8 ms·

We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

278 points by nr0mx 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Mozilla is putting a lot of resources; including some of their best coders, into advancing mobile. I don't see the same on Google's side. Am I wrong?
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Android?
  - kevingadd 15y ago
    Android's browser isn't nearly as good as Chrome or Firefox and only gets updated with the OS (which means never, for most phones).
    - resnamen 15y ago
      Starting with ICS it is Chrome.
      - hub_ 15y ago
        And lots of users won't even get ICS. Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab 7", Nexus One, etc.
      - cpeterso 15y ago
        [citation needed] According to this HTML5 compliance test, the ICS browser scores 230 (out of 450), while Chrome 15 desktop browser scores 342. Why would these browsers have such distant scores if they shared the same browser core? For comparison, the Firefox 8 desktop browser scores 314 and the Firefox 8 mobile browser scores 314. http://www.html5test.com/results-mobile.html http://www.html5test.com/results-mobile.html
        lukeschlather 15y ago
        There are a variety of options that are disabled on the mobile build to save memory and cpu. It's the same core, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles enabled for a variety of reasons.
        Xuzz 15y ago
        It's not Chrome. It's based on WebKit, like Chrome, yes. But it's not Chrome. (Easy way to check: note that the icon says "Browser", not "Chrome", and it isn't the Chrome icon.)
        justincormack 15y ago
        The name doesnt really prove much. Webkit really is a kit. The question is what features does it have and whn will it get others.
        hub_ 15y ago
        That core is called WebKit.
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      This is why I'm hoping they will finally switch to Chrome in Android 5.0 or whatever version is announced at Google I/O (Android/Chrome event). And then they update that Chrome browser every 6 weeks, too. It's not like they couldn't. They can already push all their core apps to automatically update for Android 2.2+.
      - zobzu 15y ago
        i dont think the chrome multiprocess model works well on mobiles yet. it needs more memory specifically if you start having a few tabs.
        Aissen 15y ago
        it needs more memory specifically if you start having a few tabs - have you seen the specs of the latest high-end phones and tablets? 1GiB of RAM is the norm now - the number of concurrent open tabs can be limited. It has already been done on Android and iOS (and might still be the case).
- DasIch 15y ago
  Android and iPhone are the only mobile platforms worth worrying about for the rather longterm goal of improving the web, both have good browsers. So unlike Mozilla Google is not practically irrelevant on mobile platforms, why then should they invest more money?
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    I disagree that both have good browsers. What I'm worried about is the lack of emphasis that seems to be placed; Android browser is missing a lot of html5 features (according to caniuse.com it only supports 66% of current features in Android 4.0). Mozilla, on the other hand, seems to be making mobile a priority with all of the work they are doing in WebAPI. Their browser is updating a lot faster than Android's, which I believe still only updates with OS upgrades.
    - hub_ 15y ago
      OS upgrades that a lot of Android users don't get. If I want to get an up to date browser on my Nexus One, I have to use Firefox... as Google said they no longer support the phone. iOS users are in the same boat, but Apple has been providing much more support to older devices.
      - cpeterso 15y ago
        Old Android browser versions are going to become the "IE6" of this decode.
        justincormack 15y ago
        It is easy to just use firefox on android though. Could push people to that.
        Dylan16807 15y ago
        If you have an armv7 chip, sure. But apparently nobody is motivated to fix the alignment bugs and make it work on older chips.
- rmc 15y ago
  They have sponsored and released the only modern smartphone OS that isn't locked down to one company like iOS. They (through Android) are to Apple, what OpenOffice/LibreOffice is to MS Office. They are the reason Apple don't own smartphone. With Google/Android what would be the Apple competitor? Blackberry? OpenMoko?!
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    In the context of this posting, I'm specifically talking about the mobile web.
    - nl 15y ago
      Have you tried the Android browser in 3.2 or 4? It's pretty damn good....
  - Xuzz 15y ago
    Maybe the only popular one, but certainly not the only one. In fact, only webOS is (was, I guess) locked to a single company. Windows Phone isn't open source, but there are at least four hardware manufacturers. Nokia's MeeGo is open source (and quite good on my Nokia N9). And, soon, webOS will be too. So, while Android is a more open mobile OS, it certainly isn't the only one.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
drhowarddrfine 15y ago
Google has said from the beginning that the purpose of Chrome was to move the web forward, not compete with other browsers, and I had forgotten that.
- davidu 15y ago
  This is not Chrome's purpose. Everything between the user and the monetization mechanism (advertisement) is strategic to Google. It just doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy when they say it like that.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    The two statements are not necessarily in conflict. It helps Google's bottom line to move the web forward, and make more things possible through browser interfaces.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    Er, does OpenDNS exist only to make you money? This seems like exactly the simplistic analysis that the post was objecting to.
  - ygjb 15y ago
    So close... add a couple more details: - Google makes money from ads - Promoting open web technologies reduces the stack they have to support - Promoting open platforms removes roadblocks to reaching customers - Supporting "competitors" that provide revenue generation channels ensures that even when the lose, they win. Business is not warm and fuzzy. For that, you need to go non-profit. Look at these and you can see that Mozilla is really warm and fuzzy: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefoxlive/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefoxlive/
- ippisl 15y ago
  Actions speak louder than words. Brendan Eich, Mozilla's CTO , which has some authority around issues concerning the open web , think Native client and Dart are bad for the open web[1]. Also one small way to improve the search experience, is easy search in multiple search engines. Firefox's search box is one way of doing so, But it has been removed in chrome. Does it really improve the web ? Does limiting the power of adblocking relative to firefox for example , really improves the web ? Do giving better/faster experience for youtube and google(no data but few anecdotes from me and friends) , for chrome users is improving the open web ? And if we talk about moving the web forward , privacy is one of the biggest issues the web currently has. privacy from big companies , privacy from advertisers , privacy from other people doing searches on you and privacy from being needed to show your real name publicly on the web. Privacy is probably much more important than technical issues like current javascript speed. Does google really help "move the web forward" on the issue of privacy ? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983430
zobzu 15y ago
Q: does google win billions from this deal? A:yes Q: does google donatethis money? A: no. Q: what is TFA worth then? A: oh, wait. so.yeah. right.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nextparadigms 15y ago
I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing. Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much because they don't want Bing to get a lot of users, but because together with Mozilla they have over 50% of the browser market share, and since the whole total of that market share includes very modern browser versions(Chrome always on latest version, Firefox not too far behind with the old ones), Google and Mozilla can pretty much dictate where the web is going now. I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. I think this part of the partnership matters more than just stopping Bing from becoming the default search on Firefox.
- khuey 15y ago
  Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
  - jedberg 15y ago
    Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
    - magicalist 15y ago
      Think about who the higher ups at Mozilla are. Brendan Eich is CTO, for instance, and you can see exactly what he thinks about supporting NaCl right now if you look at his recent posts :)
    - khuey 15y ago
      We might prioritize things based on input from Google (we tend to listen to things Google's web properties have to say since they run some of the biggest websites on the planet). This is usually a collaboration between the technical folks at both organizations to drive things that are best for the web. We're not going to implement things that we think are bad for the web just because Google says so. You can look around to see what Brendan Eich (CTO of Mozilla, a higher up by any definition) has to say about Dart and NaCl. Google's money doesn't buy our cooperation on these kinds of issues (and it's worth noting that we work with plenty of people who aren't paying us money, such as Facebook, the same way that we work with Google).
hendrix 15y ago
This article is BS. Google is a for-profit public company, hence google wants to make more money for google's shareholders. If they can do that by pushing chrome (advertizing platform) or firefox (OSS platform that they want to control) then that's what they will do. It doesn't matter what browser you use, so long as you look at their ads. Never mind their horrible privacy practices (2038 cookie) and associated shenanigans.
- hub_ 15y ago
  How is that incompatible with bringing the web forward? Making sure the web is an open platform make sure no one control the technology, therefor Google have more opportunities to display ads. And also people have more opportunities to compete with Google too. Nothing forces you to visit Google properties, etc.
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    Would Mozilla stop making Firefox an open, web-advancing browser if Microsoft Bing paid Mozilla's bills? I don't think so. So why didn't Google save its shareholders $1B and let Microsoft foot the bill to continue Mozilla development? Google clearly must profit from their relationship with Mozilla.
davidu 15y ago
Peter's drinking a bit too much of the Kool-Aid. Chrome advances the web. It does this because it's damn good. It's forced others to be good. None of this has anything to do with the point being made in the OP he's responding to. Everything between the user and the monetization mechanism (advertisement) is strategic to Google. To believe otherwise is to be delusional. It's like the people who thought they could partner with Microsoft in the 90s and it'd be good for them.
potch 15y ago
I work at Mozilla, and the atmosphere between us and Chrome is not the high-stakes cage match people would have it be. At a fundamental level there's only so much market share, but at an engineer-level, we're insulated from such corporate politics. It's a cooperative atmosphere, and we both succeed with each others' help and knowledge.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
powertower 15y ago
Some people would have a hard time surviving in the real world outside of Google's walls. I can see why a guy on the Chrome UI team would dismiss a valid business strategy of hedging against the IE + Firefox user-base that uses the search bar and address bar for 100% of their searches (vs. going to http://www.google.com http://www.google.com directly) ... having their default search engine switched on them. To him, owning a share of the browser market is not really important to Google, in that way, because he has this image of himself and Google being the good guys and doing to no evil. Someone drank the kool-aid.
- JS_startup 15y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Paradoxically, being closer to the issue and company actually clouds your perception instead of enhancing it.
photon_off 15y ago
Please make the Chrome address bar awesome.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  The omnibox is already awesome. It's Chrome's definitive UX feature, and I'm surprised nobody else has implemented it yet.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
    Yep, when i have to test something in Firefox i always forget that to search in Google (or in other popular site) i can't just write it in the address bar. And it always remember all my sites so to go to hacker news i just write an "n" and it writes the rest... and i can even delete the suggestions with shift+delete. So yeah, i also don't have any idea what the parent comment was triyng to say.
    - ootachi 15y ago
      Except you can just write it in the address bar (and hit enter). Try it!
      - hub_ 15y ago
        He must be confusing with Safari.
      - slowpoke 15y ago
        You can even change the search engine for that. Try about:config --> keyword.URL
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      God I love chrome's autocomplete. HN is 'n', reddit is 'r', Facebook is 'f', gmail is 'g'... It's such a great usability feature. Google's approach with Chrome seems to be making the browser as invisible as possible, and I love it.
muhacks 15y ago
MG Siegler needs to stop writing about technology. It's just sad at this point how ill informed and out of touch he is.
nikcub 15y ago
Google's browser efforts started with Gears. At the time browser development was stagnant an Google needed the technology to advance in order to improve their web applications and compete with the old desktop software model. Chrome is an extension of that effort and has played a large part in driving adoption of new web technology. But I don't buy the part about Google not being as interested in having users. Chrome is the operating system that runs the Google applications. They have increased their marketing spend this year by 69% to $4.9 billion dollars. Google, marketing, something they never used to do and were known for not spending on. A lot of that marketing is for the chrome brand. The reason so many average PC users know about chrome is because of the market. They even hired Lady Gaga to do a Chrome ad, and I don't think they would go to the trouble of doing that if they were not interested in attracting users. It is ok that Google want users for Chrome - nothing wrong with it. They have done so much to help users and the web with their investment in browser technology that there is no shame in marketing the product and wanting the world to use it.
DanBC 15y ago
> * "It's very simple: the primary goal of Chrome is to make the web advance as much and as quickly as possible."* This is actually a bit frustrating. There's a bunch of people writing sub-optimal web-pages; not understanding the features or the security; and then there's a bunch of browser engineers trying to keep up. Security still needs huge amounts of research and energy to progress beyond the broken model (username and pass everywhere / single weak social media login for everything) to something that most users can cope with. I sound like a luddite, but I miss the days when you could do a Google search for something and the first page would be people who knew a lot about that subject, and who'd written some great text about it, and given it a bit of markup. Honestly, ideal web pages for me are those but with CSS. A lot of the web now feels like it's been designed by people who grew up with Geocities and <blink> and <marquee>.
- zobzu 15y ago
  I'd note that browserid (browserid.org) solves the "single social login for everything". It also solves the "user and pass everywhere" in fact. It's pretty damn neat. Unfortunately i'm not sure people will adopt it. It's only good for the user. It doesn't bring money.

278 points by nr0mx 15y ago

Mozilla is putting a lot of resources; including some of their best coders, into advancing mobile. I don't see the same on Google's side. Am I wrong?

jiggy2011 15y ago
Android?
- kevingadd 15y ago
  Android's browser isn't nearly as good as Chrome or Firefox and only gets updated with the OS (which means never, for most phones).
  - resnamen 15y ago
    Starting with ICS it is Chrome.
    - hub_ 15y ago
      And lots of users won't even get ICS. Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab 7", Nexus One, etc.
    - cpeterso 15y ago
      [citation needed] According to this HTML5 compliance test, the ICS browser scores 230 (out of 450), while Chrome 15 desktop browser scores 342. Why would these browsers have such distant scores if they shared the same browser core? For comparison, the Firefox 8 desktop browser scores 314 and the Firefox 8 mobile browser scores 314. http://www.html5test.com/results-mobile.html http://www.html5test.com/results-mobile.html
      - lukeschlather 15y ago
        There are a variety of options that are disabled on the mobile build to save memory and cpu. It's the same core, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles enabled for a variety of reasons.
        Xuzz 15y ago
        It's not Chrome. It's based on WebKit, like Chrome, yes. But it's not Chrome. (Easy way to check: note that the icon says "Browser", not "Chrome", and it isn't the Chrome icon.)
        justincormack 15y ago
        The name doesnt really prove much. Webkit really is a kit. The question is what features does it have and whn will it get others.
        hub_ 15y ago
        That core is called WebKit.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    This is why I'm hoping they will finally switch to Chrome in Android 5.0 or whatever version is announced at Google I/O (Android/Chrome event). And then they update that Chrome browser every 6 weeks, too. It's not like they couldn't. They can already push all their core apps to automatically update for Android 2.2+.
    - zobzu 15y ago
      i dont think the chrome multiprocess model works well on mobiles yet. it needs more memory specifically if you start having a few tabs.
      - Aissen 15y ago
        it needs more memory specifically if you start having a few tabs - have you seen the specs of the latest high-end phones and tablets? 1GiB of RAM is the norm now - the number of concurrent open tabs can be limited. It has already been done on Android and iOS (and might still be the case).
DasIch 15y ago
Android and iPhone are the only mobile platforms worth worrying about for the rather longterm goal of improving the web, both have good browsers. So unlike Mozilla Google is not practically irrelevant on mobile platforms, why then should they invest more money?
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  I disagree that both have good browsers. What I'm worried about is the lack of emphasis that seems to be placed; Android browser is missing a lot of html5 features (according to caniuse.com it only supports 66% of current features in Android 4.0). Mozilla, on the other hand, seems to be making mobile a priority with all of the work they are doing in WebAPI. Their browser is updating a lot faster than Android's, which I believe still only updates with OS upgrades.
  - hub_ 15y ago
    OS upgrades that a lot of Android users don't get. If I want to get an up to date browser on my Nexus One, I have to use Firefox... as Google said they no longer support the phone. iOS users are in the same boat, but Apple has been providing much more support to older devices.
    - cpeterso 15y ago
      Old Android browser versions are going to become the "IE6" of this decode.
      - justincormack 15y ago
        It is easy to just use firefox on android though. Could push people to that.
        Dylan16807 15y ago
        If you have an armv7 chip, sure. But apparently nobody is motivated to fix the alignment bugs and make it work on older chips.
rmc 15y ago
They have sponsored and released the only modern smartphone OS that isn't locked down to one company like iOS. They (through Android) are to Apple, what OpenOffice/LibreOffice is to MS Office. They are the reason Apple don't own smartphone. With Google/Android what would be the Apple competitor? Blackberry? OpenMoko?!
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  In the context of this posting, I'm specifically talking about the mobile web.
  - nl 15y ago
    Have you tried the Android browser in 3.2 or 4? It's pretty damn good....
- Xuzz 15y ago
  Maybe the only popular one, but certainly not the only one. In fact, only webOS is (was, I guess) locked to a single company. Windows Phone isn't open source, but there are at least four hardware manufacturers. Nokia's MeeGo is open source (and quite good on my Nokia N9). And, soon, webOS will be too. So, while Android is a more open mobile OS, it certainly isn't the only one.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

drhowarddrfine 15y ago

Google has said from the beginning that the purpose of Chrome was to move the web forward, not compete with other browsers, and I had forgotten that.

davidu 15y ago
This is not Chrome's purpose. Everything between the user and the monetization mechanism (advertisement) is strategic to Google. It just doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy when they say it like that.
- rayiner 15y ago
  The two statements are not necessarily in conflict. It helps Google's bottom line to move the web forward, and make more things possible through browser interfaces.
- magicalist 15y ago
  Er, does OpenDNS exist only to make you money? This seems like exactly the simplistic analysis that the post was objecting to.
- ygjb 15y ago
  So close... add a couple more details: - Google makes money from ads - Promoting open web technologies reduces the stack they have to support - Promoting open platforms removes roadblocks to reaching customers - Supporting "competitors" that provide revenue generation channels ensures that even when the lose, they win. Business is not warm and fuzzy. For that, you need to go non-profit. Look at these and you can see that Mozilla is really warm and fuzzy: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefoxlive/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefoxlive/
ippisl 15y ago
Actions speak louder than words. Brendan Eich, Mozilla's CTO , which has some authority around issues concerning the open web , think Native client and Dart are bad for the open web[1]. Also one small way to improve the search experience, is easy search in multiple search engines. Firefox's search box is one way of doing so, But it has been removed in chrome. Does it really improve the web ? Does limiting the power of adblocking relative to firefox for example , really improves the web ? Do giving better/faster experience for youtube and google(no data but few anecdotes from me and friends) , for chrome users is improving the open web ? And if we talk about moving the web forward , privacy is one of the biggest issues the web currently has. privacy from big companies , privacy from advertisers , privacy from other people doing searches on you and privacy from being needed to show your real name publicly on the web. Privacy is probably much more important than technical issues like current javascript speed. Does google really help "move the web forward" on the issue of privacy ? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983430

zobzu 15y ago

Q: does google win billions from this deal? A:yes Q: does google donatethis money? A: no. Q: what is TFA worth then? A: oh, wait. so.yeah. right.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nextparadigms 15y ago

I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing. Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much because they don't want Bing to get a lot of users, but because together with Mozilla they have over 50% of the browser market share, and since the whole total of that market share includes very modern browser versions(Chrome always on latest version, Firefox not too far behind with the old ones), Google and Mozilla can pretty much dictate where the web is going now. I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. I think this part of the partnership matters more than just stopping Bing from becoming the default search on Firefox.

khuey 15y ago
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
- jedberg 15y ago
  Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
  - magicalist 15y ago
    Think about who the higher ups at Mozilla are. Brendan Eich is CTO, for instance, and you can see exactly what he thinks about supporting NaCl right now if you look at his recent posts :)
  - khuey 15y ago
    We might prioritize things based on input from Google (we tend to listen to things Google's web properties have to say since they run some of the biggest websites on the planet). This is usually a collaboration between the technical folks at both organizations to drive things that are best for the web. We're not going to implement things that we think are bad for the web just because Google says so. You can look around to see what Brendan Eich (CTO of Mozilla, a higher up by any definition) has to say about Dart and NaCl. Google's money doesn't buy our cooperation on these kinds of issues (and it's worth noting that we work with plenty of people who aren't paying us money, such as Facebook, the same way that we work with Google).

hendrix 15y ago

This article is BS. Google is a for-profit public company, hence google wants to make more money for google's shareholders. If they can do that by pushing chrome (advertizing platform) or firefox (OSS platform that they want to control) then that's what they will do. It doesn't matter what browser you use, so long as you look at their ads. Never mind their horrible privacy practices (2038 cookie) and associated shenanigans.

hub_ 15y ago
How is that incompatible with bringing the web forward? Making sure the web is an open platform make sure no one control the technology, therefor Google have more opportunities to display ads. And also people have more opportunities to compete with Google too. Nothing forces you to visit Google properties, etc.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  Would Mozilla stop making Firefox an open, web-advancing browser if Microsoft Bing paid Mozilla's bills? I don't think so. So why didn't Google save its shareholders $1B and let Microsoft foot the bill to continue Mozilla development? Google clearly must profit from their relationship with Mozilla.

davidu 15y ago

Peter's drinking a bit too much of the Kool-Aid. Chrome advances the web. It does this because it's damn good. It's forced others to be good. None of this has anything to do with the point being made in the OP he's responding to. Everything between the user and the monetization mechanism (advertisement) is strategic to Google. To believe otherwise is to be delusional. It's like the people who thought they could partner with Microsoft in the 90s and it'd be good for them.

potch 15y ago

I work at Mozilla, and the atmosphere between us and Chrome is not the high-stakes cage match people would have it be. At a fundamental level there's only so much market share, but at an engineer-level, we're insulated from such corporate politics. It's a cooperative atmosphere, and we both succeed with each others' help and knowledge.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

powertower 15y ago

Some people would have a hard time surviving in the real world outside of Google's walls. I can see why a guy on the Chrome UI team would dismiss a valid business strategy of hedging against the IE + Firefox user-base that uses the search bar and address bar for 100% of their searches (vs. going to http://www.google.com http://www.google.com directly) ... having their default search engine switched on them. To him, owning a share of the browser market is not really important to Google, in that way, because he has this image of himself and Google being the good guys and doing to no evil. Someone drank the kool-aid.

JS_startup 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. Paradoxically, being closer to the issue and company actually clouds your perception instead of enhancing it.

photon_off 15y ago

Please make the Chrome address bar awesome.

redthrowaway 15y ago
The omnibox is already awesome. It's Chrome's definitive UX feature, and I'm surprised nobody else has implemented it yet.
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
  Yep, when i have to test something in Firefox i always forget that to search in Google (or in other popular site) i can't just write it in the address bar. And it always remember all my sites so to go to hacker news i just write an "n" and it writes the rest... and i can even delete the suggestions with shift+delete. So yeah, i also don't have any idea what the parent comment was triyng to say.
  - ootachi 15y ago
    Except you can just write it in the address bar (and hit enter). Try it!
    - hub_ 15y ago
      He must be confusing with Safari.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      You can even change the search engine for that. Try about:config --> keyword.URL
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    God I love chrome's autocomplete. HN is 'n', reddit is 'r', Facebook is 'f', gmail is 'g'... It's such a great usability feature. Google's approach with Chrome seems to be making the browser as invisible as possible, and I love it.

muhacks 15y ago

MG Siegler needs to stop writing about technology. It's just sad at this point how ill informed and out of touch he is.

nikcub 15y ago

Google's browser efforts started with Gears. At the time browser development was stagnant an Google needed the technology to advance in order to improve their web applications and compete with the old desktop software model. Chrome is an extension of that effort and has played a large part in driving adoption of new web technology. But I don't buy the part about Google not being as interested in having users. Chrome is the operating system that runs the Google applications. They have increased their marketing spend this year by 69% to $4.9 billion dollars. Google, marketing, something they never used to do and were known for not spending on. A lot of that marketing is for the chrome brand. The reason so many average PC users know about chrome is because of the market. They even hired Lady Gaga to do a Chrome ad, and I don't think they would go to the trouble of doing that if they were not interested in attracting users. It is ok that Google want users for Chrome - nothing wrong with it. They have done so much to help users and the web with their investment in browser technology that there is no shame in marketing the product and wanting the world to use it.

DanBC 15y ago

> * "It's very simple: the primary goal of Chrome is to make the web advance as much and as quickly as possible."* This is actually a bit frustrating. There's a bunch of people writing sub-optimal web-pages; not understanding the features or the security; and then there's a bunch of browser engineers trying to keep up. Security still needs huge amounts of research and energy to progress beyond the broken model (username and pass everywhere / single weak social media login for everything) to something that most users can cope with. I sound like a luddite, but I miss the days when you could do a Google search for something and the first page would be people who knew a lot about that subject, and who'd written some great text about it, and given it a bit of markup. Honestly, ideal web pages for me are those but with CSS. A lot of the web now feels like it's been designed by people who grew up with Geocities and <blink> and <marquee>.

zobzu 15y ago
I'd note that browserid (browserid.org) solves the "single social login for everything". It also solves the "user and pass everywhere" in fact. It's pretty damn neat. Unfortunately i'm not sure people will adopt it. It's only good for the user. It doesn't bring money.