of IE. I still think they have quite a bit of work even on the Windows version.

Another thought: If it's so embarrassing then why did it happen. This was totally controllable from Googles standpoint.

 

[UTclassof89]

I'm confused... wasn't the whole point of OSX and Universal Binary so programs could be written in one language and work on OSX and Windows?

 

[plumbingandtech]

Months?

Guess which browser I am NOT supporting for the web sites I build.
Safari? Chrome used Webkit, just as Safari does.

Yah except I have seen some posts where the text is rendering a little off etc.

also, which version of webkit do they use? if it is newer then the one in safari then web devs are in for pain.

if it is a version not in safari 2 or 3 web devs are in for pain.

just because something uses webkit does not mean 100% compaitiblty no matter what.

also, which javascript? and what javascript interpretr, it is a new one if I am not mistaken.

oh joy. another browser for javascript and jquery to break on.

 

[Sijmen]

I'm confused... wasn't the whole point of OSX and Universal Binary so programs could be written in one language and work on OSX and Windows?

No, not at all. So called 'Universal' apps work on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs. That's the universal thing.

Programs that 'just work' on both Mac and Windows would suck on least one of the two.

 

[Thataboy]

Who cares?

I very much understand the benefit of Chrome on Windows... it will be the major WebKit browser on Windows, to compete with IE and Gecko.

But on Macs, we have Safari, and even better (much, much better), the WebKit nightlies. If you are on a Mac and you're using Safari or Firefox, you're missing out - download the WebKit nightly NOW

I don't see what Chrome on the Mac has to offer that WebKit doesn't already provide.

Regardless, I am pro-Chrome anyway, because the more market share that WebKit browsers have, the better.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I'm confused... wasn't the whole point of OSX and Universal Binary so programs could be written in one language and work on OSX and Windows?

No, not at all close. Universal Binaries are OS X applications written in XCode using all the Apple/OS X APIs and tools but compiled twice, once for Intel based Macs and once for PowerPC based Macs, and stored inside the same application package.

The opensource Wine project was forked into something that does what you are talking about, kinda sorta, by Cedega, but it's name escapes me at the moment. It's a translation layer that wraps around Windows executables so they can be run on a Mac - it's still a form of emulation (not emulating hardware, but rather emukating system fuction calls and their responses).

 

[mkrishnan]

Then it took Microsoft until 1997 until IE Ver. 4 was released, the first version that was worth a damn.

I disagree with this analysis on the following grounds: There has never been a version of IE that has ever been worth a damn.

As for Google and a Mac version... if that's what you want, I think the shame tactic is the best one at this point... get the publicity out that they are dropping the ball on an important segment of the market. Create enough of a buzz that people are not willing to develop for Chrome until it's cross-platform.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Who cares?

I very much understand the benefit of Chrome on Windows... it will be the major WebKit browser on Windows, to compete with IE and Gecko.

But on Macs, we have Safari, and even better (much, much better), the WebKit nightlies. If you are on a Mac and you're using Safari or Firefox, you're missing out - download the WebKit nightly NOW

I don't see what Chrome on the Mac has to offer that WebKit doesn't already provide.

Regardless, I am pro-Chrome anyway, because the more market share that WebKit browsers have, the better.

Windows has Safari now, and frankly no one really seems to care. People who don't know better use IE and people who do use FF. People who think they know better use Opera .

Chrome is going to take off though because it integrates Gears into it. Google will improve their web apps to take better advantage of Gears and other features Chrome will build in and it will make it appealing just for that.

I hope that TechCrunch consider using Chrome for their little web tablet, or any company making a net device thinks about using it. Out of the box Gears support almost turns a web browser into a full computer.

 

[Randman]

Brin hopes it will be a "matter of months."

Yeah, really broken up about it.

 

[fpbecker]

Yah except I have seen some posts where the text is rendering a little off etc.

also, which version of webkit do they use? if it is newer then the one in safari then web devs are in for pain.

if it is a version not in safari 2 or 3 web devs are in for pain.

just because something uses webkit does not mean 100% compaitiblty no matter what.

also, which javascript? and what javascript interpretr, it is a new one if I am not mistaken.

oh joy. another browser for javascript and jquery to break on.

They're using WebKit version 525.13 - the same version Safari 3.1 uses - and their own 'V8' JavaScript engine. Which is fast. REALLY fast.

 

[plumbingandtech]

Gears support almost turns a web browser into a full computer.

]

In the same way a Huyndai almost turns a car into a Porsche.

Try and build Final Cut with Google Gears.

Have fun with that.