Not until Chrome gets extensions/addons. I absolutely cannot live without ad blocking, better tab management, NoScript and my check-multiple-gmail-accounts addons.
I always found it somewhat contradictory and hypocritical that the very people that live off ad-based websites (webbased entrepreneurs and founders) are so highly correlated with the group of people that absolutely cannot live without adblocking software - thereby robbing the siteowners of their income model.
Note: spydez - this isn't in any way meant as a personal attack, it just seemed like the right place to put my opinion on the matter.
But if I ever do come up with an awesome idea, I'm determined I'll create it and make money off of it without putting up adverts. I hate adverts with a burning passion and I'm not about to force them down my potential users throats.
Advertising is one of the only ways to monetize free visitor aspects and paths. Advertising is one of the last American innovative markets. As soon as you start trying to bring any type of content that that is free, I am sure you will change your ways.
Blocking ads is like anti-bacterial soap. It makes your immunity to these things much lower if that is why you are so bothered by ads. Block ads on sites that you don't frequent, but ones that you do, throw some pennies in the hat.
There are lots of ways to monetize free sites. See Kayak or TicketStumbler. There's also the freemium service.
The reality of ad blocking software (which is spreading quickly and won't stop until it's as ubiquitous as popup blocking is now) is that you'll have to find a better, more integrated business model at some point.
My hunch is that ad blocking is a huge threat to Google. So if they can control the browser space...
I still don't know why IE doesn't ship with ad blockers. Would it hurt them? Perhaps in the short run. But in the long run, it would do far more damage to G.
Agreed. Personally, I find advertising much less annoying than having to pay for things directly, especially online where it's still easy to phish. The only ads I block are the obnoxious Flash ones.
I'm curious as to why you (and other people) hate ads so much.
Is it just the obnoxious flashing popup 'you won a contest' ads or even text ads in general?
I use an adblocker because I find the flashing images annoying. But text ads don't really offend me in any way.
I actually like some of the ads we get in the papers\magazines\television.
Yeah, I don't hate all ads. Occasionally I see one I like and try to buy stuff from the company that's advertising as a "thank god you're sane!"... It's just the other 95% of the ads that make diving for the remote and hitting mute a subconscious maneuver and AdBlock Plus a requirement.
I tried to block onlines ads myself - I used to use AdBlock (not Plus) with no downloaded filtersets - but I could not keep up, and they just kept getting more and more and more annoying.
You have a point with this. I personally prefer to focus on content instead of having to ignore advertising that I will never click on unless I'm actually in a buying mode; when I'm NOT in a buying mode, there is no way in hell I'm clicking on that irritating HP flash eye-sore! If merely being exposed to an advertiser's message is the purpose of advertising on websites, then I would have to politely/respectfully say that I prefer not to be exposed to that which I am not choosing to have exposure.
I'm overwhelmed as it is...ad-blocking really helps turn down the noise. To me the whole approach of blasting users with advertisement is flawed, unless of course I'm actually in the mode of purchasing something, in which case I will gladly jump to Chrome or Safari (on my Mac at home).
I think having the freedom to turn the noise off/on as you see fit is part of a larger trend of the future where you have the option to do as you wish. Afterall, isn't freedom one of the core principles of the internet?
This really isn't fair. Since we also consist of the demographic least likely to actually click on ads. Since impressions bring in such small amounts of revenue compared to clicks we're really not shitting the scales very much. In the end advertisers have found it an effective strategy at reaching people /not/ in our demographic.
Being a small demographic that isn't the primary income for many sites doesn't justify taking away their income.
While I agree that hackers often don't click ads some do - particularly if the ads are targeted to this demographic. In this respect it's noteworthy that sites such as Reddit and Slashdot derive their income from showing ads. And their primary audience is hackers.
And this strategy works out really well, too. 99% of people, the kind who will actually click on the ads, will just download Google's version and be happy. Hackers will switch to the ad-block-enabled version without any problems, and they wouldn't have clicked on the ads in any case.
I can't live without the vimperator plugin now. It's so nice to browse without using the mouse. I can't go back. If only Firefox had Opera's password storage interface I would be ecstatic.
Chrome offers nothing new right now aside from potential performance gains. If the beta version is crashing, that is worse for performance than slow-loading pages.
I love vimperator too, as well as Firebug and the delicious plugin. Until they have a Linux version, switching isn't an issue for me. I did try it on the Win box though and love it. I loaded pages with lots of JavaScript and it didn't blink.
Chrome offers nothing new right now aside from potential performance gains.
Still. The Webkit-based JavaScript engine performance gain IS something new.
No real choice but Firefox as my main browser since my main web activity is development. Chrome, Safari, IE all can't compete with Firebug, YSlow, etc for web development, so for expediency I have to develop in Firefox first and test in the others afterwards. I think that's a big part of what makes Firefox such a compelling browser, it's developer heaven compared to the others.
It looks like Opera is starting to recognize this too, which should help increase support for their browser eventually too.
I agree with what you have said about Firebug. I absolutely cannot live without it. The Inspect feature of Firebug is priceless especially when working with the DOM. It's easy to use and it is in the same window. I do not have to switch windows to look at the html source.
For now, I just use Chrome for my "24/7" tabs like feeds and online email. I never have to close them and it loads at "notepad-like" speed :)
I've actually been using Fluid (http://fluidapp.com) for all my 24/7 stuff -- gmail, basecamp, github, hacker news ;) It really already does what Chrome's detachable websites feature kind of does, only better (for now at least, I'll give it time :).
Switched yesterday. I transferred 8 tabs from FF3 and 8 tabs from IE (formerly ran both, for different sites), and started using Chrome exclusively. So far, 100% perfection, 100% stability. All the financial sites, news sites, Amazon, ..., everything works perfectly. Great performance. Very slick developer tools built-in.
Chrome will not interest me until there is some ad-blocking available. Yes, it is superior to anything else out there, but my killer app for the web is still being able to surf the web sans irritating advertising.
I'm kind of using both right now. I like Chrome, I might gradually migrate to it... it reminds me of Opera's sleekness.
The biggest irritations so far are the lack of "View Selection Source", and of course, no Firebug (though the built-in element inspector in Chrome is very impressive, but I haven't played enough with it to be convinced it can do everything Firebug can).
The main problem I have with Opera is that my first user experience was one of abject confusion ;)
The UI is really cluttered in terms of all the different bars and buttons that I didn't quite know what to do with.
Chrome just feels nice. There are some tabs, theres an address bar, and there is a back/forward and reload. I think there are other features too, I just don't see them ;)
I get rid of everything except the address bar. Previously I didn't even have that showing most of the time, as there was a keyboard shortcut to hide and show it (which has since been removed).
Once you've taken away all the clutter, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome all look quite similar (you can't remove much from IE7). Chrome is still the fastest by a huge margin, which is why I'll probably start using it on Windows.
I have used Opera for years because of its speed compared to Firefox.
However, every Opera 9.5X release has had at least one major, show-stopping problem for me. I'm pretty sick of it, so as soon as Chrome gets AdBlock, I'll seriously consider switching.
I use Mac at work and Linux at home, so I'm SOL for the time being. Chrome looks nice, though, and I'll probably end up switching when they port to the platforms I use.
I'm currently using it, but I'm switching back to firefox on single core machines -- the multiple process method doesn't work too well on an older machine.
Chrome certainly looks very promising. However it is still lacking many features. Until they get it all put together I doubt that I will be switching.
I've also read that IE8 has some nice features that Chrome does not have or doesn't do as well. I'd prefer to avoid IE8, but you never know, maybe MS got something right this time around??
I'm using it as my primary browser, but I'm seeing several errors (or at least inconsistencies). Sometimes, paste+undo when composing in gmail gets me the sad tab. Three downloads have resulted in all of chrome (not just one tab) crashing and burning. Alt-d (which acts as ctrl-l in ff and ie) works properly but boops at me; I feel scolded and when I'm feeling emotionally fragile it's really hurtful. Webkit's developer functionality does most of what I need firebug for, although I haven't used it extensively. The speed, clean ui, and novelty are keeping me happy for the time being, although I do wish they had a handy feedback system so I could bitch right back when alt-d bitches at me.
If it sucks less than firefox, when the linux version comes out. Im to lazy to reboot to windows to try it out right now, and i usually switch a few weeks after something new comes out.
Nope, not yet at least. I don't honestly find FF "fat" and requiring slimming/speeding up. Of course, faster JS is a good thing, maybe I'll switch when some app more or less needs the performance to be usable.
It's also too obsessed with tabs, which I find dumb (I already have a taskbar in my OS, thanks), and a few UI bugs are stopping me.
I'd prefer to have Flashblock/Adblock Plus too.
[edit] Oh, and from a tech point of view separate "process" pages I find interesting, but I'm not sure that it's solving a problem I currently have.
I won't be switching, at least not yet. I think as a technical innovation, Chrome is amazing. But in terms of user friendly features (who doesn't prompt to close a window with tabs?) it has a long way to go. Google has a history of this write strong powerful utilities and make them shiny later. I have nothing wrong with this, as long as they realize they are doing it. It is the Unix way after all, and we all know the Unix way is the right way :p
I'm using it as soon as I get a Linux version, stable or not. If the core is solid, then crashes will be confined to tabs. Of the three extensions I use, one is already built into Chrome (incognito mode), one is a proxy extension, and one is NoScript. I use NoScript to keep my browser from crashing all the time, but hey, if it has the process isolation, then I'm not going to worry about it.
I wont be switching. Firefox is perfect for my use case and has features I want/need.
Portable Firefox: I use workstations at three different locations during the course of my day. Using Portable Firefox to keep my settings, bookmarks and saved passwords consistent on each machine is a MUST for me.
Adblock: Not necessary, but definitely nice to have.
So yeah, while my use case is pretty specific, Firefox fits it to a T.
- I got hard crash, real BSOD, not just browser
- constant disk trashing (comes from "Phishing and malware protection" feature)
- Flash is actually much slower than FF/Opera/Explorer
- no way for me to import Firefox bookmarks (it doesn't appear in menu)
- don't try "about:%"
I might use it for Google Apps. For those, Crome is and probably alway will be the fastest browser and for those they got all my private data already. I hesitate to allow them to store my complete browse and search history. I kind of beginning to feel watched by Google.
Not until Chrome has been out for a while and has proven its security and stability.
Firefox has gone through many years of trial by fire and I am reasonably sure that I am not going to get pwned by browsing to a malicious site with firefox.
I think I already have. It's not really intentional. I just keep using it. Wish it had some of the extensions I'm used to though. I'm just keeping a FF window open as well at the moment.
I use gmail and google docs quite a bit and chrome they work a lot faster. But for the rest of my browsing needs it's Firefox all the way. I stopped using IE longtime ago.
Not sure yet, I need a Mac version and extensions (with a very active community building cool stuff) before I switch (or try even, don't have a Windows machine!)
Are PPC machines still even available on the desktop? I know IBM is still selling servers, but obviously a browser isn't much use on an 8 node node Power6 server. Seems like maybe PPC isn't a platform worth targeting new desktop software to...though, since it's open source, as long as its endian-sane, it ought to just be a recompile away, once it works on Linux.
I'm writing apps for people with browsers. Right now that means I have IE and FF on my machine.
If Chrome gets a big following, I'll download it. But I don't have a particular problem that I need fixing. If the JS performance is as slick as they say, then perhaps a killer web site will come along and cause me to download and use Chrome more. So far, that ain't happening.
Chrome is a good app. I played around with it yesterday. Sad that they are doing it "open source". They should license it, then they could get the revenue they need to be a serious competitor to IE. As it is, nor matter how good technically Chrome is, it will be a curiousity. Without revenue from licensing you can't play with the big boys. "Open source"/free software sounds good in a college sociology paper, but sucks as a business model. It's like flying a 4-engine aeroplane with two engines off. It's stupid. But on the technical side, it is good, and so I'll probably use it. I just feel bad for google's shareholders. They could really be doing a lot better off.
What Google is doing is commoditizing the browser in order to make the web more accessible - and most importantly more like an operating system by including a (supposedly) superior javascript engine that makes it possible to create real apps in a browser window.
The financial interest of Google is not to make money on the browser, but to change the game and move as many apps on to the Internet and away from the computer as possible. This is where their strength lies, and they know it.
In my opinion this is a genius and bold move to which Microsoft basically has no countermoves. If they play along and get better javascript performance in IE apps move to the web, if they don't IE will fall behind firefox and chrome. Either way Google wins.
They don't care about making money on the browser. They care about moving everything into the(ir) cloud.
I'm a bit confused about where you're coming from here. They could certainly have attempted to license v8 but since the bulk of what they have going on are extension of the already open sourced WebKit rendering engine that would have been difficult.
Now they certainly could have written their own rendering engine, but if time has shown anything it's that this is not easy task (look at the lag time between release to market and efficient rendering for any of the big engines). And in this case it would have likely meant the death of the project to step out with an inefficient root rendering engine.
Okay... so let's assume the above. They are forced to open source the components that link in with Web Kit, but they keep the Javascript VM closed and license that. We now get to throw into contention that there is any significant cash flow available to license. I think that's certainly suspect.
So finally let's think about why google might not care. This isn't about making a money move. Much like releasing IE back in the 90's wasn't a money move for MS. It is however a platform move. Google has a number of very resource intensive javascript applications, a number of which are common for people to have open at the same time. That requires have a better framework for dealing with these kinds of tasks. Chrome is an attempt to provide that.
It's not even clear if this is a serious browser bid, or more of a road map for other browser vendors to emulate. In the end it doesn't matter. Google's revenue stream requires eyeballs, lots of them. And the eyeballs are asking for better performance, Chrome is a means to that end.
