Google Chrome: A Masterstroke or a Blunder?

The internet world has been agog over Google's entry into the browser wars with Chrome. When we look back to this event  several years from now with the benefit of hindsight, we might see it either as a master stroke, or as Google's biggest strategic misstep.

The potential advantages to the internet community as a whole are considerable. The web has evolved beyond its roots as a collection of HTML documents and dumb frontends to database applications. We now expect everything from a web application that we do from a desktop application, and then some more: the added bonus of connectivity to vast computing resources in the cloud. In this context, browsers need to  evolve from HTML renderers to runtime containers, much as web servers evolved from simple servers of static files  and cgi scripts to modern application servers with an array of plugins that provide a variety of services. Chrome is the first browser to explicitly acknowledge this transition and make it the centerpiece of their efforts, and will force other browsers to follow suit. We will all benefit.

The potential advantages to Google also are considerable. If the stars and planets align, they can challenge Microsoft's dominance on the desktop by making the desktop irrelevant. Even otherwise, they can hope to use their dominance in search to promote Chrome, gaining significant browser marketshare and ensuring that Microsoft cannot challenge Google's search dominance by building features into Internet Explorer and Windows that integrate MSN's search and other services.

Therein, however, lies the first and perhaps the biggest risk to Google. Until now, Microsoft has been unable to really use IE and Windows to funnel traffic to MSN services and choke off Google. Given their antitrust woes, they have been treading carefully on this matter. Any overt attempt by them will evoke cries of foul from many market participants. Google has been in a great position to lead the outcry, because it has been purely a service accessible from the browser, without any toehold in browser market itself.

Chrome, however, eases some of the pressure on Microsoft. If Microsoft integrates MSN search or other services tightly into IE, it will be harder for Google to cry foul -- Microsoft could point to Chrome, and any steps taken by Google to integrate their services into Chrome, as counter-arguments. In addition, any outcry from Google can now be characterized as sour grapes from a loser -- Microsoft can say, we both have browsers out there, they have one too, ours is just better, and let consumers decide for themselves.

In some sense, regardless of the actual market penetration of Chrome, Google has lost the moral high ground in future arguments with Microsoft. I wonder whether Google might have achieved all their aims better not by releasing a Google-branded browser, but by working with Mozilla to improve Firefox from within.

Second, while Google has shown impressive technological wizardry in search and advertising, the desktop application game is very different from the internet service game. While users are very forgiving about beta tags that stay for years on services such as gmail, user expectations on matters such as compatibility and security bugs are very high for desktop applications. It remains to be seen whether Google has the culture to succeed in this game, going beyond providing whiz bang features that thrill developers -- such as a blazingly fast Javascript engine -- to deliver a mainstream browser that competes on stability, security, and features.

The third problem is one of data contagion. Google has the largest "database of intentions" in the world today: our search histories, which form the basis of Google's ad targeting. The thing that keeps me from freaking out that Google knows so much about me is that I access Google using a third-party browser. If Google has access to my desktop, and can tie my search history to that, the company can learn much about me that I keep isolated from my search behavior. The cornerstone of privacy on the web today is that we can use products from different companies to create isolation: desktop from Microsoft, browser from Mozilla, search from Google. These companies have no incentive to share information. This is one instance where information silos serve us well as consumers. Any kind of vertical integration has the potential to erode privacy.

I'm not suggesting that Google would do anything evil with this data, or indeed that the thought even crossed their minds; thus far Google has behaved with admirable restraint is their usage of the database of intentions, staying away for example from behavioral targeting. But we should all be cognizant of the fact that companies are in business purely to benefit their shareholders. At some point, someone at Google might realize that the contents of my desktop can be used to target advertising, and it might be prove tempting in a period of slow revenue growth under a different management team.

Two striking historical parallels come to mind, one a masterstroke and the other a blunder, in both cases setting into motion events that could not be undone. In 49 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army, triggering a civil war where he triumphed over the forces of Pompey and became the master of Rome. And in 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte had Europe at his feet when he made the fateful decision to invade Russia, greatly weakening his power and leading ultimately to his defeat at Waterloo. It will be interesting to see whether Chrome ends up being Google's Rubicon or its St. Petersburg. Alea iacta est.

Comments

[saumil]

I would also question google's true commitment to this if it fails to gain big traction in a year. Will they stick it out in the slog with 2 established rivals?honestly though I think that chrome will have the most impact in mobile if android does well. The mobile browser market is fragmented far worse than the web and one of the biggest mobile browsers is currently produced by - wait for it - openwave (huh?).

[andreas]

I used Chrome for a week. I went back to Firefox. Google didn't carry out even basic testing with Chrome: many major sites don't work on it. YouTube videos freeze; buggy display in Google Adwords, and so on. Google is expecting that users will discover and report the bugs. That's okay for a startup or an opensource project, but Google is a $200-billion corporation. They expect users to do the testing? And for free? Does Google seriously think it can do this to develop a desktop suite that's better than Microsoft Office?

I agree with Anand's comments about privacy. Turning over our desktop, our files, and every action that we do is too much. No way.

[Daniel Spiewak]

OFF TOPIC

I think that it's worth pointing out that Napoleon's march into Russia wasn't at all related to his defeat at Waterloo. That battle came *after* his dramatic return from exile and is almost a stand-alone event (as much as historical events can be so). A better (though less well-known) battle to connect to would be The Battle of Leipzig, which was a direct (and disastrous) consequence to France brought on by provoking Russia.

More Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

Not a bad analysis, otherwise. :-)

[Saumil]

@andreas, disagree that the general users care that much about their privacy. Let's face it - Google has all of us in a pretty significant fashion anyways even without this latest development.

I've been trying Chrome so far and while its been fun using a new browser, hard to see this making a dent in the mainstream unless the pace of innovation remains torrid.

[Sandro Saitta]

Very nice post! I think that it will be difficult for Google to make people change their browser for Chrome. People using IE didn't change for Firefox, so why would they change for Chrome? And people using Firefox are certainly happy with its simplicity and tuning opportunities... so who will change?

[rmaesh]

i downloaded it around an hour ago, and it runs pretty smoothly and the interface is nifty. i dont like how the bookmark is on the right side though and how it says OTHER BOOKMARKS. Is there a way to rename this? I also don’t like how there’s no title bar, which comes to my next question, if i wanted to print something in what I’m currently browsing, how do I do that? Since it’s beta, it looks okay except for the two things I mentioned. Haven’t really tested it in depth though, but any idea on the two items I mentioned above?

[Brendan O'Connor]

On crossing the Rubicon vs. invading Russia -- it's funny to say that Caesar's crossing the Rubicon is Google's successful scenario, since this was the downfall of the Roman Republic and the beginning of Caesar's Roman Empire. I guess installing themselves as military dictator is, in some sense, a positive outcome for Google.

[Rob]

Please don't be so quick to judge this browser's features since it is not only beta, but version 0.2, making me want to call it Alpha. That's a pretty low number.

Also, keep in mind that Google encourages ALL other browser vendors to "steal this code"! It's open source and they invite everyone to use as much of it as they like for their own browser to make theirs better. That may change if someone were to question that Chrome is strictly a competing browser so much as a "reference browser" as Google calls it.

[votetheday.com]

It's bugged, and it's bugged a lot. It's almost official - http://www.votetheday.com/polls/googles-chrome-173/
I'm disappointed in Google - yeah, it's beta, but remember, how Gmail beta looked like... Looks like guys had to deliver it till deadline (10th birthday, maybe), and they were obviously short of time...
It's better than IE, but FF will live excellently long until Google fixes everything and makes enough plug-inns and versions for Mac/Linux...

[Simon Gibbs]

If linked data takes off, a streamlined browser that puts emphasis on the pages and compromises the functionality of the browser might look like a pretty foolish error as well.

Sure, a linked data browser could be visually streamlined [http://adaptivepath.com/aurora/] but the LOD based functionality will be hosted in the browser - not in the page. Sure, some pages will work like apps - where appropriate - but search in particular is something that may end up moving to the browser.

[Abhishek Gattani]

Very nice post!

An important point you mention "browsers need to evolve from HTML renderers to runtime containers", I think this is the biggest opportunity for Chrome to differentiate.

Given that Google is also making web applications, if a combination of Gmail+Chrome, Google Docs+Chrome, or YouTube+Chrome starts offering capabilities not offered by other browsers then that would make a compelling use case to switch, of-course there will be anti-trust issues to watch out for.

[Learnaboutfutures.com]

I think the very good thing of Google Chrome is that it loads pages faster.
Some normal functions that I used to use with Firefox need to be activated.
The lack of plug-ins/adds-ons will make users come back to Firefox.

[Mike]

"The cornerstone of privacy on the web today is that we can use products from different companies to create isolation"
Sorry but I must disagree, the preservation of privacy relies on the control provided to users, and the level of transparency by which those controls can be verified.

Whether or not an operating system and an application are made by the same vendor is less relevant than the verifiable security and privacy controls of either.

Installing an insecure browser made by company A necessarily introduces risk, even on a secure operating system made by company B.

But using a secure browser made by company A on a secure operating system made by company A does not necessarily result in risk.

In either case, the quality and reliability of each individual link of the chain is the basis for the relative security of the system.

While it may matter that the links were made by the same manufacturer, it is not nearly as important as this primary consideration.

[fattjake]

If Google's strategy is to gain a significant browsershare, it's a not a sure thing. It could easily fail.

On the other hand, if Google's point with Chrome is to show that services like gmail can and should operate faster in browsers, thus forcing firefox and IE to optimize javascript execution, it won't take a huge browsershare to accomplish this. Accomplishing this, gets Google what it wants, applications that run on google servers fast enough to make it worth switching from desktop applications. They don't need the browser if they host the application. But, they do need the application to run fast in the browser. Your point about working with Firefox from within might have accomplished as well, but firefox may have other priorities.

[Keith]

"The potential advantages to Google also are considerable. If the stars and planets align, they can challenge Microsoft's dominance on the desktop by making the desktop irrelevant."
Uh, wasn't that what Netscape was trying to do that made MS use anticompetitive methods to get everyone using IE?

[khetesh]

nice thought process and as per browser is concern i still feel firefox is best and i use that only..

[William L.]

Oh, look, it's baby's first browser. I've loaded it and used it one day. Between crashing 3-4 times and all the content that couldn't render, I'm calling it a flop. If it did anything unique, it would be worth keeping. Right now, it's just a childish version of Internet Explorer.

[Sid]

Firefox 3 tightly integrates the adblock plugin with it. This is a direct assault to google's business. That is another important reason for why google wouldn't want to work with Mozilla. Would anyone possibly imagine that google would allow an adblock plugin in chrome?