Google's Brin says Chrome headed to Android, probably

As the root of our name implies, desktop browsers aren't really our thing in Engadget-land. Still, we're pretty sure that you've managed to learn about Google's new Chrome browser even without our assistance. However, when we hear Google's co-founder, Sergey Brin discussing Chrome on Android, well, we're all in. Even though neither has been released out of beta yet, Brin said that the Webkit-based Chrome browser is expected to soon supplant the Webkit-based browser in Android. "Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack," Brin said before adding, "My guess is we'll have 'Chrome-like' or something similar," when asked about the brand name. While we have lingering doubts about the likely stability of the initial 1.0 Android OS release, version 2.0 with Chrome is likely to be killer in every sense of the word to Symbian Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple. Of course, we'll be first in line for the HTC Dream regardless.

[Thanks, Coral]

[Ike Turner @ Sep 4th 2008 8:12AM]

Isn't his ugly ass headed to space shortly? Maybe he could save humankind by scaring those crazy Aliens out of our galaxy with his hair. Can't he use his own fucking search engine to find a haridresser ?

[kccboy2004 @ Sep 4th 2008 10:44AM]

Goodbye iPhone, it was good not knowing you at all !!!

iPhone eat my dirt !!! and all you suckers who bought into this piece of junk at $1320 per year.

lmao

Steve Jobs on August 26th 2008 quoted as saying "I laughed my ass off at these guys, all we did was copy a Dell Axim 50v, called it a "phone", put an " i " in front of it...[paused to scratch his balls and grimaced]... and they bought it".

The most innovative and successful IT company in the world is making software for a phone. Google.

"Everything Google has done, has been done well. Using Google products has been a success for the users". (Steve Jobs, 16th July 2008).

[JerryA @ Sep 4th 2008 3:27PM]

@kcc: I'm no fan of Apple's business model and I frequently criticize them but this phone isn't really a direct competitor to the iPhone. This first phone to come out with the Android OS is it's own device and has different strengths and weaknesses. HTC and Tmobile look like they were more interested in putting out a modernized Sidekick with this first offering than a modernized PPC the way Apple did with iPhone. I might be proven wrong upon release but as I see it, Google is making their OS available to anyone and the first to pick up on it is TMobile with this hiptop slider. I imagine we will see more sleek, high end iPhone/PPC type devices running Android over the coming year and that's probably what I'll be looking for. I just see no reason to constantly assume every new phone is in competition with the iPhone. There were plenty of capable smart phones out before iPhone and there still are. Apple just lit a fire under the industry's ass by reminding manufacturers that you have to pretty it up and dumb it down to sell lots. Android looks more to be in competition with WinMo as it's an OS that anyone can build a device around whereas iPhone is going more for Apple's console model where the hardware and software are more tightly controlled and you have less options for better or for worse.

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 4th 2008 4:54PM]

"at $1320 per year"

I never understood these people who go around screaming about the total cost of the iPhone. It's not like you can use this Android phone without a service plan! And most people, in America at least, buy subsidized phones that require a 2-year contract so what the hell is the difference? Yes, the iPhone does require you to have a $30 a month unlimited data plan, but are you telling me you would get a smartphone WITHOUT a data plan? what the hell would be the point of that? AT&T's data package is actually $10-15 cheaper than the equivalent from Verizon, not that it really matters since there isn't a smartphone on verizon that can actually browse the web decently....

[miky @ Sep 9th 2008 6:34PM]

I heard the Dream's data plan is $25/mo. for 400 messages and $35/mo., which is cheaper than the iPhone's.

[Germ @ Sep 4th 2008 8:12AM]

Well it's about time. I can't believe you post on every Apple update but not Google Chrome!

Anyway, I'm typing this on Chrome. Yes, it is in Beta, so you don't expect it to be perfect....but I haven't used Firefox or IE since Chrome came out.

---Germ

[boussa @ Sep 4th 2008 8:30AM]

For me its the same, great browser. Cant wait to see it out of the beta stage.

And I'm waiting for an android phone to be released before getting a new cellphone as well.

[riggs @ Sep 4th 2008 8:45AM]

its a great browser, but i wouldnt expect it to come out of beta knowing google's beta time period is a decade.

[y3k.nik @ Sep 4th 2008 8:54AM]

I love the browser, but am not using it, because it seems to take longer to load pages when compared to Firefox. I hope it comes out of beta soon!

[Karl Hackswell @ Sep 4th 2008 9:10AM]

Bout' time you guys said something about chrome. But I guess in all fairness you are a gadget site.

Anyway, same for as the above guys, been using chrome since the first hour it was released. It isnt perfect, and has locked up on me on hulu and the like, but im hoping once its out of beta it will be great!

Typing on it now.

[konshuss @ Sep 4th 2008 9:19AM]

the End User License Agreement has me heading for zee hills.

[jack1701 @ Sep 4th 2008 9:23AM]

Hey, I'm typing this in Chrome too ! I dunno about you, but in Chrome new Engadget comments appear instantly, posts can be edited, all First!!!1!111! posters are banned and stories have no spelling mistakes.

[Jes @ Sep 4th 2008 9:32AM]

Well, reading the EULA it looks like google now owns your post and everything you do on the browser. I would never use it just because of that. If I used the browers to post a blog on MY website that I pay for and created, well now the post belongs to g666gle and I have no legal recourse for their distribution of the content I created. Just garbage. That is a no go for me. FireFox it is.

[axemt @ Sep 4th 2008 10:01AM]

BS.

Engadget, did you forget pieces like like "Safari 3 for Windows" et a!?l
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/11/safari-3-for-windows/

If you're going to lie at least have a good memory or just delete the old posts ;)

[konshuss @ Sep 4th 2008 10:25AM]

According to some stories I'm reading, google has taken back the EULA saying someone pasted in a generic one and wasn't the one intended for the browser. They say they have replaced it with one that puts the power back in the hands of users.

[kccboy2004 @ Sep 4th 2008 11:03AM]

@axemt,

thanks for the post on Safari for Windows. but you are mistaken, nobody has accidentally forgotten this fact... the reason we don't refer to Safari for Windows, is that it has been another unmitigated DISASTER.

W brushed Safari for Windows under the carpet, partly because it does not work, and secondly when Jobs said "their browser is up to twice as fast as the competition,", we later found out that Steve was referring to Netscape 0.8 as the 'competition'. That was just embarrassing bullshit from Steve. It was a big lie wrapped up in the truth.

Have you not noticed that EVERYTHING Apple has done over the last 18 months has been plagued with DISASTER. But people keep on buying their crap.

Steve Jobs in his Wall Street address on August 12th 2008 " I am the 'Emperor with no Clothes', Everything we at Apple have done over the past 18 months has been a disaster in every sense on the word. But you know what, these suckers keep on buying it. As long as there are suckers out there who keep buying our marketing hype, we will keep on churning it out".
[he went on to rambled on about being 'The Lord of the Dance' as well, but we prefer not to quote that at this time].

[Tony @ Sep 4th 2008 11:38AM]

The original EULA has been changed. It was a mistake and the previous one was not enforceable under the open-source license, so it's all moot.

[djpurpose @ Sep 4th 2008 11:39AM]

I haven't been impressed. It renders the websites just like safari which is miles behind Firefox. I used it for 5 min before realizing it was safari. How can they say they created a browser from the ground up when they are not only using webkit but an old, buggy one at that? Just because webkit is open source doesn't mean it's good.

I was surprised that google released something that sucks. I love my gmail and about 5 other of their products but I have to say chrome sucks. I think the difference is that the other products where made from scratch and this is just Safari with a different skin.

[pizzicato @ Sep 4th 2008 8:14AM]

So you don't have browsers on your laptops?

[axemt @ Sep 4th 2008 10:04AM]

Engadget has covered desktop browsers before, even updates, but now they choose to forget that since it's not from Apple.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/14/apple-releases-windows-safari-3-0-1-squishes-security-bugs/

[TareX @ Sep 4th 2008 8:18AM]

They asked him will there be a Chrome version for Android, he said:

"Well,
"yeah,
"I guess that,
"probably,
"down the line,
"eventually,
"in a future version of Android,
"there may be,
"something,
"Chrome-like."

So not exactly official news if you ask me.

[Harry @ Sep 4th 2008 8:19AM]

Do hope the mobile version of Chrome will take less memory. It looks like Chrome is creating a new process for each tab...

And, for some reason I really don't like the design of HTC Dream. But I can’t quite put my Finger on it.

[chefgon_ign @ Sep 4th 2008 8:40AM]

Asymmetrical.

[Seanross @ Sep 4th 2008 9:08AM]

Isn't darn near every phone asymmetrical?

[djpurpose @ Sep 4th 2008 11:42AM]

Did you read their comic book style description of chrome? They created a new thread for each tab on purpose.

[Randy @ Sep 4th 2008 12:37PM]

I'll tell you what I don't like about the Dream and maybe you'll agree.

1. The unusual tilt on the bottom bezel.
2. The keys look like they might be hard to press.
3. The device's build quality looks cheap (at least in the photos. Who knows, in person it could a different story.)
4. it looks large. like N95/6/Treo 600,

[mickliq @ Sep 4th 2008 8:32AM]

Chrome mobile browser would be great. I'm loving the desktop version (was using FF 3.0 previously) and hate Pocket Internet Explorer, so hope they come out with a WM6 version...I'm not in love with Opera 9.5 either. OTOH really don't like the look of the HTC Dream nor the Android OS, though I realize the UI will probably be modded to death by hackers since it's an open platform. However for 99% of users who buy things and don't mod them will be put off.

[E92 @ Sep 4th 2008 8:38AM]

Chrome isn't exactly the prettiest browser I've seen...

[Andrew @ Sep 4th 2008 8:59AM]

In XP, no, but in Vista it looks good. Hopefully they'll at least let you set the window color in XP.

[cayton @ Sep 4th 2008 8:43AM]

I think that the 'new tab' page looks well suited for a touchscreen browser.

[Chanzo @ Sep 4th 2008 8:45AM]

Wow, judging fom the pic, speak-and-spell have really gone upmarket...

[John Datserakis @ Sep 4th 2008 8:49AM]

The fact that engadget hasn't reported anything on chrome really makes me question them as my go to gadget site. I understand that chrome isn't a "gadget," but it is a huge part of the gadget community as of two days ago. For them to ignore it with such unprofessional and maturity sort of makes me sick. It's like..they were doing it on purpose.

They better not cover a browser again....ever.

[Ike Turner @ Sep 4th 2008 8:54AM]

Well they didn't report anything on IE8 Beta2, Photosynth, or WorldWideTelescope either... so Unless you wear a black turle neck, don't shave and have cancer they don't realy care..

[Ssco @ Sep 4th 2008 9:05AM]

They did see it fit to report on Firefox 3 though.

How about you just give in and give us a bit of coverage on Chrome Engadget?

[John Datserakis @ Sep 4th 2008 9:44AM]

oh, and i meant to say unprofessional-ism and immaturity.

[jorvay @ Sep 4th 2008 8:50AM]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Also, I'm still not quite sure what part of "engadget" suggests that web browsers aren't report-worthy especially when so many other PC software packages apparently are.

[Craig @ Sep 4th 2008 8:50AM]

Exactly the point I was going to make. Rather than admit they dropped the ball on this one, Engadget just says they don't cover browsers. Then you do a search and smell the bs.

[El Guapo @ Sep 4th 2008 8:56AM]

Wow Engadget! the silence from you was deafening!!
Want to explain your de;ay in covering Chrome until now or just going stay tight lipped?

[Knives_Out @ Sep 4th 2008 9:10AM]

"desktop browsers aren't really our thing in Engadget-land"


yet ... engadget has made previous announcements when it came to the apple safari browser. interesting.

[Christian Walters @ Sep 4th 2008 9:15AM]

Exactly my friend, exactly.

[Karl Hackswell @ Sep 4th 2008 9:12AM]

Well im hoping that since the new guy took over for Ryan, this site wont be so biased towards Apple products.

But your right, they dropped the ball here...come on engadget, dont make me go to Gizmodo...seriously, please dont make me. :)

[Nomi @ Sep 4th 2008 9:34AM]

Really disappointing Engadget...as you can see from the comments above, I think your community would prefer if you diversified a little and start covering more tech related things.

[Joshua Topolsky @ Sep 4th 2008 9:42AM]

To be totally fair, our previous coverage of standard browsers for desktops or laptops went outside of our focus. We're not in the business of covering software, especially browsers, unless there's a gadget angle (as in the above post). We didn't "drop the ball" on or miss the Chrome news (you'd have to be living under a rock). We chose not to hit the PC release because we feel it falls outside of our realm of coverage, and creates expectations for future news items on topics that don't interest us / aren't relevant for us. There are other publications that do that sort of reporting, and we leave it to them! Hope that helps.

[Jash Sayani @ Sep 4th 2008 9:56AM]

Yeah. Thats pretty much obvious. Just tested Chrome, not that good, feels like Linux.

[jorvay @ Sep 4th 2008 1:23PM]

It felt like the source code that hundreds of operating systems and thousands of software applications that drastically vary in quality and intended purpose are built from?
What exactly does linux feel like?

[jorvay @ Sep 4th 2008 10:14AM]

The idea of getting back to Engadget roots sounds interesting. I'm sure it'll be tough for the editors though, as the line between software and hardware is blurry at best. Gadget functionality is increasingly dependent on software, and the notion that concepts like cloud computing is gaining popularity further confuses things.
It'll surely be interesting to see how engadget moves forward.

[Atanas Boev @ Sep 4th 2008 10:26AM]

Josh, we understand. Still, Engadged usually covers big industry news (i.e. iTunes offering DRM free music), and we expected Chrome coverage. If that's going to change, we deserve an Editorial :)


What happened to the good old "Head over to our sister blog, DownloadSquad"?
http://www.engadget.com/search/?q=downloadsquad

[axemt @ Sep 4th 2008 10:36AM]

SORRY JOSHUA TOPOLSKY, THAT'S BS.

Please direct me to the link where you first broke out the big news that Engadget "was not in the business of covering software, especially browsers, unless there's a gadget angle..."

You dropped the ball, admit it. This wasn't the "best" time to make up an excuse as why you didn't cover such news when it was evident it was big news on the web.

You REPORT about COMPUTER related and not so related (Jobs latest trivia, no-he didn't crap) all the time, be a laptop or desktop. Stopping here just because it's not your definition of related to a "gadget" it's just biased BS. When the Apple store is down you're sure enough to find posts on the subject. Are you going to ignore them if you know it's probably just a "desktop" update?

So now if it's not relevant to you guys, who have a webpage/ads that write tech news-opinions for the purpose of getting page hits from internet users who are interested in reading about such news, we should assume it's irrelevant!?

So if other publications report about topics you do, base on your new dogma, now you're going to leave it to them because they do it better or because you can't be bother with!?

Please, I want to like you and keep coming to this webpage and help you (ADS) but don't patronize your users with such diatribe.

[VampireHunter Z @ Sep 4th 2008 10:37AM]

I'm very pissed and disappointed in Engadget for not covering Chrome. I discovered Chrome by listening to the radio!!! Can you believe that? For christ's sake I'm a geek and people on the radio knew about this before me. Analog radio!

[axemt @ Sep 4th 2008 10:38AM]

SORRY JOSHUA TOPOLSKY, THAT'S BS.

Please direct me to the link where you first broke out the big news that Engadget "was not in the business of covering software, especially browsers, unless there's a gadget angle..."

You dropped the ball, admit it. This wasn't the "best" time to make up an excuse as why you didn't cover such news when it was evident it was big news on the web.

You REPORT about COMPUTER related and not so related (Jobs latest trivia, no-he didn't crap) all the time, be a laptop or desktop. Stopping here just because it's not your definition of related to a "gadget" it's just biased BS. When the Apple store is down you're sure enough to find posts on the subject. Are you going to ignore them if you know it's probably just a "desktop" update?

So now if it's not relevant to you guys, who have a webpage/ads that write tech news-opinions for the purpose of getting page hits from internet users who are interested in reading about such news, we should assume it's irrelevant!?

So if other publications report about topics you do, base on your new dogma, now you're going to leave it to them because they do it better or because you can't be bother with!?

Please, I want to like you and keep coming to this webpage and help you (ADS) but don't patronize your users with such diatribe.