-
Website
http://shegeeks.net/ -
Original page
http://shegeeks.net/where-google-chrome-failed-to-succeed-the-integration-of-google-services/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Rif Chia
Also, as far as integration, It seems they have went out of their way to NOT tie this thing directly to Google in any way. It doesn't seem they intended to release a "Google Web Browser."
Just a good web browser base to build on.
I guess this boils down to the expectations game. We expected Chrome to integrate Google products. Ubiquity is completely new and it didn't have expectations to live up to.
Chrome doesn't have service integration yet but I can appreciate Google releasing a lightweight, easy to use browser that works upon it's initial release. It does what the Google Product team said it was going to do. First, they said it would not be prone to crashes. My friend Chris opened up over 100 tabs in Chrome before it finally crashed on him. They also said it would be fast. And guess what? It's crazy fast.
At the beginning I was very excited by Chrome but after playing with it for one hour I just though: it's just another browser, nothing more.
Google claims it's robust because of tabs being webapps in separate processes but I've been using Fluid for a while, and it already does just that.
I don't even want to call them separate webapps because they're being treated more like the webpages that they are instead of web applications. They didn't add anything new except better loading times and more space. Big deal if you can't capitalize on any of it.
The problem with chrome is that if you; as a user; are ready to adopt it this early then you are a probably a google services user and hence will require the integration that your normal browser has but with the lighter front end and security / memory management features of chrome.
The interface is only early Beta but I must ask - where is the space in that interface to add gmail manager, notebook add-ons etc..there seems to be very little real-estate to build extra functionality in at the minute. Sure you could have 10 tabs open with these running as separate "apps" but that surely would invalidate the cleanliness of the GUI. You can also have this with Prism from Mozilla!!
I personally think that there needs to be more front end introduced to realise this as a true competitor to FF or even Opera in the functionality stakes.
For now, they're just playing around and I wish they wouldn't.
Chrome has the most advanced architecture of any browser available today. It's super fast in rendering pages (thanks to WebKit) and runs Javascript-heavy pages and web apps without bogging down, thanks to the V8 Javascript engine.
It's already faster and more reliable than FireFox, Internet Explorer and Safari, which have far more mature code bases than Chrome does.
And to be clear: each tab runs as a separate process whether it's showing a web page or is running a web application and is treated as such by Chrome. The value here is that something on the page could cause that page to crash, but your other tabs will keep running. That's huge. Who wants their Google Docs session to die just because some other site caused their browser to crash?
I think part of the confusion comes from the blogosphere itself, where everyone tries to post what the double secret meaning of what it all means before they even understand what's going on. As the bloggers fell all over themselves to have the most insightful article about Chrome, they decided they couldn't take Google at their word and made up their own story why Chrome exists and what it's meant to do. And lots of it was just plain wrong.
For now, Chrome is clean-slate re-implementation of what a web browser can be. Used it as my primary browser for a day and it came through with flying colors. If this is what half-baked looks like, I can hardly wait until it's done.
Part of the confusion comes from the initially poor reporting that happened on the blogosphere about Chrome and web apps. Even in it's beta form, it's by far the best browser for running web applications: dead simple UI for creating dedicated web app short cuts (you should really play with that feature), very fast Javascript engine and tabs that run as separate processes so one of them can't crash the entire browser. WebKit is way ahead of IE and Gecko for advanced standards support and support for HTML5.
Google Gears is built-in, so it has support for off-line web apps right now. You can run launch Google Reader and run it disconnected from the internet right now using Chrome without hacking stuff or downloading plugins. This is what's going to move web apps forward into mainstream use, which should be a good thing IMHO.
In short, Chome is already the best browser for running web apps and it's still in beta. And don't get me wrong: Ubiquity is cool as an early adopter tool and points the way for integrating web services but Chrome will have a bigger impact over the long term.
I was surprised as well that Chrome comes across as the Switzerland of Web browsers. My sense is Google is likely worried about the optics of initially coming out with something that integrates other Google services even if it does make sense. In the coming months, you can probably expect Google to introduce integrated features based on "feedback" from Chrome users. That way, the user community is seen as compelling Google to do it as opposed to Google making the first move. :)
Good Day
Loan Advice
good-jobs.org , airprints.com