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

[Jetson]

Google's Greedy Chrome EULA

Have you looked at the EULA for Chrome? As I read it, it essentially gives google unrestricted rights to any content you submit, post or display using Chrome. This is a game-changer, and deal-killer. Anyone professional who is paid for content…journalists, creatives, programmers…essentially give google free reign to use their stuff. Here’s the relavant sections of the EULA:

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
I’m hoping you didnt right this article using Chrome, and give away your rights to the content…

Posted by Renaldo Cartaglioni at September 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am

This was a comment on the sister article on Google's Chrome browser: https://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=h...stylings-of-googles-sergey-brin/&t=1220554804

Google has been even more of a security risk than Microsoft, as far as spying, gathering information by I.P. address, storing visit data forever, and who knows what else?

Now they want unlimited rights to your intellectual property? No thanks, I'll take a pass.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Bi-directional iCal Sync

They did? Have you got a link? Albeit broken and all...

Actually: http://www.google.com/support/calendar/bin/answer.py?answer=99358

It was on Ars Technica at the end of July or so.

Not as good as Spanning Sync.

Just like everything else that Google does? Seems to be a trend...and Mac support has always been shoddy from Google (if it ever materializes). There STILL is not a Picasa editor for Mac, and the uploaders (both the iPhoto plugin and the standalone) quite often crash. They FINALLY got a Mac calendar sync working, and then MobileMe broke it again. And the list goes on...

You'll get no argument from me that Google's support for Macs is not stellar, but on the other hand, they're still playing the law of averages and OS X hasn't cracked even a 9% market share. If people keep buying Macs, this will hopefully change.

The appeal with Google is that their stuff is free, and like most things, you get what you pay for.

 

[The Stig]

Months!?!?!

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

WEEKS!?!?!

I was hoping for DAYS!

The Stig

 

[FoxyKaye]

Now they want unlimited rights to your intellectual property? No thanks, I'll take a pass.

I think this was mentioned elsewhere on MR, but I believe Google already took this out of their EULA for Chrome.

Edit: Actually, I think this was up on Slash under their "5 Most Ridiculous EULAs" post.

 

[danny_w]

Actually: http://www.google.com/support/calendar/bin/answer.py?answer=99358

It was on Ars Technica at the end of July or so.

Not as good as Spanning Sync.


You'll get no argument from me that Google's support for Macs is not stellar, but on the other hand, they're still playing the law of averages and OS X hasn't cracked even a 9% market share. If people keep buying Macs, this will hopefully change.

The appeal with Google is that their stuff is free, and like most things, you get what you pay for.

Thanks for the calendar sync info; I knew I had seen it somewhere, although it is a bit clumsy. And I agree with the last part about market share and "you get what you pay for" (definitely). Every app appears to have been done by a different group with no idea about or concern for unified look and feel, but then again, the apps are free, so what do I expect?

 

[FoxyKaye]

Thanks for the calendar sync info; I knew I had seen it somewhere, although it is a bit clumsy. And I agree with the last part about market share and "you get what you pay for" (definitely). Every app appears to have been done by a different group with no idea about or concern for unified look and feel, but then again, the apps are free, so what do I expect?

Actually, it's funny you mention this re: every app being done by a different group. I just had a friend leave Google, and one of the things he mentioned was that the company is extremely silo filled. I think he said something along the lines of no-one is talking to anyone else and there's almost a Lord of the Flies race to come up with new applications and features whether or not they may be useful or even stable. For all the neat perks of the Mountain View campus, apparently it's a managerial black hole.

BTW, don't forget this page when setting up your iCal/Google Cal sync: http://www.google.com/support/calendar/bin/answer.py?answer=99360

 

[danny_w]

Actually, it's funny you mention this re: every app being done by a different group. I just had a friend leave Google, and one of the things he mentioned was that the company is extremely silo filled. I think he said something along the lines of no-one is talking to anyone else and there's almost a Lord of the Flies race to come up with new applications and features whether or not they may be useful or even stable. For all the neat perks of the Mountain View campus, apparently it's a managerial black hole.

BTW, don't forget this page when setting up your iCal/Google Cal sync: http://www.google.com/support/calendar/bin/answer.py?answer=99360

Thanks for the info. That certainly explains the lack of cohesive look and feel, and is pretty much how I imagined Google. Not a company I would want to work for, I don't think.

 

[j33pd0g]

Months for a beta? That's too far off. If they are busy squashing bugs in the windows version, they will always be months behind squashing bugs with the OS X version.

I tested the Chrome in Virtual PC and it wasn't even close to game time. I know it's an emulator, but Firefox, and Safari both worked fine. chrome was so slow, and it crashed on YouTube.

I hope it works out for them in the end though. I'm excited about the whole application thing. What I'm not excited about is finding out that I have yet another browser to test design and compatibility with.

 

[FoxyKaye]

I tested the Chrome in Virtual PC and it wasn't even close to game time. I know it's an emulator, but Firefox, and Safari both worked fine. chrome was so slow, and it crashed on YouTube.

I hope it works out for them in the end though. I'm excited about the whole application thing. What I'm not excited about is finding out that I have yet another browser to test design and compatibility with.

According to the initial tests, Chrome is a serious resource hog under the best of circumstances. If you're using Virtual PC on a PPC Mac, I'm amazed you got it to launch at all given the memory and CPU use constraints.

Chrome uses Webkit - I'm not a developer, but this seems to imply you can test under Safari and be OK.

 

[clevin]

According to the initial tests, Chrome is a serious resource hog under the best of circumstances. If you're using Virtual PC on a PPC Mac, I'm amazed you got it to launch at all given the memory and CPU use constraints.

Chrome uses Webkit - I'm not a developer, but this seems to imply you can test under Safari and be OK.

My experience is generally Chrome is ok, unless you open two many tabs/windows with too many plugins.

He will still need to test against Chrome since Chrome is using V8 js engine which isn't same as safari's (which is using javascriptCore).

 

[JAYGEE]

He should find it embarrassing, especially since he is a Mac user himself. If he finds the lack of Mac version embarrassing, why not say to the Mac team "when will the Mac version be ready?" before the Windows version was released?

 

[FoxyKaye]

He will still need to test against Chrome since Chrome is using V8 js engine which isn't same as safari's.

Ah - see, that's why I'm not a developer. Defer to the person with the actual knowledge, please.

 

[clevin]

He should find it embarrassing, especially since he is a Mac user himself. If he finds the lack of Mac version embarrassing, why not say to the Mac team "when will the Mac version be ready?" before the Windows version was released?

because there weren't a mac team?

My impression is that Google is grouping people into projects, not into platforms. not like M$

 

[j33pd0g]

According to the initial tests, Chrome is a serious resource hog under the best of circumstances. If you're using Virtual PC on a PPC Mac, I'm amazed you got it to launch at all given the memory and CPU use constraints.

Chrome uses Webkit - I'm not a developer, but this seems to imply you can test under Safari and be OK.

It is important that all platforms perform the same. OS X/Linux/Windows. This way, checking all 3 won't add worry to the list of things to worry about. I have a Linux box too. Time frame for that?

Maybe Chrome won't go anywhere, and I won't have to fret about it at all?

 

[whooleytoo]

I'm struggling to see why it would take so long.

Webkit is (obviously) already running on OSX. The new Javascript engine should be platform agnostic (if not, someone should lose their job!). A competent programmer could put together a custom window class in a week.

Ok, "crash control" might be tricky, but other than that I really can't see why it would take even a month.

 

[Shagrat]

...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.

You mean a Win (now)/Mac (later) situation.

 

[j33pd0g]

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.

Ha, then they would run the risk of the iPhone 3G,Activation/App Store/Mobile Me situation that recently befell Apple.

 

[clevin]

The new Javascript engine should be platform agnostic .

it might not be.

Its easy to see google has implemented massive optimization for windows in Chrome, Its hard to imagine all those codes are cross-platform.

 

[daze]

In my experience, Chrome does seem faster. Will I use it in VMware? Nope. It's not that fast to go to all this trouble just to web surf. It would be nice if they released a Mac version, but still, Safari is quite decent.

Daze

 

[BornAgainMac]

Steve Jobs says "Wouldn't it be great" a lot. How can they say that and not come out with a Mac version.

 

[chr1s60]

I thought Google was supposed to be on top of things and ahead of the game... Releasing a new browser for Windows only shows me that they aren't.

 

[iSee]

This was a comment on the sister article on Google's Chrome browser: https://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=h...stylings-of-googles-sergey-brin/&t=1220554804

Google has been even more of a security risk than Microsoft, as far as spying, gathering information by I.P. address, storing visit data forever, and who knows what else?

Now they want unlimited rights to your intellectual property? No thanks, I'll take a pass.

Interesting. Those clauses do not appear in the EULA I see right now.
The entire setion 11 is:

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

That's it.

I'm guessing that was a mistake--stuff left in accidentally when they copied another EULA to create the Chrome EULA.

Makes me realize I should probably read Google EULAs, though... I have a Google-hosted email account I used a lot.

EDIT: Ah, it was a mistake: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html

 

[Jetson]

Chrome EULA Corrected

Thanks iSee for alerting us to the EULA correction that Google issued yesterday.

The new section 11 makes sense now.

 

[Dawgson]

Ie8

I assume they rushed/prioritized Windows development to coincide with release of the IE8 Beta?

 

[arjaosx]

I'm using chrome

My work PC is an XP machine and I use an MBP as business/home computer. I love Safari and have rarely used firefox (did support download day though) nowadays. I do not use Safari on windows it is just alien there.

So I use IE as default because our work intranet defaults to it anyway if its get infected with anything its not anymore my problem but I have downloaded Chrome for testing and I think it is zippy light and intuitive.

The built-in google search function is great...feels a bit anti-trusty but great!