Showing 18 posts tagged browsers
Since <blink> won’t blink in Blink, Firefox would be the only remaining browser that allows text to actually flash using the <blink> element. In the messy world of Internet technology, where the browsers often can’t even agree about the size at which to draw a simple box, that is as clear a signal as one can reasonably hope for: perhaps it’s time to retire <blink>.
A few hours after Google unveiled its plans for Chrome and Blink, a manager on Mozilla Japan’s internationalization team, Masayuki Nakano, filed a new ticket in the company’s internal bug-reporting system to suggest that Firefox do just that. After a few rounds of discussion, Nakano altered the necessary code in about a day’s worth of work, and submitted his changes on April 14th. Starting with version No. 23 of Firefox, Gecko, Mozilla’s internal rendering engine, will no longer support the <blink> element.
So long <blink>, it’s been an awful ride.
Asked by Anonymous
You’re using IE? That would seem to be more your problem than mine…
Google Chrome was released on September 2, 2008. That means the browser is more than four-years-old. Google is only celebrating today, however, since its browsers birthday fell on a Sunday that happened to be part of a long weekend. The result is the Chrome Time Machine, which attempts to “track Chrome’s journey from a better web to your web.”
The new site lets you travel through key moments in Chrome’s short history over the past four years. Oh, and since Google is feeling generous, you may even get a special birthday gift from the Chrome team if you find the hidden clue and type in “the secret code.”
(via Google Chrome Turns Four)
Pretty nifty. She’s come a long way.
Chris Ziegler on the default inclusion of Flash in Chrome:
Google: solve this. Chrome is too important to the health of the internet for this to be anything other than a severity one issue. If Flash is mucking something up in a way that you can’t solve in Chrome alone, drop Flash from your release channel until Adobe gets its act together. It’ll hurt (I’ll feel it as much as anyone, trust me), but desperate times call for desperate measures.
I love Chrome, it has been my browser of choice for several years now. But the continued insistence on including Flash by default is getting ridiculous. In my own un-scientific study, it’s the cause of 99.9% of the problems not just with my web browser, but with my computer in general.
Yes, Flash Blocker, click-to-run, etc. It’s ridiculous to include software that is so buggy and problematic by default.
Google’s stance used to be that bundling Flash in Chrome would help with security (since Flash is so often exploited and few people take the time to update it). But in our increasingly mobile world (where Flash never came to life), I think we’re moving towards a better option: no Flash, period.
Asked by quipol
On the Mac, I think it’s coming very, very soon (check the dev builds right now). On iOS, I’m not sure. Perhaps Apple feels like since both boxes are one touch away, it makes sense to separate them. But the new Chrome for iOS has it, so maybe it will change their mind.
It’s an interesting rumor from Pocket-lint citing “trusted sources”. And there are some further signs of this possibility, as Robin Wauters reports.
I’ve long-thought that Facebook would eventually build their own browser — and buying one would be significantly easier than building one from scratch. But the more I think about this now, the more I’m convinced that Facebook is going to bet the entire company on mobile. They’re already starting to. Instagram deal, etc.
That could mean acquiring Opera to take over their mobile browser project — and reports like this may back that idea up. But even that would be a temporary move. Facebook still needs to build their own phone (or at least phone OS) if they truly want to succeed in mobile.
So, Mozilla and Google are upset because Firefox and Chrome won’t be able to run on Windows RT. But isn’t that obvious? For all the talk of “no compromises” out of Redmond, that’s exactly what Windows RT is: a compromise.
It’s a less-powerful version of Windows 8 that needs to be more tightly controlled to be able to run on less powerful ARM chips. Again, that means compromises. One of them is apparently browser control.
And Microsoft can probably do this because they’re a total non-player in the tablet space right now. While Mozilla and Google obviously think this should fall under the “browser choice” antitrust stuff from the 90s, this is clearly different. Windows RT is not going to have a monopoly over the market in any way, shape, or form. At least not anytime soon.
John Gruber brings up a good question:
What if Windows 8 for ARM, instead of being called “Windows RT”, were instead called, say, “Metro OS”? Would that make a difference? Is Dotzler arguing that Microsoft should not be permitted to ship a version of Windows that locks out third-party browsers, or that Microsoft should not be permitted to ship any OS that locks out third-party browsers?
In light of what Apple has done with iOS, it’s not clear how you can actually make the second argument. As such, it would be humorous if Microsoft continuing to use the “Windows” brand (even when they probably shouldn’t) came back to bit them in the ass here (but I don’t think it actually will).
“It’s a tough question for us.”
That’s what Google SVP of Chrome Sundar Pichai told me when I asked him about the possibility of Chrome launching on iOS one day. I ask, of course, because Chrome just launched in beta for Android users (well, Ice Cream Sandwich users) today.
But not all hope is lost. Because both Chrome and Safari are built upon the same WebKit layout engine it should be easier to bring Chrome to iOS than say, Firefox, which uses Gecko. Apple and Google are both big contributors to WebKit itself.
Still, a Chrome app for iOS would likely be largely what the other browsers available on iOS are: re-skinned versions of Mobile Safari (a wrapper for UIWebView). But that might not be all bad — Mobile Safari still offers a smoother browsing experience when compared to this new Mobile Chrome, as I laid out in my review.
It would be fantastic to get some of the Mobile Chrome UI elements on iOS. For one thing, the multi-tab experience is much better (and sort of Apple-like). And, of course, sync across browsers would be killer to have on iOS devices as well.
I suspect Google is thinking about Chrome for iOS more closely than they lead on. Chrome directly leads to more searches, which is what Google is all about. And it would do that on iOS as well. But if we do see anything, it will probably be a while.
My title is literal, figurative, and facetious all in one. I just hope Google has a good sense of humor about it — because they have a good product on their hands.
First of all, yes, Chrome for Android is here. Second, it’s only compatible with Ice Cream Sandwich which is currently on — wait for it — 1% of Android devices. But in an attempt to add some silver-lining to the 1% joke, I will say that Chrome for Android is of a much higher class than the previous Android browser, the aptly-named and horribly icon’d: Browser.
Browser is dead. Long live Chrome.
The Chrome/Android question is as old as the two products themselves. Both products were initally launched in September 2008 (though there was an Android beta before that). But even though Google made its own browser in Chrome. And Android shipped with its own browser — it was not Chrome. When asked why this was, Google had a wide variety of reasons throughout the years.
But when the question was asked during a Chrome panel at Google I/O last year, the response changed a bit. “It’s not something we’re talking about right now.” And: “I don’t know how to answer that.” The reason for the odd responses? Work had begun on Chrome for Android.
In fact, the browser is a year in the making Google SVP of Chrome Sundar Pichai says. But as I laid out last May, it wasn’t as easy and simply porting some code over to Android, it required a lot of thought to do it right.
The good news is that the end result is mostly right. The better news is that the product launching today is still in “beta”, so I’m sure it will get even more polish before it formally launches in a few months and becomes the default browser for Google’s flavor of Android.
Given my interest in the topic over the years, Google gave me an early look at the browser and I’ve been using it for the past few days. There are a number of things that are noticeably better than the browser I consider to gold standard of mobile web browsing: mobile Safari for iOS. And there are a few things it still does worse. But I have no doubt that like the original version of Chrome, Chrome for Android is going to push all browsers forward.
“Chrome is still all about speed,” Pichai says. But speed on a mobile device is different than speed on a desktop. The processor is weaker, for one thing. Click zones are much smaller on the smaller screens. And a concept like tabs has to be re-thought.
Chrome for Android is designed around the concept of “a stack of webpages in your hand”, I’m told. And the methaphor works well when you play with the software. Simply put: the Chrome team has done an excellent job turning the concept of multiple tabs into a beautiful and responsive interface for browsing on a phone.
Each website is a card (not unlike webOS cards) and you can flip through them side to side, or through a stacked overview interface. Flipping through side-by-side actually reminds me a lot of four-finger multi-touch app switching in iOS 5 on the iPad. The stacked tabs overview page is a brilliant way to manage dozens of tabs open at once (I’m told there is no limit to the number of tabs you can have open, but that something “interesting” happens if you go past 99).
Something else Chrome for Android brings: Incognito Mode. Yes, just like the PC version, you can now “safely” browse the web without worrying about cleaning up your trail later.
Having said that, there is a notable absense in Chrome for Android: Flash. This probably shouldn’t be too surprising considering that Adobe themselves are talking about ending mobile support. But still, to the dismay of many of us, Google has insisted on baking Flash into Chrome for years now.
But the real killer feature of Chrome is sync. Because the newer versions of the browser for PCs allow you to sign in with your Google account, it can remember not only passwords and bookmarks, but open tabs as well. And those open tabs transfer to the mobile version via the “Other devices” area.
Say I have 5 tabs open in Chrome on my iMac and I get up to leave my home. I can see all 5 in Chrome for Android. And if I have 3 other tabs open on my MacBook Air, I can see those as well, all labeled and separated.
If you close Chrome, you’ll lose these (since no tabs would be open any more), but if you just do something like close your MacBook lid, you’ll still be able to see them. And the craziest part is that you can load one and hit the back button and go to the page that took you to your current page no matter where you were doing the browsing. Sync handles it all.
Back to the bad news: some of the more advanced features of Chrome for Android require APIs found only in Ice Cream Sandwich, so the team made the call to make it only available for Android 4.0 and beyond. Again, this means only 1% of current Android users out there can actually get and use the browser right now.
One would hope that the 1% number will rise quickly, but as we’re all well aware, that’s mainly in the carriers/OEMs hands now.
But Chrome for Android will work on Ice Cream Sandwich tablets as well — and the UI is slightly different to accomodate the larger screens. One example: you can see mutliple tabs in a row along the top of the browser similar to the current Android Browser and Chrome for PCs.
While many of the UI elements of Chrome for Android are fantastic (and smooth!), unfortunately, browsing still leaves a bit to be desired. Pages load fast (roughly as fast as Safari on iOS 5 — some faster, some slower), but zooming in and out of web pages is still stuttery. When pinching to zoom out, this is particularly noticeable.
Likewise, scrolling down longer pages often leads to little stutters here and there. None of that is a deal-breaker by any means, but it’s still not iOS-smooth.
But again, the plan is to iterate quickly, just as Google does with other versions of Chrome. There will be the same 6-week release cycle for new versions, Pinchai says. Though he does note that it will take them a little bit of time to catch up with the more mature PC/Mac/Linux versions of the browser. Chrome Beta for Android will technically be version 16 at launch, I’m told. Chrome Beta for Mac is already on version 17.
When I ask Pichai if Chrome coming to Android changes the Chrome OS strategy, he says it “takes nothing away” from their work on that OS. And he says that there will be more to share on Chrome OS later this year.
As for the whole web vs. native app debate, Pichai notes that Chrome for Android links to the Android Market whenever possible — meaning there isn’t a dedicated web app area like there is on the PC version of Chrome. Also not coming along for the ride yet: extensions (but they’re thinking about how best to do them on mobile).
One other bit of intrigue: Chrome for Android will be a part of the Google Apps package. This means that once Chrome fully replaces Browser on Android, there will no longer be a browser that’s a part of the open source Android. In other words, if vendors like Amazon want to include a browser on the Kindle Fire, they’re going to have to build their own — which they did. Still, interesting. (Update: And Google wants to make it clear that Chromium, the open source browser on which Chrome is based, is still open source, so developers can work from there — it just won’t be bundled.)
If you happen to be one of the few out there with Ice Cream Sandwich, Chrome for Android is a must-download right now. Again, it’s beta, but it’s already pretty slick — particularly the UI elements (swipe up on a stack of tabs a few times to see what I mean). If you don’t have Ice Cream Sandwich yet. Well, cross your fingers and pray that Google figures out how to get their carrier and OEM partners in line one of these days. Maybe the demand for this browser will push everyone into action. Maybe.
One more thing: Now, What About Chrome For iOS?
Following up on the story from yesterday, what a nightmare. I’m happy Google did (at least partially) the right thing in demoting the Chrome download site for 60 days — but I’m still not convinced it shouldn’t have been an outright ban, and for longer.
We all knew that everyone was going to pass the buck on this. Google hired a company to produce Chrome ads. They apparently thought they’d only be video ads, but they ended up (through another company) in paid posts. Yuck.
Google’s legal department has the other companies involved saying the right thing (which is an exact echo of what Google itself is saying), but I’m still not sure how they couldn’t be aware of at least the possibility of this happening. I think my back-and-forth with Frederic Lardinois sums this up pretty well:
@fredericl right. that’s like saying you hired a hitman to “clean”, then being surprised that he killed someone.— MG Siegler (@parislemon) January 3, 2012
Passing the buck drives me insane. Again, I’m glad Google is taking some action, but they should fully fess up to this. They fucked up, pure and simple. Why are they advertising Chrome through third parties that clearly do shady things? Because it will hep market share? Barf.
Again — and I’m going to keep harping on this — there’s too much overlap in Google’s different businesses now. What seems like a good idea to one area of the company, turns out to be one of the dumbest things Google has ever done.
This is only going to get worse.