[benofsky]

I don't think Google's primary goal here is to have the largest market share in the browser market but to be able to drive innovation in the other leading browsers through competition.

Google Chrome drove Firefox (and others) to improve the speed of their javascript engines/interpreters which is hugely beneficial for Google meaning their web apps now run faster across the board.

In my opinion, Google Chrome exists to help Google push other browsers to introduce new features that make their web applications more accessible to everyone else.

[thristian]

A more impressive example: Chrome's multiple-process rendering system has spurred Mozilla to work on a similar system to Firefox - and not just copying the idea, but wholesale importing code from Chromium:

    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Content_Processes

[benofsky]

Ah, very interesting. Didn't think of this in relation to my point above but it explains why Chrome is open-source too.

[Perceval]

Mozilla was working on an updated Javascript engine before Chrome was announced (actually, accidentally leaked via comic book). Chrome certainly lit a fire under Firefox and Safari to release their updated Javascript engines, but their implementations were in the pipeline before anyone formally knew about Chrome.

[fnid]

That's why they have television commercials for chrome?

If they wanted to make the web better, why didn't they just contribute to the Firefox project itself rather than inventing their own browser?

Releasing, yet another browser only complicates things for existing web developers.

[whopa]

To be fair to Google, they tried to contribute to Firefox back in the Firefox 1.x timeframe, but they realized that Mozilla is rather dysfunctional open source project. It is incredibly hard to get feature work into Mozilla as an outsider, so they decided to go their own way. In a way they got what they wanted in the end, now with Mozilla copying stuff from Chrome wholesale now that someone else has made them look bad.

The main things holding Chrome back adoption-wise is a stable Mac version, and extension hooks to support popular functionality like AdBlock and Noscript. With those you'll start seeing geeks and tech influencers switch, which will probably start eating at Firefox's market share. It's a testament to the power of Google's brand that it's got as much market share right now as it does, which is mainly at the expense of IE.

[pavs]

I am a mac user (primarily) and I find this funny. How is Mac version holding back Chrome in terms of adoption when mac represents roughly 9-10% OS market?

Chrome already supports extensions, Adsweep works on Chrome as an alternative of ABplus. Noscript is used by a very small niche users, I seriously doubt noscript users are holding Chrome back on mass adoption.

I think switching browser is always a difficult choice for non tech savvy users. Personally it was a hard choice for me 4-5 years ago to leave IE for FF, but it was easier for me to make the switch to Chrome after I used it and liked it. I think my view towards a browser changed over the last 4-5 years and I see a "browser" as a tool as opposed to a gateway to the internet. I think most of the early adopters of Chrome are fairly tech savvy users and for chrome to be really mainstream they need to push chrome bundled with new computers (I think they already do that).

Chrome is awesome and it can only get better. I hope Google Chrome OS will be just as good.

[whopa]

> How is Mac version holding back Chrome in terms of adoption when mac represents roughly 9-10% OS market?

Because Mac usage among early adopters and other tech influencers is a much higher percentage, and they're the ones who recommend software to use to the less savvy. That's how Firefox's marketshare got its initial big boost.

> Noscript is used by a very small niche users

Again, Noscript usage incidence is higher among that same market.

> I think most of the early adopters of Chrome are fairly tech savvy users

Most alpha geeks I know (including myself) use Firefox as their primary browser rather than Chrome, mainly because it's not quite there on Mac/Linux, and/or favorite extensions don't exist. Nearly all Chrome users I know are Windows users, and don't care about extensions, and like the perceived speed compared to other browsers. Nearly all alpha geeks I know use Chrome on Windows, when they have to use Windows, which isn't very often.

Get more of those alpha geeks using Chrome as their primary, more recommendations trickle down to their less geeky friends. That's what happened with Firefox, and that's what will happen with Chrome once a stable Mac port and support for the popular extensions show up.

[benofsky]

Well the other browsers aren't going to make their product better if no one knows of anything better hence the tv commercials.

They didn't contribute to Firefox instead of inventing their own browser because if they have a browser of their own their contributions and improvements don't have to be approved (or denied) by a 3rd party.

Chrome also does not make things more complicated for existing web developers as it is based of webkit so it renders pages very similarly to Safari.

[fnid]

I hear this all the time and as the builder of multiple AJAX web applications I know for a fact that it does not behave the same way Safari behaves.