With a modicum of fanfare, Google yesterday released its very own web browser, dubbed Chrome. Among other things, that means that we web developers now have to test on yet another browser, bringing the unofficial list to - Internet Explorer 5.5, Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7, Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 2 and 3 (for both Mac and PC), Safari for Mac and PC, Opera for Mac and PC, and now Chrome. Add in the occasional Internet Explorer 5 and mobile platform test and you have, well, a lot of testing (especially on the various IEs). Anyone wanting to know why good web development is expensive, look no further.
On the plus side, Chrome is based on Apple’s open-source WebKit architecture, which also runs Safari, and is fairly standards-compliant. Our limited experience with Chrome so far has been very good - it runs pretty much everything that runs in Safari and Firefox (and Opera). A few minor render issues, but not bad for a first beta release.
Which begs the question: Why another browser? Well, here’s Google’s answer to that question:
“Since we spend so much time online, we began seriously thinking about what kind of browser could exist if you started from scratch and built on the best elements out there. We realized that the web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications and that we needed to completely rethink the browser. What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for web pages and applications, and that’s what we set out to build.”
Pretty generic answer, but it holds some interesting subtext. Specifically, these lines:
“We realized that the web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications”
“What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for web pages and applications”
So what does this mean? Well, it could mean a lot of things. Google does, after all, develop a lot of web applications (Gmail, Google Docs, etc), and may just be looking for a platform they can control and push using their vast resources. But lets be honest with ourselves here: This is Google. They won’t be happy until they control the world (in a non-evil way, of course…). I personally think they have a much more grandiose plan in the works. My suspicion is that Google is attempting to do nothing less than usurp what we know as the Operating System.
This is actually a thought I have been having for a while, Chrome only adds to my vast conspiracy. If you look at Google’s pattern the past couple years, they have of course continued to excel at search. But as a sort of secondary objective, they have been building a really robust suite of online applications. These applications are free, and can increasingly do a lot of what you currently use an operating system to do. Their office suite, Google Docs, offers much of the functionality of Microsoft Office. Gmail and Calendar replace Outlook. Picasa replaces your photo program (it only a matter of time before it allows more photo editing). The list goes on, but I want to get on with my points.
If you look at the new Chrome browser, it does some very interesting, subtle things:
Tabs: a tab in Chrome is not like a tab in Firefox or Internet Explorer - in Chrome, each tab is basically its own browser, with its own search box/url, its own entity - it’s the top level of navigation through the program. In many ways, especially if you have a couple of (ahem!) Google applications open in a couple tabs, the tabbing interface in Chrome functions more like the tabs in the Task bar in Windows or the Dock menu in OS X. Point: The Tab has become the Process.
Home Screen: In Chrome, your home screen automatically gives you thumbnails of your most visited sites. If you are anything like me, one of those is invariably be Gmail. If you were using Docs a lot, same thing there. Additionally, the browser interface is very minimal, barely more than a standard OS window. Point: in functionality, it quite resembles a desktop.
Omnibox: In Chrome, there is no Search Box, and no URL box. There is just the Omnibox. It does search, it does URL input. It probably will do more eventually. Point: it’s sort of like a Command Line interface, wouldn’t you say?
Cross Platform, Open Source: Currently, Chrome is only available for Windows. But it is in the works for other platforms. Point: operating system doesn’t matter for running applications.
So where is this all going? I, personally, think that Google is angling to reduce the importance of, and possible eventually eliminate altogether, the concept of the complex graphical Operating System. After all, except for local file storage (which will eventually go away, mark my words: the Cloud is on the horizon), if you can do everything you need to do with web applications, on any computer you want to use, what normal person needs Windows, OS X, or a sophisticated Linux desktop? Really, all you need is a very simple, scaled down operating system that will run your local hardware (processor, display, input devices, networking, etc), and will run a Web Browser, such as Chrome. The entire rest of your daily workflow would be within the web browser. Platform would be irrelevant. Mobile vs. Desktop would be irrelevant. Microsoft and Apple would be irrelevant (or, probably more precisely, they would become strictly application developers).
Admittedly this is a ways off. But it seems increasingly possible.
8 comments so far.
I can’t use Chrome at work because of the info that appears in the new tabs. Even though the frequently visited websites are visited before I start work, during lunch and after I clock out, there they are for all to see. It would create a potentially embarrassing situation if ALL of the most visited sites were not work related.
Even worse… Most of my most frequently visited websites revolve around politics and religion. I have extreme views on both subjects and I try my best to keep that sort of thing private.
I know that I can open a new “incognito” window but then all the cookies get erased and it’s a pain to log into everything, every time, etc…
It would be my very strong preference to disable the personal info presented on the new tabs. The personal info display makes Chrome more of a professional hazard than anything.
Nice post! It will be interesting to see if your theory comes to fruition over the years.
Note how Chrome is currently only available for Windows–glad I’m sticking to PCs
Chrome is pretty nice for all of its general features; however, the most important thing is its improvement to JavaScript execution time through the implementation of a JS virtual machine.
I have to point out that the whole home screen deal is a straight rip from Opera’s “speed dial.” Which is fine, it’s a good idea, just not new.
Also, operating systems haven’t mattered for running applications for a long while since JavaScript matured in the community and even since, as cringing as it is, Java and applets. The only real benefit with the threaded tabs is performance, which hasn’t necessarily been a problem in the past due to the relative size and complexity of web apps, but it does give a certain freedom to expand those apps to handle more complication. One draw back of this though is that JavaScript developers were just getting to a state where they were optimizing their scripts, doing responsible programming, and really starting to understand how JS interacts with the browser, user and the whole model in general. I fear that this will be lost since it was driven by a need to speed up scripts in slower browsers and that the quality of the programming AND the program itself will suffer for it. Besides, IE still lags like hell in JS performance so the cross-compatibility may still keep things from progressing at all.
Agreed on all points. The really interesting thing about Chrome is that it is a browser launched specifically with the stated goal of running applications, which is something of a paradigm shift in how a browser is developed and marketed (viewing content vs. creating content; object vs. action).
This is the first big step into getting regular people to understand that operating systems don’t matter.
Oh, I forgot, there’s an easter egg if you type “:%” in the omnibar.
Saying the operating system doesn’t matter is kinda like saying the engine in a car doesn’t matter. There are different kinds of engines and all of them, have different advantages and disadvantages.
While many applications may eventually be moved on “the cloud” there will always be a need for high performance localized system that won’t run well in a virtual environment. Just like the thin-clients in the early 90’s, this will eventually lead to different operating systems offering different feature advantages in order to beat the competition. This isn’t a bad thing.
Further, having your whole life on the cloud is a very challenging concept. Any systems where the consumer is at the hands of service vendors will always end badly, no matter how awesome the vendor is. There will still be a need for having things that exist on just MY system, and as long as that need is there, I will want to be able to access my things fast and reliably, thus, I will need a more substantial OS than just a file system and processing managing.
I wouldn’t mind GUI’s becoming system agnostic though.
Absolutely rocks in every way. Google has once again proven that it has what is needed to deliver great products. it’s a decent browser…download time may be a dash slower than other browsers but the app load time, smooth rendering, space utilization etc are great
hello! thanks for your article. nice ideas and interesting point of view. I’m interested in this kind of information on Internet communications and will be so much glad to read new notes written by you. good job! have a nice day