Internet Entrepreneurs Blog

There has been good media coverage of the new web browser Google launched yesterday but most of the articles I’ve read focus on the user interface - like tabbed browsing (ho hum) and an integrated search / URL bar (a little confusing but ok I guess). With talk of a renewed browser war heating up the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Netscape v. Internet Explorer it’s important to understand what is at stake this time around.

The first browser war was essentially about server software sales. The thinking at the time was that if consumers used the Netscape browser to access the internet that corporate IT managers would purchase Netscape server software to handle those browser requests. Microsoft won that round and today its Internet Information Services package powers a significant chunk of the internet servers online (pretty good considering the competition is FREE).

The next round, Internet Explorer v. Mozilla was more of a grudge match. As a non-profit, open source contender Mozilla really sought to improve the internet browsing experience since Microsoft’s own browser development seemed to have stagnated. Programmers from all over the world contributed to the project and put out a pretty great browser that made designers and programmers alike rejoice for its web standards compliance. This effort has basically been about taking back the keys to the web and giving them to the people - a noble effort for sure but so far it’s been a losing battle as Microsoft continues to dominate the market.

In the latest round, Google, unlike Mozilla, is a private, for profit company that is seeking to overthrow the Internet Explorer dynasty. The real innovation in Google’s browser (called Chrome) is what it can (or will someday) do when it’s NOT connected to the internet. You see, in order for things like Google Docs, Gmail, and other web apps to work a user typically needs to be connected to the internet. But with a browser like Chrome users could potentially run web apps without an internet connection and upload their work to ‘the cloud’ the next time they’re connected. In order for this to work a web browser needs to include the ability to execute scripts, database calls, etc. - basically it needs to be a local version of an internet server. Whether or not this is the case with Chrome, only time will tell. Perhaps this feature (if it exists) could simply be a hedge to Google’s other goal of Internet access everywhere.

I’ve already downloaded Chrome (on my PC - sadly no Mac version yet) and it’s definitely zippy. Whether or not this and the other incremental features offered will be enough to get folks to switch is another question entirely - just look at how many people still use Internet Explorer despite the HUGE advantages offered by Mozilla…

Just thought I’d follow up my first post about Cuil by adding more fuil to the fire (get it, fuel?). TechCrunch is reporting that some webmasters are experiencing crippling web traffic from the Cuil spider. We haven’t noticed anything on our sites yet but we have had problems with poorly crafted web spiders in the past.

Last year it was the Limelight Networks spider that was causing problems with our analytics, logging unique visits hundreds of times each day and only viewing a single page at a time. This went on for weeks (if not months) before we caught on and we contacted the company to fix their spider. Of course this didn’t happen and we eventually just filtered it from our analytics while the spider continued to suck server resources.

Anyway, sounds like it’s one more nail in the Cuil coffin - who needs a new Google anyway?