backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by jonmcc33.. on Jan 2 at 10:31 AM
Google has new ads for Chrome targeting a small market share, but will they work?

Google's Chrome browser recently came out of beta.  However, it remains a minority browser with less 1 percent of the market.  With Firefox and Internet Explorer manning significant stakes, and with Opera and Safari having eked out areas of their own, there doesn't seem to be much room left for Chrome.  Perhaps because of this, market share numbers have actually slid some months, indicating people are trying Chrome only to forsake it.

Amid all these troubles, Google has decided to continue to try to support its ailing browser with a new round of tough advertising, designed to lure in customers with the promise of "a faster way to browse the web".

The crux of this campaign is the one-line text ad on Google's homepage advertising Chrome's speed and with a link to download it.  This page, viewed by hundreds of millions daily is certainly a prime advertising spot.  The ad is browser neutral, targeting Firefox, Opera, IE, and Safari users equally.

A more curious ad, though, has cropped up in Google's Gmail, which some users have taken note of.  If you run IE 6 and Gmail, you now get an advertisement that tempts users stating, "Get faster Gmail".  Okay, so it seems pretty unlikely that many users are still on IE 6 and are savvy enough to take up Gmail accounts, but Google nonetheless is trying to lure in this curious crowd.

Clicking the link transports users to a page advertising the wonders of high speed browsers.  It has big icon links to Firefox 3 and then Chrome.  Down at the bottom is a small text blurb about Internet Explorer 8 and a link to its beta, but no nice button.  Left out of the fast-browser love fest entirely are Opera and Safari.

Such advertising campaigns are an interesting indicator for the health -- or lack thereof -- of the Chrome browser.  Many analysts, though, say that the impact of such campaigns are limited.  They say that Google must patiently build a more polished product, which customers will find as attractive, or more attractive than the competitors.  They also say that Google must turn its focus to winning deals with OEMs to put Chrome on systems -- after all, you can only lure in so many with ads to the IE 6 crowd.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Add-Ons
By Gzus666 on 12/31/2008 10:54:47 AM , Rating: 5
I used Chrome when it came out in Beta and it was responsive and fast. What I didn't like was the menu with little options, no stop button on the task bar and the lack of add-ons. Really the add-ons are the biggest problem for me as I really like the ones on Firefox. If they get those going, I might have to make the switch for speed's sake.




RE: Add-Ons
By TheSpaniard on 12/31/2008 11:10:57 AM , Rating: 3
totally! I would jump ship if they couuld provide add-ons

-especially ad-block!


RE: Add-Ons
By Diesel Donkey on 12/31/2008 11:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be right there with you if they also added a full screen option.


RE: Add-Ons
By Inkjammer on 12/31/2008 1:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
Given Google is an advertising company I doubt they'd ever incorporate ad block directly into their browser. It'd be like shooting themselves in the foot.

I just don't see that happening.


RE: Add-Ons
By quiksilvr on 12/31/2008 4:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
And the main reason why Chrome is doomed for failure. Unless Google changes all of its ads to text advertisements and not a combination of text and flash I don't see them taking on the browser market.


RE: Add-Ons
By Tombpsyco on 12/31/2008 11:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
Here Here, You got that right on the nose.
I like Chrome and still using it.But as said the lack of features is a turn off for most people. I like the fact that it doesn't have a ton of Toolbars taking up screen space. But the simple fact still remains, people won't download a new browser because they are using the one that came with the operating system. Most people don't want to try something they perceive as unknown. The know IE and are comfortable with it and downloading something else just isn't going to happen.


RE: Add-Ons
By ggordonliddy on 12/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Add-Ons
By jonmcc33 on 1/2/2009 10:31:54 AM , Rating: 3
By default Firefox has a title bar, menu bar, address/navigation bar, favorites bar and tab bar and of course the status bar.

No need to insult someone for pointing out the obvious.


RE: Add-Ons
By Bruneauinfo on 12/31/2008 11:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
moot point, but there is a stop button on the task bar by default. when you're surfing to a site it appears in place of the 'go' button next to the address. the browser is just so fast you don't see it very often. :rolls eyes:

i like Chrome a lot as well as firefox. i don't use add-ons. and i especially hate rows of tool bars. one of my favorite things about chorme is i don't have to worry about software asking to install Google toolbar anymore. it can install it all it wants.


RE: Add-Ons
By jonmcc33 on 12/31/2008 9:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
No stop button? Hint: All browsers stop when you hit the Esc key on your keyboard.

Add-ons/extensions are a must for Google Chrome to be competitive. Heck, even IE7/8 has an Adblock add-on.


RE: Add-Ons
By Vanilla Thunder on 1/2/2009 7:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. It's a quick browser, but suffers from lack of functionality. Add-ons are a must for me.


Plugins !=speed
By DukeN on 12/31/2008 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
I think Chrome may be faster because of a lack of plug-ins.

The thing that did it for me was the close button for tabs was not in the top right hand side but on each tab.




RE: Plugins !=speed
By spread on 12/31/2008 11:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
Most plugins don't slow down Firefox especially something common like adblock. That speeds up loading and rendering.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By UNHchabo on 12/31/2008 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't remember when it changed (Firefox 2, maybe?), but certainly as of Firefox 3, each tab has a close button by default. If you have Tab Mix Plus installed, then I think the default is a single close button at the top right hand side.

Check your plugins?


RE: Plugins !=speed
By AnnihilatorX on 12/31/2008 1:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have tab mix plus with FF 3 and the tabs have individual close buttons. I am not sure whether that is the default setting though. You can always use the middle mouse button to close tabs.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By noirsoft on 12/31/2008 10:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
They changed it sometime after IE7 hit (which was the first AFAIK to have close buttons on the tabs) and most people realized that was a better way of doing things.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By mircea on 1/2/2009 8:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
Opera had close buttons on tabs since at least version 6.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By ThePooBurner on 12/31/2008 12:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
about:config

browser.tabs.closeButtons, set intiger 0.

Done. Firefox can do much more than people give it credit for. Just have to open the hood a bit.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By mmntech on 12/31/2008 5:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Enabling pipelining can also speed up Firefox significantly.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By jonmcc33 on 12/31/2008 9:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, no need for that setting. Firefox 3 is blazing fast without it and makes no difference that I can see with the setting.


RE: Plugins !=speed
By Clauzii on 12/31/2008 11:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
So many usefull options in FF3:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2336393...

It grows with the tasks, and are so add-on friendly that it's a snap to set it up. I especially like 'Tiny Menu'. All I see is an Icon in line with the adreesbar. A single click and the whole menu shows up like a normal drop-down - brilliant. (Out of a 27 cm. high screen, I use exactly 2 cm. including the shortcut bar).


Uhhh ok?
By Phenick on 12/31/2008 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am sorry but I do not understand how anyone can see Chrome and think that it is floundering. For one thing it has been a very short period of time since it's launch. Firefox didn't release to an instant 40%+ market share. It took time. Chrome is really fast and really solid. It has some serious bugs to work out but it's on it's way to making a big splash in the browser market.

We all as early adopters have to be comfortable setting up the technologically illiterate with a piece of software before we can fully endorse it. That is where I am at currently. Just waiting for it to mature enough to give it to my parents, grandparents, and anyone else who I would prefer use anything other than IE.




RE: Uhhh ok?
By rudolphna on 12/31/2008 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Try letting them use the latest version of opera, its much faster than IE, looks nicer, and is much more simialar to IE than chrome is. I personally like Opera, Chrome, and then FF. Opera just works faster for me.


RE: Uhhh ok?
By Chaser on 12/31/2008 12:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
If Opera had some of the basic features of FF like an inline spell check for instance and others I might use it. But its way behind the power curve compared to Firefox. its "included features" can't even come close to Firefox and its add ons are a joke.


RE: Uhhh ok?
By Rogie on 12/31/2008 4:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
FF suits your needs more, keep using it. Don't sound so hostile. It's just a browser. No need to be harsh. =P
And Opera 10 does have spell check, but I wonder how many people actually use spell check. And not that spell check would help your missing apostrophe and capitalization.


RE: Uhhh ok?
By Chocobollz on 1/1/2009 3:40:15 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with you! Opera is the best browser I've ever use. With Opera, I don't need anything else. Yeah FF could have AdBlock but I use a firewall which have an ad-blocker plugins and it works flawlessly so I don't need anymore ad-blocker.

About speed, I've tested Opera 9.x, Firefox 3, and IE 6 on my crappy connection (128 kbps, 3G network) and Opera is the fastest amongst the three. When Opera 9.x tested against the FF2.x, it even beat FF with like 300% faster loading speed! But with FF3, the speed advantage is only approx. 30-50% faster, but it's faster nonetheless! :-)

I think Opera has the best UI and it's very efficient in memory utilization. I've usually keeps 500 tabs open and Opera only use approx. 300 MB of memory! That's crazy! I've tested opening 20-30 tabs with FF2 and it eats up like 800 MB of memory! (I don't know the case with FF3) That's why I'm switching to Opera after my long years (like 5 years) with the FF champaign. Now I don't ever look back to another browser anymore because Opera is the best for me~ Thank you so much Opera~

:-)


My Favorite Feature...
By Plague421 on 12/31/2008 11:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
is the crash control for individual tabs. Firefox has a good crash recovery system (has never failed to re-load all pages after a crash) it's nice not to have to reopen the whole browser.




RE: My Favorite Feature...
By ZmaxDP on 12/31/2008 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well,

I've yet to have a crash in chrome, and even if I did it would only crash one tab not the whole browser as they are all separate processes. So, I'm not really seeing the benefit for Firefox on this front. FF is still my primary browser, but I do all my research in Chrome now since I can pull tabs apart, etc...


RE: My Favorite Feature...
By Plague421 on 12/31/2008 2:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
No no, I was saying that's my favorite feature of Chrome, I wish FF had it. I guess I did type that out funny.


RE: My Favorite Feature...
By KashGarinn on 1/2/2009 4:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
I've used chrome, and I've often seen crashes, and never was it just one tab.

Consider it a myth/useless lie that it NEVER crashes the whole browser.

I gave up on it because of the FLASHING ADS, PLEASE STOP WITH THE FLASHING ADS.

- until websites stop using flashing ads, or until chrome actually has a nice and sensible adblock plugin, I won't use it.

and for those who say "blocking ads will kill the internet", I'm fine with text ads, it's the moving/flashing/annoying ads which make me look for a adblock feature.


Market Share ?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/2008 4:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome is free. Why are we talking about market share like its a product that must be competitive to survive ?




RE: Market Share ?
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 12/31/2008 7:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's free and not open source, they have to get market share for advertising purposes, or the cost of maintaining and developing it with paid internal developers will make it financially uneconomical for Google.


RE: Market Share ?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/2008 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm Google practically OWNS online advertising. They don't need their browser to have a great market share barely one month after its been released.


RE: Market Share ?
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 12/31/2008 10:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
If they're paying for something, and it doesn't generate money, no matter who it is, they're going to shut it down. Google may "own" online advertising, but as a public company, it doesn't mean they're going to throw money away.


IE6 = 21% share
By tdawg on 12/31/2008 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
According to this same story at PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/1561... greater than 21% of web users used IE6 last month, which seems to me quite a large user base for Google to target.

Personally, I really like Google Chrome, but like others have said, the fact that Firefox is so customizable when it comes to add-ons makes it hard to give up.




RE: IE6 = 21% share
By rudolphna on 12/31/2008 12:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
personally, I like the latest version of opera. Its fast, sleek, and has some nice features. And what alot of people may like, is that its much more simialar to IE than Chrome is.


RE: IE6 = 21% share
By foolsgambit11 on 12/31/2008 8:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, I think many of those 21% of web users are not in control of the browser they use. I think a lot of those hits are from locked-down business computers that haven't been updated to IE7 yet. Don't ask me why those companies haven't made the switch yet.

Despite the fact that you could install Chrome or FF without Admin privileges, it would be against corporate policy, so people are stuck using IE6.


Legacy IE6
By Raidin3h on 12/31/2008 12:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
One of the issues with replacing IE6 has to deal with legacy web apps. There are many enterprise web apps that have not been ported over to IE7 and other Non-ActiveX browsers. We even have one Web app that still retains Adobe Reader 4!!! as its PDF app for its reports. We have the hardest times with vendors with our frustrations that their software requires admin privileges.

That is one of the problems many Enterprise IT firms have with supporting 3rd party apps and systems is the legacy they have with their apps and dated obsolete system software.

3rd party developers are not inclined to update and port over their apps if they still make large amounts of cash supporting their apps. Plus it is easier for them to support apps that have been debugged and has been stable for years.

This is the same issue MS has with Vista and 3rd party developers.




RE: Legacy IE6
By diego10arg on 12/31/2008 3:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
I used to support an App that required Acrobat 4. As far as I could dig on that, that was because Acrobat 4 has a feature not present in any other version of Acrobat. It's something related to opening PDFs from browsers. I cannot recall ATM.

Just a few month ago was released a new version of this App which works with Acrobat 8.1 or something like that.

(Just wondering if you refer to the same App I do, LOL)


By mattylb on 12/31/2008 7:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't help but notice the article states the "Get Faster Gmail" link is only showing on gmail used on IE6 browsers but I use IE7 and it's showing on mine as well. The link states that Microsoft has a new version in the works that will be faster as well. Well, I've tested IE8 beta 2 and let me tell you, it only displayed pages properly when I used backward (IE7) compatibility mode on my pages. And Google Chrome, while trying to simplify its interface, doesn't have the familiar and EXTREMELY USEFUL drop-down address-history option in it's search and address bar that I am very accustomed to which is why I do not use it as my everyday browser. Really, if thy implemented that drop-down address-bar option, I probably would switch to Chrome exclusively.




Chrome
By 2bdetermine on 12/31/08, Rating: 0
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki