It's not like Google advertises the Chrome version number, though. In fact, they seem to try to hide which version you're on, so I don't think that this is a marketing gimmick at all. Chrome's release schedule has a lot more to do with the changing nature of user software and the Internet - version numbers shouldn't matter, all users should aim to run the latest version, and updates should come quickly.
These are all admirable goals and Chrome's versioning is just a side effect of newer software development methods. Chrome is perhaps on track to win the browser wars because it's the best browser and gets new features the fastest; IE's release cycle is still humiliatingly slow.
I, personally, consider myself more "tech" person - and I don't have the slightest clue which Chrome version I am using. If you said the newest Chrome is Chrome 7, I would have to agree.
One part is, I guess, the seamless upgrading (when I use Firefox, I usually click on "upgrade next time", because I am always doing something TOTALLY important that can't wait). Other part is that the extensions don't break every new version and the UI looks completely the same (unlike for, let's say, Opera, which changes UI all the time). I don't know what browser version am I using, and I don't care.
Really, I hope this will become standard in OS, too.
>"IE's release cycle is still humiliatingly slow."
Or reassuringly stable if you are supporting an enterprise. Given Google's planned abandonment of support for older browser versions in their applications, there may be a ready market for a more stable browser platform.
The author is missing the point. Chrome does not market its version number, and transparently updates itself in the background. I'd imagine the vast majority of Chrome users have no idea what major version their browser is on - I sure didn't until I took a look.
Unlike previous number races, Chrome's rapidly increasing version numbers do not indicate a will to impress consumers with high values. Instead, Chrome takes a page from web applications, and makes the version number irrelevant to the vast majority of its users.
Firefox seems to be trying to do the same, but IMO it's putting the cart before the horse. It should improve its update mechanism until version numbers do not matter, and then update the major version as often as it wants to.
> "users have no idea what major version their browser is on"
To be fair, I'm pretty sure this is true of every browser. And most software in general.
Marketing people like having a number. Developers like having a number. They like it for different reasons and have different goals for it. But users have never really known or cared.
I use Chrome, and this is the first time I have been ignorant of what version number my browser is on. So yes, most users don't know or care. But now, even techy users don't know or care. It really is a step change.
This was actually the entire purpose of Chrome - to push forward the state of the art in browsers. When Chrome was released, Google made it clear that they didn't care per se whether people used Chrome. What they cared about was getting more people using better browsers by forcing the browser market to move at a faster pace. And it appears they have done exactly that. I'm very impressed with the execution - they articulated this precise strategy in 2008 and we're now really seeing it work.
Google pays $140 Million a year to Firefox to be the search default. Given the choice, I believe they would prefer to keep the $140 Million and just have people use Chrome.
Look, google doesn't advertise version number revs, and updates happen invisibly behind the scenes. Figuring out the chrome version number takes effort, as there is no rebranding on a major version number bump. Chrome uses the major version number for engineering reasons and uses a continuous deployment method. Certainly other developers may make a bigger deal of major version revs (often tying them to a product updates requiring new purchases) but that shouldn't affect anyone's judgment of chrome's versioning. They could jump to version a million by now, nobody should care much.
I think a lot of these comments are interesting. Perhaps chrome's versioning is not made apparent to the user, but I'm sure all of their competitors know what is going on.
Regarding anti-trust: Anti-trust laws are laws that are intended to prevent monopolistic measures. I posit in the article that by controlling both the client (chrome) and server (Google Docs, in addition to GMail, Google Search, et al) that Google is in a unique position to perform monopolistic actions. I'm not the only one that thinks Google may be doing something nefarious either - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/ftc-launchin... .
I always thought x.y.z version strings (like Firefox 3.6.3, or similar) contained a bit of extra information about how development occurs which is often ignored.
When z is increased, that is the developers way of saying that "this is the least dramatic update we will make available to end users". Alternatively, an increment of a is a sign that "this is the most dramatic alteration in functionality we will make".
I think that part of the trend toward higher version numbers isn't just about having nice big numbers, but rather a reflection of changes in development methodology. Whether you attribute it to DVCSs or simple changes in developer culture, it seems clear that the "biggest possible" update has significantly shrunk in size lately.
it's really all about transcending the version number. Which Chrome has basically succeeded in doing. Hats off to them too -- it makes for a much more exciting development and innovation space
29 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 73.4 ms ] threadThese are all admirable goals and Chrome's versioning is just a side effect of newer software development methods. Chrome is perhaps on track to win the browser wars because it's the best browser and gets new features the fastest; IE's release cycle is still humiliatingly slow.
One part is, I guess, the seamless upgrading (when I use Firefox, I usually click on "upgrade next time", because I am always doing something TOTALLY important that can't wait). Other part is that the extensions don't break every new version and the UI looks completely the same (unlike for, let's say, Opera, which changes UI all the time). I don't know what browser version am I using, and I don't care.
Really, I hope this will become standard in OS, too.
Woo!
Or reassuringly stable if you are supporting an enterprise. Given Google's planned abandonment of support for older browser versions in their applications, there may be a ready market for a more stable browser platform.
If you are a admin for a large site, this is useful: http://www.google.com/support/installer/bin/answer.py?answer...
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...
People really need to learn what anti-trust is and what it isn't. My goodness, the label gets applied to everything.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dg63dpc6_4d7vkk6ch
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/07/release-early-release-often...
http://www.thechromesource.com/understanding-chromes-six-wee...
Unlike previous number races, Chrome's rapidly increasing version numbers do not indicate a will to impress consumers with high values. Instead, Chrome takes a page from web applications, and makes the version number irrelevant to the vast majority of its users.
Firefox seems to be trying to do the same, but IMO it's putting the cart before the horse. It should improve its update mechanism until version numbers do not matter, and then update the major version as often as it wants to.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure this is true of every browser. And most software in general.
Marketing people like having a number. Developers like having a number. They like it for different reasons and have different goals for it. But users have never really known or cared.
Look, google doesn't advertise version number revs, and updates happen invisibly behind the scenes. Figuring out the chrome version number takes effort, as there is no rebranding on a major version number bump. Chrome uses the major version number for engineering reasons and uses a continuous deployment method. Certainly other developers may make a bigger deal of major version revs (often tying them to a product updates requiring new purchases) but that shouldn't affect anyone's judgment of chrome's versioning. They could jump to version a million by now, nobody should care much.
Always shows the wrong error message.
I'm blocking phishing sites with a hosts file but incorrectly complains that I need to check my internet settings (for any ads).
I'm killing the chrome.exe process. It complains every restart "You did not shut down chrome properly".
What a piece of shit browser.
Regarding anti-trust: Anti-trust laws are laws that are intended to prevent monopolistic measures. I posit in the article that by controlling both the client (chrome) and server (Google Docs, in addition to GMail, Google Search, et al) that Google is in a unique position to perform monopolistic actions. I'm not the only one that thinks Google may be doing something nefarious either - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/ftc-launchin... .
When z is increased, that is the developers way of saying that "this is the least dramatic update we will make available to end users". Alternatively, an increment of a is a sign that "this is the most dramatic alteration in functionality we will make".
I think that part of the trend toward higher version numbers isn't just about having nice big numbers, but rather a reflection of changes in development methodology. Whether you attribute it to DVCSs or simple changes in developer culture, it seems clear that the "biggest possible" update has significantly shrunk in size lately.