Filed under: Google, Ask DLS, Browsers
Ask DLS: Does Google Chrome Frame tactic smell funny to anyone else?
But there's something I just don't like about the way Google plans to get Chrome Frame onto users' systems. Group Product Manager Mike Smith and Software Engineer Alex Russell told TechCrunch that Google "won't be explicitly advertising it." Instead, they'll use "subtle methods to alert users to its existence."
Now, the mockup above is anything but subtle. I'd assume - based on what Google has done in the past on the search page - that users will probably see a small alert in the upper-right corner.
Here's my question - why not just push Chrome? Why push an option that bolts Chrome on to Internet Explorer? TC's MG Siegler says the plugin itself is about 500Kb, but adds that it downloads about 10Mb of additional "Chrome-related data to work correctly."
10Mb? The mini installer for Chromium is exactly that size. So this basically downloads the whole damn browser and embeds it via ActiveX in Internet Explorer? I'm not seeing the advantage over a separate Chrome install.
Sure, there's the whole "web devs hate how IE renders stuff" argument, but it sure seems like a separate Chrome install would make more sense than the Frame solution.
Another concern for me is that the plan is to use the Dev channel builds, which happen to be the least stable. Won't we all have fun laughing if this leads to hilarity like "OMG my browser crashed, I hate IE" even if it was Chrome Frame that cause the crash?
I'm fine with Google offering users the upgrade to Chrome. There's just something about the idea of Chrome Frame that doesn't sit right with me. What's your take?
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
cole said 5:11PM on 9-22-2009
You can get users to install chrome, but getting them to quit clicking the big "e" that they are used to get on the "internet" is a whole other story.
I'm sure the reason for using the dev channel is that there is new functionality required to support this trick, but it does beg the question: why rush the release?
Reply
Geoff said 5:14PM on 9-22-2009
My theory is that a lot of people won't switch to a new browser because they're used to IE. They have their bookmarks there and don't know how to move them. They know what the back button looks like. They have their cookies and history there. This would let people adventurous enough to download an app, but not enough to make a big change, try out Chrome with the familiar IE interface and keep their bookmarks and everything. Then, who knows -- they may decide to go 100% after a while.
I know when I first made the jump from IE to Firefox years ago when I was forced to use it to test out websites I was designing, I was reluctant because I lived in IE. Of course, being tech savvy, importing was a breeze, but for many, that's a scary thought, if they even know that's an option.
Reply
bill cant fart said 6:22PM on 9-22-2009
No, the real reason people won't switch browsers is because they don't even know what a browser is! They just see an icon that say "Internet" and they click on it.
Ocky said 5:56PM on 9-22-2009
Plenty of administered centrally machines won't let you change browsers.
Reply
iofthestorm said 2:32AM on 9-23-2009
But they let you install browser plugins?
sRc said 5:40PM on 9-22-2009
the primary reason for doing this is the corporations that use web applications that would have to be significantly rewritten in order to work with anything beyond IE6. this way they can give their employees the benefits of being able to use the rest of the internet, while still being able to run their applications and not have them break horribly
Reply
Lee Mathews said 5:57PM on 9-22-2009
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't most of those same machines have measures in place to prevent the addition of browser toolbars/active x control in IE?
That would pretty much block a Chrome Frame install, would it not?
Reply
atomic1fire said 6:50PM on 9-22-2009
Yes, but if the IT staff, decides that installing google frame is a better solution then a complete update, it may continue the existance of IE6, but it will also allow a jimmy rig of sorts that will keep things working smoothly for everyone.
Reply
Adam said 8:48PM on 9-22-2009
This isn't being done as some fishy marketing ploy, its to enrich web apps. The truth of the matter is many user are more likely to perceive this like flash or java than anything. They figure its just some little thing I need to make my "insert website" work.
If you try and tell a user they need to completely switch there habits for just one site, they'll more on, and yes businesses could also use this as a way to maintain broad compatibility. If you watch the "release" video you'd realize they arent trying to encourage IE6/7 users to do all there browsing in this "hybrid" manner, they just want developer to be able to use a simple HTML tag line so they can safe use new HTML5 / CSS3 features.
Don't be so ignorant downloadsquad.
Reply
Saint Seminole said 11:35PM on 9-22-2009
"Don't be so ignorant downloadsquad."
Ignorant? In this age, it would be ignorant to *trust* large corporations. Can't blame a guy for being suspicious of a ploy that doesn't make full sense and hasn't been honestly explained.
Reply
Ashish said 12:03AM on 9-23-2009
This sucks big time. Do I have a reason to install the crap? If I find IE slow, I would not use it.
Oh my IE is slow, my computer looks ugly with other browsers. I have to install the chrome plugin.
Also I do not see a reason for a developer to add that extra line of code and HOPE that the user would have the plugin installed. The developer would have to design and test his website for IE anyways, why would he want the chrome headache extra?
Reply
Satoshi said 10:35AM on 9-23-2009
"The developer would have to design and test his website for IE anyways, why would he want the chrome headache extra?"
He doesn't since Chrome Frame renders WebKit instead of Trident, I think. Help me understand. ;-)
Ashish said 1:31PM on 9-23-2009
Satoshi:
That is true technically, but, from what I have seen, developers explicitly check their web apps on the different browsers they claim to support.
So, IE, firefox are now standard for testing. If they want to support chrome users, then chrome. Once they have tested on chrome, safari should work without issues, but that is not always assumed.
By adding support for this plugin, the developer is only adding to his work of testing unless he is creating a website heavily dependent on chrome features, which would be not be a good idea anyways beacuse of its 2% marketshare.
John Doe.. said 12:47AM on 9-23-2009
Do you have problems with installing Flash? Acrobat reader? Quicktime? .NET? Some codec to play media? Shockwave? Silverlight?
Plugins are a way of life. Deal with it.
Reply
Dan said 4:43AM on 9-23-2009
Chrome Frame is aimed at people who won't or can't switch browsers. People at work who are confined by IT policies, or less Internet-savvy people who don't know better, are stuck with IE. Chrome Frame opens doors to these people.
If you keep up with Google news you'll notice that Google Wave, their new communications platform (and - without trying to sound sensational - paradigm), is not going to support IE based on its lack of JS and DOM rendering capabilities. This pushed the development of Frame to allow all Internet users (and all major browsers) access to the Wave phenomenon.
Reply
lassi said 5:48AM on 9-23-2009
I tried chrome when it came out. the reasons why I didn't use it for more than couple of minutes were that it didn't respect my operating systems window decorations, instead it had vista look hardcoded. also it crashed all tabs/windows at once - exactly against what the advertising comic had promised. and I actually use vista, I just use use old 'win95' style window decors for usability and clarity.
and if you're limited to IE at work, would they allow you to use another browser in an IE window? that kind of goes against the whole limited to IE case and then you could run anything. it's running chrome inside an ie frame, if you're prohibited from using chrome through some rules in your company then it would apply to this as well(or else you could, say, run a commandprompt inside an ie window through activex and play leisure suit larry).
my guess is that their browser team really has nothing better to do and they're desperate for new users. and this probably took an afternoon for some guy over there to accomplish. YOU DON'T NEED TO AIM STUFF YOU CAN DO IN AN AFTERNOON AT ANYBODY! nobody just thought of it worth doing before, and the trick has been shown by other browser engines before as well.
Chrome changed NOTHING despite the lofty promises. I'm still on firefox and even microsofts sites play nice with it.
Reply
ben said 9:44AM on 9-23-2009
Even Microsoft sites play nice with Firefox and Chrome, but other sites don't play nice with I.E.- especially older versions of it because the rendering engine is so bad. That's the point in this. It's not to get Firefox users to switch to Chrome or to increase market share, it's to speed up HTML5 adoption. Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari have already started adopting it but until Microsoft gets everyone updated to a not-yet-released version of I.E., many people won't be able to use it. Websites are designed to the lowest common denominator, in this case IE. We'll be stuck with flash player instead of embedded video and canvas stuff that's actually far more portable. We're still stuck with IE 6's poor CSS and JavaScript support.
Robert McLaws said 2:26PM on 9-23-2009
If Microsoft did this to any app by anybody, the Internet would rise up with their tar and their pitchforks and slay them.
Reply
Che Kristo said 7:52AM on 9-24-2009
This a very smart move on the part of Google, a majority of users are happy to stick with IE due to familiarity, corporate policy or just a general lack of curiosity – these users can now have a fully compliant web browser without having to change their behavior at all.
Reply
Ashish said 10:09AM on 9-23-2009
to johndoe:
Yes, I have all those plugins and more. I have those because they provide a functionality/experience that I would not get without those plugins.
But, the chrome tab, in most cases, will mimic IE functionality and hence will not add a lot of value.
Reply