Of course it (Blink) will not be built from the ground up, it's a fork of WebKit.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Forking WebKit to Create New Web Rendering Engine for Chrome
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course it (Blink) will not be built from the ground up, it's a fork of WebKit.
I wasn't sure about Blink when I wrote it, so thanks. Either way it will be an improvement.
There is a fundamental difference between collecting information and protecting information. That's an error in your argument.
The majority of Google's income is derived from Advertising. That means they seek to collect as much demographic info as they can to better sell their ads.
MAINTAINING PRIVACY is paramount - because if they fail to do that - they will lose all of their users. They have every bit (and more) reason to protect users from being exposed because without them - they can't target ads.
And yes - Google offers the ability to opt out.
And personally - I don't care whether my demographics are being culled from ads in apps or purchases I make vs where I'm surfing to. It's all the same. Data collection is data collection.
One method isn't better/worse in the end. Look at the big picture.
I don't fully trust any company. Company's act in their best interest. That goes for Google, Apple, Samsung, McDonalds, Whole Foods, and extends to government agencies and other institutions.
But we're so off topic now because google forking webkit isn't going to mean any more or any less data collection than they already have access to.
Yes, you're so rightIsn't "beta", "beta", "beta" instead?
beta, beta, beta, beta... ha..ha...ha...
No browser (even chrome) calls home on every page load. No browser has ever done this. Chrome simply syncs your history and bookmarks every X minutes, you can even watch it doing it. If you use chrome on multiple devices at the same time, you'll even get the exact time it did the sync.
Watch it with Little Snitch or Wireshark.
What would you define as a privacy invasion in this case? By using a Google site, you allow them to anonymously store info about you. The same applies to every single website on the internet. Any website owner can store the available info, which is your IP, location, browser, OS, and a few trivial bits of info about your OS (E.g if flash is installed, java, versions, etc). What part of this is a violation of your personal privacy when you are authorising them to do it?
So because Apple hasnt made a success out of their ad network, it means they are excused from being questioned on user privacy as well?
Dont be so ridiculous. Google relies on you using their services to stay in business. If Google was found to be violating people's privacy intentionally, it would kill their business overnight. All their business contracts would become null and void instantly, Google Apps would cease to exist, meaning funding for Gmail, Docs, Calendar and such services would die instantly.
Nice way to twist it. You and I both know (that is, if you actually researched before posting) that was an isolated incident by a rogue developer.
I refer back to the privacy issue Apple had in 2011 with caching of location data. Apple took a fair amount of time to fix it, there was even an app developer who was able to release an app to show you the data. It was exactly the same situation that Google had - an internal cockup by a stupid developer.
We're going round in circles here. The facts are clear though: It would destroy Google if they 'turned rogue', hence you'd be really foolish to even think it would happen down the line, let alone claim it's happening already.
Getting back to the webkit fork. People would have to be insanely dumb to think it would have anything at all to do with bypassing privacy, especially given that its opensource.
Maybe he meant something along these lines:
Why assume that Google's fork of Webkit will be a disaster if Apple's fork of KHTML wasn't?
Google does not sell personal data to any advertisers.
I have never, ever received an e-mail that was related to a search I made. Google keeps all the info they collect on you for themselves and their advertising software handpicks ads from among their advertisers that are the most appropriate for you. The only information they give to the advertisers is that they served their ads a certain number of times to people in certain demographics. No personal information at all.
People in this thread have been saying exactly that!
Apple demands to know my credit card information before I'm allowed in the iTunes Store, even if I only want to get free stuff. That makes me a lot more uncomfortable than Google knowing that the browser on the computer I use was used to visit whatever sites I visit.
Google doesn't require my credit card to use their services, all they want from me is that I allow them to serve me ads I might be interested in instead of a random selection. That's all there is.
I think it is the same between the two companies. Apple makes money selling the best hardware they can. Google makes money by people having faster internet.
I'm fine with Google's fork because chances are it will increase competition and lead to faster browsers.
Google has gone rogue already. The Safari hacking scandal should show you what kind of company you are truly dealing with: one with no ethics or sense of boundaries whatsoever. Google is interested in far more than just your IP address or search history. Looking at all of their services, they easily have the ability (and incentive) to track you everywhere you go, both digitally and physically, to know your interests, who you communicate with, what you look like, and who knows what else.
Whether they distrbitue that information is beyond the point; the fact that they collect it poses a problem in and of itself. Dealing with this argument is sort of like dealing with the people who say they have 'nothing to hide' when it comes (generally illegal) government surveillance. The fact that your privacy is violated (or, in the later case, human rights infringed) is a problem in and of itself, regardless of any consequences that do or do not occur. I value freedom and privacy for the sake of freedom and privacy in and of themselves, which is why I have absolutely no intention of ever willingly touching a Google service or using a Google browser.
That's not to say that other companies are perfect. There are other violators out there, and I look at them in the same light. That still doesn't change the fact that Google has the most incentive to violate user privacy, and is the most active and guilty party in that act which is active today.
Do I expect any of this to change your view? No. But, with all due respect, that doesn't make what I am saying any less true. Google is the most dangerous and unethical tech company active today.
Well, Apple ditched Safari for Windows all on its own and now the rest of the browsing world is dumping Apple. It's all quite fitting, really.
I'm glad I use Firefox. It's supported on everything from XP to Linux to the Mac and isn't being pushed by giant Big Brother-like corporations like Google, Apple and Microsoft.....
oh. well since you said it and I read it on the internet. THIS last statement must be true!
That was opinion. The information it is based on is not. Take a look, some is new, some is old, but it goes back even further if you care to dig it out.
Chrome's Omnibox phones home
Google busted for tracking Safari users
Is 2013 the year regulators crack down on Google's privacy violations?
Yeah - done with this discussion with you. All been discussed before. And now the conversation is just tedious. And definitely off topic.
Let's just leave it at this: if there aren't other players involved in 'Blink,' it will end badly. Mark my words.
Well, Apple ditched Safari for Windows all on its own and now the rest of the browsing world is dumping Apple. It's all quite fitting, really.
I'm glad I use Firefox. It's supported on everything from XP to Linux to the Mac and isn't being pushed by giant Big Brother-like corporations like Google, Apple and Microsoft.....
Just funded by them
I prefer FF too
Bit of a silly statement given that we already know that at least 1 other player is involved, and in a big way - Opera. They have a big team of developers, nearly all of which will be working on Blink full time.
You'd know that though as you've done your research.
----------
Well, Apple ditched Safari for Windows all on its own and now the rest of the browsing world is dumping Apple. It's all quite fitting, really.
I'm glad I use Firefox. It's supported on everything from XP to Linux to the Mac and isn't being pushed by giant Big Brother-like corporations like Google, Apple and Microsoft.....
Dont forget that if it wasn't for the likes of Google and Microsoft PAYING FOR firefox, it wouldn't exist in anywhere near the same level of popularity.
Google even had a whole section in Adsense JUST for firefox adverts, and offered a generous payout for people using it. Then Chrome came along. Google still pay a hell of a lot to be listed as the default search engine in Firefox and Safari.
When? When did Oracle even build a web browser? So far all that have announced using Blink are Google and Opera.
They seem to be using WebKit with their own Javascript engine, at least, for their JavaFX.
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-April/024436.html
Nailed it.
I do have to add that constantly checking multiple browsers to see how the code is coming along is gettin quite tiresome...
One: Browsing habits
Two: Email contacts
Three: Social web advertising (see Google+) direct toward your tastes.
Four: Possible de-listing your web traffic with no reason given
Etc.
At no time does an advertiser have access to any personal data. You've either not read this thread or you're deliberately trying to reboot a discussion that's already taken place.