Google working on Chrome Web browser for iOS - report
Google is said to be planning to compete with Apple's own Safari by releasing a version of its Chrome Web browser for iOS devices.
The launch of Chrome for iOS on the App Store could be as soon as this quarter, according to Macquarie Equities Research (via GigaOm). Its debut is seen as igniting a modern browser war on mobile devices, similar to the "Browser Wars" of the late 1990s between Internet Explorer and Netscape.
All third-party browsers for iOS must be based on WebKit, Apple's open source browser engine. The existing versions of Google Chrome, available for Mac, Windows and Android, are already based on the WebKit layout engine.
Macquarie analyst Ben Schachter said Chrome for PCs has been a "home run" for Google, as it has "significantly" reduced desktop traffic acquisition costs for the search giant.
He expects that Google will launch a major marketing campaign to hype the debut of Chrome for iOS. The company has run television spots promoting Chrome for desktops for some time, featuring celebrities like Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, helping its advertising budget quadruple in the U.S. last year to $213 million.
Google's own Android operating system ships with a generic browser, but the company released a mobile version of Chrome for its Google Play application store in February. The free software remains in beta, but is well reviewed.
Third-party browsers first began appearing on the Apple-controlled iOS App Store in early 2009. Prior to that, browsers that would rival Apple's own Safari were rejected from the App Store.
The launch of Chrome for iOS on the App Store could be as soon as this quarter, according to Macquarie Equities Research (via GigaOm). Its debut is seen as igniting a modern browser war on mobile devices, similar to the "Browser Wars" of the late 1990s between Internet Explorer and Netscape.
All third-party browsers for iOS must be based on WebKit, Apple's open source browser engine. The existing versions of Google Chrome, available for Mac, Windows and Android, are already based on the WebKit layout engine.
Macquarie analyst Ben Schachter said Chrome for PCs has been a "home run" for Google, as it has "significantly" reduced desktop traffic acquisition costs for the search giant.
He expects that Google will launch a major marketing campaign to hype the debut of Chrome for iOS. The company has run television spots promoting Chrome for desktops for some time, featuring celebrities like Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, helping its advertising budget quadruple in the U.S. last year to $213 million.
Google's own Android operating system ships with a generic browser, but the company released a mobile version of Chrome for its Google Play application store in February. The free software remains in beta, but is well reviewed.
Third-party browsers first began appearing on the Apple-controlled iOS App Store in early 2009. Prior to that, browsers that would rival Apple's own Safari were rejected from the App Store.
Comments
In using only Safari and Chrome on my Mac/PC, it would definitely be a plus to have Chrome available on iOS.
Quote:
... as it has "significantly" reduced desktop traffic acquisition costs for the search giant"
Sorry for my ignorance, but what does this mean?
Sure Chrome is based on WebKit as a rendering engine, but it differs by its JavaScript engine: Safari uses Nitro whereas Google developed their own V8.
It will be interesting to see what they're allowed to do here.
Also, in the current state of iOS it will not be possible for Chrome to be set as the default browser (unless maybe if you've got a jailbroken phone but that's not what I'm referring to).
Google Chrome for Android is the best mobile browser I have used, I'll be impressed if they can recreate the same level of awesomeness for iOS.
The one thing I would love is if they can make testing sites on iOS devices easier, then I only need to test for one browser and require all mobiles in my workplace to install Chrome, what a wonderfully simplified workplace that would be (no I can't have everyone use Android we believe in choice of device, I just don't want to provide staff with a choice of browser because I am lazy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Sorry for my ignorance, but what does this mean?
I believe it means, Google pays $$$ to other companies to have their search engine as the default. Eg. they pay Apple and Firefox so that Google is the default. With the Chrome browser, they don't have to pay anybody to make Google the default search engine.
Cheers!
Chrome is the best browser around, and it would be nice to able to use Chrome bookmark sync on my iPhone.
That said, google's GMail iOS app was truly awful.
I'm an Apple nut. Macbook, iPhone, iPad, iPod Nano, Extreme router, Apple TV...
And I'll be the first to admit. Gmail & Chrome browser are two of the best experiences you can use in their selective catergories. Ive simply found nothing better than those two for email or web browsing. That said, the Google Gmail & Google+ app are both big dissapointments considering what they could be. Doesnt leave me much hope for the Chrome browser. But just having the bookmark sync & autofill preferences from Chrome available on my iPhone would make me an instant iOS Chrome user.
The more 3rd party software to choose from the better. Especially since Apple doesn't seem to care about their pro users anymore.
Chrome is the best browser to use on a pc but on a mac its sux badly, far too heavy on cpu and given the lack of respect Google have for peoples privacy I think I'll pass on chrome for iOS
Is this true? What about Opera... I didn't think that was webkit.
I wouldn't install that snooping device on my phone if I was paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
Is this true? What about Opera... I didn't think that was webkit.
Opera takes your request, renders it on their end and then sends the results back to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
That said, google's GMail iOS app was truly awful.
Why? Say more?
The article is factually wrong. It is not that "all browsers must use WebKit". In order to comply with Apple's App Store rules, all apps must use the built-in WebView API, which does use WebKit, but it uses Apple's supplied WebKit, not your own. If you want to run Javascript, then you must use the engine supplied by Apple too, not your own.
The best Google can do, unless App Store rules change, is provide a fancy wrapper around the things Apple already provides today. I'm not saying that adds no value - for example, you could get synchronization with your Google account. But a full-fledged browser port it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawporta
The more 3rd party software to choose from the better. Especially since Apple doesn't seem to care about their pro users anymore.
This assumption is based on what? No new Mac Pros? Well, they are not releasing new Mac Pro's because Intel hasn't updated the MacPro-speced CPU range yet.
And it's not "pro" users that buy those, it's cpu-power-hungry users, which is different.
A pro mac user is someone who does professional work with a Mac. The majority of those users tend to buy laptops and iMacs, not Mac Pros.
Except if you only consider the niche Graphic Design, Video and Audio markets as "pro", which I find absurd.
A doctor with a Mac is far more "pro" than some graphic designer that makes $30,000 a year. Same for a developer (a large fraction of which buys Mac laptops as evident in any programming conference, including Linus Torvalds and his MacBook Air), a businessman, a lawyer, etc etc.
But even if you only consider those two creative markets as "pro", they Apple just spent millions to rewrite Final Cut Pro X, and delivering 2-3 updates in very short term. They also work on Logic Pro 10, about to be released this year, and have made tons of updates to version 9 already, not only for bugfixing but also for major new features (64-bit compatibility, to name one).
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
This assumption is based on what? No new Mac Pros? Well, they are not releasing new Mac Pro's because Intel hasn't updated the MacPro-speced CPU range yet.
And it's not "pro" users that buy those, it's cpu-power-hungry users, which is different.
A pro mac user is someone who does professional work with a Mac. The majority of those users tend to buy laptops and iMacs, not Mac Pros.
Except if you only consider the niche Graphic Design, Video and Audio markets as "pro", which I find absurd.
A doctor with a Mac is far more "pro" than some graphic designer that makes $30,000 a year. Same for a developer (a large fraction of which buys Mac laptops as evident in any programming conference, including Linus Torvalds and his MacBook Air), a businessman, a lawyer, etc etc.
But even if you only consider those two creative markets as "pro", they Apple just spent millions to rewrite Final Cut Pro X, and delivering 2-3 updates in very short term. They also work on Logic Pro 10, about to be released this year, and have made tons of updates to version 9 already, not only for bugfixing but also for major new features (64-bit compatibility, to name one).
Intel doesnt upgrade the Mac Pro spec's. Apple does
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Intel doesnt upgrade the Mac Pro spec's. Apple does
This is sort of a chicken and egg problem. Of course Intel upgrades the specs, it's just up to Apple to push these upgrades out.
And to correct foljs' post, Intel released Sandy Bridge Xeons last month. We're not waiting for them anymore. We're waiting for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Sorry for my ignorance, but what does this mean?
It means that for Google, you are the product for sale, and Chrome has helped them obtain that product at lower cost.