The Dark Side of Google Chrome
Not so long ago I’ve read a really good story about how Google Chrome almost completely monopolized the browser market. For me, it looked slightly one-sided and praising. To restore balance and harmony in the universe, I would like to talk about the main problems and unpleasant moments in the history of the formation of the browser from “don’t be evil” corp.
This article will cover the following list of topics:
- Privacy Issues
- Advertising strategy
- Monopoly
- Benchmark
Design and appearance issues are not included in the article, because it is rather difficult to evaluate UI/UX objectively, and for someone, it can be like a novelty and revolution, others will remember that Leonardo da Vinci did it before.
2008
“Privacy issues” is the most popular topic for Chrome and Google in general for the last years. What kind of data can be collected should be strictly documented in the “Terms of Use”, but not for a huge company whose revenue directly depend on these data.
Contrary to popular belief that Google began to spy on everyone relatively recently, the first calls appeared almost immediately after the release.
License agreement
The first version of the agreement granted rights to “perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute” any content passing through the Chrome browser.
We can only guess why it was so brazen. Maybe no one in the company had a plan that the document would be read by someone and share it with everyone. But thanks to very attentive users and bloggers, this detail has been seen and widely covered. Google replied that it was a standard product agreement and made changes. The new version of the document state user to “retain copyright and any other rights you already hold.”
“In essence, the user was forced into relinquishing serious privacy and copyright interests in exchange for access to the browser. While an influx of criticism may have prompted Google to amend its language, the mere notion that each query one makes through the browser is saved, tracked and linked to a particular browser should be a cause for concern.”
Ryan Jacobson, SmithAmundsen
Such an unprecedented attempt to push their rules can be explained in two ways:
- No one at Google expected users to read the license agreement, and those who read it will simply not be heard. So the company would have jackpot from the very beginning without any problems, simply thanks to human laziness. How often do you read agreements before installing the software?
- It was the simplest manipulation of compromise. By requesting more than it needs, the one side gladly makes concessions, refusing unnecessary requirements and remains with the expected result. So in the case of Google, the expected result was “browser-linked data tracking.”
Security issues
- The day after the release of the beta version of Chrome was discovered vulnerability which allowed hackers to crash the browser. According to Rishi Narang, an independent security researcher, a hacker could create a malicious link that crash Chrome.
- Another problem was about the ability to download and run malicious files. By default, Chrome downloads the file to a folder and displays it in the download bar at the bottom of the browser. If you click on the file, it will be opened. If the file is executable, Windows will ask for confirmation, but not in the case of JAR files (Java archive). They started without any confirmation, and hackers could take advantage of this.
Be honest, this bug was not related to specifically Chrome, but related to the Webkit engine and was also present in Safari. But the fact remains. - When trying to save a page that contains too long <title> tag ― browser was frozen and the hacker could control the computer and execute their code on the machine.
These problems were resolved within a week, and it is also worth saying that it was only a beta version, so such errors are excusable. But then why is it here? To show that Google is no different in its approach to development and also can be wrong. Statements of a “radically new revolutionary approach that solves the problems of predecessors” are nothing more than marketing slogans.
“They’ll have to track all security vulnerabilities in those features, and fix them in Chrome too. This will probably be only after those vulnerabilities were fixed by the other vendors or were publicly reported. It will put Chrome users at risk for a long time.”
Aviv Raff, security researcher
Another speculative topic is the innovativeness of Chrome among browsers. Here are a few arguments:
- At the time of the beta release, Chrome had neither extensions nor applications, and many users refused to switch to it, corny because Firefox 3.1 had it all. The cherry on the cake is that due to the lack of extensions, users couldn’t block annoying ads.
- The Incognito mode already existed in all flagships of that time, therefore it is also not an invention of Google.
- The start page “like in chrome” was implemented using just one extension
2009
Extensibility
In December 2009, Google announced the “new” ― Google Chrome Extensions, and these were the first steps in the race in this direction. The permanent leader in it was Firefox, with its add-ons. Here’s comparing them:
It is worth noting that Chrome brought a lot of innovations to the already existing world of extensions, but it is completely unfair to give all the laurels to Google. Much of that has already been done before, and they only improved the existing one, without radically new ideas and revolution in the world of browsers.
“I don’t see any reason why I should migrate — Chrome extensions are lame comparing to Firefox ones, and yes… they’re more like userscripts.
If i would migrate after all I would choose SRWare Iron than Google Chrome with their spyware-like s*t“
redapple, sofa critic
Over time, good developers who don’t want to get down from their favorite browser added the ability to port extensions from Chrome to Firefox.
Synchronization
In the same year, Chrome rolled out functionality to browser sync on all user devices. Again, nothing new — Mozilla has already been given various plug-ins and add-ons to solve this problem, but they were paid or partially paid:
- Xmarks ― it took quite a while for the most popular of free bookmark synchronization solutions to announce problems and ask for help from its users. Spoiler — this was not successful.
- Lastpass ― an independent service for password synchronization existed “before” Chrome and still exists.
Google won simply by combining all “in the box” of their browser and provided it free. Can this be considered dishonest? I don’t think, because Firefox one year later started implementing such functionality directly to the browser. Fact is that Chrome is just a well-planned product in terms of marketing and strategy, and not from the technology and innovation side.
2010
Promotion
As a giant company, which owns one of the most popular search engines, and also manages the largest admin resource for advertising on the Internet, Google can afford promotion everywhere on the Internet. Chrome ads were displayed on almost any resource on the Internet that allocated space for banners.
A bit later, advertising began to appear in software installation. It is difficult to unequivocally state that these were purchased advertisements, and not just easter eggs from developers, but there is still a fact that influenced the market:
“Almost everyone with low computer education got it with a Adobe Flash update. In the installers they were taught to uncheck the boxes, but no one expected to remove it beforehand on the site.”
rubero, habrauser
2011 — now
In October 2011, Chrome ahead of the number of active users of its first serious competitor — Firefox. On the road to a complete seizure of power, only IE remains, with its 37% market share.
To capture an even larger audience, in Google decided to resort to an eccentric step by today’s standards — they used offline advertising as banners.
In 2019, it seems strange to use offline advertising methods, because everywhere you can hear “the future on the Internet”, “digitizing a business,” but at that moment it helps and on May 13, 2012 ― Chrome outperformed its last and most powerful adversary. (Internet Explorer) in terms of the user count.
Monopoly
After winning first place, Google began to promote their ideas and no one could resist them. So we got our “today”, where the standards are determined by almost one company.
With power, Chrome can influence the web with the simplest changes to the UI, such as the transition from HTTP to HTTPS:
The business needs to look better than others, or at least not worse, and Not Secure mark near website address not very useful for that. Of course, developers were given tasks to create certificates for the sites and receive the coveted HTTPS.
In this case, the concentration of power in one hand led to good results — safe Internet, but this doesn’t mean that it will always be the same. The competition gives rise to ideas, and its absence, respectively, leads to stomping on the spot. HTTPS is Google’s long-standing promise, an old idea from Web 2.0 spec, so here’s not any reasons to believe in progress.
Monopolization of power leads to the destruction of competitors — for example, it was noticed that Google, making changes to the YouTube app code, slowed down service in all other browsers except Chrome. Another example, when Microsoft stopped supporting the web version of Skype for all browsers except Chrome, due to the presence of experimental modules that are not standard.
“Microsoft has said that they have stopped supporting other browsers based on “customer value” apart from technical issues. They are of an opinion that customer value is enhanced by supporting popularly used browsers only.”
Chrome developers, like any other browser teams, implementing experimental functionality in the browser. These developments are not initially a standard but claim to become one. Due to the huge audience of Chrome, everyone is starting to use these test-features to meet the needs of the business and cover more users, which leads to the popularity of these innovations among developers and their adoption as a standard. According to this scheme, other browsers are forced not to compete and offer their ideas for the web and should chase after Google.
Benchmark
In many sources, we can find that chrome is “faster better stronger” than its competitors and that this is the main reason for success. Here is a list of the most comprehensive and objective benchmark tests:
You can’t say that Chrome is the worst of browsers, but it is not the best, at least the struggle is on. Someways Safari is better than Chrome, Chrome is ahead of FF on the other side, and according to some criteria, it may turn out that Edge is greater than all of them.
Summary
Chrome is a regular browser with an unusual success story, where there is no place for one decisive factor that would determine everything. This is the result of random events and circumstances, skillful management and money — any product lives by this formula.
P.S. If you use Chrome, then you should read about interesting points in the agreement
P.S.S. How to quit Chrome?