How Google Chrome stacked up for me

212172 Resource 187691 21 21 1220453704916 1220464484648 Controlled Google Chrome: Disruptive Technology

Google's new browser looks to me to be a textbook example of disruption in the making.

Some early reactions, like <a title="How Google Chrome stacked up for me" href="http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/how-google-chrome-stacked-up-for-me.html" target="_blank">this one</a>, to Google's foray into the browser wars (rightly) point out that Chrome is not ready to displace established browsers like Firefox, IE, or Opera.  While I agree with this (for the moment), what I see in Chrome is the makings of a disruptive technology.A disruptive technology need not begin its life as a replacement for established solutions.  It need only begin its life as a compelling solution for some related need AND have the ability to rapidly improve in other areas.  Chrome is exactly this.In the post cited above, blogger David Naylor notes, "[Chrome's] 'Create Application' is awesome and that alone will be the reason I use it..."  The key here is that there is a reason David will use it.  And there will be reasons for millions of others to use it, too.  I will use it because of the nice built in developer tools (and because, as a web developer, I have to support it!) but I expect I will quickly come to appreciate a number of other Chrome features as well (like the most recently visited thumbnails view.)The second part of the disruptive technology equation is the improvement trajectory.  Google clearly has the resources--both money and talent--and the mindset to rapidly build on the Chrome foundation.  Google will quickly chip away at the advantages of the established browsers such the ability to add plug-ins.  Thinking, for example, about the historic rate of improvement in IE and considering the enormous challenges of bringing the huge (and old) IE code base forward, its easy to believe that Chrome will overtake and surpass IE in more and more mainstream areas.Once again, I believe we are seeing a <a title="RSS: Disruptive Technology Hiding in Plain Sight" href="http://myst-technology.com/public/blog/12485" target="_blank">disruptive technology hiding in plain sight</a>.  What do you think? 9 application/xml false disruptive technology Google Chrome How Google Chrome stacked up for me by David Naylor http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/how-google-chrome-stacked-up-for-me.html RSS: Disruptive Technology Hiding in Plain Sight | MyST Technology Partners, Inc. Disruptive technologies have a way of sneaking up on established markets, even when they see it coming. http://myst-technology.com/public/blog/12485 Once again, I believe we are seeing a <a title="RSS: Disruptive Technology Hiding in Plain Sight" href="http://myst-technology.com/public/blog/12485" target="_blank">disruptive technology hiding in plain sight</a>." Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 aseidl 68.40.167.222 false true false false true 188081 false false true false false false true 212177 Resource 188081 173239 21 1220456868506 1220457343662 Controlled I agree

It shoves a high performance, standards compliant browser out to the public at large. And, makes it open source.

Hard not to see this as a no-brainer. Yes, I agree.Your comments would be better if I could log in using openID.[Bud: I agree!  I want openID, too.  But so far I've been limited by the 19-hour work day.  <g> -- fas] 10 application/xml false Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 aseidl 68.40.167.222 false true false false true 212201 Resource 188081 173239 21 1220480828873 1220501256556 Controlled Ho-hum

Other than the V8 Javascript engine, I don't really understand the hoopla. The upcoming Firefox 3.1 is set to match or exceed Chrome's Javascript speed with its new upcoming optimzations. By the time that happens Chrome will be merely "interesting" as opposed to "groundbreaking". 10 application/xml false Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 70.164.108.158 false true false false true 212212 Resource 188081 173239 21 1220492278047 1220501239790 Controlled Very well thought out

I agree with what you've said here.  I touched on this very briefly in my own entry on the subject (thanks for the patronage, by the way):  Google indeed is well-placed to quickly update and enrich this browser to the point where it significantly impacts the market.  In fact, it has two advantages Microsoft in particular did not have when it embarked on IE: 1) Though definitely not perfect, web standards are much more unified (at least among open source browsers) than when IE was first developed.  Therefore, platform-agnostic browsers with differing, but standards-compliant layout engines will all display the Internet in similar fashion.  Raw performance, the interface, included features, and an extension universe will become the salient differences between them.  Innovation, then, and not compatibility will be key when attracting users to a browser. 2) Google, whose products are not an intrinsic part of an OS, is free to innovate at will, without worrying about OS integration or, more prudently, upholding the high degree of backwards compatibility employed by Microsoft.  However, other open source browsers have a similar edge.  Leaving your point: Google has tremendous resources at its disposal, which will allow it to be more innovative and ubiquitous--not to mention the strength of the Google name. Disruptive technology indeed.  Good call. 10 application/xml false Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 141.217.101.55 false true false false true 212234 Resource 188081 173239 21 1220537860401 1220539623937 Controlled Not quite

No it is not disruptive other than the PR brownie points. Not a single thing is new in Google Chrome other than the independence of tabs. Firefox, Opera, and even Safari are miles ahead in terms of functionality. That, plus having <a href="http://blogoscoped.com/forum/139852.html">the first vulnerability discovered</a> within a week of launch suggests that they were more keen on getting mileage. No themes, no font control, no extensions for basic functionality, and not quite the lightweight memory footprint that it said on the tin. Sorry, no cigar. The only thing going for Google may be that a 100 million users might see the browser link on the front page (if it decides to push it so) although I wonder if 80% of those users will actually understand anymore than Google Reader RSS feeds.  10 application/xml false Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 218.212.6.27 false true false false true 212242 Resource 188081 21 21 1220541736193 1220541853367 Controlled Chrome as a whole (and not any particular feature) is disruptive.

Disruptive technology solutions need not actually contain any "new" technology; nor must they outperform existing solutions--in fact, they generally do not.

Shanx, David T.: I think we are only disagreeing on the definition of disruptive technology.Disruptive technologies typically underperform established products in mainstream markets (initially, that is).  However, they introduce new value propositions (features, benefits, not necesarily based on new technology) that appeal to fringe (of mainstream) customers.  These customers help drive the improvement of the new offering.  If that improvement trajectory is such that it the new offering can catch and overtake the established products, then the new technology is disruptive.Nowhere is it said that any specific feature must be new technology; nowhere is it said that established product features (e.g., plug-ins, themes, font controls, etc.) must be present in the new offering (at first, anyway.)The key is that the new offering gains traction with new (fringe) customers and then improves rapidly enough to overtake (and eventually displace) established offerings.  Access to "a 100 million users might see the browser link on the front page" is a darn good first swipe at connecting with new customers.  Offering them a super-easy-to-use browser with appealing features (even if those features are "nothing new" from an engineering perspective) could easily create the conditions for rapid early adoptions.  Then, if Google can sustain a steep improvement trajectory, we have the ingredients for disruption. 10 application/xml false disruptive technology Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 aseidl 68.40.167.222 false true false false true 212432 Resource 188081 173239 21 1220849183849 1220877112405 Controlled Just another me too

What I see in Chrome is just another me too product like the multitude of 40 or so products Google boasts.

I see many reasons why Chrome is not going to stand the test of time. Google may have garnered the best talent from around the world. But the 40 or so products except for a handful of them are barely in use. For the amount of people who visit the google site every day, a very very tiny fraction (the nerds and geeks) are the only ones who are using any of those products. examples: book search, checkout, desktop, finance, goog-411, knol, talk, etc. None of these have seen the light of day. They were all brought with the intention of replacing one or more of the Microsoft products, but people don't even talk about them anymore. Basically Google is a one hit wonder with the search. Of course youtube, google earth, picasa, blog, and orkut have the right following, but they all carry the tag 'Not Invented Here'. Google Chrome is currently faster since it is not bloated yet like Firefox or IE. But once more features are added to it, one will find that the little speed gain will not offset the deep suspicion people have now that anything they type in Chrome will get stored in the google servers for the rest of their lives and beyond. That alone will thwart the ability of Chrome to float to the top. I just compared the google stock with Microsoft. If you had invested $100 in microsoft exactly one year ago, you will have $90 left now. If you had invested that money on the same day in google instead you will have only $85 now. Google already is overpriced because of the hype. 10 application/xml false Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 71.142.93.112 false true false false true 212525 Resource 188081 173239 21 1220979303105 1220980770587 Controlled Neitzche? Hegel?

I do not remember who said it: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. There is always disruption. 10 application/xml false Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 ImageShackToolbar/5.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 72.76.42.14 false true false false true 212527 Resource 188081 21 21 1220981383291 1220982054341 Controlled Hegel, quoting Kant

But I'm not sure they were talking about disruptive technology. <g>

I'm not a professional philosopher, but (with the help of Google and Wikipedia) I can play one on the web.Hegel, Kant, and others, by "thesis, antithesis, synthesis", where talking more about finding harmony between opposing points of view.  Disruptive technology is something altogether different.  It describes a very specific technology life-cycle pattern in which one technology replaces another. 9 application/xml disruptive technology Thesis, antithesis, synthesis Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis false Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 aseidl 68.40.167.222 false true false false true 243768 Resource 188081 173239 21 1255819211461 1255837344149 Controlled RE: Google Chrome: Disruptive Technology

Good article, Chrome is a great browser, it's quick, JavaScript is compiled and the browser supports strict DOM HTML rendering although for me it's too simple as a browser.  Admittedly a web developer's needs, whether you're developing or browsing maybe different to an average, not technical surfer although with that to one side I still feel the Chrome browser lacks a little. Nice article, thanks 10 application/xml false Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6.3; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 aseidl 68.40.167.222 false true false false true 187691 blog blogsite/FASeidl/web