Google doesn't believe in choice!

reserved

How long?  Until their market domination is threatened.  how long were we saddled with IE6?  Before MS finally decided tab browsing was not to bad?

As long as there are alternatives, why does anyone care what Google does?

Google Chrome is the best browser on the market.  Not as a so-called "secondary" browser but as a primary.  In fact, I use it as my primary browser and encourage everyone I see using a different browser to try out Chrome.  And I'm a web developer, who does pretty much everything on the web.  The only reason I ever switch back to Firefox (outside of general testing) is to use Firebug to debug Javascript (Firebug is still superior to Chrome's built-in dev tools, although they are catching up quickly).

As for Chrome OS... I agree that it would fail as a desktop OS.  But they aren't targeting desktops.  They are targeting netbooks and tablets.  While I have no interest in a Chrome OS netbook, I am VERY interested in a Chrome OS tablet.  Why?  Because it will be the only tablet that will make the web touch-friendly.  I don't just mean creating an app that you launch to get to the web, I'm talking about making the web the primary aspect of the device and making it easy to use using my fingers only.

Choice... well, on a desktop OS I would agree, choice is pretty much required.  But on a tablet or mobile OS?  Hmm... can we think of any other tablet out there that has very little choice but has been a major success?  The iPad of course.  Chrome OS is the next evolution of that.  With Chrome OS, you aren't just jumping into and out of apps to get things done.  The entire experience is built around the web, the web is always available, not just in tiny little packets in parts of the operating system.  And for a tablet OS, there doesn't need to be choice for it to be successful.

Even I, as a power user, don't really care about the fewer choices available to me in Chrome.  Why?  Because it is a superior experience than Firefox, Opera, Safari, or IE.  As a tablet OS, I feel it will be a superior experience than the iPad, Android, webOS, BlackBerry, or Windows 7.  All of those OS' have one thing in common: They are built around the "app" model, in that you have to jump into and out of an app to do what you want.  That's fine for phones, but I feel that's very limiting for a tablet.  With Chrome OS, there are no apps.  The apps are the websites you visit, which are superior to mobile apps in that they are faster, more powerful, easier to develop, and free.

I personally like that they have a strong design philosophy.  It means that we will have a consistent and good experience across the entire OS regardless of what we are doing, unlike say Windows 7.  If Chrome OS ends up being as good as Chrome, then we will have the best possible experience for a mobile device ever.  Choice or no choice, it will be superior to everything else out there (just like Chrome is superior to every other browser out there, despite only being in the market for a couple years).

Bara

@GunslingerBara: what is wrong with windows 7?

And you can have a successful product despite making mistakes. IE6 dominated the market, the fort model T was the only car anyone would buy for some time. If you intentionally disallow choice because you believe your way is best, then people will leave you for alternatives as soon as alternatives show up.

The apple iPad is an apple product, apple fanatics would buy anything that steve jobs tells them to. Google doesn't have steve jobs.

Google Chrome is the best browser on the market for me.  Not as a so-called "secondary" browser but as a primary.  

Why?  Because it is a superior experience for me than Firefox, Opera, Safari, or IE.  As a tablet OS, I feel it will be a superior experience for me than the iPad, Android, webOS, BlackBerry, or Windows 7.  

I took umbrage at your presumption and fixed it for you.  Utility, as ever, remains in the eyes of the user and the market to determine.  Personally, while I like the features that sell the browser for you, I so cannot stand the bookmark handling that it will not grace my PC or any hardware I own for the forseeable future.  It is fast.  It is well designed.  It is beautiful and minimal.  It also slows my workflow down such that it's a no-sale for me.  Saving 0.008 seconds of load time doesn't get back the seconds lost opening the flyout menu for each new webpage I want to open, sometimes numbering in the dozens when I'm busy researching.

I'll add that it's not truly time lost against the time I waste on other things in my workflow, but that's my decision and something to work on as part of self-improvement.  Chrome just drives me up the wall.

  How about an 'open source' Chromium' OS, that doesn't require you to 'login' to Google to connect and use the OS?

less Big Brother looking over our shoulder, and more choice for the user. 

Preferably i would rather have a Firefox OS, but since it already runs on almost every OS out there, it's almost an OS already. 

But my guess is we may all be running 'cloud' OS's in 5 years anyway, so by then we can take our pick, probably Google, Apple and MS, or maybe it will be Intel's little Meego and MS will be out of the running, they have been falling behind for several years now, and even their recent surges may not be enough to stem the tide. 

Anyway, just some thoughts,

As to Chrome OS?  I sorta really dislike having Google see 'everything' that i do, which isn't too wild or elaborate, but still, Google's apparent total 'Don't Get It' attitude about privacy makes me look at almost anything but Chrome.

Just my opinion though,

Happy Computing!!  

-Teal

Every OS will have a cloud version in their newst itiration... but I wouldn't say most of us will be using it

Windows 7 and below don't magically poof out of existence when a cloud based windows 8 is released.

Oh yea... like when they auto subscribed you to buzz (and auto friended you with people from your contacts... so each of them could see anyone ELSE on your contacts who uses chrome and was thus also auto buzzed...), or when they decided to add new sync options to chrome beyond bookmarks, you get auto subscribed to those if you were already syncing it, or where google CEO said "well, privacy isn't a problem if you have nothing to hide" in reply to the ubrage people took at their buzz privacy issues. etc.

Just one more reason why chrome is a tertiary browser for me. I can deal with some lack of privacy though, I just keep in mind that google is always watching.

You fixed nothing, since anything he posts is his opinion.

 Okaaay...  I don't know how to respond to that Savyg.  Care to clarify?

I'm just saying, claiming you fixed someones opinion is a bit...rubbish, to use Brit terminology.

Present your own, sure, but present in a way that doesn't diss someone elses.

Of course it was rubbish.  To use another British term, I was being cheeky to get my point across: that the poster couched his opinion as settled fact and I disapproved.  Looking again, the hyperbole doesn't appear to be beyond the pale and I think I clarified my position quite thoroughly.  Sorry man.  I stand by what I said.

I just get annoyed when people think 'fixed' is acceptable.  It's insulting.

Anyway, that's enough yapping from me. 

Fair enough.

I like chrome but it has trouble playing some video and PDF; it seems there are some integration problems. I also take a bit of exception to the rather incorrigible GoogleUpdate files. The layout, how search works etc., however, is unsurpassed.

That doesn't relegate it to secondary, for me. Rather I use it as primary, while I use IE or FF for what Chrome can't handle. But this is an evolving market. It is good to have another actor in it.

If you disable the Adobe PDF plugin in about:plugins and enable the Google one they work fine.  I don't know why Google hasn't enabled it by default, but I'm sure they have their reasons.  I can't actually figure out what those are, mind you...

This was my first thought when I read this thread. There appears to be a confusion between companies that offer goods and services that people MAY want and what a choice actually is. Companies don't offer choices, they offer products with features, if you don't like the product and it's features you have the choice to find one that suits you. If no such product exists you have the opportunity to make or create it yourself. Seems simple enough.

P.S. I chose not to use google chrome. It didn't work well for me at them time I tried it, maybe it's better now.

Nothing is wrong with Windows 7, I was just pointing out that Windows 7 sometimes is not consistent in where things are or where to find them.  This is coming mostly from a developer point of view.

Google Chrome is the fastest browser on the market (not just for initial load, but javascript speed, rendering, extensions, etc.).  It is also the most secure, has the easiest extension model (even though it is in it's infancy), and has a much faster development cycle than the others.  Those are not opinions, these are facts, proven time and again.  If those things don't make it the best browser in the market, then tell me what Firefox or any other browser does that makes them better?  Also, from my experience, Chrome saves much more than just 0.008 seconds.  Add more than a couple of extensions or one hard-hitting extension (like firebug) and Firefox crawls.  The same does not happen to Chrome.

I believe that quote was taken completely out of context.  There was another article on it (which, unsurprisingly, didn't get as much attention) but I can't seem to find it.  Yes, privacy is an issue, but these are all companies, who can you really trust?  Want to know why I have more faith in Google than the rest?  Because they're the only ones with a "don't do evil" policy.  Can Microsoft, Mozilla, or any other company claim that?  No.  Every single time Google has done something that breaks the "don't be evil" mantra (such as the china stuff and the wifi stealing), they've been called out on it and Google has had to rethink what they're doing (to the point of saying screw you to an entire country and pulling out, can Microsoft, Mozilla, or Apple claim that?).

It's easy to say that there are privacy issues with Google, because they control a lot of the world's information.  But show an example of where Google has taken advantage of their power.  I bet you'll find it hard to do so.

I believe they enable a feature after it's been tested for a few versions (both privately and publicly, hence the about:plugins option).

Bara

I remember those exact same words back in the mid 90s when it was Netscape and IE.  And for those who do not remember, browsers died with Netscape because "no one cared".  That is why I care.  I like Chrome, but I do not like where Google is going.

And now we have IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and ten thousand other browsers nobody gives a crap about.

If we were to face the same ecosystem again I could understand the relevance of that comment.

Google Chrome is the fastest browser on the market (not just for initial load, but javascript speed, rendering, extensions, etc.).  It is also the most secure, has the easiest extension model (even though it is in it's infancy), and has a much faster development cycle than the others.  Those are not opinions, these are facts, proven time and again.  If those things don't make it the best browser in the market, then tell me what Firefox or any other browser does that makes them better?  Also, from my experience, Chrome saves much more than just 0.008 seconds.  Add more than a couple of extensions or one hard-hitting extension (like firebug) and Firefox crawls.  The same does not happen to Chrome.

I agree that it's fast.  I said as much in my post.  But while it's noticeable, it's not enough to overcome the UI issues.  It's the UI that messes with my workflow and causes delay.  That is what keeps me hanging on to FF.  Make the UI work the way *I* want it to and I'll make the switch.  Again, one man's "better" is not another man's "better".

But you'll notice that I didn't really mention UI, as that's entirely based on opinion, not fact.  So if you don't like the UI, fair enough, but that doesn't mean Chrome ISN'T the best browser in the market in every other respect

Bara

And it took 10 years to recover.  Do you really want to wait 10 years to recover from the next monopoly?  That is the relevance of the comment.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

And those who spend all their time looking backwards will never move forwards...but then we could do that dance for years and get nowhere.

We are nowhere near a monopoly.  Once there's something to worry about I'll worry about it.