digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Chrome Eliminates Google's Middle-Man Problems

blog.wired.com — With its release of Chrome, Google is distributing a browser that will give the company direct access to the user, and more control over the data it gets. If Chrome catches on, the result would be a boon for Google's cash cow -- advertising.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • goosegoosegoose, on 09/02/2008, -20/+2JANNN!!!!!!!!!
  • yuokool12, on 09/02/2008, -12/+51I don't Care if Google get more information about me, they already know everything I search for.
    • HarChim, on 09/03/2008, -8/+23Yea, I agree. I don't really see what they can do with all that info besides throw better ads at me which wouldn't be that bad.
      • stubear, on 09/03/2008, -4/+8This is where it begins. Do you know where it's going to end? I sure don't and neither do you. Google has already demonstrated their willingness to work with governments to oppress their own people, why shouldn't they sell or give away your information should they be asked? It starts with the real criminals, who cares if Google shares their information, they deserve to go to jail, right?
      • ww917352, on 09/03/2008, -1/+5I think the big problem here is the following: Yes, Google promised not to be evil so they may just use your information to better advertise. However, that is only a promise and who knows what actually happens with your data? Even Google acts as an angel, it is still dangerous when your data accidentally slipped out of Google's hands (to hackers or cyber criminals) and misused against you. Also, what if Google is ordered by courts or govenmental agents to hand over user data? Once data is collected, you have little control whether the data will be abused.
    • theOster, on 09/03/2008, -5/+2and if you're like me, you get all warm and fuzzy whenever you touch anything google. god i wish i could marry google.
      • sirjoebob, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Screw marriage, maybe just an affair?
    • OhFrak, on 09/03/2008, -3/+16Here's the complete source to Chrome:

      http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/archives/chromi ...

      Anyone who is making the claim that Chrome is doing anything sinister should be able to easily point out where in the code.


  • UpperUpsilon, on 09/02/2008, -9/+6Wow. I never actually thought of it that way...
    Thanks alot, for serious.
  • stutimandal, on 09/03/2008, -3/+25Chrome is nice from a get-job-done/resource point of view, but the EULA agreement sucks. They even want your "comments at Digg" (or other websites) under their ownership -- which basically means they have a sniffer which will sniff any comment and report it to google before submitting it.

    I don't think Google knows that much about me just based on my Google search history as Yuokool12 suggests.
    • norman619, on 09/03/2008, -1/+23I wonder how many people have bothered to read the EULA. Why they feel they need to own that information is a mystery to me. My comments here on diggg and elsewhere are mine. They can do what they like with the information but to try and lay claim to is a little disturbing to me.
      • OhFrak, on 09/03/2008, -11/+1Idiot.

      • sirjoebob, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1If you read the EULA, the descriptions include translation. This is just legal mumbo jumbo to cover their rear ends. Basically, you can't sue Google for translating a page you type is korean into english.
    • thcobbs, on 09/03/2008, -8/+2/me hrrm.... *tap tap tap* yeah....

      Lets see... it looks like you're an ant-social technophile with a penchant for furry porn and cheetos... And no, its not supposed to be orange. Does that sum it up well enough?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 09/03/2008, -2/+9And the Internet Tough Guy shows up on cue...
      • thcobbs, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2How is that tough guy? Just curuios... seems more to me like "The Internet *****".
      • BoneheadFarker, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Alright, you have a point. I apologize. You're an *****, not a tough guy...
      • thcobbs, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Thank you. I hate being mislabeled.

        /me Turns Dennis Leary back up.
    • danandre, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4I don't see how even Google is capable of storing or even logging ALL content produced by its users. I'm guessing they use the content to generate a profile of the user. Profile is used to make targeted ads.
    • maninalift, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4_WHERE_ in the EULA does it say this?
    • Karmavs, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4The EULA is the same as all their other EULAs, and makes references that really make no sense in a browser EULA. I wouldn’t worry about it.
      • maninalift, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3agreed ...it's something Google should probably make clearer though
    • maninalift, on 09/03/2008, -1/+5OK...

      1.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and websites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document

      11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services....

      _BUT_ 11.1 continues to say:

      This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

    • JorgeGT, on 09/03/2008, -0/+11It's open source!! Can someone compile the source code into an executable installer? That way we can get rid of the eula. The souce code is here: http://code.google.com/chromium/ but I don't have visual studio.
    • haterofps3, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Well I can think of a reason why but whether or not it is correct is another issue.

      1. A browser displays content and as such can display copyrighted information so as a medium it possibly has to have permission from the copyrighter before it can display it. I would imagine that this is there more to protect Google and less about Google owning everything.
  • SuperWinner, on 09/03/2008, -7/+26Well, unless someone makes an adblocker addon for it real quick, they aren't going to get me..
    • m3mn0n, on 09/03/2008, -4/+3Use the HOSTS file until an ad-blocker is developed.

      Here is a site that teaches you how:
      http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
      • clsslc, on 09/03/2008, -4/+1Why don't you just stop surfing to / patronizing sites that use pop-up advertisements?
      • sirjoebob, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3translation: clsslc advocates not using the internet....
    • OhFrak, on 09/03/2008, -2/+6http://www.admuncher.com/

      Works perfectly with Chrome while waiting for AdBlock.




    • NoDitchDigging, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Being an advertising company as well as search, I can't see Google being too happy about allowing ad blocking software on their new browser. I have noticed at least one tech forum I've visited has expressly forbidden discussion of such software since it would cut into the site's ad revenues, and I can see Google definitely taking a similar stance - particularly since the browser has features built into it for detecting and removing software it doesn't like. Call it "anti-malware" but it can be used to remove anything that Google blacklists.
  • Warpling, on 09/03/2008, -7/+17"Do no evil"
    I'm still scared…
    • Giever, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Actually, it's "Don't be evil," everyone thinks it's, "Do no evil," cause of those monkeys.
    • GrantTLC, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Is it time to put this silly catchphrase to bed now? It stopped being true and even mockable some time ago.
  • trigatch4, on 09/03/2008, -10/+3Chrome, Android, Docs, Reader, Gears, Search, Adsense, Adwords.... lots of these products are in their infancy and Google is ALREADY a huge company. Be prepared to live in a GEE'd up world folks.

    For those interested, Chrome Community at:
    http://ChromeSpot.com
    • norman619, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Highly doubtful. Remember the claims made during the dot com boom? Yours smells strangely like those.
    • Kyrgizion, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Just makes me wish I had sold everything I owned and purchased google stock when they were first hitting it off with nothing more than a search engine.
  • chkdg8, on 09/03/2008, -8/+3Smack it up, flip it, rub it down, Oh no! IE is poison.
    • norman619, on 09/03/2008, -10/+2IE is the most popular browser in use. But I get it. You don't like it. You see some evil MS conspiracy right?
    • epadafunk, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1My name ain't tupac, I don't get around.
  • ChayesFSS, on 09/03/2008, -5/+8meh, I can't really see what more I get from moving away from FF
    • clsslc, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Speed, on a whole new magnitude.
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html? ...

      Especially for Javascript/ECMAScript ("Ajax") applications, which are only getting bigger and better.

      It's simpler but there's also more control. For instance, all pages and their scripts are run in separate processes or threads (not sure which technically), so that if one application freezes it won't lock up the entire browser. And, you can summon a "Task Manager" to kill individual processes.
  • nationalist, on 09/03/2008, -8/+5good bye adblock
  • davidkeithjones, on 09/03/2008, -6/+40I prefer Firefox because it is more neutral than IE and Crome, in other words: there is no hidden agenda.

    Please FF is just awesome and keeps getting better with every version.
    • BellaG, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3I agree - FF has everything I need in a browser - and all the add on's make things a lot easier!

      Not sure if you can have add on's on Chrome too?
    • chrisemc, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6The scary thing is that it was stated yesterday that at some point in the future Google envisions Chrome and Firefox coalescing into one very similar offering. Which at face value sounds cool, but to those people on this thread worried about their privacy concerns, not so much.

      There's a war coming, and it's for your (seemingly innocuous) web footprint.
    • sirjoebob, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Google still supports FF, they are just trying their hand at a browser. This could force innovation to make FF even better.
  • FuzzyCat, on 09/03/2008, -3/+2711. Content license from you

    11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

    • sodoh, on 09/03/2008, -3/+2INAL.. but as I read that if you posted something into Digg then google owns the rights to do what they like with it?
    • OhFrak, on 09/03/2008, -2/+5That has nothing to do with Chrome itself, it is in regards to Google Services like YouTube.




      • aryo, on 09/03/2008, -1/+21.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement)

        but i think their privacy policy is what's more relevant (since what is submitted through said Services is a privacy issue) when using Chrome:
        http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html
      • MWeather, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1That has nothing to do with Chrome itself, it is in regards to Google Services like YouTube.
    • kozEfx, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3How is this not a service OhFrak? Chrome seems to be providing "Services": connecting to WWW sites. Is there a legal definition as to what "Services" are? Does that definition not include "browsers"?
      • MWeather, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1If you want to get legal about it, most EULAs would be thrown out of court quicker than an AT&T long distance agreement.
    • fokov, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2So technically, they can reproduce every password and account information I post on a web site, such as a bank. This also gives them the streamline ability to work the the NSA, FBI, and CIA to monitor your postings online to find out which people would require removal from society. GG Where are the fanboys saying Microsoft is evil?
    • Karmavs, on 09/03/2008, -5/+1A browser is not a service. This is Google’s cookie-cutter EULA; it isn’t appropriate to a browser. No-one cares about EULAs: not consumers, not the companies making them, and not courts.
  • hexingu2, on 09/03/2008, -11/+5Chrome is, BY FAR, the worst product EVER release by google. It's ugly, clunky, lacking text search features of other browsers, and the EULA is TERRIBLE.
    Google is CLEARLY turning into another Micro$oft (which is SAD...I used to really like google back in the day).
    Support Mozilla. They are the innovative ones in the browser arena. Even Opera is better than this "thing" google has released.
    GOOGLE -> STICK WITH DATA SEARCHING AND MINING, AND BRINGING CONSUMER ADS TO THE MASSES.
    Leave the browser coding up to Mozilla.
    • MacParrot, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3"Google is CLEARLY turning into another Micro$oft (which is SAD...I used to really like google back in the day)."

      You mean their going to integrate their browser into your OS and not allow you to remove it without damage? Or maybe you mean they'll force OEMs to bundle it whether or not they actually want it and make them pay for it on each machine sold?

      Dude, even Microsoft isn't like that anymore. It's a browser. It integrates with Google services. You can either use it or not. If you decide not to, all the services you CHOOSE to use from Google will still work with FireFox, IE, Safari, Opera, or (name your browser of choice here).

      As far as leaving all browser coding up to Mozilla, are you saying that only one browser should be available? That no one should have the choice to use say Safari or (if that's their preference) IE?
      • ScrewedThePooch, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2"As far as leaving all browser coding up to Mozilla, are you saying that only one browser should be available? That no one should have the choice to use say Safari or (if that's their preference) IE?"

        I agree, but no one should use IE....ever.
  • 1timeuser, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2It's a fine browser and its size, speed, and tiny memory requirements will make it great for those minimalist linux distributions.. still I miss adblock.
  • m6ack, on 09/03/2008, -5/+4Ho Hum -- /me just waiting for adblock+ and NoScript plugins to be ported over...
  • Scotty87, on 09/03/2008, -5/+6Google has done nothing wrong. Google supports web neutrality (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html). I would marry google if I could.

    Now worship Chrome!
  • 1longtime, on 09/03/2008, -8/+6No Firebug. End of discussion.
    • JorgeGT, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Surprisingly enough, it has a built-in code inspector, far from firebug, yes, but handy.
      • gann, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Actually it's almost like firebug, like 95%
  • shaheerk, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9Uhh.... I think that license agreement part is for their websites only. Note the capitalization of "services" - that's clearly Google Services.

    Chrome's cool. It's just an infant; give it some time. But I'll say it's a good alternative to Firefox at this stage.

    I just noted this text box is bouncing like crazy as I type. Submit bug report...
    • dazparkour, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Shhh. Put the reason back in the box.
  • JasonCox, on 09/03/2008, -2/+9I'm kinda scared here; the Google fanboys are actually burying the Firefox fanboys.
    • macweirdo42, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3I'm scared too... Hold me.
    • hexingu2, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0Fickle people...I bet they would leave their girlfriend for a warm, wet towel as soon as the microwave beeped....but only after they were mindlessly commanded to do so by google...
  • gygash, on 09/03/2008, -2/+18Guess what? It's open source!

    If Chrome were spying on you, it would be there in the source code.
  • Anifinity, on 09/03/2008, -4/+3Chrome's approach with multiple processes is interesting, however Firefox rarely needs to be forcefully shut down via task manager and I can't remember the last time it's actually crashed. Even those odd times I do have to manually shut it down, when I open it back up all my tabs are still there and ready to go.

    Regarding the memory footprint, I don't think I've observed Firefox 3 using more than 150MB or so of memory ever. Honestly, that's nothing and having my browser use 50% less memory, while nice on paper, really means absolutely nothing to me from a user experience perspective. I will admit however having the ability to view each individual web page's memory footprint is cool.

    The only other thing I'd like to say is regarding startup times. Firefox 3 may take longer to startup initially, however once it's been opened once it loads almost instantly every other times because it's cached. Also this is just in Vista? I assume since in Ubuntu Firefox loads instantly every time. Hell, I had 6 tabs open, I closed the browser saving the open tabs and relaunched and it was still instant with all pages rendering immediately. Even on my XP partition Firefox doesn't behave much differently.

    • warriorscot, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You are right on faster computers, however on my slow work beastie chrome performs FAR better than FF and since I use it for google docs most of the time anyway its pretty much perfect for it.
  • hexingu2, on 09/03/2008, -5/+4It's sad that people will abandon firefox for this thing.
    Anyone in favor of google - ever watched the movie Idiocracy? YOU ARE FRITO!
    Now go back to your 'batin...
    "..welcome to google...i love you.....welcome to google....i love you....welcome to google....i love you..."
    • MacParrot, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3"..welcome to google...i love you.....welcome to google....i love you....welcome to google....i love you..."

      Now replace all the times you said Google with FireFox. That's basically what you're saying. Choice is a good thing and no one is being forced to use Chrome.
      • hexingu2, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0Frito...er, I mean, MacParrot...awww...you're so cute when you get angry. :)~
        And...(sigh) yes, you are right...choice is a good thing. I have a Macbook pro, and a linux box, and a windows laptop. I use Safari on mac, FF on windows, and even lynx on linux...sometimes even (gasp) IE on windows (for ...again, GASP, access to MSDN downloads).
        Are you appeased now? If so...turn around, google has an ad they would like to show you.
      • MacParrot, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Not angry at all. Your posting wasn't bright enough to be angry about. Having all those different computers you claim to have should have taught you that I was right. One thing about Google you fail to mention...you don't have to use it...or any other service that you don't care about or don't like. Doesn't make the work they do meaningless. Or you any more funny. The fact that you enjoyed Idiocracy so much is not at all surprising.
      • hexingu2, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0Frito... See, you *are* cute when you get mad...all frustrated to the point of using very poor grammar!

        By the way, you are the reason the movie was so funny! Knowing that people like you exist in the world does tend make me a bit sad at times, but that's part of life. The genetic pool is tainted with you, and we all have to endure that fact.
        :)~
        Now, go outside and play. Oh, and stop taking yourself so seriously! This is only the internet.
    • ScrewedThePooch, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1ROFL! Dugg for Idiocracy plug.
  • cchris81, on 09/03/2008, -3/+6No Adblock.... Thats the deal breaker for me.. I've always had it running and now i can't beleive how clustered all the sites I go to are.
    • GrantTLC, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2"Deal-breaker"? Wouldn't you like to wait until the product matures out of beta before making such a strong and final analysis? Nobody it touting this as a finished product just yet.

      It's open-source: my money's on smart code-monkeys eventually writing Ad-blocking plug-ins/extensions etc for it, just as good as those revered in Fx.
  • macweirdo42, on 09/03/2008, -3/+4Well, I confess, Google's got me in its tentacles. Yes, there may be some diabolical plot afoot, but for now, all I can think is "Damn, this is a really nice browser!" Honestly, if this is part of an evil conspiracy, I'm kind of okay with it. It certainly beats the Microsoft evil conspiracy which is "We're going to give you utter crap that doesn't even work half the time, and we're gonna MAKE you like it! Mwahahahahahaha!!!"
  • warriorscot, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4Ive been using it since it came out and I really like it, the more I use it the more little things I find that I like. I Love the UI it has exactly what I need and nothing more, the way it handles tabs is just brilliant and its blazing fast and unlike FF hasn't had a single slow down on my work computer all day.

    The lack of a proper adblocking is annoying for some sites but it blocks pop ups at least. And it is open source there is absolutely no reason I can see that someone can't modify Chrome to be a little more privacy orientated with a built in adblocker. If they added in an adblocker I don't think I would ever use anything other than chrome again normally.

    Although this text box just started bouncing like mad, it was working fine earlier though.
  • mlvassallo, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2I'm still having issues with flash applications. It must be me and my stupidity, but I'm really not that interested in troubleshooting when my Firefox works just fine.
    • MWeather, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2If you're not interested in troubleshooting, perhaps you should avoid beta software. That's sort of it's purpose.
  • skinturtle, on 09/03/2008, -4/+1Google is really trying to push this thing on DIGG today I see...lol

    Just another corporation looking for control...and of course people flock right to it bent over with their pants down..saying, "Do Me!..Do Me!"
    • hexingu2, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0consumer - "...oops...I dropped the soap again ..." (looks around to make sure google is watching)
      google - "...come here, you lil' midget! you're mine!"
      consumer - " OH...I LIKE IT...I WANT IT...WILLINGLY!"
      google - "..take it...you lil' midget....you going to like it, even if you really don't!"
      consumer - " * "

  • goffy59, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Talk to the Chrome!
  • MDIT, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3How long till they open up a plugin directory?
  • jeffsback2223, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3I'm not going to say anything bad about Chrome. I'm just going to say that I'm comfortable using Firefox, since I spent a good deal of time customizing to my needs.
  • 4ZERO1, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Great, as before Google will make a great product, have us learn to live without it, then slap "unobtrusive" ads in it and make us monkeys generate revenue. Why do you think they want to use what we do with the browser?

    http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/09/03/google-ch ...
    • hexingu2, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0see macparrot - some people get it.
  • PosedMagnet, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0It's not getting any data unless you allow it to.

    Considering the checkbox to allow this behavior is not checked when you download the app... it's really a non-issue.
  • QuimbyDogg, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I had time to play around with chrome a little bit. The way they have built it gives it large potential to be the "next big thing" as far as Internet browsing goes. I can't wait for a linux release.

    I know some people think firefox is super stable, and it probably is if you just visit digg, cnn, ebay, and amazon then close your browser each time you are done with it... I have encountered firefox browser crashes on an almost daily basis it seems. The idea that each tab is its own processes is, honestly, an amazing idea. If anyone actually bothered to read the technology behind the browser and how it is built you would see that this is going to be far superior to most any other browser available. The java virtual machine, the way tabbed browsing is done with different processes, the way it keeps track of most visited sites for new tabs, security permissions, memory allocation, etc etc. They are essentially developing it like an OS.

    Chrome really will end up revolutionizing web browsing again, much like firefox originally did when it was created. I will never understand fanboyism. I've been a strong supporter of firefox for years using it on windows and linux and am still super excited about Chrome. If a product is great you should use it. You only hurt yourself by refusing to be open to try...
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1It's a trap!
  • esc27, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1They would have been far better off developing a plugin that could run a custom, open source language based google apps in any browser. All those 60%+ people running IE aren't going to change to anything else anytime soon, but would easily install a plugin. A much faster, more efficient, better controlled way to build and distribute a platform.
  • marybaboo, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Seriously, we didn't need another friggin' browser: http://doiop.com/Chrome-NOT
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.