What (If Anything) Google Chrome Will Mean for Businesses

Google is launching a Web browser dubbed Chrome in a move that’s garnering a lot of attention–because it conveniently fits with the Microsoft vs. Google plotline–but how much should businesses pay attention to this move?

First a quick recap: Google will launch the Chrome browser and it has some interesting bells and whistles, security features and raises questions about its role vs. IE and Firefox. As Nick Carr notes the big picture is that Google is adding a browser to upgrade capabilities across the board to make it more cloud friendly. Carr reckons that the applications are the message.

Dennis Howlett adds that no CXO (any C-level exec) is going to give Chrome all that much thought since it’s a beta and it’s unclear how Google’s browser fits in the enterprise. However, CXO types may want to pay a little more attention than Dennis’ recommended nano-second. Why? You’ll wind up supporting Chrome (probably indirectly)–along with all those other Google apps the search giant is sneaking into your enterprise. The upshot: CXOs may actually have to read a comic book about Chrome after a long weekend.

There has been a lot of talk on the Enterprise Irregular list and the consensus seems to be that Google will make a splash for two months or so and then developers will see what the catch is with Chrome. From there we’ll find out if Google’s Chrome browser is worth much.

In sum, the tech executive playbook is to hang back, download the browser, take it for a spin and monitor closely. After all, your employees will download Chrome and it’s just a matter of time before it gets attacked just like IE and Mozilla does daily. What will Google’s patching system look like? The Techmeme crowd hasn’t pondered that point yet. Bottom line: You can’t afford to NOT pay attention to Chrome even if it’s insignificant to your business because it’s likely to be a security risk.

However, there is a bigger question here. How much do you want to rely on Google for your business? For smaller businesses, Google Apps and its collection of software in the cloud may be a no-brainer. As companies grow, though, the Google equation gets murkier. CapGemini sums up the view of Google you need to ponder.

In a post CapGemini writes:

Everyone has a rather strong opinion on the monopoly Microsoft has/ had on the desktop. Microsoft is/ was evil since it pushes Windows media player via windows, since it pushes Internet Explorer via Windows, leaving the desktop user no other chance than using these functionalities. Same goes for Microsoft’s Office suite, which doesn’t support ODF natively (it does since July 2007 via an add-in) and saves documents default in the proprietary .doc format.

Well that said, Microsoft may not be on the good guys side, however is there a good guys side at all? Fan boys now would jump on their chairs and would chant “Google, Google, Google!” however is Google really not evil as they stated? Google is evil, Google has a hidden agenda and that is not strange….

Fact is that Google already hosts your email, calendar, RSS reader, web history, documents, photos, blogs and much more free functionality. It is quite clear Google knows what you are doing since you do it with their applications. It is always questionable if you should want to outsource that many of your applications to one provider. However Google stated that it is not evil and therefore you should not mind it.

The point: Google is tying browsing, your personal history, your apps and your data together. And Google will couple these parts with Android, which is likely to link your PC and phone together. Is this playbook all that different than what Microsoft’s? Simply put, maybe everyone is evil.

Your business is increasingly being encouraged to cast its lot with one provider whether it be Microsoft, Oracle, SAP or someone else. You can add Google to that mix in the future. It’s all in the name of standardization and having one throat to choke. Sounds great, but portfolio management dictates that you want to be wary. And once you add up this healthy skepticism about Google’s business objectives, you find it has a distinct disadvantage. Google is the devil you don’t know. Microsoft and your other app providers are known commodities. Bottom line: Technology execs shouldn’t get carried away with the Chrome chatter, but do pay attention.  Google is still in the process of revealing itself and that’s valuable information going forward.

Comments

[User 227036:]

<blockquote>
The point: Google is tying browsing, your personal history, your apps and your data together.
</blockquote>

This is not what Chrome is about. Chrome's security features actually make this more difficult for google. Chrome is about making a web-based app platform a commodity instead of a hard-to-install set of configuration options and plugins.

Chrome is about widening the highways where google owns the billboards. Tying your browsing habits together is done by other divisions, i.e. the doubleclick acquisition.

2008 Sep 02 12:15 PM

[captainccs:]

Google portrays itself as not-evil but power corrupts and Google is becoming much to powerful for our own good. See Chrome and Tailfins:

softwaretimes.com/file...

2008 Sep 02 12:23 PM

[User 254428:]

So is this a compete to FireFox? Or is FireFox and Chrome going to compete against IE. I think the open source types will beat anyone, because why should anyone who doesn't trust IE (Micr0s0ft) will all of a sudden want to trust G00gle? Not sure how that plays out. If it were me, I would choose FireFox if I decided I had enough of IE - certainly not Chrome.

2008 Sep 02 12:41 PM

[xcelsior:]

Considering that Chrome is built on Webkit, the same toolkit that runs Mozilla Firefox, Apple's Safari, and Konquerer, and that it is open source, I don't see how this is anything evil. It does seem that, however, it will change the dynamics of the user experience.

I still love Firefox but after reading about the memory and process management of Chrome and a completely revamped and more powerful javascript engine in it, it looks like a very promising browser. Firefox 3 has fixed many of Firefox 2's memory leaks, but is still quite a memory hog. Heavy AJAXified websites still run sluggishly, so I'm hoping Chrome's javascript engine will improve on these aspects.

2008 Sep 02 05:36 PM

[john mullinax:]

More than anything else, Chrome strikes me as a "trojan horse" of sorts to get Google Gears installed on people's computers. Mozilla is already out there for users... the most notable thing about Chrome is that the download forces an install of the Google Gears software alongside the Mozilla/Gecko rendering engine.

Why would Google do this? Because they realize that marrying installed desktop software and internet content could help them create new kinds of experiences to drive additional usage for their apps by consumers and possibly businesses. Ultimately, the goal is more revenue.

What I find interesting is that this is a very similar to Adobe's vision for computing experiences, as AIR illustrates. At a high level, it's also similar to Microsoft's "Software-plus-Service... vision for computing, that basically says that the web platform and all the other software platforms should work well together.

As a side note, it's interesting that Google is not just copying Microsoft's (and Adobe's) basic strategy here, they are actually copying specific IE features for Chrome... e.g., separate tabs in seperate processes, private browsing, phishing protection, etc. were released first as IE 8 features (or IE7 in the case of phishing protection).

There are differences, of course, as Google and Microsoft are approaching a similar vision from very different places. Google has been a strong search provider, but may still be learning how to be a software company, with on-premise software products and a software ecosystem to support. Google's ability to execute their flavor of the deployed software + internet services strategy requires getting new apps built to meet all the various computing needs out there with a browser/Gears-based solution. A tall order that will take time - particularly if you think about the business computing market that Google hopes to break into.

For it's part, Microsoft has a great deal of software deployed in the ecosystem, as well a a raft of internet services -- some strong and well-established, some still emerging. For example, think of Mesh and the Windows Live stuff like Messenger, identity, email, contacts, video streaming, etc.). Also, think of new rich, internet-connected smart client capabilities in .NET that lets businesses and partners create superior new experiences, and think of how Office suite itself has become an internet aware platform (one example: FedEx QuickShip lets you ship over the internet from Outlook). Finally, think about how Microsoft is providing choice of deployment models in some of it's "traditional" software -- letting people choose on premise or cloud hosting (e.g, SharePoint Online, Exchange Online, CRM Online, for mid-market and larger businesses and Office Live for small businesses and individuals). So that's a lot of stuff... and that's the point: in its offerings for both consumers and businesses, Microsoft is combining the power of the internet with the capabilities of software, and doing it across many devices... and in some cases even across platforms.

And very importantly, Microsoft is going down this path with an industry-leading respect for privacy that puts users in control of their data.

So given the similarities in high level strategies, the interesting question isn't who's got the "right" uber-strategy, it's who can most effectively empower users across a broad range of computing needs (that today includes a range of legacy computing environments) with better experiences?

For this reason, I think Chrome may actually help Microsoft. Although multiple companies share a vision for computing that includes the internet and deployed software working well together, it is a change in mindset for consumers and businesses alike. Google's efforts with Chrome should help educate the marketplace about the value of supplementing browser-only experiences with internet-connected software.

That's good for Microsoft, because I believe their flavor of the "Software-plus-Service... vision is simultaneously the broadest and the also the most pragmatic/approachable for users who want better experiences.

Disclosure: I work for Microsoft, but my opinions are my own.

2008 Sep 03 11:50 AM

[WebSocratis:]

Microsoft will never develop a full feature web browser, so us not to undermine their windows dominance. Of course they will develop web browser as a piece meal depending on their tool/solution requirement.
But with Chrome into picture they cannot afford to take Web browser as a second class citizen.

2008 Sep 05 06:41 PM