Google's Spam Cop Cracks Down on Chrome Complainers
Matt Cutts, who appears omnipresent online and rarely misses a chance to defend Google's honor, is at it again. I'm beginning to wonder if he isn't running a 20 percent time project in the metaphysics of good versus evil corporations when he isn't cracking down on Google search gamers and entertaining ideas on how to thwart Web spam. But seriously ... Yesterday, Google's Chrome team issued Chrome developer build 2.0.151.1, as detailed by Chrome engineer Mark Larson's blog post. Larson innocuously notes Google Chrome now has its own implementation of the HTTP network protocol, which will pave the way for Mac and Linux versions of Chrome. Yet amid all the good stuff in here about form auto-complete, a better Webkit and utilities for navigating the young browser, just that allusion to the other, forthcoming operating system support was enough to draw chides from readers. Jim wrote: "Blah blah blah. When're ya gonna release a Linux version is all I care about." dlangh added: "And Mac. Come on guys ..." Cutts chimed in:
Jim and dlangh, if you read the release notes you'll notice changes such as "New network code. Google Chrome now has its own implementation of the HTTP network protocol (we were using the WinHTTP library on Windows, but need common code for Mac and Linux)." To me, that means the Chrome team is making changes that push Chrome closer to different platforms. I know that Mac/Linux is high on the to-do list, but it's a lot of work. It's coming. Clearly, Mac and Linux versions of Chrome are the most sought after iterations for the Web browser, which got me wondering. Chrome is used by 1 percent of computer users worldwide, according to Net Applications, which tracks Web browser and operating system use among other Web apps. It will be interesting to see what the uptake of Chrome will be when Mac and Linux versions appear. The percentage of users could double to 2 percent, still hardly enough to challenge Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox. Anyone what to hazard a guess? But, come on, these things take time. Folks, a little patience here, please. It's not as if Google is taking the Chrome-wasn't-built-in-a-day approach (you didn't get the memo? It's bad pun Friday). It's commendable that Chrome has hit a 2.0 whatever release, even if it's for geeks. As for Cutts, well, he's clearly a great team player for Google, rabidly reads comments, and responds to them with grace and the speed we expect from a Web services expert. Some other Web services providers (Microsoft, Yahoo?) would kill for that kind of teammate. |
Comments (11)
I remember WAY back in 2003 when Firefox only had a 2% market share....and now?
Posted by J | January 9, 2009 1:00 PM
This is a bad idea. People shouldn't be coding network protocols in their applications. Super lame move Google. Focus on the 80/20
Posted by 8r13n | January 9, 2009 1:18 PM
Google has a conflict of interest in offering a browser that has a advertisement or flash blocker.
That's how they make their money.. ads.
Foxfire with adblock works for me.
Posted by David | January 9, 2009 1:32 PM
to J: yeah and now FireFox has a whopping, what 8% share , woo hoo.
Posted by howlett23 | January 9, 2009 1:34 PM
@8r13n:
"This is a bad idea."
How is this a bad idea? You give no reasons for your statement. Why do you claim people shouldn't code their own network protocols? I'd agree there's no point to re-invent wheels, but if you're a large company looking to make a cross-platform and robust product with long-term longevity, sometimes it helps a lot to be working with a codebase that you have catered to your needs, as opposed to trying to make some specific third-party work for every scenario you intend to use it in. Dependency on third-party libs can hinder what you end up doing in the future.
Also, implementing an HTTP network protocol is not that ridiculous of an effort. HTTP is a relatively simple protocol to support — in fact, it's commonly used as an introduction to sockets/network programming project in college. I don't see why this would be a deal-breaker for Google.
Just my opinion.
Posted by jtfrench | January 9, 2009 1:52 PM
@howlett23: It's more like 20% and rising.
Maybe a better argument is remember when IE had a 2% market share. It helps when you can put it on the OS which is going to be Google's strategy I bet.
Posted by Johnnykrisma | January 9, 2009 1:53 PM
Hmmm 8% of a few billion people. I'll take it.
Posted by pete | January 9, 2009 1:57 PM
FF actually now has 10%...but, I am ready for a change...
To me, FF has become bloated and is losing it's luster.. I am finding more and more things not being blocked even using No Script and Ad Block.. I am an Ubuntu purist and am looking forward to Chrome in Linux in hopes of getting a sleek browser to just browse and that will work no matter where I go...
VastOne
Posted by VastOne | January 9, 2009 2:00 PM
Check out the link in the article (according to Net Applications) before shooting you mouth off about Firefox share. It's approaching 22%. Woo Hoo
Posted by KenN | January 9, 2009 2:26 PM
KenN,
I actually meant to say 20% and should have read it before posting...
Posted by VastOne | January 9, 2009 2:46 PM
Well now I'm blushing. :)
David, Google has said that it intends to support extensions and they specifically mention adblocking as one application in their documentation (search on Google for [chrome extension documentation]). The Chrome 2.0 beta has support for Greasemonkey, so I suppose you could hack up a Greasemonkey script that did adblocking if you wanted.
Also, w00t! to Firefox for rocking recent market share numbers.
Posted by Matt Cutts | January 9, 2009 4:21 PM