Google: Chrome's Purpose is Search Dominance

[Guest]

During their Q1 conference call, Google's executives discussed their Chrome strategy, which provided plenty of answers, if you were wondering why Google is putting so much focus on a product that is given away for free.

Google: Chrome's Purpose is Search Dominance : Read more

 

[applegetsmelaid]

So what you're saying is that Google wants everyone to use their search engine.....

 

[nebun]

this is why i've decided to use firefox full time

 

[afrobacon]

I had a feeling Google was up to something, but I couldn't put my finger on it. This article has opened my eyes to something none has seen coming: a company wants everyone to use their product.

Wow, I mean WOW; this just blows my mind.

 

[dogman_1234]

Who wants to call the FTC with me?

If anyone is ignorant of what Google is doing, just as with other big name companies like Microsoft, Intel and IBM, there will be company cartels.

 

[dalethepcman]

Imagine going to the local car lot to buy a Ford F150, you pay for it, hop in, stick the keys in the ignition and turn the engine over. Just before you take it out of park a government official jumps out from the bed of the truck and pulls you aside. He then makes you watch a commercial for Dodge, Chevy, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda trucks. After watching them all he makes you sign a disclaimer stating you still want a Ford after seeing the commercials for the other trucks.

Is it only Microsoft that gets the bend over treatment? We shall soon find out!

 

[dogman_1234]

^ I do not get the analogy? Maybe because I cannot process analogies that well.

 

[joytech22]

I used to use yahoo for my searches, now I use Google purely because it provides much more relevant search results to me.

 

[Guest]

Yeah this sounds so similar to MS including IE with Windows, and the EU fining MS for having anti competitive practices. But then this also seems very much like Apple's closed system strategy and Eurotrash seem fine with that so who knows?

 

[patfactorx]

Give me a $100 netbook and I will let you monopolize my life!

 

[natmaster]

Google: be evil.

 

[jprahman]

If Microsoft were to do this it would be called monopolistic behavior, but apparently not only can Google do it, but they can even openly discuss it.

What I find ridiculous is that the EU fined Microsoft for simply bundling IE with Windows. I mean it's not like Microsoft configured the OS such that you couldn't install Firefox or any other browser, but yet here Google is OPENLY discussing measures to lock out others from the Google platform and so far they haven't had action taken against them from the FTC.

 

[K2N hater]

Frankly I see nothing wrong with their idea of search dominance. Now let's argue about user privacy and their unique Flash approach...

 

[maddy143ded]

nowhere does it say that google is telling other companies to stop developing their browsers for Chrome OS or Android OS.
and here the situation is different then the Microsoft situation where they got fined by EU. the Chrome browser is integral to chrome os because it is the centerpoint of the OS. it is the onlything that provides you interface with the OS. microsoft could have used the same strategy then if it wanted to. also we may curse google too hel but the truth is the rival search engines are just not upto the mark.
i may be using a browser that is just text based(lynx ) but i may still have to reach google because i cant do without that search engine.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Imagine going to the local car lot to buy a Ford F150, you pay for it, hop in, stick the keys in the ignition and turn the engine over. Just before you take it out of park a government official jumps out from the bed of the truck and pulls you aside. He then makes you watch a commercial for Dodge, Chevy, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda trucks. After watching them all he makes you sign a disclaimer stating you still want a Ford after seeing the commercials for the other trucks.Is it only Microsoft that gets the bend over treatment? We shall soon find out![/citation]
I don't agree with the treatment that MS gets, but using the same analogy I can understand why they do it.
They think that Ford have opened car dealerships on every street corner and whenever another car company thinks about opening a nearby dealership, Ford drops a wad of cash to the building landlords not to let them have the building in a good sales pitch.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]If Microsoft were to do this it would be called monopolistic behavior, but apparently not only can Google do it, but they can even openly discuss it.What I find ridiculous is that the EU fined Microsoft for simply bundling IE with Windows. I mean it's not like Microsoft configured the OS such that you couldn't install Firefox or any other browser, but yet here Google is OPENLY discussing measures to lock out others from the Google platform and so far they haven't had action taken against them from the FTC.[/citation]
Microsoft wasn't punished just because of bundling ie with windows. Microsoft used it's position as a monopoly to prevent oems to put products with other oses like linux or other browsers and this is why they were punished. And now they're paying the price.

 

[w4t634wtgsg]

This is exactly why i dont use chrome. Ill stay with FF as long as it works. And right now its working pretty flawlessly.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]I had a feeling Google was up to something, but I couldn't put my finger on it. This article has opened my eyes to something none has seen coming: a company wants everyone to use their product.Wow, I mean WOW; this just blows my mind.[/citation]Google gives stuff away for free. NOTHING is free. They make stuff "free" and "open" ONLY when it serves their purpose. They're the "good guys" - again, only when it serves their purpose.

Google is even worse than MS. At least with MS, they have a more traditional business model. They sell software and hardware, for money. MS is much more beholden to consumers and developers alike. Google can do pretty much whatever the heck they want, and get away with it, because it's "free". They make all their money behind the scenes.

Anyway, if MS did something like this, they'd have antitrust cases against them before you could say "Browser Ballot Screen".[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Microsoft wasn't punished just because of bundling ie with windows. Microsoft used it's position as a monopoly to prevent oems to put products with other oses like linux or other browsers and this is why they were punished. And now they're paying the price.[/citation]In Europe, they actually WERE punished for bundling IE with Windows. In addition to coughing up a ton of dough to the EU, they are forced to provide a choice of competing browsers, bundled with their own software. Also, why are they now "paying the price"? They already paid the price, over and over. But now it's OK for Google to pull the same kind of stunts that got MS in hot water? That's some BS right there.
[citation][nom]maddy143ded[/nom]and here the situation is different then the Microsoft situation where they got fined by EU. the Chrome browser is integral to chrome os because it is the centerpoint of the OS. it is the onlything that provides you interface with the OS. microsoft could have used the same strategy then if it wanted to.[/citation]Actually IE used to be pretty deeply integrated into Windows. MS tried to use that argument in their defense. The EU didn't care. They didn't care that IE was integral to older versions of Windows, and they didn't care that MS allowed you to install other browsers. None of that mattered. They forced them to de-couple IE from Windows (more recent versions of Windows like Vista and Win7), and forced them to install a browser ballot and offer competing browsers as an option, in their own software.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]In Europe, they actually WERE punished for bundling IE with Windows. In addition to coughing up a ton of dough to the EU, they are forced to provide a choice of competing browsers, bundled with their own software. Also, why are they now "paying the price"? They already paid the price, over and over. But now it's OK for Google to pull the same kind of stunts that got MS in hot water? That's some BS right there.[/citation]
They weren't punished for releasing Windows with IE in it. They were punished because they used it's position to prevent OEMs to bundle computers with other OS's/browsers. And for that they were rightly punished

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Actually IE used to be pretty deeply integrated into Windows. MS tried to use that argument in their defense. The EU didn't care. They didn't care that IE was integral to older versions of Windows, and they didn't care that MS allowed you to install other browsers. None of that mattered. They forced them to de-couple IE from Windows (more recent versions of Windows like Vista and Win7), and forced them to install a browser ballot and offer competing browsers as an option, in their own software.[/citation]IE still is deeply integrated in the system, perhaps even more than what it was in XP. The EU wanted to remove IE all together from Windows but because of that fact Microsoftt were allowed to retain it but were forced to make an update available that installed the browser selection screen. It may be unfair but they're playing for past mistakes.

 

[wislam]

Chome is stealth spyware created by one of the most evil corporate empires around.
Why is everyone still so blind?

Take a close look at the markets Google is expliting (search / analytics / doubleclick / mail / video / money (fake gold) / checkout / dns / os / browser / phone), they're gathering a pretty hefty amount of info on what you like, what you're interested in, who you're dating / married to / children, your medical details, your exact location at any moment, your weaknesses, who else you're associated with (friends / affairs), your job, what you buy, etc, etc.

And if you dare use your mind a bit more, you'll quickly realise they haven't actually innovated ANYTHING apart from search almost 15 years ago.
Everything, I mean absolutely everything they have is a copy of something else or they've simply bought the company.

It's interesting that Google is supposed to be an "open source" friendly empire, yet they haven't actually contributed anything to open source software - and particularly not to the linux kernel. Their code to Android is so radically bound to non-open backend components that according to kernel.org specialists, it's simply not possible to take any code from Google and improve Linux or other open source projects.