Google hedges its bets with new browser

By Source Seeker on Tue, 09/02/08 - 8:58am.

Fast on the heels of its announcement that Gears works with Apple's Safari browser and the launch of Microsoft's IE 8 with its new privacy feature, Google offered Chrome, its open-source entrant into the crowded browser marketplace. But Chrome isn't just another browser. It's Google's attempt at controlling the Web apps marketplace. Google may be on its way to owning the cloud via Google Apps, but before it can be truly successful, it has to own the client. And that's where Chrome comes in.

This isn't to say that suddenly all the users who use IE by default as part of their Windows OS are going to run out and download Chrome. But for enterprise users, especially small and midsize businesses that have bought into Google Apps and cloud computing, Chrome is like an insurance policy. Chrome doesn't focus on the casual Web surfer; where it shines is in addressing the main client downsides to Web computing: stability, speed and security.

According to the comic book Google used to explain the new browser, Google's goals with Chrome are the following:

First, browsers need to be more stable. When you're writing an important e-mail or editing a document, a browser crash is a big deal. Browsers also need to be faster. They need to start faster, load pages faster--and for Web apps, JavaScript itself can be a lot faster. They need to be more secure. Given what's known about mass browser exploits, browsers need architectural changes to disadvantage malware.

Based on Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, Chrome also comes integrated with Gears already, ensuring that Web apps can run both online and offline, neatly answering another downside to Web apps. (For a quick rundown of all its features, check out TechRadar's comprehensive list.)

While Chrome may be a sleek entrant into the browser wars on its own, it's actually a way for Google to hedge its bets as more enterprises look to cloud computing for their enterprise apps needs. It comes down to this: Who would you rather get your Web apps client from, someone like Google with a concrete interest in getting things to work, or Microsoft, whose main interest is in keeping its thick client desktop computing paradigm alive?