True reason for Chrome's creation, Ads?

http://www.ghacks.net/2011/11/24/go...he-end/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

lol Chrome has two main motivations that I see:
1) Brand value - keeping people using your free product makes people more likely to buy your pay product. This model is used by thousands of companies.

2) Ads - It's been posted before that Google is patenting definitions of a "bad ad" ie noisy, flash-based, insecure, etc. These ads will be blocked by default in Chrome - or at least that's the theory. We'll then have a browser that by default blocks a large majority of the competition leaving, of course, Google's own ads and some other companies (Facebook etc)

Yeah, the newtab page gave me that little note. I found it pretty funny since I was on my CR48 when I saw it.

Not surprising in the least.

 

Don't you find this Brave New World way of Google (resistance is futile ~ we are the Borg) patenting 'bad ads' a little creepy?

... Or am I just getting a little paranoid?

Do you have any scientific evidence for this statement, or is it just one of those 'common sense' assumptions? Not unlike Aristotle's assumption that a heavy rock will fall faster than a light one. This was assumed right up until Galileo proved it to be incorrect. I use a fair few free products, it's never convinced me to try a paid version of one of them.

 

I'm not seeing it (15.0.874.121 (Official Build 109964)).

Going by the majority of the comments, it may end up send some traffic to Firefox! I'll still use it and Firefox.

 

Google likes Ads...Especially their Ads...

 

Not really.

Nope. But it's very common. Security products are a great example, especially Comodo.


Comodo is the second largest CA (second to VeriSign) but Comodo as a brand name gets far more searches and is talked about much more. Why? Because they also have a security product, which they give away for free (they only charge for support, which is typically enterprise.)

Because Comodo gets far more searches than VeriSign they make a strong case for investors to give them money etc. Just having people using their free product gets their name out there.

Brand name value isn't an exact science though, it's not inherent to anything. Still, investors do put a lot of stuck into brand name value.

http://mashable.com/2010/11/06/value-of-brand-names/

If everyone is talking about Chrome and how it's so great it reflects very well on the company as a whole to a lot of people.

 

I don't think it was there for more than a day. Mine went away and I didn't even closeit/ get rid of it.

I doubt we will see any significant decrease in Chrome users or increase in Firefox users - business as usual.

 

Most likely outcome. I was just commenting on the comments. To be fair, there was one mention of moving to Opera and one of moving to Avant

 

Well the negative comments are always the loudest. Happy people have nothing to post about and a large group probably didn't even notice/ have a reaction to it.

Some people will take any excuse to switch =p

I used to always assume the reason Chrome didn't allow adblocking was because they didn't want people blocking their ads. And then I realized that they basically lose the same amount either way because ad revenue is based on clicks (for Google ads) and now views/downloads.

Adding proper adblocking doesn't increase profits and the losses are still there but it can get more people to switch over to it and that means an increase in brand value.

 

It Is Just An Heuristic Thing

HKEY1952

 

I hate switching. Takes me time to fine-tune (and understand) my browsers to get them just so.

 

So you've never wondered what the real reason is behind it?

As I stated earlier, it falls into the 'common sense' category. I am a little suspicious about 'common sense' examples. You know what Nietzsche said about common sense ... something along the lines that only the rare is valuable & if most people have 'common sense' it can't be that valuable ipso facto.

How many people who use avast! freeware, for example, move on to actually buying it?

This is a little disingenuous as an example, there are plenty security products that are freeware, it isn't cogent to assume that they all influence people to purchase vendor versions. I'm just not 'buying' that LOL!

Oh, everyone's talking about Chrome all right, I'm just not so sure that they are using the same adjective to describe it.

 

I'm too full of existentialist angst & suspicion of large corporations to be happy.

 

Now you can see why I liked SeaMonkey so much after the bad experience I had with Firefox 3.

 

Yes I agree, especially with the exactitude of large data collecting corporations


HKEY1952

 

As far as I can tell, you're a 6-timer (at least) flirting with: various IEs, Firefox, SeaMonkey, Opera, Chrome, Iron

eeeeeeeeeeek!

 

I guess that makes me a bit of a tart!

Seriously though, it was only until Fx 3 that I looked at other browsers. IE is shipped with Windows, so I guess all Windows users are 'married' to IE in a way (divorce was inevitable). SeaMonkey was close enough to Fx for me to use it. However the SeaMonkey Council are all volunteers & it has been through some dodgy periods. So, until Fx 4, I looked at a lot of other browsers. Opera is fine, when it works properly, which isn't always the case. I do use the portable Opera a fair bit though, on slow computers its adblocker actually works! I was really impressed with Iron but it always seems to have small bugs. Chrome, to me anyway, is basically a more stable version of Iron. I always like to have alternatives. On my desktop I have both LibreOffice & OpenOffice, in fact, I even have AbiWord as well.

There's nothing wrong with having back-up. Besides, I like learning new things & I'm rather curious by nature.

 

That's what they all say and what about the invitation to join us on the dark side? You've conveniently ignored that

 

Not at all - I've always just assumed it was for the two reasons I listed, brand value as well as ads.

It really doesn't matter. Investors do invest based on brand value. All that matters is that investors give it a second thought because that's what brand value is about.

Not to mention the fact that marketing is incredibly powerful. If you get your "google" product out there ie: Chrome, Gmail, Android, more people are going to start liking and purchasing Google. It really doesn't matter if you're an outlying piece of data, people just act this way. It's the basis for marketing.

It's less about "Free users will use it and now they'll pay for it because they like it" it's about being able to say "We have 1 mill free users and 500k pay users, our name is out there, this is a good reason to invest in our company"

You have a board of investors and you can say "500k people pay for our product" or "500k people pay for our product and 1mill people use the free version" and they really do take that into account because just having a name out there can make a difference.

Like I said, this is less about getting someone to purchase and more about getting investors to invest. A lot of what brand value is is customer trust. If you have 1 million people trusting in your free product you might have more people buying certs from your company even though that's a separate product and investors will spend more based on this.

The fact that Chrome is growing much faster than Firefox and IE (which are falling quickly in terms of market share) would say that most people agree with me on Chrome.

 

OK

I am not so sure this is happening in real life, outside the Tir na Nog of statistics though. According to this slightly more people were using Firefox than Chrome on Wikimedia & IE was even more widely used.

I know this is just one 'statistic' example, but I am not so sure Chrome is growing 'much' faster in realistic terms. It may very well be actually growing faster, I am not so sure how relevant that is though.

 

I'll get to the dark side eventually, I'm sure of it ...

 

Those are current market shares. If you compare market shares for the last year (especially after FF4) you'll see a clear decline in FF and a growth for Chrome.

Market share isn't really a factor in which is better (outside of dev support) but I just mean that if people are talking about Chrome it would seem that they're saying good things.

 

Well, technically they are the statistical analyses of who is using Wikimedia. If anything, from what I have seen everything after Fx 4 has seen a boost in Firefox usage.

I don't deny people are talking about Chrome, but it would be naive to believe that they are all saying good things. Like anything in life, it has its detractors as well as its fanboys. I think that its simplicity & overall stability has been its main selling point though.

 

Very evil from Google.

To show ads isn't a good model for browsers, no matter how unobtrusive the ads are. Users already have to deal with so many ads on the webpages that they open with the browsers.

This is not like ads on Windows Live Messenger, for example, an app used to chat without any ad interference during the exchange of messages (except the occasional spammer/infected contact that is actively blocked).

For mercy's sake, this is not even like ads on Windows Live Mail, for example (and I think that MS doesn't show ads on that app anymore).

This is evil, very evil.

 

Google is a multi-billion dollar company with 95% of it's income coming from ads. It would be unwise of them (as a company) to not invest in new ways to show ads. You can't consider the act of showing ads as " evil", maybe the method of acquiring personal information.