[Gee4orce]

The fact that Chrome uses WebKit is a MASSIVE win for Apple. Google could easily have gone for Gecko (Firefox's engine) - but it chose WebKit on merit. It chose WebKit because it's better !
WebKit is an Apple open source project. Apple are the key contributor, and I believe that the core team are on Apple payroll.
Most Mac apps that have an embedded web browser are using WebKit - same goes for the iPhone. Now that Google is pushing WebKit too, not just with Chrome but also with Android, support for WebKit will only grow. This is a good thing for all Safari and Mac users because WebKit already supports some extremely cool CSS3 and HTML5 features, which will slowly start to have wider adoption as WebKit's market share grows.
I wonder how many people running and praising Chrome will actually realise that the core engine is largely Apple technology ?

[dfs]

You write "But even on OS X, Safari seems to exist primarily to ensure that Macs have a solid default browser." True, especially as Safari doesn't seem to generate any especial revenue stream for Apple. As long as we're talking about Safari on the Mac, it's hard to question this. But vis-a-vis Apple the most important question may be whether Google intends to use Chrome to make a move into the "smart phone" and PDA arena.

[Ilgaz]

As a person who won't touch Opera until they revert back to keychain and OS X native font rendering, I must tell many browsers keep STEALING ideas from Opera just like they do with Omniweb and hide behind the fact that they are open source and free (?).
1% share or not, it doesn't matter. Do you see how Apple influences everything with iPhone? What is the global marketshare of it compared to Symbian? See, it isn't that simple.
Also about the "Quality" point. It is a piece of excellently written, professional quality code that can run on amazing number of operating systems. The rendering engine is so tight that it can easily fit to a basic phone with 24 MB free RAM.
I think they deserve a little respect and mentioning while speaking about browsers. It is one of 4 independent browser engines remaining. Scene is Webkit, Mozilla and Opera and IE. Nothing else.
There are even more FPS engines on the market.

[Ilgaz]

Interesting thing is, OS X users actually like Safari. The filesystem and concept of OS X allows tens of different browsers happily running and not slowing down the system and yet I have seen many people never giving up Safari.
People arguing that Safari should have extensions should ask the users "Do you really want extensions?". See how classy way Opera solved the extensions problem (!). They made widgets, based on Apple's spec and they serve anything to user without breaking browser or its performance or its security.
I also expect the same people who kept shouting "no adblock on Safari" while there are many solutions tell the same thing about Google. So, no ad blocking on Google browser too... Wonder the first one to blame Webkit and of course, Apple for it :)

[Ilgaz]

Hopefully Google learned from Nokia that putting Webkit to RISC CPU without any invention is not a good idea.
I used the Webkit based S60 browser to... buy Opera Mobile browser which is 2 years old code. Can give clue about the experience I had with it.

[natmusak]

dfs said:

True, especially as Safari doesn't seem to generate any especial revenue stream for Apple. As long as we're talking about Safari on the Mac, it's hard to question this. But vis-a-vis Apple the most important question may be whether Google intends to use Chrome to make a move into the "smart phone" and PDA arena.

Er...Chrome is (likely) the browser they're including on phones running Android just as Apple includes their own WebKit browser, Safari, on the iPhone and iPod touch.

But don't forget, Google is not a software company, it's a services company. They make money by selling page views to internet advertisers. Chrome is Google trying to ensure they have a place on the Windows desktop (in opposition to Microsoft's efforts to monopolize search, as they did with Office and Windows itself) and of course, they're putting their own spin on what they think a browser should be to differentiate Chrome from other browsers.

That's why Chrome's address bar is no ordinary address bar, but a predictive Google search bar.

[ecirwin]

So, if Chrome is using Webkit, then why do the fonts look like crap compared to Safari. After using Safari, I just can't go back to Firefox. Even with the fonts set exactly the same, Safari fonts look great while the others look like a typewriter.

[tewha]

Google Chrome doesn't really seem to be about pulling market share from other browsers. Google Chrome seems to be about raising the bar technically to the point where other browsers are forced to adopt some of its features.
I think Google Chrome disappearing one day is a distinct possibility. But it will be after other browsers accomplish its technical goals.

[leary]

> The fact that Chrome uses WebKit is a MASSIVE win for Apple
[/quote]
I completely agree. Writers wondering how this will - negatively - impact Apple are clueless. All Apple cares about is penetration of the underlying technologies it uses in order to insure compatibility with both devices (Macs, iPods, iPhones) AND future web apps. This is an absolute win.

[natmusak]

ecirwin said:

So, if Chrome is using Webkit, then why do the fonts look like crap compared to Safari. After using Safari, I just can't go back to Firefox. Even with the fonts set exactly the same, Safari fonts look great while the others look like a typewriter.

Saw this article linked on the Daring Fireball about why things look a bit rough with Chrome:

http://www.flickr.co...ire/2822606444/

Chrome uses Skia, a different graphics engine than employed by Webkit/Safari

[Tom_Diola]

Chrome shome all browsers display stuff - Cuil is crap - Google makes crap too - What we're just supposed to jump on the Google Band wagon just because they are Google. I tried the PC version and it's nothing special. So co-incidental that Chrome and Cuil come out at the same time - I think not. . . .

[natmusak]

Am I the only one here who doesn't really care about spiffy browser features, as long as I have functionality equal to what Safari and/or Chrome have? I mean, Chrome's alright and some of its features will hopefully find their way into Safari, Firefox, Opera, and other standards-compliant browsers, but I use an RSS reader (NetNewsWire) and simply set it to open articles in Safari.

If my RSS reader offered identical rendering to Safari, I probably wouldn't even use a standalone browser.

[flowney]

This is all good and interesting but I would have liked to have heard about how Chrome and the other browsers will compete with Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX technology which is quite firmly entrenched in many areas. There was a collective effort some time back to develop an open alternative to ActiveX but nothing seems to have come of it. Will Chrome, Safari 4.x, Firefox 3.x, Opera, et. al. be able to compete with IE and ActiveX ?

[Martian]

Does ActiveX actually have an advantage over other technologies?
If the answer is NO, then dis-entrenching IE, if possible, will dis-entrench ActiveX. If the answer is YES, then we need another open source technology that can compete with ActiveX.