Comments for The Importance Of Chrome
I like Chrome, I like the out-of-the-way UI and the blistering speed, but I'll not use it until I can install functionality I want on-demand.
It revs independently of browsers, implements new features without users changing their day-to-day choices, and has a (frequently exercised) auto-update mechanism. In short, it’s even more cross-platform than a browser. A plugin absolutely can (and will) help the web evolve. It’ll be gears or it’ll be Flash/Silverlight, which, written another way is “open vs. closed”.
I know very little about Gears admittedly. However nothing you have said he turns me on. I, and many of us, don't turn on auto-updates cause more often than not, they screw things up. I would have a problem with any plugin/standalone product implementing new features without me being able to veto that update.
The stats for auto-updating browsers and plugins give me some real hope that auto-updates do, over the broader population, work. Obviously enterprises want and need control over the process, but in the main, auto-update is a Good Thing (TM) and it works (assuming the update mechanism is non-evil and continues to have user trust).
Regards
So you're arguing that "people don't install plugins" except when they do? And that somehow more people will switch their entire browser than will install a plugin? Either way, plugins have less friction. More importantly, I think, it's more likely that google can strike distribution deals for a plugin (e.g., Dell) than for a replacement browser.
Regards
As I understand it, flash did not achieve the majority of its ubiquity through distribution deals. It got there because people wanted to see the whizzy animations, games, and other stuff they needed flash to.
Firefox without plugins is great, but not really anything special. Firefox with the plugins I want is light-years ahead of the competition, because it's the plugins that make it relevant to me. Chrome needs an open plug-in architecture.
Not sure I understand your comment...the Chrome comic talks a LOT about their plugin infrastructure, and the plugin API across browsers is pretty much settled science. Are you referring to Firefox's lighter-weight extensions mechansim? If so, that is very much up in the air as far as anyone can tell. Should be interesting = )
Aaron:
Adobe had a distribution deal with Microsoft to include Flash with Windows up until a year or two ago (Vista and OEM XP's no longer include it, but the bootstrap is done).
Regards
Obviously, since you're at Google you can't just come out and say this, but I certainly does seem weird that the folks at Mozilla don't just ship Gears (and pull the same "hot patch IE if installed" trick I suggested that Chrome use). They are 100% aligned on the merits, and if Mozilla still wanted full control over the content author experience, they could simply try to create a separate distribution channel or forge a distribution deal for Gears as they have for the browser in general (say, for every Gears install via FF that also patches IE, some extra dough for MoFo).
It's insane that MoFo isn't chasing down all the angles here.
Regards
Update: changed the language to more accurately reflect what I meant to say.
Best, Brad Neuberg Google Open Web Advocate
BTW, much of the 'received wisdom' about plugins was created in the late 90s, when bandwidth was slow and users were actually more conservative. Users in general are much more comfortable with the web, machines are faster, and bandwidth is much easier to download a plugin that might be several megabytes. In addition, the received wisdom was that plugins == proprietary in the 90s, which was true when they started. However, open source plugins like Gears changes this equation. If plugins are an effective way to help induce change on the web, why not use them to get some more movement going?
Best, Brad Google Open Web Advocate
The new gBrowser sounds great for HTML-based applications though. ;-)
Think of Gears as a platform for evolution, not an instantaneous set of features. It revs independently of browsers, implements new features without users changing their day-to-day choices, and has a (frequently exercised) auto-update mechanism. In short, it's even more cross-platform than a browser. A plugin absolutely can (and will) help the web evolve. It'll be gears or it'll be Flash/Silverlight, which, written another way is "open vs. closed".
As long as the web app developing world continues to see "browsers good, plugins bad" as the M.O. for progress, we'll continue to be deeply disappointed (as we have been by Opera, Safari, and Firefox). I know that's an incendiary thing to say, but take a step back and think about it cooly. Yes, competition gets us a lot, but not nearly fast enough.
Regards
Sadly, the "bad guys" killed the plugin scene when they used early plugin mechanisms to install crap-ware on people's browsers. Today, plugins are a chore because you first have to wade through tons of security warnings and little yellow bars before you even get to the bit where the plugin starts downloading.
If Google used their continent sized brain and interstellar infrastructure to create a mechanism with which signed plugins could be installed in full user-confidence with no more than one click, they'd be winning.
If they could do that without the required browser restart, they'd be untouchable.
Instead of this...
You would have...
Wow: 4 steps instead of 8, with no "secret-handshakes" or popups. It's U.I. utopia.