1. I don't believe Google is in the business of killing off other companies' products by strategic/underhand/'evil' means. One possible reason for this is a corporate belief in a kind of technological natural selection: the optimal solution to a problem will eventually win no matter how many emergences of it you manage to kill off. Thinking about killing off competitors' products by any means other than offering superior products is a serious distraction which can damage a company's viability in the long term.
2. Youtube is nice but as the author almost admits, it's just not a big enough lever to bring about this kind of change. The suggestion that IE, currently bundled with Windows, will see its market share drop to 20% because of Youtube is kind of ridiculous.
3. The motivation is insufficient. Google wants to stick a fork in Microsoft's eye and bury the Flash runtime why? Allegedly to promote HTML5 and CSS3. Well, Microsoft is already awake on that front, the only question regarding support is how soon will IE9 be released. Google and Adobe are collaborating on the successor to NSAPI as well as Android support. Google currently uses Flash all over the place and has just agreed to bundle it with Chrome. It's reasonable to guess that Flash's VP6 codec will soon be updated to VP8.
Google is not at war with either Microsoft or Adobe. Apple (or maybe just Steve Jobs) is at war with Google. Partnering with those other companies in ways that advance the state-of-the-art is a much more sensible approach in the current climate than anything suggested in this article.
The prediction was 20% in two years, I think Youtube was proposed as only part of Google's strategy.
IE dropped from about 60 to 50 this past year, so extending that out two years gives you 30%. Taking that into account 20% isn't actually a ridiculous figure.
You could even argue that it could hit some kind of tipping point and increase the rate of change. I believe Youtube(and some other Google properties) are already trying to move people from IE6, which is itself a third of IE's share.
I personally agree mostly with your points about collaboration but also think that Google can most effectively kill Flash, by working with Microsoft on HTML5, and most effectively kill Microsoft by working with Adobe to fill in IE's HTML5 gaps. Same with Apple etc. So collaboration and extreme competition don't have to be mutually exclusive.
As you can see, Firefox was pretty flat, and Chrome ate into IE.
Obviously the caveat is that this is for a specific webapp, but I think it mirrors what is happening.
Chrome isn't going after the same crowd as Firefox really. Chrome is going after the masses. Firefox has always been slightly more techy extension installing people.
Interesting pattern there. IE 6 and 7 are collapsing as IE8 grows. I'd interpret that as: Windows users are having to switch anyway - which opens them up to the option of switching away from IE entirely.
I think there's another force at play - everyone knows who Google is, so there is an additional illusion of safety by going with Chrome. Outside of the tech world, not a lot of people know or care about the Mozilla Foundation; there's no implicit guarantee of quality.
Who cares? If browser tech is getting better, we all win. Besides, FF isn't sitting still, they are borrowing Chrome's best features. The beauty of OSS.
Yes, and those technically-literate enough to have used FF in the past will appreciate Chrome's speed. But those who use IE by default and have never heard of FF or Chrome won't upgrade regardless. As you said, Chrome is mainly a threat to FF and not IE.
Google doesn't care if IE goes away, as long as IE is a standards-compliant, performant browser. At that point, it's just a commodity offering from Microsoft and not a strategic weapon used in an attempt to hold on to an eroding Windows/Office monopoly.
Google wins when browsers become good enough to provide for so many user needs that a Windows PC becomes viewed as a specialty device for gaming, etc. Google's cloud printing initiative is further evidence that they hold this view. Grandma might be happy with a ChromeOS netbook sitting on the coffee table so she can videoconference with her kids, but she still wants to print photos of her grandkids for the refrigerator -- so, she still owns a Windows machine instead.
What does "win" mean for Google? The obvious benefit is that breaking down the Windows/Office franchise cuts off a lot of Microsoft's air supply. The oft stated benefit is that Google is best positioned to monetize a Windows-free world, but I think that breaking down Windows/Office is likely to lift all boats but one.
How relevant is IE really? I know it is a large fraction of surfers, but are they equally relevant for every business? I think many companies can assume their visitors are educated enough to switch.
Then there are the companies that only allow IE. In that case people should be encouraged to switch jobs.
Because most people aren't geeks and just don't care about their computing environment enough to make the huge move of seeking alternate employment. Not to mention that in this lousy economy, your average person is probably quite short on options.
Besides that, how well do you think a site would do if it told you to find a new job - are you going to find a new job, or a new site?
I don't think the likely corporate users of ie would be programmers. Rather, they would be accountants seeking occasional entertainment on the internet.
It's hard to kill IE. Most users don't even know what a browser is, they just click the big "e" button which takes them to google.
Chrome vs. IE is like "Android vs. iPhone" debate for someone who doesn't know what a mobile phone is. Chrome vs. FF is a sensible topic, as someone who has FF knows at least knows what a browser is, and might consider opting for better experience.
Most users don't know what a browser is, yet right now or very soon (depending on which numbers you read) most users will be using a browser other than Internet Explorer. Isn't that a bit of a paradox given the pre-installation of IE?
I also find it interesting that your example of what users do is that they click the button that takes them to google.
Well based on experience, talking to past users and being with everyday normal people in general, I know how many people confuse the term 'Google' with 'Browser'. Also, the 'e' button with 'Internet'. Someone also posted a neat video a few days back on HN.
Especially since there's no anticipation of the ensuing antitrust battles that will probably creep into play from the EU if not the DOJ. This is very familiar waters that Microsoft found itself in not so long ago.
This article is the very definition of "going out on a limb."
"It is rumoured Google will soon open-source the VP8 video compression format by On2 Technologies..."
Yeah, rumoured. Tech giants buy startups all the time, only to do nothing with them.
"Google will transcode all videos on YouTube to VP8 format, and serve this as the default to capable browsers."
It's probably just as likely they'll leave things as they are. Or do what they're doing with 3D on YouTube: offer it as an option in the menu on the video's page for those with the hardware & software necessary.
"But if you’re using Internet Explorer, not to worry: all you need to do is install a simple plugin: Chrome Frame.
Chrome Frame effectively turns Internet Explorer into Chrome."
Chrome Frame doesn't turn IE into Chrome, it turns IE into something similar to Chrome when on YouTube. When not browsing YouTube, it's still good old IE. In other words, IE's market share will remain unaffected by this factor.
"...vast majority of IE users will either have switched to a different browser...."
No they won't. The vast majority of web users don't know what a browser is, otherwise no-one would voluntarily use IE. I was using my non-technically literate friend's PC a few months back, and I asked him why he was using IE as his browser. His reponse: "What's a browser?"
"This will reveal Google’s acquisitions of YouTube, On2, and their development of their own Chrome browser, merely as components in a masterpiece of long-game strategy."
There's no way in hell that Google could have anticipated that YouTube would become the 3rd most trafficked site on the web when they purchased it and that it would remain consistently popular. As for On2, a wait and see approach would be prudent. Google's Chrome OS due out next year is far more relevant to Google's ongoing battle with MS than anything else in this article.
Don't get me wrong, I hope what you are predicting will come true. But I seriously doubt it will.
"Chrome Frame doesn't turn IE into Chrome, it turns IE into something similar to Chrome when on YouTube. When not browsing YouTube, it's still good old IE."
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Chrome Frame replaces Trident, and renders any page just as it would be in Chrome. It also uses Google's V8 javascript engine, again without restriction as to the site you are visiting.
You can't run a successful website by making the experience miserable for a significant percentage of your viewers. This article should be called 'How Google might kill YouTube'.
Lots of speculation going on in that article, still, I hope much of it materializes, an open video standard and new browsers will facilitate the adoption of HTML5 and after seeing what can be done with the technology mostly through the daily demo posts here on HN I would like IE to fuck off quite frankly.
2. Youtube is nice but as the author almost admits, it's just not a big enough lever to bring about this kind of change. The suggestion that IE, currently bundled with Windows, will see its market share drop to 20% because of Youtube is kind of ridiculous.
3. The motivation is insufficient. Google wants to stick a fork in Microsoft's eye and bury the Flash runtime why? Allegedly to promote HTML5 and CSS3. Well, Microsoft is already awake on that front, the only question regarding support is how soon will IE9 be released. Google and Adobe are collaborating on the successor to NSAPI as well as Android support. Google currently uses Flash all over the place and has just agreed to bundle it with Chrome. It's reasonable to guess that Flash's VP6 codec will soon be updated to VP8.
Google is not at war with either Microsoft or Adobe. Apple (or maybe just Steve Jobs) is at war with Google. Partnering with those other companies in ways that advance the state-of-the-art is a much more sensible approach in the current climate than anything suggested in this article.