Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Google Browser

  1. #1
    Roll Tide! mobilebadboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mobile, AL
    Posts
    428

    Google Browser

    September 19, 2004 -- Google, $1.67 billion richer from its August initial public offering, is spending its money poaching the brightest minds from arch-rival Microsoft and other tech giants.

    Based on the half-dozen hires in recent weeks, Google appears to be planning to launch its own Web browser and other software products to challenge Microsoft.

    http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
    Shawn Kerr .com

  2. #2
    I'm the oogie boogie man! James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,566
    http://www.gbrowser.com 's whois pretty much gives it away.

  3. #3
    Registered The New Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    283
    Unless they take over the Mozilla Project, I cant see their browser doing anything.

  4. #4
    Trench Warfare
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    813
    Probably just intergrating their Gmail, Toolbar, Orkut, Blogger fuctions etc. into a mozilla browser?
    ________
    Dodge Kahuna history
    Last edited by ozgression; 02-06-2011 at 06:19 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    840
    Wow... here's what I'm feeling...

    Getting webmaster approval is very important. The reasons I use Internet Explorer are 1) the google toolbar... 2) alexa.

    If they get webmaster approval, then those webmasters may recommend the browser to their friends and family. And there it grows. I know I would recommend it if its quality. Just as I recommended the Google search engine years ago when my family was using Yahoo, Webcrawler... I wouldn't be suprised if the same recommendation happens when the gbrowser launches (assuming they make it awesome).
    Kyle

  6. #6
    Web Monkey MarkB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,783
    All they need do is make it so only the Google browser shows up-to-date PR, and everyone (well, out of us) will use it
    Stepping On Wires - the new blog

  7. #7
    mastermind michael_gersitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    749
    lol, people still use it even thought Pr is so old...

  8. #8
    web designer Percept's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    285
    The way I see this, a Google browser based on Firefox could be a huge push towards standard compliant webdesign. A simple link on Google.com with "Try our browser" would in 1 day, reach more people then all the Firefox promotion pages currently availble.
    Percept | Webdesign | Desk02 | 7962154zz8x

  9. #9
    I'm the oogie boogie man! James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,566
    I agree Percept.

    Only problem is this

    But I think that they know that there'd be lots of webmasters very pissed if it weren't very standards compliant.

  10. #10
    Web Monkey MarkB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by michael_gersitz
    lol, people still use it even thought Pr is so old...
    But web devs would use another browser if it were the only one with updated PR I know I would!
    Stepping On Wires - the new blog

  11. #11
    web designer Percept's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by tntcheats
    I agree Percept.

    Only problem is this

    But I think that they know that there'd be lots of webmasters very pissed if it weren't very standards compliant.
    The reason Google.com isn't standard compliant is because "everyone" is using IE ... if they released their own standard compliant browser to the web they could (drastically) decrease microsoft's marketshare and eventually change their own pages to comply with the WC3.
    Percept | Webdesign | Desk02 | 7962154zz8x

  12. #12
    Chronic Entrepreneur
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,112
    I think that one of the main reasons Google isn't standards compliant is to save bandwidth. The smaller they can get their file sizes the better. For instance, every time they use <br> instead of <br /> they are saving two bytes. Notice that they also use hardly any newlines (carriage returns.) Each carriage return wastes a byte of space as well. For most of us, a tiny savings per page like this wouldn't matter, but for someone with the traffic that Google has it matters a lot. Say they save 20-50 bytes per page by doing this and then multiply that out by however many millions of pageviews Google gets every day and it adds up to quite a bit of savings.
    Last edited by Westech; 09-24-2004 at 09:19 AM.

  13. #13
    web designer Percept's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Westech
    I think that one of the main reasons Google isn't standards compliant is to save bandwidth. The smaller they can get their file sizes the better. For instance, every time they use <br> instead of <br /> they are saving two bytes. Notice that they also use hardly any newlines (carriage returns.) Each carriage return wastes a byte of space as well. For most of us, a tiny savings per page like this wouldn't matter, but for someone with the traffic that Google has it matters a lot. Say they save 20-50 bytes per page by doing this and then multiply that out by however many millions of pageviews Google gets every day and it adds up to quite a bit of savings.
    Ok, you're joking right ? XHTML/CSS is smaller then table-based pages ...
    Percept | Webdesign | Desk02 | 7962154zz8x

  14. #14
    I'm the oogie boogie man! James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,566
    I agree that they should have an external CSS file, and have the layout based off of it.

    That'd make the page way smaller. Well, not "way" but still quite a bit of savings in bandwidth monthly.

  15. #15
    Chronic Entrepreneur
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Percept
    Ok, you're joking right ? XHTML/CSS is smaller then table-based pages ...
    I'm not making the generalization that table-based pages are smaller than XHTML/CSS based pages. I'm saying that you can get smaller file sizes if you don't constrain yourself to using XHTML compliant code and just worry about using as few characters as possible. This is what I believe Google does to save on the bandwidth bill.
    Last edited by Westech; 09-24-2004 at 10:46 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Review: Google Adsense
    By Chris in forum Advertising Networks
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-02-2017, 02:32 AM
  2. Google just doesn't like me
    By mobilebadboy in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-03-2004, 05:57 PM
  3. Local Rank stuff...
    By chromate in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-07-2004, 03:53 PM
  4. how is this possible on google
    By Kyle in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-28-2004, 05:40 AM
  5. Has Google danced this month?
    By callenb in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2003, 03:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •