Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Sep 2009 22:21 UTC
Google Only a year after Google's Chrome entered the browser market, we're already hitting version 3. While Chrome 3 had been available in the developer and beta channels for a while now, the company has now released the first stable Chrome 3 version. Technically, this means Chrome 3 has been released.
Thread beginning with comment 384219
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: evolving
by Tom K on Tue 15th Sep 2009 22:33 UTC in reply to "evolving "
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

And yet when Apple or Microsoft do this, people bitch and whine, saying that they're being "forced" to upgrade.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: evolving
by FreakyT on Tue 15th Sep 2009 23:16 in reply to "RE: evolving "
FreakyT Member since:
2005-07-17

And yet when Apple or Microsoft do this, people bitch and whine, saying that they're being "forced" to upgrade.


I think there's a few differences, here. For one thing, Chrome "3" doesn't really change much on the surface from 2, so the change isn't particularly jarring. The second factor is the seamless way that Google Chrome updates itself. For example, Apple's software update process on Windows is a spitting example of how not to design a software updater.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: evolving
by JrezIN on Wed 16th Sep 2009 00:36 in reply to "RE: evolving "
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

And yet when Apple or Microsoft do this, people bitch and whine, saying that they're being "forced" to upgrade.

I don't think anybody will blame them if the updates are installed in the userside only and don't mess anyhow with the system and if they made a open version of the software that's 99.9% equal and don't include these features that some users may have doubts about...

Edited 2009-09-16 00:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: evolving
by BluenoseJake on Wed 16th Sep 2009 08:24 in reply to "RE[2]: evolving "
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I would, I want to know what is being updated and when.

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[2]: evolving
by m4r35n357 on Wed 16th Sep 2009 07:16 in reply to "RE: evolving "
RE[3]: evolving
by Laurence on Wed 16th Sep 2009 08:05 in reply to "RE[2]: evolving "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

So are Google charging for updates now?


Why would they want to do that when they make their money from advertisements?

If they start charging for updates then users will switch to another browser which might not have Google search integration (and certainly won't be as well integrated into Googles range of search tools as Chrome is).

So charging for updates is completely counter productive to Googles business model.

Edited 2009-09-16 08:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: evolving
by Adurbe on Wed 16th Sep 2009 09:40 in reply to "RE: evolving "
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Due to the HUGE security risk that browsers pose to most systems (you know what i mean, this is where the user can be most foolish) I am in favour of browsers auto updating with security fixes.

Now I also see the advantage of updates not being carried out without the user's knowledge. I think this is simple to resolve. By default auto update on the sly. But have a tickbox for it to ask you.

If a user knows enough to care about it auto updating, I am sure they can find and tick a box :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: evolving
by kaiwai on Thu 17th Sep 2009 04:41 in reply to "RE: evolving "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And yet when Apple or Microsoft do this, people bitch and whine, saying that they're being "forced" to upgrade.


I second that; personally I've always preferred updating on my own schedule - having been bitten in the past by broken updates, I'd sooner wait till I hear that the coast is clear before proceeding. Google might think they're doing the end user a favour by keeping their software up to date but such a system is an open door to being exploiting in some manner.

Reply Parent Score: 2