SheGeeks - Latest Comments in Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Loan_Services — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:36:17 -0000

Thanks for sharing the information. I am very amazed at the confidence level of you guys, so i have to refer your blog to my friends because it’s really a help full blog.
Good Day

Loan Advice
good-jobs.org , airprints.com

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Avadhut — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:25:57 -0000

Why is chrome's downloading so slow? It goes at almost half the speed of available bandwidth. Suppose I wish to use DAP for downloading, how do I integrate it in chrome?

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

pret — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:37:43 -0000

I agree, they could have done better with chrome.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

singaporeescorts — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:49:15 -0000

I normally open many windows and tabs to do my things. So I switched to Chrome because it is very fast loading and this is the best thing that comes out of Chrome. So if speed is what you want, use Chrome selectively.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

BusbySEOTesting — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:02:42 -0000

CHrome is something to reckon with in the future

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

buy silver playstation 3 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:00:36 -0000

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!!

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

beloed — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:16:34 -0000

nead much Plug-in for Google Chrome

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

rifchia — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:48:21 -0000

I have heard that chrome is getting pulled out of its beta version. At this current stage, i personally still feels that chrome is not as good as firefox on it interface. Though there are some good features such as its the search function via its navigation bar, chrome still needs to be further developed.
Rif Chia

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

globalrs — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:16:33 -0000

I think the main reason why Google Chrome is failing is not having enough plugins. Firefox is way way ahead in this arena. I just don't like the way Chrome is designed.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Forex Day Trading — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:53:23 -0000

it's funny, the more i use Chrome (for windows), the more unstable it seems to get... crashes a lot more, can't handle sites with flash, hangs every time i close a tab... all that to say, i'm switching back to Firefox

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Daryl Tay — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:51:55 -0000

I'm going to agree with you! I thought it would at least have the Google Toolbar integrated, but I guess not. But yes, it's just launched, it's not going to be 100%, definitely worth keeping an eye on!

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

alwillis — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:36:17 -0000

A couple of things: not sure why you expected any kind of extension of anything from Google. As several commenters have already posted, Google went out of their way to not tie Google's apps and services into Chrome. Listen to the latest Gillmor Gang podcast (if you haven't already) with two members of the Chrome team making this point several times: http://gillmorgang.techcrunch.com/2008/09/05/gi....

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.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Corvida — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:56:03 -0000

If it's just a plain ol' web browser, then it definitely doesn't beat Firefox, Opera, or even IE8 for that matter. No it's not an extension of Google web apps, but with such an intense focus on web apps from this browser, I expected to be an extension to some extent. Quite frankly, Chrome isn't giving me anything I don't already get with Firefox or with another web app: Ubiquity. This is just to clarify my points about that.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

hwked — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:33:49 -0000

I liked the clean interface of Chrome. Maybe its just me, but I feel the less complicated a browser is, the better it is. Firefox does hang an awful lot of times for me.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

alwillis — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:36:35 -0000

There seems to be a disconnect here. Chrome is just a web browser, not some kind of extension of Google's web applications or a competitor to Mozilla's Ubiquity. That's not a flaw or oversight, that was the intention from the beginning.

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.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

qrystal — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:12:10 -0000

I think it's fully baked, it just doesn't yet have the frosting on it yet. I'd eat it, anyways.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

nappy_rash — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:08:26 -0000

Great read for me, just been offered a job with Google :)

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Corvida — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:43:27 -0000

Do you think that's better or is it a lie if you already know that this is the plan?

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

buckpost — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:42:57 -0000

Corvida,

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. :)

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

getagriponyourself — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:51:40 -0000

It's a web browser Corvida.. big surprise.. that's what Google said it was.. An open source web browser. Why would you expect it to be anything other than what they said it was. And you know what. It's not half baked, on a technical level it's fantastic in my opinion. But guess what.. it's still just a web browser. Moving to the javascript VM alone... awesome.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Corvida — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:35:47 -0000

Ditto.

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.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Corvida — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:33:55 -0000

If you're going to treat the tabs as separate applications then they need to act like separate applications simultaneously. The connection must be made if you're going with that analogy. If you're not going to seriously treat them like separate applications then I don't see the point in bothering with a fancy UI, yet half-baked browser, beta or not. Google needs to back-up what they're trying to prove.

For now, they're just playing around and I wish they wouldn't.

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

patrick — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:02:21 -0000

i'm willing to try it out just to see if it works more efficiently than FireFox... if it's faster than Firefox and isn't IE, then i'll use it

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

andydavies — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:26:20 -0000

Based on the comment I left on Mat Cutts blog, it appears they have gone out of their way not to tie it in

Re: Where Google Chrome Failed To Succeed: The Integration Of Google Services

Moody Loner — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:12:26 -0000

"Google OS": To compare this to Ubiquity isn't exactly fair - you have the power of the FF3 browser backend to plug into already, which is a fairly mature technology. Google is using a cut down version of webkit and not gecko for it's engine.

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.