Google Chrome
- Thread starter GVBN
- Start date
Shouldn't that be the other way around? IE is MUCH less secure than everything else.
Mise
isle of lucy
Hurray, more spyware from google 
I can't believe you otherwise cynical bunch are actually downloading this thing.
I don't mind them monitoring what websites I go on through AdSense or Google search, because I can avoid both of those things by blocking google's cookies. But downloading a browser and having no ability to prevent my browsing habits being recorded and sold is nothing short of insanity. I don't understand why any reasonable individual would knowingly consent to this.
I can't believe you otherwise cynical bunch are actually downloading this thing.I don't mind them monitoring what websites I go on through AdSense or Google search, because I can avoid both of those things by blocking google's cookies. But downloading a browser and having no ability to prevent my browsing habits being recorded and sold is nothing short of insanity. I don't understand why any reasonable individual would knowingly consent to this.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,718
WHAT?q? I posted a thread and its now a part of someone else's! I was the OP!
Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
I'll switch to Google Chrome as soon as they develop an alternative to NoScript. Until then, I'm sticking with Firefox.
Sirotnikov
Chieftain
they are fixing the copyright glitch 
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
Just downloaded chrome and it is now my official browser, which used to be internet explorer. I love the spell check, the look, and definitely the speed.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Similar threads sometimes get merged.
So, still no reasons for me to switch from FF?
Although what Mise said creeped me out...
Aramazd
Deity
No. On Vista IE is probably the safest browser when using protected mode. Here's an article on it: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/09/528963.aspx
Some points that I've noted:
* Option to remember tabs you had open (Opera does this by default)
* Tabs can be dragged out into separate windows so that you can move/resize/view size by size (I think Opera does this slightly better, as you can still do this without dragging out into a separate window).
(Both these points are the whole advantage of having tabs - I never understood why Firefox made so much noise about having "tabs", when it lacked all the advantages of having them.)
* When you type a URL, it looks like it does automatic searching for URLs (presumably from Google), so URLs will autocomplete even if they're not in your tab.
* Textfields on webpages are resizable.
* Each tab is run as a separate process, and you can see how much resources each tab is hogging.
Also see the Google comic: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
Alpha is the stage before beta
El Koeno
Emperor
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,926
I'm not sure what you mean, I think Firefox does both these things.
Do you have evidence/references for this?Hurray, more spyware from google
I don't mind them monitoring what websites I go on through AdSense or Google search, because I can avoid both of those things by blocking google's cookies. But downloading a browser and having no ability to prevent my browsing habits being recorded and sold is nothing short of insanity. I don't understand why any reasonable individual would knowingly consent to this.
Anyhow, as it's open source, if there are any problems, someone will soon release a version without this.
It doesn't do remembering tabs by default - is there an option? (Yes, I know that I can spend time hunting down an extension to replicate the behaviour - or just use Opera/Chrome.)
And I've just tried with the latest version - tabs are fixed to full the entire window, I can't see how to either resize, or pull them out into a separate window?
Aramazd
Deity
I think he's referring to this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
Google has revised the TOS for Chrome, removing the section about google keeping everything.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html
Mise
isle of lucy
Actually, I'm not referring to this. I'm referring to google's habit of releasing free software and services with the sole intention of recording your browsing habits, and uses that data to sell advertising.
This isn't some whacked out conspiracy - the evidence is Google's entire business model. Google makes money from advertising. Ever cent that Google has ever made was from selling advertising. And it advertises brilliantly. It offers uncannily well targeted adverts via AdSense, and it collects data on individual users via AdSense.
1. AdSense gets put on a website to provide adverts.
2. AdSense looks at your cookie.
3. AdSense records what website you're looking at, and "key information" about what in particular you are looking at right now.
4. AdSense uses Bayesian statistics to determine what products you are likely to buy, based on:
- (a) what websites you've been on
- (b) what websites other people who've been on websites you've been on have been on
- (c) (somewhat limited) information about what they bought.
This was the original idea behind AdSense. Every single product Google has released has been adding to this model.
1. Google Shopping: A search engine to compare the prices of stuff. Now google know exactly what you want to buy on the internet, and don't have to infer it from your google searches or website visits. More transparently, it offers another advertising channel for Google.
2. Google Maps: Now they know where you live. More transparently, it offers another advertising channel for Google.
3. Google Mail: Now they know who you bank with, what mailing lists you join (and more importantly, what mailings you deem as SPAM -- i.e. things google shouldn't advertise to you). Another way to get information about you. More transparently, offers very, very limited advertising (ever wondered why they offered so much space, with so few adverts?).
4. YouTube: Again, transparently, a new platform for Google to advertise. But again, Google gather more information from you about what you're interested in.
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/ <-- this is a list of all the products that Google offers, for free. Do you honestly believe that they're giving them away out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you not think that they have something to gain from all of this? Read the list, and try and think of what information they're getting from you, and how that can bolster their revenues.
Now ask yourself, why would Google release a web-browser? Google are a Web 2.0 company. They're products are all web-based, as they see the web not as a BBS to provide you with offline products (i.e. the Microsoft model), but as a platform to provide you with online services. Google has an online version of Microsoft Office, because it sees the internet as the New Windows.
Further, web-browsers are not profit-making. IE makes its money from using Microsoft products as default (i.e. hotmail, MS search, MSN as default homepage, etc). Opera, obviously, makes money from adverts (or actually selling a product, quaint and old fashioned an idea as it is). Firefox makes money from... err... Google (Google pays it for using Google as the default search engine and homepage).
It's a pretty crowded market, and there's very little that Google can do differently to FireFox, IE, or Opera. I mean, half the posts in this thread are asking, "Well, how does it improve on FF?"
Fact is it doesn't need to. The Google Brand is so seductive that it's convinced millions of otherwise cynical and tech-savvy young adults to download a product that is almost certainly a platform for spyware. What's more amazing is that the Google Brand has convinced these people that this is a good thing!
And that's why it doesn't matter that this is Open Source. Google have released this Open Source as a kind of viral marketing tactic. They want to imply that this has grass-roots support. And the Google Brand is enough to ensure that people swallow that. Further, the Google Brand is enough to ensure that, if the Open Source Community release a version of Chrome that doesn't record your browsing habits, it will not be accepted by the general public, exactly because it's not a Google product.
And afterall, why would they care? They already have their browsing habits recorded by all-pervasive Google products: AdSense and Google Search, GMail, YouTube, etc etc etc. What's the difference, honestly? And who cares when it's free!
Google is a $180bn dollar company. It's not a charity. There's no such thing as a free meal; and your personal browsing habits are the price you pay for Google's quite honestly excellent products and services.
Actually, I don't think I can stress that enough. I love google products: I use a GMail account, Google is my default search engine, and I've already said a number of times on this forum that I like well targeted adverts. Adverts for things that I want to buy are, IMO, better than no adverts at all. Crazy I know, but I see well targeted adverts as a service, and most people in the industry agree. And, personally, I think the Google business model is brilliant and revolutionary. Google is the Ford of the 21st century, bringing new products to the mass-market, via sophisticated and revolutionary techniques. If there ever were an "internet revolution", to mirror the industrial one, Google would be the first spark.
But when you use a Google product, you must be aware of the price you're paying for that product. And in the case of a browser, that price is far, far too high.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
I'd argue a little differently. IE has the majority of internet users, for obvious reasons. Few of them know just how much a browser is capable of. Opera, the remnants of Netscape and the rest of the browsing market are mostly the sort that have planted there feet on the ground(IE, there fanatics). That leaves Firefox users. Most of them are tech savvy, or have a tech savvy friend who has more control over there computer than they do. They're exactly the sort who will find and download the non spyware version of Chrome.
As far as the legal SNAFU goes, Google may want to do a huge amount of advertisement research on you, but they don't want the crap you produce using Chrome. Sorting through several terabytes of information, 99% of it junk, is ridiculously ineffective
Mise
isle of lucy
There are hundreds and thousands of alternatives to Google's current suite of services. Yet Google is the market leader in every pie it sticks its finger in. If tech-savviness was enough to make people stop using Google and use open source alternatives, then Google wouldn't be a $180bn company.
Actually, it's incredibly effective. It allows Google to get information from places it previously had no access to. By monitoring all browsing activities, rather than just search and advertising activities, Google now knows what you're buying, not just what you're searching for. Previously, Google couldn't know what you actually clicked "buy" on, because websites that sell stuff typically don't also sell adverts. Now, Google has everything it needs to know about you, in order to target adverts most effectively.
Buy a lot of books off Amazon? Cue book adverts.
Buy a lot of computer stuff from NewEgg? Cue computer adverts.
Do a lot of internet banking? Cue adverts for financial products.
These are all areas that Google previously had no penetration, because they don't use AdSense, and you typically just go straight to the website, rather than Googling for it. I.e. if you wanna buy a book, you type in www.amazon.co.uk and search for it, rather than searching in google; if you wanna check your balance, you type in www.myinternetbank.com, rather than googling it; etc.
And, just so you know, there's no "sifting" involved in any of Google's information gathering. Google uses every website you visit in its algorithm, because Bayesian statistics requires every single website. It's all just maths.
You're missing that Chrome is an application, not a website. Gathering information on users via a website is easy to do, and lots of companies do this. It's much harder to get an application to phone home without being noticed - you can spot this by looking at where the application is connecting to.
As I said, it's open source - so that makes it even more trivial to spot, as you can just look at the code! And if it's there, someone will be able to strip out that stuff, and release it.
If you're that paranoid, wait a few months to see if someone spots it, then use the spyware-free Chrome that someone will release.
Well, heaven forbid a company tries to do nice things in order to improve its image, and that it tries to rely on its brand awareness! Whatever next?
Yes, it's true that most people won't download the spyware-free version (if that's even true - you still haven't provided evidence for your claims), but that's their choice. But for people like yourself who are worried, that will be an option. For people who aren't worried by this sort of thing, it's not a problem anyway.
Who claimed they were a charity? So what if companies give things away for free to benefit in some way - that's no different to any other company. I think you're the one suggesting that they should be a charity, by complaining about how they want to get some benefit out of a product that's available for free.
Mise
isle of lucy
I'm not sure why you're telling me this. That it's marginally easier to do it via a website than via a webbrowser doesn't strike me as significant. That the information gained from a webbrowser is massively more valuable than the information gained via a website strikes me as monumentally significant.
The project that Chrome is based on is Open Source, and Google's hitherto contribution to that project is open source.
That doesn't mean that Google Chrome, as a product, will remain open source. Netscape, for example, is (was) based on an Open Source project, but is itself closed source.
As I said, I won't be downloading Chrome. I'm just fascinated that so many people are downloading it, not in spite of Google's past products, but because of Google's past products, brand, and reputation. I just find it fascinating how Google is seen by the general public as squeaky clean, when companies far less invasive (Microsoft, for example) are seen as corporate monsters.
Are you suggesting that Google is indeed releasing Chrome out of the goodness of its heart? In that case, it sounds like you agree that Google is releasing Chrome as Open Source in order to perpetuate its squeaky clean image, and maintain the sense of implicit trust amongst its users.
This isn't the first Open Source project Google are involved in. IIRC, Android was/is open source; and it's well known that Google fund Mozilla's open source projects.
In your opinion, why would Google release a software application, when the rest of their business -- their entire business model, core values, and beliefs -- is vested in online applications? And why would Google release, specifically, a Web-browser -- an application for which there is very little room for Google's legendary innovation?
I don't disagree with this. Is this something you expect me to disagree with?
Similar threads
