Croogle Ghome

[Tom]

Blimey. Its pretty spiffy isn't it?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Spiffy is an understatement. It is worryingly fast, and very pretty.

My sole complaint is that it is a tad tricky to work these bookmarks. But I can use FF to make 'em, so no problems for me!

- Huw

 

[Trem]

I found it slower than FF in al honesty.

I know FF so I shall stick with that.

 

[Draylor]

See other thread: https://forums.freddyshouse.com/techie-discussion3/230992-google-chrome.html

But yes, its nice. For alot of sites its performance isnt worth alot, for some with complex javascript, or particular layout weirdnesses its a very welcome boost.

 

[bob269]

Burned by Chrome | The Register

Personally i'll stick with IE & FF.

 

[Overdriven]

Aye, I've moved back to FF. I do alot of uploading every once in a while with stuff I don't want google to own. FF is win now.

 

[Draylor]

Burned by Chrome | The Register

Either they were shit slow updating it (which wouldnt be surprising, the Reg isnt overly concerned with facts) or you are blind.

Either way, as anyone with the slightest clue told ya long ago, its now been updated

 

[bob269]

Either they were shit slow updating it (which wouldnt be surprising, the Reg isnt overly concerned with facts) or you are blind.

Either way, as anyone with the slightest clue told ya long ago, its now been updated

It was updated after I posted. It should never been in there in the first place, don't try and tell me it was an oversight by the lawyers, they tried to get away with it and failed.

 

[Draylor]

You could think that

Or you could have the sense to see it was just a cut'n'paste job from their other services where it actually makes sense.

And there are plenty of ways to use it without agreeing to those

 

[Ch3tan]

It's good they have changed the T&C, it is very fast. MS must be shitting themselves.

 

[DaGaffer]

You could think that

Or you could have the sense to see it was just a cut'n'paste job from their other services where it actually makes sense.

And there are plenty of ways to use it without agreeing to those

You keep saying that like it makes everything OK. That's a fairly outrageous EULA on ANY service tbh. Its good that Google responded quickly to fix the EULA for Chrome, but they're still too powerful and a de facto monopoly. Google should be broken up.

 

[Tom]

Broken up? Have any of their products actually cost you anything, directly?

 

[DaGaffer]

Broken up? Have any of their products actually cost you anything, directly?

Yes. And they've cost you money as well. Almost every online advertiser in the western world spends the lion's share of its online advertising budget with Google (I personally will sign off millions of pounds to Google this year), and because of their dominant market position, Google can change the advertising rules at will (the last time they did it was in May), which raises costs, which will ultimately be passed to the consumer. Google have got to this point by being very good at what they do, no question about that, but they have more influence over the fate of most businesses than government, and as businesses generate an increasing share of their income online, it will only get worse.

The genius of it from Google's point of view is that because their revenue comes from business and not the end consumer, then unlike with say, Microsoft, the general public tends not to care; they also very cannily stay away from all the messy stuff like customer service relationships, but Google are probably more influential than Microsoft, all the phone companies and bucketload of Rupert Murdochs. I'd also suggest that Google's dominance in their core business (search) has already stifled innovation; its now extremely difficult for a new search provider to gain traction because they would automatically be beholden to Google for the lion's share of their traffic!

 

[Siddious]

Am also trying Chrome but am behind a firewall at my work.. Still have a lot of problem accessing pages that are no problem with IE. Even gmail won't load.

 

[Tom]

Yes. And they've cost you money as well. Almost every online advertiser in the western world spends the lion's share of its online advertising budget with Google (I personally will sign off millions of pounds to Google this year), and because of their dominant market position, Google can change the advertising rules at will (the last time they did it was in May), which raises costs, which will ultimately be passed to the consumer. Google have got to this point by being very good at what they do, no question about that, but they have more influence over the fate of most businesses than government, and as businesses generate an increasing share of their income online, it will only get worse.

The genius of it from Google's point of view is that because their revenue comes from business and not the end consumer, then unlike with say, Microsoft, the general public tends not to care; they also very cannily stay away from all the messy stuff like customer service relationships, but Google are probably more influential than Microsoft, all the phone companies and bucketload of Rupert Murdochs. I'd also suggest that Google's dominance in their core business (search) has already stifled innovation; its now extremely difficult for a new search provider to gain traction because they would automatically be beholden to Google for the lion's share of their traffic!

Those are indirect costs are they not? Not direct costs, which is what I asked. You may as well complain about the price of Cillit Bang, a product that is successful mainly because of television advertising.

If Google are good at what they do, its up to the competition to do it better.

 

[Draylor]

You keep saying that like it makes everything OK.

Are you expecting an apology because I dont wear a tinfoil hat?

I know Ive already agreed to Googles standard Ts&Cs via a Gmail account. Meaningless terms written on a beta web browser Ill play with for an hour dont interest me in the slighest, especially when they relate to data that is never sent to Googles servers in any form.

Laughing at people who cant understand this however does interest me :lol:

 

[DaGaffer]

Those are indirect costs are they not? Not direct costs, which is what I asked. You may as well complain about the price of Cillit Bang, a product that is successful mainly because of television advertising.

If Google are good at what they do, its up to the competition to do it better.

You said "have they cost you anything, directly?" Given what I do for a living the answer to that is yes.

You really are deliberately fucking obtuse sometimes Tom. The problem with your Cillit Bang argument is that there loads of alternatives to Cillit Bang, they don't have a near monopoly, and there are loads of TV channels for them to advertise on, so your analogy doesn't stack up in any way, shape or form. As for the competition "doing it better"; the nature of a monopoly is that it raises barriers to entry, thereby stifling competition. You know this, so you're just trolling.

 

[Kryten]

End of the day, they're putting software out there which is as good or better than paid for alternatives. We might be paying for it in a different manner - research and directed advertising being the most common, but in most cases it's more than worth it. Gmail is worth it's weight in gold to me, Picasa is damned useful, google maps & imaging is a fantastic resource, the search engine is leagues ahead of everything else. They're a business after all.

 

[bob269]

End of the day, they're putting software out there which is as good or better than paid for alternatives.

Isn't that what is frowned upon when giant multibillion dollar companies produce stuff for free, thus putting small companies trying to compete out of business.

 

[Kryten]

It's a bit of a moral dilemma really. Most people would feel sorry for the little guy, but Google was once such a little guy, dwarved by people like Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL.
When does it become amoral to be successful? Where do you draw the line? Is it really wrong to just do something better than someone else?

It annoys me greatly when people start bitching at others with regards to anti-trust lawsuits, monopolistic behaviour etc. Don't get me wrong, running a monopoly isn't good. The more players are in the game, the better it is for the end users - the more choice we have to use what suits us: for use, cost, brand loyalty. But companies/corporations shouldn't be punished for success either. Just about every company has had a pop at MS in the past regarding Windows or part of it, and the only answer I can think of if I was MS would have been "well do it better yourself and get it on a majority of the world's computers". Perfectly appropriate response in the eyes of logic and moral, yet in the world of corporations and lawyers it's wrong.

 

[dysfunction]

You shouldn't blame google for being "monopilistic"...what you should be doing is blaming all the other companies that were so stuck in their ways that they let google dominate the market so much so that there is now no real alternative....

 

[Enli]

You shouldn't blame google for being "monopilistic"...what you should be doing is blaming all the other companies that were so stuck in their ways that they let google dominate the market so much so that there is now no real alternative....

Doesn't mean a monopoly is good. Imo a smartass employee there should quit and make an alternative. Competition will lift Google itself and others to new heights

Anyhow Google for me is just a search engine and nothing more. No need for another browser, e-mail,.... And i hate their adds as a consumer.

 

[Draylor]

Doesn't mean a monopoly is good. Imo a smartass employee there should quit and make an alternative.

They did, its called cuil.

So far it sucks. Pretty layout, but the relevance of search results is way off.

 

[Sar]

I love chrome, and I'm using it atm.

It's fast as buggery off a hot plate, but the bookmarks need work, and it needs social networking built in, such as Delicious etc.

 

[dysfunction]

Doesn't mean a monopoly is good.

Thats not what I'm saying. You can't bame Google for its success as it started off small, grew and had no real competition...other companies lost their market share due to the innovations of google.

If other companies had the insight to see what was going on in their market they could have developed suitable alternatives and been proper competitors but instead they did nothing...happens all the time

Tesco is certainly heading the same way...luckily there are other big players in the market who are trying hard to stop its world domination...