To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is NOT a port. That's the whole point. They ARE writing NATIVE versions for Linux and Mac OS X, that's why it's taking them so long.
Firefox produces ports; that's why up until now Firefox didn't use a lot of the Mac OS X-specific technologies like spellcheck and keyring. Chrome is doing native, and will support these things straight away.
Firefox still feels like a bad port on the Mac - after 5 years. And you expect Google to come up with a 100% working native Mac app in only a few months?
Edited 2009-11-12 12:08 UTC
As any good developer knows, the secret of developing truly portable software is to make it so since the beginning.
Google decided to bet in Windows first, which makes sense as the platform with the biggest user base, and then target the remaining platforms.
I wonder why they didn't developed for the three versions in parallel. Lack of resources?





Member since:
2009-04-23
I don't understand why they didn't just write a native Mac version to be released and developed parallel to the Win, and Linux versions. Why do a "port" in the first place? Theres plenty of other software devs that have alot less fundage than Google and manage to pull this off.