By Michael S. Malone, Editor-in-Chief
While we’re transfixed by the Presidential election, in the world of high tech another duel between two well-funded, take-no-quarter candidates has just emerged. . .and in the long-run the impact on our daily lives may be nearly as great. And perhaps even sinister.
Read Google’s response. What 5 questions would you ask Google management? Let us know.
As you probably heard, last Monday – that is, on a national holiday, when business announcements are almost never made – Google rolled out “Chrome,” its new web browser.
Nowhere is the power to apply technology for its own sake more available than at Google. And despite the company’s motto, and childlike logo and homepage, this is the real driving force behind the company. And the long-term goal of this applied technology? Google has already said it: to manage all of the world’s information.
Why the odd timing? Hard to say. Google surely knows that just about anything it does these days is going to cause a news frenzy – and especially when it’s announcing its first thrust into a huge new market. So, perhaps it hoped to temper this coverage to a degree, and drag it out for several days. Or perhaps Google was unsure about the product itself, and didn’t want to overhype it – and then face a potential backlash. Or, maybe Google just didn’t think Chrome was that important, saw a window between the two political conventions and rushed it out.
Well, now that Chrome is out and being field-tested by reviewers, I think we can rule out the second and the third scenarios. That leaves the first: but why would a company that knows it has a solid and newsworthy product on its hands, choose to intentionally dampen media coverage of it?
The answer, I think, was that it was a long-term strategic decision to make Chrome look almost like an afterthought. And I think that decision was made at the highest levels of Google, perhaps by CEO Eric Schmidt himself. Why? Because Google’s ambitions are bigger than most of us have ever imagined, and the company is now rich enough, and powerful enough, to execute them – even if it means the short-term sacrifice of a major new revenue source.
One more thing: if Google does pull off this strategy, it will be the most valuable on the planet. It will also be the scariest . . .and we should start worrying about that right now.
First, a little background. Google sits at the confluence of two historic Silicon Valley philosophical streams. One, which comes from Sergey Brinn and Larry Page, the two founders, reaches back all of the way to the early days of computing and continues forward through the world of gamers, hackers, Apple, and the Web 2.0 generation. It is essentially Utopian in its belief that technology – especially the Web – will bring about a better world (hence, Google’s ‘Do No Evil’ motto). It also has absolutist (some would even say totalitarian) tendencies, in that it also believes that the empiricism of science and technology supersedes messy human institutions. It is proudly amoral, which is why it can celebrate hackers – or for that matter, Steve Jobs – as heroes, as long as they remain innovators.
The second stream is embodied in a single figure, Eric Schmidt. Eric is perhaps the smartest person I know – and one of the few people in tech history (Andy Grove is another, and the comparison is telling) who has ever successfully made the leap from being a corporate chief scientist to Fortune 500 CEO. But the trip wasn’t easy. Twice, Schmidt watched all of his efforts come to nothing in the face of devastating assaults by Bill Gates and Microsoft. The first time, at Sun Microsystems, Schmidt was all-but helpless to do anything; the second time, at Novell, where he was CEO, he had to take the blame.
In those days, everyone in Silicon Valley was obsessed with Microsoft. It seemed an unstoppable force which would slowly crush one market after another, until it had rolled up the entire tech world. Most companies and entrepreneurs either hunkered down and tried to ride out the storm, or simply ran way – finding market niches where Microsoft was unlikely to follow.
But three Valleyites, each of them a genius of one type or another, and each of them already burned by Microsoft, set out on their own to figure out how to beat Bill Gates. The first was Larry Ellison, whose company Oracle was nearly as big at Microsoft. Ruthless and insanely competitive, Ellison tried and failed to draw users off their PCs and onto a theoretical ‘network computer’ – failed, and then embarked on an acquisition campaign that essentially encased his customer base behind impenetrable walls.
The second, Marc Andreessen, who had watched his beloved Netscape get crushed by Gates’s borderline-illegal attack with Internet Explorer, quietly withdrew upstream from Microsoft and went into the ‘tool’ business, devising new ways for users to use the Internet without Microsoft.
But neither went so far, with such success, as Eric Schmidt. He had spent years figuring out how to beat Microsoft – and when he was given Google, he knew he now had the perfect club. Microsoft would still take most of the world’s users to the Internet, but once they got there, Google would own them. The Web was all about searching for information — and because its search service was free, billions of users would happily take Google up on the offer.
That might have been enough. Google is now one of the world’s most valuable and influential companies. Much of the planet’s population passes through its simple and friendly portals everyday, and in the process it has snatched up a sizable chunk of the advertising money out there. Meanwhile, no one talks much about Microsoft these days.
It would seem that Eric Schmidt has had his revenge, and the techno-utopians of the world have been vindicated. But if you think that means the battle is over, don’t kid yourself. If anything, the dreams of both have just begun to unfold. Eric Schmidt seems no longer content to defeat Microsoft, but to become it – and more. Moreover, he’s got the army of brilliant, amoral young footsoldiers to do the job.
Remember, for these young techno-utopians, technology trumps all, even privacy. We saw a glimpse of that earlier this year when Facebook, that seemingly benign social network for young people, quietly implemented Beacon, which tracked users’ purchases and then notified their friends in hopes of influencing their future purchases. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg professed surprise at the massive backlash against Beacon and shut it down – but left the door opened for future surveillance programs.
But nowhere is the power to apply technology for its own sake more available than at Google. And despite the company’s motto, and childlike logo and homepage, this is the real driving force behind the company. And the long-term goal of this applied technology? Google has already said it: to manage all of the world’s information.
Five years ago, this seemed harmless enough, even welcome. The Web is a huge, messy place – so what’s wrong with having some help navigating through it? But as Google has grown larger, and after it has taken over the big, general stuff (the Web) and begun focusing on the smaller, more specialized stuff (libraries, personal records, search patterns) that we begin to understand what “all” means . . .and what Google is willing to do to get it.
For example, a couple weeks ago, in a barely noticed blog entry, reporter Clint Boulton of Computerworld recounted a conversation he’d had with a Google insider who admitted that whatever the company was saying publicly – and to Congress — about user privacy, it was indeed tracking not just user search trails, but also their identities – so-called “Deep Packet Inspection.” The entry drew few readers, and no comments, but it did attract attention from one source: a senior Google executive called the magazine to get it to back off the story.
Even if true, had Google lied to Congress about user privacy? Probably not – at least not in the way that Google had carefully phrased its words.
Then there is Google’s odd acquiescence to the demands by authoritarian regimes around the world, especially China, to censor its search operations in those countries. These actions, inexplicable at the time, only become clear when one assumes that Google’s real business now is not providing a service to its users, but in owning the world’s data.
And that brings us back to Chrome. Why so low-key an introduction? And why turn suddenly turn on a solid partnership with browser provider Mozilla? The answer, I think, has two parts.
First, Google believes that Chrome could be its Microsoft killer. Not only does it have the potential to beat MS Explorer, but, fulfilling Larry Ellison’s old dream, it could be a way to let users easily download applications from the Web – and thus circumvent Microsoft’s lock on Office, even Windows, the very core of its business.
But a second reason is more sinister. Only a few people have noticed yet that in the Terms of Service for signing up for Chrome, Google demands “perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive” license to any materials users create with the browser [Under public pressure, Google retracted the Chrome Terms of Service last night – ed.]
And that’s only part of the story: an earlier reviewer of Chrome, Andrew Cheung of TGDaily, has noted that the browser almost seems to work “too well.” For example, Cheung found that with a few keystrokes, Chrome will go into an on-line banking site and find account numbers, balances and transaction activity. Cheung suggests that it is a security flaw in the product. I’m not so sure.
Microsoft only wanted all of our money. Increasingly, it seems that Google wants all of our data. In running away from the Evil Empire, have we now instead rushed into the arms of Big Brother.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
37 Comments
1. Rob:Isn’t Google the same company that has to post signs at its corporate offices reminding its employees “Don’t be evil”?
Sep 5, 2008 - 11:48 am 2. Paddy:Where are the outcries from the “civil rights” crowd? Do they think Google is more benign than the Federal government? Frankly, it poses far worse dangers to privacy than our government, if for no other reason due to its superior grasp of technology and the scope of its intrusion.
You describe the situation and its ramification precisely. Personally, I avoid Goggle like the plague. We do have many choices for search engines and some of the other services Goggle offers. I use them.
Sep 5, 2008 - 11:53 am 3. Robert R:Why Monday? September 1st? Also the same day Hitler invaded Poland.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence.
Sep 5, 2008 - 11:54 am 4. Lexington Green:“Increasingly, it seems that Google wants all of our data.”
New Motto: All Your Data Are Belong To Us.
Sep 5, 2008 - 11:58 am 5. Andrew Russell:Google has chosen to act as an intelligence-gathering arms of the secret police of the Chinese dictatorship. Where do you think the data they gather from Chrome is going to wind up?
Sep 5, 2008 - 12:14 pm 6. Google Public Relations Responds:Dear Michael,
I just finished reading your piece, “Is Google Turning Into Big Brother? — The Debut of Chrome, Google’s New Browser, May Have Been Quiet for a Reason.”
As the lead on the communications for this launch here at Google, I was struck by your numerous questions about the timing and scope of the announcement. On Labor Day, we posted an explanation of this timing on our official blog, acknowledging it was an accident: “As you may have read in the blogosphere, we hit “send” a bit early on a comic book introducing our new open source browser, Google Chrome.”
I’ve also given public comments on this timing in PRWeek: “Our intention was to unveil Chrome with [the launch of] Chrome,” Stricker said. “[At Google], we don’t preannounce and our intention was to have the product speak for itself.”
So I remain confused by your numerous references to timing and scope: “Why the odd timing? Hard to say.” Again, we have certainly given numerous public explanations for what I agree was odd timing. “Why so low key an introduction?… why would a company that knows it has a solid and newsworthy product on its hands intentionally dampen media coverage of it?” In addition to introducing Google Chrome with the much-publicized comic book, we webcast the announcement on Tuesday, which included the presence of Larry and Sergey. The full announcement can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d1_ool4r7s This is not an announcement we’d characterize as “low-key.” In sum then, it seems that the premise of your piece — “The debut of Chrome may have been quiet for a reason” — seems fundamentally flawed. I’m writing you to clarify this core point, but also to make myself available to you as a resource going forward. I’d be happy to answer these types of questions in advance to avoid any broader public misunderstanding. Thanks for your time.
Best, Gabriel PS: I read your HP-Bill & Dave book, and really enjoyed it. Your insights about the transformation of corporate culture were truly inspiring.
Sep 5, 2008 - 12:29 pm 7. ZEITGEIST:–
Gabriel Stricker
Global Communications and Public Affairs
Google, Inc.
[...] MICHAEL MALONE ON what Google wants. [...]
Sep 5, 2008 - 12:39 pm 8. njartist:A company with totalitarian impulses will join with politicians of similar stripe. That is axiomatic. the question is to what extent. If Google is willing to limit the Chinese citizens’ internet access, one must ask whether or not Google is willing to provide totalitarian governments with the identities and internet activities of their citi… victims.
I even ask: under what *laboratory* conditions Google developed this application; especially, when it is reported: *Chrome will go into an on-line banking site and find account numbers, balances and transaction activity.* I suspect that is ability was developed under the auspices of a totalitarian government. One begins to think Chrome is a civilian role-out of already developed secret technologies.
At some point, a government will demand access to this sore of private data. Now, Google will be a good lefty and oppose, say, co-operation with an “evil” Republican government in the “War on Terror”. But, say, if an Obama asks for co-operation; well, all bets are off.
Sep 5, 2008 - 12:40 pm 9. Matthias:Chrome works “too well”? I’ve given up on it… it’s an obvious beta program with so many flaws that I can’t rely on it for my work. I’ve got a list of defects as long as my arm (a list I will not bore you with). If Microsoft put out a product like this, they would be dragged out and summarily shot.
Outside of that, I agree that Google is moving toward an oddly totalitarian control of worldwide information. Color me unworried. The barrier to entry for internet searching and access is so low that some upstart company will come around and challenge Google sooner or later.
Sep 5, 2008 - 12:41 pm 10. Barnabus:Gabe, you didn’t answer the question at hand. A) Is Google tracking not just search trails but individual identities? B) Does Google sell or give away any of this information to any government and C) Does Google track U.S. government web usage?
P.S. oh, and who defines evil?
Sep 5, 2008 - 1:03 pm 11. Brock:Hi, regular PJM reader here. Came by way of Instapundit today.
I have to say, this is the most useless piece of conspiracy trash I’ve ever seen at this site. I hope Roger has this story removed and posts an apology in its place. The writing style is right out of Loose Change, Expelled, or your average Michael Moore movie. I have three points in particular:
1. Half of this article can’t even be argued against because it insinuates without ever taking a position. That’s being a weasel.
2. Two of the three parts of your position (aka, 66.6% - the Mark of the Beast, I might add (See what I did there?)) were mistakes, one of which was admitted to and the other quickly corrected. i.e., they are now slander and this article should do more than note the corrections by Google; the article should congratulate them on the speed of their apology and movement.
3. Can Chrome potentially unseat Microsoft’s monopolies in Operating Systems and Office Productivity? Yes, yes it can. But that power does not then land in Google’s lap, because Chrome is fully, 100% open source and based on open standards. Anyone (even Apple or Microsoft) can adopt and release Chrome’s technology in their own products. Chrome is more than “not Evil”, it is Good.
Unlike Gabriel I don’t work for Google or have much of a relationship with them (Full disclosure - a friend of mine has a roommate that works at Google’s New York Office). The most that can be said is that I, like half the web’s netizens, use their products. Mostly though I just like PJM and want PJM to succeed and do well. This style of writing makes the whole site look bad.
Sep 5, 2008 - 1:06 pm 12. Brock:njartist,
“I suspect that is ability was developed under the auspices of a totalitarian government. One begins to think Chrome is a civilian role-out of already developed secret technologies.”
Chrome is open source software. Anyone in the world can download the code and see it for themselves. If there are mistakes they will be corrected. If there are “spy programs” they will be found.
Look for yourself: http://code.google.com/chromium/
Look people, Google is not above the law - even if that law is a law of another country we disagree with. Google must obey the laws of the countries it operates in, even “bad” laws. Google (like IBM, Intel, Yahoo, Microsoft and every other American company (even non-tech companies!) has many employees in China. Would you prefer those employees went to jail?
Sep 5, 2008 - 1:15 pm 13. Peg C.:I wish I’d read this before I discovered a Chrome release announcement and review on Popular Mechanics via Instapundit. I installed it on 3 different laptops (it is not as functional and robust as Firefox but it is FAST) and would have installed it on my work laptop but for the fact that my company is extremely proprietary about the browsers it customizes to work with all our internal apps. I also discovered I get no audio with YouTube videos via Chrome on any of the 3 laptops where I installed it.
I’m uninstalling it everywhere tonight. This is big brother fascist crap and I’m already suffocating in that via my work apps, Microsoft, Apple (with the iPod and iPhone), etc. I already have very strong opinions about Google and others bowing down and kissing the behinds of China, Russia, etc. (And yes, my employer has a huge presence and investment in both. I don’t care!) This is sick.
Sep 5, 2008 - 2:08 pm 14. The Google agenda « Internet Scofflaw:[...] Google agenda Interesting thoughts at Edgelings. Punchline: Microsoft only wanted all of our money. Increasingly, it seems that Google wants all of [...]
Sep 5, 2008 - 2:12 pm 15. bobby b:I’m far more concerned about the ability of (a) Google to sway social policy worldwide than I am about its pretensions towards Microsoftness. In the wrong hands (i.e., human ones), an entity that becomes THE info portal wields terrifyingly huge influence in a world in which nation-leading decisions are made on the basis of non-personal-knowledge-based information - meaning, information that is delivered to you.
Slight, small tweaks that determine which story you “want” to have presented to you can topple governments. No matter your political persuasion, try this exercise: picture, as the Head of MegaGoogle, whatever political figure you most hate/despise/fear. Then, picture information delivery under that person’s guidance.
Then, move to a small Pacific island.
Sep 5, 2008 - 2:48 pm 16. James Miller:The ‘evil TOS’ part of your article is FUD. Google has already apologized for the far reaching TOS and has changed it. http://www.texasxtreme.com/blog/2008/09/google-fixes-terms-of-service-for-chrome/ .
Again, the TOS is fixed. It is even retroactive. Uninstall Chrome for reasons other than the TOS.
Sep 5, 2008 - 2:55 pm 17. Drunken Economist:So, let me get this straight: It’s okay for the SNS flunkies to be ‘fascist’ [FaceBook, MyS, etc] but not Google? Yes, their EULA sucks, so use Chrome to read Fark and use Flock to post to your blog and Flickr. Is it really that hard?
Seriously. Where else are they going to compete? Orkut etal BOMBED and they want the SNS eyeballs. More of them. So *why not* in with a browser?
If you want Utopia, then install Firefox or Safari [Chrome’s engine and most of it’s so-called ‘features’ like porn browsing.
But Google and MS? Hell, let the Overlord.fight begin!
Sep 5, 2008 - 2:56 pm 18. Jaded Consumer:I think the purpose of Chrome is clearly to ensure freely-available, platform-independent APIs for Google (and others) to leverage in order not to depend on proprietary platform vendors which drive up the cost of devices.
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/09/google-browser-something-old-something.html
Google wants to sell software and services to as many people as possible, and if it succeeds in devaluing the operating system to zero, the aggregate cost per connected computing device will decrease, and Google’s addressable market will be larger. Devaluing proprietary platforms in favor of things Google can enable to be used anyplace is an enormous strategic win for Google as it seeks to sell services to people owning connected devices.
Best regards,
Sep 5, 2008 - 3:04 pm 19. TexasXtreme » Blog Archive » Google Fixes Terms of Service for Chrome:–J
[...] It appears a big name news outlet (cough Pajamasmedia cough) didn’t get the memo. This kind of piece follows the MSM’s tactic of bringing in [...]
Sep 5, 2008 - 3:05 pm 20. Thom:Hello,
Sep 5, 2008 - 3:18 pm 21. Roderick Reilly:I quit using Google when I realized they ‘celebrate’ all sorts of obscure days but not Veterans’ Day with logo changes on the search page. They may be cute but not to my liking. Also, the one founder who ’saves the earth with Al, had a wedding in the Caribbean with his closest 600 friends flying in. But those jets ran on water and didn’t pollute. LOL
If any of you have ever spoken to a mentally ill person for any length of time, you would be struck by that person’s paranoia about the world around him, and his perception that world is out to get him.
This Google stuff, if true, along with other examples of government and institutional controls, is going to make us all act like the hypothetical nutcase in my opening sentence. The difference is, we would have good reason for our fears.
Also, the bit about “perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive” license to any materials users create with the browser” has a “selling your soul to the Devil” quality to it. It may be that this piece is over the top in alarmism, but that last terms-of-agreement item is chilling. I’m glad to hear Google removed it.
Sep 5, 2008 - 3:33 pm 22. Self-hating boomer:You just described Firefox. Chrome can do nothing for the user that Firefox can’t. There’s no good reason to use Chrome.
Sep 5, 2008 - 4:01 pm 23. scott:@Rob, there’s an amusing continuity between the last line of the piece and your first comment. The last line was naturally a 1984 reference, and of course in 1984, ministries were labeled contrary to their true intention. “Don’t be evil” would make a wonderful plaque at the ministry for love.
Sep 5, 2008 - 4:02 pm 24. Awesomesauce:Brock,
Look, you snotty little child. Do you read EULAs? I bet you don’t! Because if you did, you would be singing a very, VERY different tune.
tl;dr (because obviously an EULA isn’t worth your time, so why would half a paragraph be worth it?)
Sep 5, 2008 - 4:51 pm 25. Aaron:LEARN TO READ IMPORTANT THINGS.
If this worries you:
“And the long-term goal of this applied technology? Google has already said it: to manage all of the world’s information.”
You do not have worry anymore. I am pretty sure that it violates the laws of physics and Google will fail in its attempt to manage all of the world’s information.
Sep 5, 2008 - 6:06 pm 26. Not the other Rob:In other news, sales of aluminum foil went through the roof as the latest craze in foil hats made a comeback.
Sep 5, 2008 - 6:41 pm 27. Vadept:Cock-up before conspiracy.
Is there something creepy behind Chrome’s release? Or is it a combination of slow development and goofs from higher-ups? Given that MOST computer businesses are plagued by the latter and I don’t believe Google is some kind of Super Business, I’m guessing their problem is the same.
Moreover, since when is it a bad thing to want to be the biggest boy on the block? Every company in the world succeeds through competition and consolodation. Does Google work quietly with despotic regimes like China’s because they secretly want to own all the world’s data, or because they want more moolah? Do they offer new services because they have designs on your dark secrets, or because they think more information would be useful to you?
And no, tracking your own details won’t be useful to you, maybe, but if I know what you like to eat, what you like to wear, what your sexual preferences are, what your allergies are, what your health problems are like, what businesses and singles are near you, I can precisely and perfectly target you with advertising that you, and only you, will find interesting. I can pick out the products in your price range, within walking distance from you, that you really really want, and then when you buy them, I can tell the business that you bought it BECAUSE OF ME.
I don’t think you need a whit more incentive than that. That’s the big bucks. Nothing sinister about it. I also think it’s the future, whether we want it or not.
Sep 5, 2008 - 7:46 pm 28. Jon B:This was… a rather bad article. You say things throughout like “possibly sinister” as if you are taking a neutral, objective stance, and then turn around and say “And **despite the company’s motto**, and childlike logo and homepage, this is the real driving force behind the company.” As their motto is “Do no evil”, you are clearly accusing them of evil intentions. This wouldn’t be a problem (opinion pieces are always welcome), but you do absolutely nothing to back up your claims… and they are strong claims. You point out a few pieces of “evidence”, but all these points are only sinister when you are already working under the assumption that google is evil. For instance, “But a second reason is more sinister.[Mention EULA]“. You make it sound like google MUST have done this intentionally… in fact it is essentially the anchor of your post. And yet when you change the assumption, and presume that google is not evil, it is as easy to say that the EULA mess MUST have been an accident. (It was the standard EULA, and not written specifically for Chrome.)
In short, what I’m saying is that when you are making claims like these, you had better back them up with something better than hot air. As it is, you just seem to be blowing smoke and wasting our time.
Sep 5, 2008 - 8:39 pm 29. James Miller:@Self hating boomer,
There are enormous design differences between Chrome and Firefox. Mainly, that each individual tab is its own unique process. When you kill that tab in Chrome, you completely free all of your system’s resources that were dedicated to that tab. Firefox is supposed to free uses on tab close, but we all know that Firefox is susceptible to memory creep and crashes after being used for long periods of time without closing the program down entirely. Also, when Firefox crashes, you lose all your tabs. In Chrome, when a tab crashes, the whole browser doesn’t go down. While I’ve had some flash issues in Chrome, I have yet to have the browser bork itself.
Sep 5, 2008 - 10:09 pm 30. Awesomesauce:“You make it sound like google MUST have done this intentionally”
Oh, yes, forget the part about how the EULA was retroactively revised to literally screw anyone who uses Chrome to upload intellectual property material.
Mac users, you should be thanking God you can’t use this. Stick with third party browsers, at least those don’t delegate control of your creations, no matter how big or small, to the designer of your browser.
Sep 5, 2008 - 11:14 pm 31. Da Coyote:I’ll take my applications on my own computer, thank you. That way, it’ll even work when it’s off the net (caveat - Microsoft OSs are iffy anywhere). When you take away the magnificent job Google did with their search engine, there is nothing left. Add to it the rather childish attitude towards socialistic governments (yes, daddy, I’ll hide it for you)…and I really don’t think these clowns will go far. Lotsa $$ now, just like Microsoft. However, Google is fast getting the reputation for bad business and horrible code as does Microsoft. A pox on both.
Sep 6, 2008 - 6:47 am 32. aroch:Get out your tin hat.
Sep 6, 2008 - 7:43 am 33. Scaramouche:Mr. Miller,
My experience with Firefox is that it always prompts me to restore lost tabs in the event of an improper shutdown. Perhaps it is a setting you don’t have selected. Add to that all the add-ons and themes available for Firefox and Chrome has a way to go. My experience with IE and a few looks at Chrome is that Chrome seems to be mimicking IE. For example, where are the toolbars?
Another browser people might want to check out is Maxthon. Another interesting search engine is Cuil, which brings its results in a different format than Google or Yahoo. I think it is a safe practice to keep many browsers and search engine companies profitable so we aren’t making any one company too dominant.
Sep 6, 2008 - 9:50 am 34. James Miller:@Scaramouche:
My experience with Firefox is similar to yours. Typically, the restore session option works after a crash, but it is not fail-safe. I think I dislike it from a convenience standpoint. I am merely testing out Chrome because I think its design concept is the future of all internet browsers. My main browsers are Safari for casual surfing, and Firefox for Lexis, Westlaw (IANAL), and forum postings. Firefox stays around for now due to it’s wonderful plug-in support.
I spent some time using Cuil, but my searching was just more efficient with plain old Google. I’ll give Maxthon a look when I get some more free time.
Sep 6, 2008 - 12:22 pm 35. James Miller:I apologize for the ‘it’s.’
Sep 6, 2008 - 12:23 pm 36. John:Anyone know where I can find the above mentioned computerworld article on Google’s use of deep packet inspection? It seems to have been removed from computerworld’s site…
Sep 6, 2008 - 1:54 pm 37. submandave:Conspiracy minded or not, I think the concern that Google either has or will attain virtual control over a quorum of data is legitimate.
For example, just recently YouTube (a Google company) was pressured to remove thousands of anti-scientology videos. There’s nothing, other than their good intentions, that really prevents this purge from being echoed in a Google search result, effectively hiding this data and information from a large portion of the population for whom the verb “google” represents the sum total of their internet search skilz.
Sep 8, 2008 - 7:55 am