The last two days of using Chrome have had me thinking about the purpose of the Web browser in today’s world. I’ve talked about how Chrome and Firefox have changed how we see browsers, treating them as interactive windows into our daily life, rather than the uncontrolled end of an information firehose.

These applications, that on the surface seem to serve the same purpose, have taken very different paths to this point. Much has been made about Firefox growing out of the ashes of Netscape, while Chrome is the Web re-imagined.

It’s not just that.

Firefox, through the use of extensions and helper applications, has grown to become a Desktop replacement. Back when Windows for Workgroups was the primary end-user OS (and it wasn’t even an OS), Norton Desktop arrived to provide all of the tools that didn’t ship with the OS. It extended and improved on what was there, and made WFW a better place.

Firefox serves that purpose in the browser world. With its massive collections of extensions, it adds the ability to customize and modify the Web workspace. These extensions even allow the incoming content to be modified and reformatted in unique ways to suit the preferences of each individual. These features allowed the person using Firefox to feel in control, empowered.

You look at the Firefox installs of the tech elite, and no two installed versions will be configured in the same way. Firefox extends the browser into an aggregator of Web data and information customization.

But it does it at the Desktop.

Chrome is a simple container. There is (currently) no way to customize the look and feel, extend the capabilities, or modify the incoming or outgoing content. It is a simple shell designed to perform two key functions: search for content and interact with Web applications.

There are, of course, the hidden geeky functions that they have built into the app. But those don’t change what it’s core function is: request, receive, and render Web pages as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unlike Firefox’s approach, which places the app being the center of the Web, Chrome places the Web at the center of the Web.

There is no right or wrong approach. As with all things in this complicated world we are in, it depends. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish and how you want to get there.

The conflict that I see appearing over the next few months is not between IE and Firefox and Safari and Opera and Chrome. It is a conflict over what the people want from an application that they use all the time. Do they want a Web desktop or a Web container?

Tags: add-ons, application, browser, Chrome, extension, Firefox, helper applications, IE, Internet Explorer, web, web application, web applications, Web browser, web container, Web data, web desktop, Web workspace, Windows

Since I downloaded and started using Chrome yesterday, I have had to rediscover the world of online advertising. Using Firefox and Adblock Plus for nearly three years has shielded from their existence for the most part.

Stephen Noble, in a post on the Forrester Blog for Interactive Marketing Professionals, seems to discover that Chrome will be a source for injecting greater personalization and targeting into the online advertising market.

This is the key reason Chrome exists, right now.

While their may be discussions about the online platform and hosted applications, there are only a small percentage of Internet users who rely on hosted desktop-like applications, excluding email, in their daily work and life.

However, Google’s biggest money-making ventures are advertising and search. With control of AdSense and DoubleClick, there is no doubt that Google controls a vast majority of the targeted and contextual advertising market, around the world.

One of the greatest threats to this money-making is a lack of control of the platform through which ads are delivered. There is talk of IE8 blocking ads (well, non-Microsoft ads anyway), and one of the more popular extensions for Firefox is Adblock Plus. While Safari doesn’t have this ability natively built in, it can be supported by any number of applications that, in the name of Internet security, filter and block online advertisers using end-user proxies.

This threat to Google’s core revenue source was not ignored in the development of Chrome. One of the options is the use of DNS pre-fetching. Now I haven’t thrown up a packet sniffer, but what’s to prevent a part of the pre-fetching algorithm to go beyond DNS for certain content, and pre-fetch the whole object, so that the ads load really fast, and in that way are seen as less intrusive.

Ok, so I am noted for having a paraoid streak.

However, using the fastest rendering engine and a rocket-ship fast Javascript VM is not only good for the new generation of online Web applications, but plays right into the hands of improved ad-delivery.

So, while Chrome is being hailed as the first Web application environment, it is very much a context Web advertising environment as well.

It’s how it was built.

Tags: Adblock, Adblock Plus, ads, adsense, advertising, advertising environment, Chrome, context Web, contextual advertising, DNS, doubleclick, Firefox, Forrester, Google, hosted desktop-like applications, IE8, Internet Explorer 8, Internet security, Internet users, Javascript, Microsoft, online advertisers using end-user proxies, online advertising, online advertising market, online platform, online Web applications, pre-fetching algorithm, Safari, search ads, Stephen Noble, targeted advertising, targeted and contextual advertising market, Web application environment

Three years ago, in a post on this blog, I stated that I thought that the browser was becoming less important as more data moved into streams of data through RSS and aggregated feeds, as well as a raft of other consumer-oriented Web services.

This position was based on the assumption that the endpoint, in the form of installed applications, wouldcontinue to serve as the focus for user interactions, that these applications would be the points where data was accumulated and processed by users. This could be best described as the firehose: The end-user desktop would be at the end of a flood of data being pushed to it a never-ending flood.

Firefox and Chrome have changed all of that.

The browser has, instead, become the window through which we view and manipulate our data. It’s now ok, completely acceptable in fact, to use online applications as replacements for installed applications, stripping away a profit engine that has fed so many organizations over the years.

The endpoint has been shown to be the access point to our applications, to our data. Data is not brought and stored locally: It is stored remotely and manipulated like a marionette from afar.

While Chrome and Firefox are not perfect, they serve as powerful reminders of what the Web is, and why the browser exists. The Browser is not the end of a flod of incoming data, it is the window through which we see our online world.

While some complain that there is still an endless stream of data, we control and manipulate it. It doesn’t flood us.

Tags: Chrome, consumer-oriented Web services, control, Firefox, firehose, hosted applications, interactions, online applications, online world, users, web 2.0, web applications, window

The intertubes of the Web are abuzz with talk of the new, open-source Google Chrome browser [two articles here and here]. I will not presume to wade into the debate of whether it is necessary, or what strategic business goals Google has set that rely on having its own browser. I will limit my comments to the area of Web performance.

Open-Source Browser: Ours or Theirs?

When I read that Google Chrome was an open-source browser, the first thought was: is it theirs or a re-branded Firefox? No one knows at this point, but that will have a direct effect on how the browser performs, and how extensible it will be.

HTTP Standards

Unlike other standards, HTTP standards set out how a browser uses the underlying TCP stack. MSIE6/7 have very broken implementations, and MSIE8 is building on those by increasing the number of connections per host to 6, up from 2 set out in RFC 2616.

Firefox can be configured to mangle this as well, but by default it plays by the standard, adding the option of HTTP pipelining into its mix of persistent HTTP connections.

It will be VERY interesting to see how Google Chrome comes configured out of the box, and how much control users have over the HTTP behaviour of this new browser.

(X)HTML/CSS/JS Standards

This area is a mess. No browser implements this standards in a way that is completely consistent with the written text, and page designers have to use a variety of page testing products (such as BrowserCam) prior to release to ensure that their design is somewhat presentable in all browsers on all platforms.

The rendering of Javascript will be crucial in this new browser, as so much of the new Web is built on applications that are almost completely Javascript-driven.

I am sure that there will be sites that will be completely mangled by the new browser, but, knowing Google, we will be getting a 2.0 release, the 1.0 release being used within Google for a while now to test it under real-world conditions.

Caching

As a few sites in the world do use cache-control headers properly, it will be interesting to see how a browser created by one of the major ad-serving and search providers on the Web tracks page objects. Will it follow explicit/implicit caching rules? Or will it impose a heavy penalty on bandwidth by downloading objects more frequently than other production browsers do?

Proxies, and the Debacle of the Google Web Accelerator

Back in 2005, Google launched a badly designed and gighly flawed product called the Google Web Accelerator. This product proxied Web traffic through the Google network and allowed the company to develop a pattern of user browsing habits and search selections that would allow them to better target their ad products.

I have a great fear that this will be an integrated part of the Google browser project. If it is, it should be a configurable option, not an out-of-the box standard.

I am sure that there will be a few performance conversations that occur around the Google Chrome browser in the weeks ahead. I look forward to hearing what the community has to say about this new addition to the browser wars.

Tags: browser, browser war, browser wars, css, Firefox, Google Web Accelerator, HTML, HTTP, HTTP pipelining, js, MSIE, persistent connections, proxy, XHTML

So, a colleague of mine told me about the YSlow plugin for Firebug yesterday. I had a look at it and it does do an amazing job of analyzing Web pages according to Steve Souders performance rules.

The only hitch in the get-along: a number of pages I visited when the plugin was activated were effectively unusable for up to a minute, presumably as YSlow analyzed them.

Great idea, all Web developers whould use it to put me out of a job. But the overall performance of the plugin will need to be improved before I re-install it.

Tags: Firebug, Firefox, Steve Souders, Web developers whould use, Web Performance, YSlow

I am writing up a client presentation for next week, and I just realized just how flawed Internet Explorer is. Microsoft claims that the browser is standards compliant. Yet it still doesn’t support HTTP pipelining.

And the frustrating part? They won’t tell us why. I have my suspicions, which include TCP stack issues and a flawed HTTP handling mechanism that is still based on Windows 95 architecture, but an explanation from Redmond would be nice.

Every (and I mean every) other browser can do this.

Microsoft, it’s time you detached your Web browser from your OS, like you’ve forced everyone else to do.

Tags: HTTP, pipelining, RFC 2616, Firefox, Opera, HTTP Pipelining, Internet Explorer

Tags: browser, client, cro, Firefox, HTTP, HTTP pipelining, IE, IM, Internet, Internet Explorer, IP, Issues, it, LAN, Microsoft, Om, One, pipelining, pr, TCP, Technorati, web, Web browser, window, Windows

Did we mention that the layout doesn’t work in Firefox or MSIE 7?

Oooops.

Tags: ARIN, content, css, design, Firefox, HTTP, IE, IM, ISP, it, MSIE, Om, One, Technorati

After a few months using the Microsoft Live Writer, I am giving the Performancing Blogging Extension for Firefox another try. Just seems more natural that since I use Firefox as my daily work platform, I should use it for everything.

Technorati Tags: Microsoft, Live Writer, Performancing

Tags: blog, Blogging, cro, extension, Firefox, HTTP, it, live, Microsoft, Om, Technorati, window, Windows

Since I started using the Performancing Firefox extension, it seems that Technorati takes a while to find me. FInally figured out that I haven’t enabled pings.

So this is a test post to see if the ping function works correctly.

Technorati Tags: Performancing, Firefox, Technorati

Tags: extension, Firefox, HTTP, it, Om, Technorati

With some help from the IE7 team, I got IE7 installed. Turns out that there is a conflict between Microsoft (IE7 Beta2) and Google (Desktop Version 2). The Web history indexing performed by Google Desktop somehow conflicts with the way that IE7 Beta 2 handles Web history.

Now that it’s installed I want to try it out. But so far, nothing about it rocks my world. I am sure that the IE7 team could give me an amazing tour, but it isn’t a workspace for me. Firefox is more than “just” a browser. I work in Firefox. And IE7 doesn’t feel like a workspace platform.

I will continue to try it out for a couple of weeks. Maybe I will find the killer app for it.

Technorati Tags: IE7, IE7 Beta2

Tags: app, browser, cro, desktop, Firefox, Google, HTTP, IE, it, Microsoft, Om, Technorati, web