It's real: Google to launch Web browser tomorrow

And Google Blogoscoped has the, um, scoop:

Today there was a comic book in my mail, sent by Google. Within the 38 pages, which I’ve scanned and put up in very readable format Google gives the technical details into a project of theirs: an open source browser called Google Chrome. The book points to www.google.com/chrome, but I can’t see anything live there yet. In a nut-shell, here’s what the comic announces Google Chrome to be:

Google Chrome is Google’s open source browser project. As rumored before under the name of “Google Browser”, this will be based on the existing rendering engine Webkit. Furthermore, it will include Google’s Gears project.

So this is interesting. Instead of going with the Firefox rendering engine, which I have to say I would have preferred, Google is instead going with Webkit, the browser that powers Safari (both the PC application and the iPhone version).

The browser will include a JavaScript Virtual Machine called V8, built from scratch by a team in Denmark, and open-sourced as well so other browsers could include it. One aim of V8 was to speed up JavaScript performance in the browser, as it’s such an important component on the web today.

Google Chrome will use special tabs. Instead of traditional tabs like those seen in Firefox, Chrome puts the tab buttons on the upper side of the window, not below the address bar.

I wouldn't call these "special tabs." I'd call them "tabs." That happen to be in a slightly different place than they are in, say, IE or Firefox. Big deal. In fact, the comic books says, "We could detach the tabs easily because of the separation of the browser and the tab processes." IE has already separated out its tabs to unique processes. Moving tabs from window to window is cute, but come on. It's kind of an esoteric feature.

The browser has an address bar with auto-completion features. Called ’omnibox’, Google says it offers search suggestions, top pages you’ve visited, pages you didn’t visit but which are popular and more.

As a default homepage Chrome presents you with a kind of “speed dial” feature, similar to the one of Opera. On that page you will see your most visited webpages as 9 screenshot thumbnails.

Chrome has a privacy mode; Google says you can create an “incognito” window “and nothing that occurs in that window is ever logged on your computer.” The latest version of Internet Explorer calls this InPrivate. Google’s use-case for when you might want to use the “incognito” feature is e.g. to keep a surprise gift a secret. As far as Microsoft’s InPrivate mode is concerned, people also speculated it was a “porn mode.”

I love this blog, but sorry, this is clueless. When Microsoft demoed IE 8 Beta 2 for me three weeks ago, they used that exact usage scenario to explain InPrivate: That you'd want to buy a gift for a spouse, coworker, or whatever, and keep that a secret. The "porn mode" baloney is a name other people have used. IE's InPrivate feature is no more or no less a "porn mode" than is Google's "incognito" feature. Don't be dumb.

Web apps can be launched in their own browser window without address bar and toolbar. Mozilla has a project called Prism that aims to do similar (sic).

... But is here and actually works today. So I guess it's Google Chrome that "aims to do similar" to what Mozilla is doing.

To fight malware and phishing attempts, Chrome is constantly downloading lists of harmful sites. Google also promises that whatever runs in a tab is sandboxed so that it won’t affect your machine and can be safely closed. Plugins the user installed may escape this security model, Google admits.

OK. So obviously, I'm curious. But what we've really got here is an example of Google pulling a Microsoft: Creating an unnecessary me-too product that they can use for product tie-ins. All of the features here are present in exisiting browsers, all of them. So what does Google really bring to the table? Not much, it seems. But this is based on a report, not actual usage. You never know.

I'll look through the online version of the comic book and see whether there are any important details he left out.

UPDATE: Google has made an official blog post about the browser release.

Discuss this Article 41

mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 1, 2008
"Web apps can be launched in their own browser window without address bar and toolbar. Mozilla has a project called Prism that aims to do similar (sic)." For that matter, Microsoft made this available with the introduction of HTML Applications (.HTA files) in, if memory serves, IE 4 in 1997. Once again, everything old is NEW!!! again.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 1, 2008
A quick review of the comic book... Based on the comic book, they're actually loading an entire new instance of the browser and new instances of all plug-ins in a separate full process for each new tab. And they think that's a good idea. Hope everybody's planning on buying RAM soon. Lots and lots of RAM. Here's a hint to Google, there's a reason why light-weight processes were introduced by IBM and Microsoft in 1987 with OS|2 1.0. Despite Unix not having a modern threading model and depending on spawning heavyweight processes as a default, that doesn't make it a good idea. Really guys, just because something was Not Invented Here (with Here, as usual for Google, being Silicon Valley) doesn't mean it can't be used. Also in the comic book, they're bragging about doing nothing but "monkey testing" and pulling features that can't be "monkey tested". Next up, they've optimized their Javascript with a JITr which is great for long running scripts but lousy for ad hoc JS which most pages use. And, of course, it's really amusing watching them imply (but never quite state) that they've invented all kinds of things that every modern browser has had for years. Then, finally, they do a pitch for how we should all do everything open source. Of course, I don't see them open sourcing things like their search optimization routines but perhaps that's just an oversight...
anonymous
on Sep 1, 2008
Hows this for random.... Google to launch Web browser tomorrow. Paul has a screenshot up as well....
PatriotB6007
on Sep 1, 2008
I agree that moving the tab bar to be "top level" is pretty minor. But it made me stop and think -- if you're goingt to put everything inside the tab, why not just skip the tabs altogether and use the Windows taskbar? Under this reasoning, IE's had tabs since Windows 95, when the taskbar was released. In a Google world where all apps live inside the browser, how is a single browser window with multiple tabs different than a single desktop with multiple maximized apps and the taskbar to switch between them?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 1, 2008
Of course, what will be amusing will be the Google Chrome vs Mozilla Firefox fan war since both Google and Firefox get so much slack cut for being in the "We're not Microsoft" brigade. This should be amusing. One odd note, seeing how Google talks in the comic book about how they're making the "chrome" of the browser get out of the way, why did they name it "Google Chrome"?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 1, 2008
PatriotB6007 There actually are some real differences between their tab implementation and multiple windows using the taskbar as tabs. Minimize/Maximize/Restor works on all panes with tabs. Alt-Tab (and Windows-Tab) don't work on tabs
Fahd
on Sep 1, 2008
Hmmm ... - I'm really asking my self : What's the point ? Is this is a no-brainer move by Google ? Like Paul buying some RAM ? Doesn't seem so after looking at the 38-page comic book. But, anyway, why ? - Is Google seriously planning to enter a battle where upcoming IE8 is taking advantage of WU and Firefox is becoming more and more popular. I can only think of one reason to this random release : Google being surprised by IE8 Beta 2 bringing all the features they were thinking about. I must admit : Google Chrome looks pretty on screenshots but, come on, it needs a lot more than a pretty interface to gain market share. Opera could tell them a lot about this. - All in all, I think Google Chrome would have been an incredible revolution if it had been released a year ago. Sadly, all the "innovative" features they're talking about were already developped AND demonstrated in actual browsers. 9 website thumbnails as a home page ? Opera's Speed Dial. Tabs above adress bar ? Opera's default interface. A seperated process for each tab ? IE8. Omnibar ? Awesome bar (FF), Smart Adress Bar (IE8). Come on Google ...
shark47
on Sep 1, 2008
"Of course, what will be amusing will be the Google Chrome vs Mozilla Firefox fan war since both Google and Firefox get so much slack cut for being in the "We're not Microsoft" brigade. This should be amusing." That should definitely be interesting. With Android and Chrome, Google is definitely trying to increase its influence. It's trying to pull a Microsoft here. This is funny!
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
I think basic tech history would have taught you guys that it doesn't matter where the idea came...but how its implemented.
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
>>Hope everybody's planning on buying RAM soon. Lots and lots of RAM.<< It seems that they believe that the reduction in memory fragmentation that results from using a multi-process model more than compensates for the increased overhead of using separate processes. Lots of blog entries and tech boards posts seem to agree with them. Lets be serious folks...Google has some pretty bright folks working for them. They've probably measured out these criticisms hundreds of time before, during and after the development of the product.
subzerohitman721
on Sep 1, 2008
Set it up right. Chrome vs. Firefox 3 vs. Internet Explorer 8. Desktop battle for your browsing download. And you don't have to pay to watch it.
cesjr
on Sep 1, 2008
"Instead of going with the Firefox rendering engine, which I have to say I would have preferred, Google is instead going with Webkit, the browser that powers Safari" Of course Paul doesn't like it that Chrome uses Webkit - he's constantly harping that Safari is a "terrible" browser (without saying why or how) and Google's choice of webkit leaves the opposite impression - that Safari has technical merit.
Lindy
on Sep 1, 2008
"But what we've really got here is an example of Google pulling a Microsoft: Creating an unnecessary me-too product that they can use for product tie-ins." Wow Paul I agree with you, like the world needed silverlight or XPS. It seems this announcement has your panties in a knot Paul?? I thought you loved Google? Maybe not so much when they are trying to kick MS in the gut. I see all of these posts with the "so what", or "Google is just copying what has been out there for a while". Really all of them do it. I agree with Ocean for once "its how its implemented" and that will be all that matters in the end. When Gmail started up in the crowded world of hotmail, yahoo and AOL mail did you think it would end up trouncing the others??? Gmail kicks the cr@p out of the others with its IMAP, lots of space, and open sync access. Honestly end users wont care in the end if Google copied, IE8 and no one will know who did what first since they are both beta right now. I think this is great. Yet another browser that will run on multiple OS'es that is based on standards. IE is quickly becoming the MS only browser that is just getting with the standards and the rest are multi platform standards based. I would seriously not under-estimate Google for one second. Google has a simple single brand with Zero confusion. Google could add mesh like syncing very easily and it would fit into their single login simple branding rather nicely. Of course this is Google, this browser will be "in Beta" 5 years from now:)
Lindy
on Sep 1, 2008
@subzero. Your test would only work on Windows. Even then you should add in a daily build of Safari that uses the new webkit with squirrelfish like this Google browser does (aka Safari 4.0 beta), if your going to use IE 8 in a beta form, plus Opera.
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
>>I agree with Ocean for once "its how its implemented" and that will be all that matters in the end.<< Actually, thats the second time. That said, I wish Paul would explain his disdain for Webkit too. Its used in more than Safari.
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
Well, we can end the comparisons with IE. Even if IE released a certain technology first, Google is developing the same tech and then releasing it to the world. That pushes all browser tech forward, and thats good for all of us. >>We've used components from Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, among others -- and in that spirit, we are making all of our code open source as well. We hope to collaborate with the entire community to help drive the web forward. The web gets better with more options and innovation. Google Chrome is another option, and we hope it contributes to making the web even better.<< http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html
shark47
on Sep 1, 2008
"I thought you loved Google? Maybe not so much when they are trying to kick MS in the gut." Sorry, but this is going to affect Firefox more.
benjwah
on Sep 1, 2008
Ughh.... I can't see how this helps. I'd be happier with just Mozilla and MS on the market. Normally I'm all about competition, but my gut reaction when I saw this news was "ugghhhh....why?" They'll do a decent job, I'm sure. As someone else pointed out, Google is like a cookie jar filled to the top with smart cookies. I just don't see them bringing anything to the market that Mozilla and MS won't. In fact, what peeves me most is that what they're bringing to the table is features that have already been brought by MS and Mozilla. I dunno, maybe Google will do something cool with it, but I doubt it.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 1, 2008
Shark47 It's going to be interesting to see if this gets traction at all with the Firefox users. It doesn't offer additional "I don't user Microsoft" cred that appeals to so many of them and Google is finding that their "Don't be evil" meme is coming back to bite them hard now that their privacy problems have hit on top of their "sure we'll sell out our users to the PRC" problems. The really interesting part is whether they'll find themselves in trouble for owning one browser and subsidizing another. A dirty little secret (that everybody knows but nobody talks much about) with the Mozilla Foundation is just how much of their money and code come from Google rather than from "the community just giving back to the commons out of the goodness of their hearts". And Google just renewed their Mozilla funding contract (in exchange for being the default search engine) until 2011.
Lindy
on Sep 1, 2008
I find have found FF to buggy to be honest. I run with bare min plugins and still on a PC or on a Mac there are times I must switch to IE or Safari to get a page an odd page to display properly. Its slow as heck on OS X compared to Safari as well. Google has more resources thank Mozilla. It will be interesting for sure.
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
The blogosphere and tech boards are rocking with a lot of good analysis. Heres something else to chew on: >>Google doesn't (or at least shouldn't) care one bit about browser market share or browser dominance. They only care that browsers have the advanced features that make Google's web offerings more compelling. In other words, if no one ever uses Chrome, but every other browser ends up with similar features, Google still gets what they want.<<
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
More analysis...IE mobile has non-existent market share? I didn't know that... >>even today, despite strong competition from Mozilla’s Firefox, Microsoft controls about 75 percent of the desktop browser market. In other words, given Microsoft’s control of the desktop, it is hard to dislodge it on the desktop. However, it is vulnerable on mobiles, where IE Mobile has a non-existent market share. Like Mozilla, Microsoft is playing catch-up with Webkit, the core rendering engine for Nokia S60 phones, Apple’s iPhone Safari and Google Android devices. Even a Windows Mobile version is in the works. (Read my Webkit report.) By developing a browser that offers a seamless experience on both mobile and desktop devices, Google can carve out a nice chunk of the browser market for itself. The big opportunity could be especially the emerging class of mobile devices like the Netbooks.<< http://gigaom.com/2008/09/01/google-browser-is-real-another-win-for-webkit/
Ocean
on Sep 1, 2008
>>The growing popularity of WebKit, according to some of my browser guru sources, is due to the fact that it’s easier to code for compared with other browser engines. It also has a well-organized and smaller code base, which is easier to manage. Finally, it is quite fast and renders faster, which makes it attractive to developers. More importantly, however, WebKit has a smaller footprint, which means it has less memory and CPU requirements and as such, is ideal for the mobile environments. Apple’s (and now Google’s) mobile ambitions have prompted the company to devote a lot of resources to WebKit, turning it into a viable mobile platform.<< Theres a Webkit based browser for Windows Mobile now: http://www.torchmobile.com/
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 1, 2008
"[Google] only care that browsers have the advanced features that make Google's web offerings more compelling" Replacing a general purpose ECMA Scripting (JavaScript/JScript/LiveScript) engine with one optimized for large, relatively static AJAX apps is the likely place where this would fit a Google strategy. While it would work faster for their "WebApps", it does so at the cost of web pages that don't fit the model of a complex application built in a scripting language. If they can get others to use this scripting JITer rather than an optimized interperter or threaded p-code compiler they will damage the performance of most web sites but decrease the performance costs of their particular application model. Yeah. That's not evil...
gorath
on Sep 1, 2008
I'm intrigued about this. I recently tried Opera proerly for the first time in years, and I have to say, I was mightily impressed, and it did seem much faster than IE or FF on my laptop. However, there were too many sites that I visit that don't work with opera to make switching feasible. So, after a few months, I realised I was using it less and less, so it got uninstalled. If Chrome can provide the same performance, but with improved compatability, they may have my attention.
subzerohitman721
on Sep 1, 2008
@Lindy, If you wanna throw Opera and Safari into the mix, go right ahead. Now this becomes a battle royale. I'm willing to stand corrected. But honestly, after the Safari fiasco this summer, I highly doubt many Windows users will bother with Safari. This summer's epic Apple fumble's (Safari and Mobile Me.) didn't do Safari any favors. Nor is Safari available on any flavor of Linux. So yeah, at this point I'm just being a spectator and judge. Since I'm evaluating which browser will I use and recommend, I'll throw Safari in just to be fair. But I have to admit this summer, Apple is getting a 30 yard penalty for lapse security and no public beta program. But okay, cue the Michael Buffer, we've updated this card to a 5 browser battle royale.
Dude1313
on Sep 2, 2008
But wait choice is a good thing so the Windows side will tell you.... Oh wait choice is only good when it benefits MS?
johnpapola
on Sep 2, 2008
Competition is good. But "Private Browsing" came to Safari first in V3, despite Paul's failure to acknowledge that. And dragging tabs in and out and between windows has also been in Safari since the launch of 3. Just putting that out there since Paul seems all about attribution in this post... unless that attribution leads to Safari.
johnpapola
on Sep 2, 2008
...though I will admit that these may have been in another niche browser like Opera first. Please correct me if I'm wrong (as if that needs to be said ;).
Flenser
on Sep 2, 2008
mikegalos said: >>Replacing a general purpose ECMA Scripting (JavaScript/JScript/LiveScript) engine with one optimized for large, relatively static AJAX apps is the likely place where this would fit a Google strategy. While it would work faster for their "WebApps", it does so at the cost of web pages that don't fit the model of a complex application built in a scripting language. >>If they can get others to use this scripting JITer rather than an optimized interperter or threaded p-code compiler they will damage the performance of most web sites but decrease the performance costs of their particular application model. I don't see how they can optimise for their apps and not for everyone elses. Surely it would speed up any page that uses JavaScript. And even if it did have a negative impact on some pages, it's not like those pages suddenly become slower for everyone, it only affects *users that chose to use the chrome browser*. Firefox was already headed down this route anyway: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/08/22/the-birth-of-a-faster-monkey/ So I don't see what the problem is.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 2, 2008
Flenser It's not that the optimizations will only work for Google apps, it's that they'll work more for highly scripted complex web apps at the cost of regular pages that have script. When you optimize for one thing, you optimize against something else.
Anthony Cook
on Sep 2, 2008
Wow a Google browser!! theres one key word in what i just said and thats GOOGLE.....Its gonna rock :D
Lindy
on Sep 2, 2008
@Subzero. Safari on Windows is not really popular. But hey its a 1.0 product. The way that Apple put it out there was wrong and that is fixed. Security, I guess, but I have not seen any exploits yet that are specifically targeted at Safari. Compared to the history of IE and its security holes, Safari 3 is a fortress. They all evolve, as in update. They all rip each other off, or you could say add features that are needed or requested by users, so it looks like they copy. The best test would be to wait until IE8, Chrome, FF 3.1 and Safari 4 are RTM, and then test. FF 3.1 is getting some serious new Java speed tweaks and should be out at the end of the year. Webkit has added Squirrel fish Java tweaks so Safari 4.0 and Chrome will use that, and IE8....will be IE8.
Flenser
on Sep 2, 2008
But is it optimisation? Isn't it just speeding up any and all JavaScript? When you say "regular pages that have script. " I can't imagine that it would slow them down much, because they don't have much JavaScript on them to begin with. If there is some up front cost to the compilation that delays a script starting (and we can only speculate on how large that is at the moment), it becomes a question of where on the scale from trivial to complex do the benefits of compilation kick in. From what the Firefox folks are saying about TraceMonkey it sounds like even with fairly trival scripts the benefits of run time speed up more than offset the time to compile. With JavaScript frameworks like Prototype, Dojo, JQuery etc. becoming more and more widely used it makes sense to do this. Google only announced V8 yesterday but Adobe, Apple, and Mozilla have been working on compiling JavaScript for months now, and in public, so Google isn't leading this, they're just going in the same direction as everyone else.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 2, 2008
Flenser It really isn't speeding up any and all. There's overhead in the JIT process. If you have a lot of code on a page or you reuse that page over and over again, the performance improvements more than make up for the overhad of JITing. If you don't spend much time on the page or the amount of code is small, the overhead more than eats of the benefits.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 2, 2008
The Chrome download site is now active
gorath
on Sep 2, 2008
Oh, and lo and behold, it's Beta. I wonder how long for.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 2, 2008
@gorath Well, that's hard to say. It's a Google product so it might get out of beta before release 2.0, on the other hand, it's Open Source so it probably will always have "0." preppended to its version number so it doesn't actually have to be maintained. Tough call.
Mum
on Sep 4, 2008
"All of the features here are present in exisiting browsers, all of them. So what does Google really bring to the table? Not much, it seems." Features, features, features, is that all tech people can talk about? We've seen it a million times that a feature set alone, however large, doesn't take a product very far. Even putting a great UI on those features is still only a start.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 4, 2008
"Features, features, features, is that all tech people can talk about? " The alternative being, "Hey, this new product does less than the one I already have. I should switch!"
Waethorn
on Sep 4, 2008
"The alternative being, "Hey, this new product does less than the one I already have. I should switch!"" Is that an anti-Mac sentiment in disguise? ;)

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use