PDA

View Full Version : UH OH Microsoft!! (Google Chrome)



rab4567
November 23rd, 2008, 08:34 AM
Microsoft should be looking over it's shoulder Google chrome is looming behind them and they mean business. I think this is the beginning of Microsoft downfall coupled with the world economic downturn OEM's will desperately want to cut cost and turn to linux for survival. Who would of thought it would happen this way, but it will, just my two cents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10106174-62.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10105470-94.html

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2008, 08:42 AM
Maybe we should wait until Google Chrome actually gets out of Beta before we start speculating.

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 08:42 AM
I see three things that can happen.

1. Nothing. Somehow Chrome comes out and doesn't affect the already declining IE market share.

2. Google really DOES become the next Evil Empire and obliterates Microsoft (Unlikely, still have that pesky Windows to be rid of.)

3. Microsoft does what it did with Netscape and Spyglass and obliterates Chrome illegally and pretends it was just market shifts.

Chrome won't take off until it finally sees a release on Linux and Mac, though.

kaldor
November 23rd, 2008, 08:51 AM
I tried Google Chrome on my old Windows PC. Can't say I am impressed a lot, but it is much better than Internet Explorer.

I find the layout is gross. I dislike having the Title bar being used as the tab bar as well. Feels distorted.

Also, the google color theme is used waaaay too much for me. Looks too colorful, and personally I like sparkling white or silver on my desktop :)

CholericKoala
November 23rd, 2008, 08:56 AM
Chrome is a very good product and very fast. It can't replace Microsoft ingrained products since there is nothing to compete with Windows for businesses and home users right now. Mac cant do it cuz they charge an arm and a leg. Linux is getting there, but still has a ton of problems with drivers and ease of use.

rab4567
November 23rd, 2008, 08:57 AM
This is just the beginning folks next year Google Chrome will be cross platform and we must factor in the cost of Microsoft corporations will not be able to afford it, look at Palm even though I think its too late for them poor buggers.

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 08:58 AM
Chrome is a very good product and very fast. It can't replace Microsoft ingrained products since there is nothing to compete with Windows for businesses and home users right now. Mac cant do it cuz they charge an arm and a leg. Linux is getting there, but still has a ton of problems with drivers and ease of use.

What's tripping up Linux, especially for Ubuntu,. the way most drivers in my experience work out of the box or the fact it installs easier than any other operating system I had the displeasure of installing?

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2008, 09:06 AM
What's tripping up Linux, especially for Ubuntu,. the way most drivers in my experience work out of the box or the fact it installs easier than any other operating system I had the displeasure of installing?

Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

CholericKoala
November 23rd, 2008, 09:09 AM
What's tripping up Linux, especially for Ubuntu,. the way most drivers in my experience work out of the box or the fact it installs easier than any other operating system I had the displeasure of installing?

I had 4 people at my college try Ubuntu on their laptops. Only one could get the wireless to work. None of them switched for the obvious reasons.

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 09:12 AM
Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

Worked for most everyone I've ever introduced to Linux, well over two dozen people over a wide range of hardware, I'd say it's rather conclusive.

Though I will admit if you only use wireless (Which is evil anyways, I always go wired if I can help it.) then you're more likely to not gewt your hardware working right off the bat because of it.

pp.
November 23rd, 2008, 09:12 AM
How does this relate to a new browser about to be published by Google?

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 09:13 AM
Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

Worked for most everyone I've ever introduced to Linux, well over two dozen people over a wide range of hardware, I'd say it's rather conclusive.

Though I will admit if you only use wireless (Which is evil anyways, I always go wired if I can help it.) then you're more likely to not get your hardware working right off the bat because of it.

And I said MOST hardware, not all. Try installing NON-OEM Windows and Ubuntu on the same machine, you might be surprised how far BEHIND Windows is on hardware support out of the box.

CholericKoala
November 23rd, 2008, 09:15 AM
Worked for most everyone I've ever introduced to Linux, well over two dozen people over a wide range of hardware, I'd say it's rather conclusive.

Though I will admit if you only use wireless (Which is evil anyways, I always go wired if I can help it.) then you're more likely to not get your hardware working right off the bat because of it.

And I said MOST hardware, not all. Try installing NON-OEM Windows and Ubuntu on the same machine, you might be surprised how far BEHIND Windows is on hardware support out of the box.

Devices always work on windows, thats why people use it. It has the BEST 3rd party support hands down. Linux lacks this and needs to get it together in terms of drivers and compatibilities.

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 09:17 AM
Devices always work on windows, thats why people use it. It has the BEST 3rd party support hands down. Linux lacks this and needs to get it together in terms of drivers and compatibilities.

Provided you run to their websites (IF networking is functional.) and download their drivers. Again, everyone I've converted to Linux didn't have to do that when they installed Ubuntu, the drivers were all available.

Sure, the hardware manufacturers aren't making drivers themselves, but I find that out of the box everything working beats 5 hours of hunting for drivers.

CholericKoala
November 23rd, 2008, 09:18 AM
Provided you run to their websites (IF networking is functional.) and download their drivers. Again, everyone I've converted to Linux didn't have to do that when they installed Ubuntu, the drivers were all available.

Sure, the hardware manufacturers aren't making drivers themselves, but I find that out of the box everything working beats 5 hours of hunting for drivers.

That's weird. Ubuntu failed on all my test subjects, while windows took less than a minute. Ubuntu should advertise what devices always work so we can pick and choose our computers we build based on what works with the OS. But that wouldn't be good for marketing.

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 09:20 AM
That's weird. Ubuntu failed on all my test subjects, while windows took less than a minute. Ubuntu should advertise what devices always work so we can pick and choose our computers we build based on what works with the OS. But that wouldn't be good for marketing.

And you believe yourself to be the rule and not the exception because...?

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2008, 09:21 AM
And you believe yourself to be the rule and not the exception because...?

You should ask yourself the same question.

CholericKoala
November 23rd, 2008, 09:21 AM
everyone else agrees with me at my school, and my profs, and most people in this forum whom ive talked to, except a few. I thought it was common knowledge that Microsoft is great with devices, but lacks stability, and Linux was great with stability but lacked compatibility.

I-75
November 23rd, 2008, 09:22 AM
I had 4 people at my college try Ubuntu on their laptops. Only one could get the wireless to work. None of them switched for the obvious reasons.

I did get wireless to work on my laptop only to have a kernel update kill the wireless and add/remove programs. I was able to fix it some 10 minutes later. But I am not sure how a Windows user trying out Ubuntu for just a few weeks would deal with updates killing key features.

Regarding Chrome, I see no use for it. I been using Firefox for a few years already on my Windows machines and now of course on Ubuntu.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2008, 09:24 AM
Regarding Chrome, I see no use for it. I been using Firefox for a few years already on my Windows machines and now of course on Ubuntu.

I use Chrome in Windows, but I doubt I'd use it in Linux.

I really think Google is being too ambitious with something it hasn't even fully released yet.

Paqman
November 23rd, 2008, 10:46 AM
I use Chrome in Windows, but I doubt I'd use it in Linux.


I will, but only if they sort out some live bookmarks for it. I find RSS readers to be ridiculously overblown, I much prefer to just have some nice lightweight live bookmarks for checking the news.

Chrome does take a little getting used to, and personally I don't use Windows much so i'm only just warming to it now. Once you get used to the layout (and having got in the habit of using the Awesome Bar in FF more) I find it really good. I dig Firefox, but it is pretty slow, and the one thing Chrome has in spades is speed.

jedimasterk
November 23rd, 2008, 10:51 AM
Maybe we should wait until Google Chrome actually gets out of Beta before we start speculating.

And Firefox is looming to as well as Opera. Google Chrome is new and will have to first compete with Firefox to get to IE user wise.

jedimasterk
November 23rd, 2008, 10:52 AM
I will, but only if they sort out some live bookmarks for it. I find RSS readers to be ridiculously overblown, I much prefer to just have some nice lightweight live bookmarks for checking the news.

Chrome does take a little getting used to, and personally I don't use Windows much so i'm only just warming to it now. Once you get used to the layout (and having got in the habit of using the Awesome Bar in FF more) I find it really good. I dig Firefox, but it is pretty slow, and the one thing Chrome has in spades is speed.

Until it gets bloated in several years.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2008, 10:56 AM
Until it gets bloated in several years.

I hate to say it, but I bet the moment it becomes customizable is the moment it becomes bloated.

bonzodog
November 23rd, 2008, 11:49 AM
Devices always work on windows, thats why people use it. It has the BEST 3rd party support hands down. Linux lacks this and needs to get it together in terms of drivers and compatibilities.

Thats why the last time I attempted to install windows on my AMD64 box, I gave up after 5 HOURS of attempting to get my hardware working. I had issues with windows hardware support that I NEVER had with linux. I could not even get basic 3D graphics support on an Nvidia 6200. Windows hardware support is a lot worse than Linux in my own experience.
And dont talk about vista....its a joke for hardware support. BSD has better hardware drivers than vista. I bought an OEM laptop with Vista home basic. No GPU support, wireless wasnt working properly, it couldnt see the USB ports so I could not even plug in a flash drive, The DVD drive could only see Data DVDs and nothing else....
it was terrible. And that was pre-installed.

It was officially admitted that by Microsoft last month that Linux has better hardware support out of the box now than windows. There are only 2 Wireless chipsets still giving problems, and 95% of all webcams should Just Work now, as of kernel 2.6.26. All others devices, to my knowledge, have full in kernel support.

Paqman
November 23rd, 2008, 11:49 AM
Until it gets bloated in several years.

Yep, and then someone will build a faster browser to beat it.

Google have always said the whole point of developing Chrome was to escalate the browser wars. I think it's a shrewd move. IE has improved dramatically, but it's still not good enough to keep Mozilla hungry now that they have a decent share of the browser market. Google is a player Mozilla just can't ignore, and FF will end up as a better browser because of it.

YaroMan86
November 23rd, 2008, 11:57 AM
Yep, and then someone will build a faster browser to beat it.

Google have always said the whole point of developing Chrome was to escalate the browser wars. I think it's a shrewd move. IE has improved dramatically, but it's still not good enough to keep Mozilla hungry now that they have a decent share of the browser market. Google is a player Mozilla just can't ignore, and FF will end up as a better browser because of it.

All Mozilla has to do is debloat Firefox and they've got the perfect browser.

They did a great job with Firefox 3, IMO.

cdwillis
November 23rd, 2008, 01:15 PM
Chrome seems like an interesting browser and as soon as a Linux version is out I'll try it for sure but there's no way it will overtake IE. If anything will overtake IE it's going to be Firefox.:popcorn:

Paqman
November 23rd, 2008, 01:40 PM
All Mozilla has to do is debloat Firefox and they've got the perfect browser.

Lol, i'm sure they'll have that one on their to-do list somewhere!

rab4567
November 23rd, 2008, 02:48 PM
Chrome seems like an interesting browser and as soon as a Linux version is out I'll try it for sure but there's no way it will overtake IE. If anything will overtake IE it's going to be Firefox.:popcorn:

Don't underestimate the power of Google their business model has never changed it is advertising, advertising, advertising and the systematic gathering of information all of its customers. Google search, Google Earth and Street View, Gmail, Chrome, and all the other apps Google uses to see what people are doing everyday they make the CIA look like pip squeaks.

Bibek
November 23rd, 2008, 03:08 PM
Maybe we should wait until Google Chrome actually gets out of Beta before we start speculating.

Gmail is still in beta. I hope the same does not happen for google chrome.:)

jimi_hendrix
November 23rd, 2008, 04:08 PM
linux will be ready for the desktop when people google their problems

init1
November 23rd, 2008, 04:50 PM
Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone.
Yeah, Gutsy and Hardy ran terribly on my system.

billgoldberg
November 23rd, 2008, 05:47 PM
I tried Chrome in Windows, and I am not impressed at all.

It is ugly, has no options and isn't that much faster than firefox in rendering pages.

It starts up a bit faster, but I don't mind waiting 3 seconds more for firefox to start.

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2008, 06:47 PM
Microsoft should be looking over it's shoulder Google chrome is looming behind them and they mean business. I think this is the beginning of Microsoft downfall coupled with the world economic downturn OEM's will desperately want to cut cost and turn to linux for survival. Who would of thought it would happen this way, but it will, just my two cents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10106174-62.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10105470-94.html

Microsoft failing would be very bad for IT .It would devastate the industry plus the many other sectors of the commercial and general economies.

As for Google chrome causing MS to collapse , ummm no.Its just a browser and not a very good one

rab4567
November 23rd, 2008, 11:32 PM
Microsoft failing would be very bad for IT .It would devastate the industry plus the many other sectors of the commercial and general economies.

As for Google chrome causing MS to collapse , ummm no.Its just a browser and not a very good one

I say again this is just the beginning of Microsoft of collapse as far as the industry goes it will adapted and change with the economic weather that is to come. Linux will fill in though areas where Microsoft has left behind and it can happen faster than you can think. Personally I don't like chrome with all the spy stuff in the back ground I love Firefox and its plugins, its works for me.

CholericKoala
November 23rd, 2008, 11:35 PM
I say again this is just the beginning of Microsoft of collapse as far as the industry goes it will adapted and change with the economic weather that is to come. Linux will fill in though areas where Microsoft has left behind and it can happen faster than you can think. Personally I don't like chrome with all the spy stuff in the back ground I love Firefox and its plugins, its works for me.

Linux cant fill in jack as long as the only support available is community support.

KiwiNZ
November 24th, 2008, 12:00 AM
I say again this is just the beginning of Microsoft of collapse as far as the industry goes it will adapted and change with the economic weather that is to come. Linux will fill in though areas where Microsoft has left behind and it can happen faster than you can think. Personally I don't like chrome with all the spy stuff in the back ground I love Firefox and its plugins, its works for me.

Not even close to the beginning

I think you need to look at the reserves MS has

Giant Speck
November 24th, 2008, 12:09 AM
Not even close to the beginning

I think you need to look at the reserves MS has

Exactly. You're making it sound like there is a foolproof backup plan in the event that Microsoft was to collapse. The truth, though, is that there isn't.

There would be no mass movement to Linux. There would be no mass movement to Mac OS X. Many people don't even know what Linux is, because it has such a low market share. Many people aren't even familiar with or comfortable using Mac OS X.

Linux does not have the strength right now to take on the millions of people that use Microsoft products. There isn't enough software support. There isn't enough software support. And there aren't enough hardware manufacturers out there right now that support Linux.

If Microsoft was to collapse, it would be an economic nightmare for not just the computer industry, but for the entire private sector, as well as governments and schools.

-grubby
November 24th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Exactly. You're making it sound like there is a foolproof backup plan in the event that Microsoft was to collapse. The truth, though, is that there isn't.


Do billions of dollars count?

Giant Speck
November 24th, 2008, 12:16 AM
Do billions of dollars count?

No. Not if they haven't been invested toward actually making software.

You can't just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away.

KiwiNZ
November 24th, 2008, 12:26 AM
There is too many people believing the uniformed hype of a bored press.

The truth is Vista is actually doing better one year on than XP was at a comparable age

MS market share remains pretty much as it has been .

And one thing is for certain , under the current fiscal climate there is not going to be an mass switch to other platforms in the enterprise market . The cost would be far too high .

Keyper7
November 24th, 2008, 01:07 AM
I think people are overestimating Google's ambitions a little bit. I personally believe Google is not interested in making Chrome the top browser. They're just interested in reducing Explorer's market share.

Why? One word: standards.

They're not really interested in the browser wars. They're basically joining forces with Safari to make WebKit a top player in the rendering wars. If they manage to balance the market between three major rendering engines (IE, Gecko and WebKit), following standards will become more important instead of the "first I'll make my site work with IE to guarantee visits, then I'll see the other browsers" philosophy that still exists today.

If you think about, it all makes sense:

- Why WebKit and not Gecko? Because Gecko is already a big player and most web developers are already paying attention to it.

- Why no support for extensions? They are after IE users, not Firefox users.

- Why such a wait for a Linux/OSX version? They are after Windows users, not Linux or Mac users.

- Why they're still donating millions to Mozilla? The more big players there is, the more important standards become.

- Are they supporting standards out of altruism? Of course not! They are the big name in web applications, and standards are good for web applications.

zmjjmz
November 24th, 2008, 01:41 AM
Keyper7 summed it up nicely; it is all about standards compliance.
And Chrome is winning over IE users already. There are a few diehard IE users on Ideastorm who suddenly announced that Chrome was the best thing since sliced (and then toasted to golden brown and given a light serving raspberry jam) bread. I imagine that Chrome will be better accepted by the IE-is-the-internet people, so their plan will work.

That said, I personally haven't really encountered many IE only sites, but I imagine it's a PITA for AJAX developers to make things work in both IE and standards compliant browsers.

rab4567
November 24th, 2008, 04:06 AM
Exactly. You're making it sound like there is a foolproof backup plan in the event that Microsoft was to collapse. The truth, though, is that there isn't.

There would be no mass movement to Linux. There would be no mass movement to Mac OS X. Many people don't even know what Linux is, because it has such a low market share. Many people aren't even familiar with or comfortable using Mac OS X.

Linux does not have the strength right now to take on the millions of people that use Microsoft products. There isn't enough software support. There isn't enough software support. And there aren't enough hardware manufacturers out there right now that support Linux.

If Microsoft was to collapse, it would be an economic nightmare for not just the computer industry, but for the entire private sector, as well as governments and schools.


Change only happens when people are force to deal with reality, in the United States we are dealing with a economic nightmare right now. If you don't believe me just watch Bloomberg TV not the Fox channel. All I'm saying this not going happen overnight, but it will over time corporations will have cut jobs and resources to stay alive and they won't be able to spend hundreds of thousands maybe millions of dollars on upgrading to vista 7, oops windows 7. These companies are sitting on 10 year old software and they have to stay competitive at lower costs, so whats the natural progression linux. Google will push things along thats all.

KiwiNZ
November 24th, 2008, 05:02 AM
Change only happens when people are force to deal with reality, in the United States we are dealing with a economic nightmare right now. If you don't believe me just watch Bloomberg TV not the Fox channel. All I'm saying this not going happen overnight, but it will over time corporations will have cut jobs and resources to stay alive and they won't be able to spend hundreds of thousands maybe millions of dollars on upgrading to vista 7, oops windows 7. These companies are sitting on 10 year old software and they have to stay competitive at lower costs, so whats the natural progression linux. Google will push things along thats all.

The reality is , the cost of a corporate converting to Linux is greater than the cost of migrating from one Windows version to the next

mrgnash
November 24th, 2008, 05:04 AM
Microsoft should be looking over it's shoulder Google chrome is looming behind them and they mean business. I think this is the beginning of Microsoft downfall coupled with the world economic downturn OEM's will desperately want to cut cost and turn to linux for survival. Who would of thought it would happen this way, but it will, just my two cents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10106174-62.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10105470-94.html

Who would have thought!!!! Where do people get "of" from??

p_quarles
November 24th, 2008, 05:13 AM
Who would have thought!!!! Where do people get "of" from??
From the way the contraction "would've" sounds. [/answering rhetorical questions][/off-topic]

Skripka
November 24th, 2008, 05:14 AM
As for Google chrome causing MS to collapse , ummm no.Its just a browser and not a very good one


People use IE not because it is a great or good tool-but because it is the MS default. Firefox has the market shar it has as a result of this--and many folks have never heard of Firefox (outside of hipster/techie circles) I predict Google Chrome, unless some new stunning features are announced--will sink shortly after launch. Chrome is as stripped down as Safari is....it is fast I suppose-but there really isn't that much there to make people using FireFox move over...and the people using IE are using IE because it is the OS default, or because work companies demands that they do, not because they are aware they are missing out on anything.

rab4567
November 24th, 2008, 06:35 AM
The reality is , the cost of a corporate converting to Linux is greater than the cost of migrating from one Windows version to the next

The reality is, in bad economic times companies will consider alternate O/S
than to pay for Microsoft's vista, I mean windows 7 higher licensing fees. this is happening all over world. The the notion that linux has a higher cost than Microsoft is only a perception.

zmjjmz
November 24th, 2008, 06:37 AM
The reality is, in bad economic times companies will consider alternate O/S
than to pay for Microsoft's vista, I mean windows 7 higher licensing fees. this is happening all over world. The the notion that linux has a higher cost than Microsoft is only a perception.

A lot of companies just buy/lease computers. Whoever makes and sells those computers will be in charge of putting the OS on, and they have to worry about licensing fees.

KiwiNZ
November 24th, 2008, 06:39 AM
The reality is, in bad economic times companies will consider alternate O/S
than to pay for Microsoft's vista, I mean windows 7 higher licensing fees. this is happening all over world. The the notion that linux has a higher cost than Microsoft is only a perception.

I am an IT manager and I can assure that is not the case

zmjjmz
November 24th, 2008, 06:41 AM
I am an IT manager and I can assure that is not the case

In addition, there generally isn't much incentive to upgrade the OS. The only situation in which I could imagine that is where you have a piece of expensive proprietary software and then the cost of the OS is nothing compared to, say, Autodesk.

p_quarles
November 24th, 2008, 06:45 AM
The reality is, in bad economic times companies will consider alternate O/S
than to pay for Microsoft's vista, I mean windows 7 higher licensing fees. this is happening all over world. The the notion that linux has a higher cost than Microsoft is only a perception.
Well, perception isn't a bad thing. I find it rather necessary most of the time.

In some use cases, the cost of migrating to a different OS is minimal. In others, it can be enormous. Generalizing about it is dangerous, but I would say that it tends to be the case that a large corporate environment is going to incur tremendous costs (due to having to replace or rework groupware and other high-stakes custom applications) in migrating. A small business might have a proportionally smaller expense in doing the same thing.

Where computers are critical, the cost of changing anything is very high. Software licenses are a relatively negligible expense compared to setting up a network, deploying software, maintaining it (hint: if the update-manager crashes the corporate network, there's a problem), and training employees.

wrtpeeps
November 24th, 2008, 12:00 PM
Microsoft should be looking over it's shoulder Google chrome is looming behind them and they mean business. I think this is the beginning of Microsoft downfall coupled with the world economic downturn OEM's will desperately want to cut cost and turn to linux for survival. Who would of thought it would happen this way, but it will, just my two cents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10106174-62.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10105470-94.html

Yea, because they're going to switch to linux, and incur the cost of the problems they face during migration, staff retraining and hardware expenses, over the simple [and probably lower] cost of a new license.

KiwiNZ
November 24th, 2008, 07:28 PM
And very favourable rates can be negotiated on the license costs

chucky chuckaluck
November 24th, 2008, 07:31 PM
Maybe we should wait until Google Chrome actually gets out of Beta before we start speculating.

will they beat the cows back to the barn, i wonder.

Erunno
November 24th, 2008, 08:32 PM
Why? One word: standards.

They are also pushing their non-standardized technologies like Gears.


- Why WebKit and not Gecko? Because Gecko is already a big player and most web developers are already paying attention to it.

WebKit was chosen because it was actually meant to be embedded in other products with stable embedding APIs and a relative small codebase. Gecko on the other hand is a huge and overly complex codebase (keyword: XPCOM) and has no stable embedding API to speak of. Providing one is actually one of the many goals for Gecko 2.0 [1]. The epiphany developers dropped Gecko for this very reason, i.e. because it difficult to keep up with the changes Mozilla was doing to the engine.


- Why no support for extensions? They are after IE users, not Firefox users.

An extension API is actually planned for Chrome [2]. It remains to be seen how powerful it will be. As others have already noted, an extension like Adblock Plus runs contrary to Google's business.


- Why such a wait for a Linux/OSX version? They are after Windows users, not Linux or Mac users.

Google is simply being pragmatic, OSX and especially Linux users are a minority compared to Windows' installation base. In order to quickly penetrate the market and have the widest possibly user base to test your beta product you simply aim for the majority. Plus, Chrome is deeply rooted in Windows intricacies due to their process-per-tab architecture that's why it takes so long to port it to other platforms.



- Why they're still donating millions to Mozilla? The more big players there is, the more important standards become.

Google's core business is advertising so as long as Firefox as a notably market share they will pay Mozilla for using Google as their default search engine.


- Are they supporting standards out of altruism? Of course not! They are the big name in web applications, and standards are good for web applications.

As long as implementations of standards are not bug-for-bug compatible Google will always pick certain products and versions to be supported as they already do now. Case in point: Visit Opera the Opera forums where people complain repeatedly about failing or misbehaving Google web applications.

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla2:Home_Page#Embedding_API_Design

[2] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10031764-92.html