Before this purchase, the company was regularly releasing updates for both its free and pro versions, which were available for both Mac and Windows computers. If you want to take advantage of the software, you will need to download it here, as nearly everything on the site (including these downloads) will be taken down within the week.

A Web-Based Operating System

Google will either incorporate the desktop environment into Android for mobile devices and tablet PCs or introduce it in a more stripped-down version of their Chromium/web-based operating system. It is likely that a lot of changes will be made before it is converted to either of these systems, but there is certainly the potential that it will be included in some form.

For the mobile devices, it would likely make it easier to arrange and display applications as well as status messages from social networking sites. The interface wold certainly allow a user to interact with the display using fingers for control.

Competition Against Apple

Again, this purchase may also have something to do with Google’s fight against Apple. Google may have figured that Apple was going to purchase the company and stepped in to do so before the Cupertino-based company could. At this point, the purchase’s outcome is as clear as what Apple is going to use Lala’s purchase to do: integrate it into iTunes or offer another cloud-based solution.

In the war of two of the biggest technology companies, one company will stand out from the rest, and that is the company that is able to out-innovate the other, while still being able to maintain the high consumer satisfaction.

I experimented with some of the scripts, but didn’t have any luck getting them to work. Many of these can be quickly written, and using a beta product doesn’t help. Aaron Boodman, who wrote the post explaining how these scripts work, states that between 15-25% of the scripts will not work in Google Chrome, and that you should consider letting the author know.

Even if you have never used an extension before you might want to consider checking out Userscripts.org, which is the repository for all the Greasemonkey scripts. Simply click the install button, and you’ll be on your way to installing and using the simple productivity solutions.

What I still need in Chrome before I begin to use it more of the time include the following:

• A better experience. Currently, it is (like Firefox) a pain to use, compared to Safari.
• A faster experience. I figure users with slower connections like the speed of Chrome compared to Internet Explorer, but between Safari, Firefox, and Chrome, Chrome is remarkably slow.
• Options. Sure, there are options included like within Firefox, but many are unusable at this point or appear to be hastily integrated into the browser.

If stats are correct, anywhere from 11-14%, up to 21% of all Internet Users are still browsing the web with IE6. Generally, these are users in corporate and business settings, where the process of rolling out an update to IE7 or IE8 was skipped due to cost and compatibility issues. While the update is free, development on new programs to be compatible with the browser, including the support staff/development team costs can reach into the millions. Therefore, like Windows XP, these businesses will try to hang onto the version (as it works “perfectly fine”) for as long as possible.

A post from Google recently offers a brief explanation behind the lack of support for IE6, as well as their direction for the future. Beginning March 1st, Google Docs and Sites features may not work properly in other browsers. Rather than gently phasing out support of IE6, they are going with the approach of “we’re dropping compatibility (rather than support), so you must upgrade.”

IE7+, Firefox 3.0+, Chrome 4.0+, and Safari 3.0+ are the currently supported browsers of most sites around the web, although it might be better at this point if everyone moved away from Internet Explorer altogether. At the current rate of adoption and support timeframe, we’ll be dealing with a similar situation with IE7 in five years’ time. Microsoft will continue to support IE6 until 2014, 13 years after release. At the time of this writing, Internet Explorer 6 is still the most popular version of Internet Explorer, making up 20.99% of all browsers. Internet Explorer 8 comes in at 20.86% of all browsers, and 36.27% of Internet Explorer browsers. This information is according to Net Applications.

Should businesses skip Vista (and many are) and go directly to Internet Explorer 8, or switch operating systems/browsers altogether, the web may be given the opportunity to evolve at a faster rate. Flash may also be less prevalent in five to ten years’ time if enough websites stop using it.

The ultimate question is this: will businesses listen to a company that is ultimately trying to cause a huge disruption in the industry? Not likely. If the web apps built by many companies has been tested to be compatible with IE6 only, and they don’t see the benefits in the cost of upgrading to Windows 7 and IE8, why should they upgrade? Many companies refuse software updates for these reasons alone, and simply blocking access from web search, online office suites, and YouTube won’t necessarily persuade companies to upgrade.

Just five days after the official Version 4 release and about a month and a half since Version 3.0 was released, Google is trying to release as many updates as popular to the browser to ensure that it evolves quickly, already matching some of the many features found in other browsers from Microsoft, Apple, and Mozilla.

Version 5 is now available, and it includes a number of new features for both Windows and Mac users (Linux users may have to wait a few weeks, as the latest development version is still in the 4.0-range). For the latest development version, please refer to either this page or the snapshots.

The main changes have been outlined on their Dev Channel. Because this is a developer version, it isn’t recommended that you test this unless you are willing to deal with crashes and unstable software. However, if you want to test the latest features of the browser, it may be wroth trying out.

Windows Version 5.0.307.1

The downloads will be moved to the default directory on Vista and Windows 7, except where it is the desktop.

Work has begun on a Content Settings window which, like other popular browsers, brings in additional options for changing how the browser deals with cookies, images, JavaScript, plugins, and popup windows.

Macintosh Version 5.0.307.1

The following changes have been made or addressed in this version for Mac.

• Improved plugin stability.
• Fix crash that happened when tabs were dragged around.
• A fix for %cpu in task manager.
• Cookies manager is given a search field.
• Copying of large images had been made more robust.
• Task manager resizing behavior has been improved.

Are you using Google Chrome, and if so, what features need to be added to convince you that it is one of the best browsers?

For well over three years, there has been a lot of discussion surrounding the lack of Flash support on the iPhone platform, which now includes the iPhone itself, the iPod touch, as well as the iPad. Flash is essentially what puts the web into motion, and has been the primary means of doing so for a good portion of the last decade, and to a lesser extent prior to this. While video and in-brower gaming has expanded, so has the use of Flash. If you don’t have support for Flash, then a lot of opportunity is missed, but there may be more to the story.

The main goal of this platform was to make it easier for developers and content producers to distribute their content to the consumers, the people who are purchasing the devices. Through this environment (which has been extremely successful, by the way), Apple leveraged a market based on existing sales of their products, ranging from Macs to iPods (and all the other products produced in Apple’s 30+ years in business. Consumers responded, and now Apple is the leading mobile devices company in the world, beating out the likes of Nokia, Samsung, and the mobile devices segments of Sony. Had consumers really needed Flash, they wouldn’t have purchased these products like they have. All the pundits said that they wouldn’t buy the product unless it had Flash, yet millions upon millions have—even the pundits who first said they wouldn’t.

Competing Companies

I fear that many of the employees at Apple view Adobe as the enemy much like they do with Microsoft. Both Apple and Adobe create professional (and a few consumer) applications for producing content, and FInal Cut goes directly against Adobe’s Premiere application. Ties began breaking off in the 90s with the purchase/acquisition of Macromedia, and then the love/hate relationship continued on. Rumors began swirling again within the past few years, as Adobe hadn’t received a copy of Leopard to prepare their CS4 Suite with 64-bit compatibility, while the Windows version had it. This wasn’t the first time this occurred, and no statement from Apple was ever discussed about the topic. My only guess is that the shipment was purposely delayed to “help” Apple gain some sales of people looking for specific features, while Adobe couldn’t produce a bug-free/complete version in time for release.

The past year has shown that Google, once a somewhat close ally with Apple, is now in direct competition with them on several fronts. First, the Android platform and the Nexus One phone is placed against the iPhone platform, with multiple devices being released tied to Google’s platform. Additionally, Google is releasing more and more services online, which help users manage their documents and content. Apple initially entered this space with their iTools and .Mac services, released in the early part of the last decade. Google now offers a similar service, with both free and paid plans. Today, Google’s services could also compete against what Apple is offering on the desktop, in the form of their iWork suite, although they are also on different operating platforms (one is cloud-based, while the other is desktop-based).

Getting back to Adobe. As the two companies grew and tried to reinvent themselves, Adobe grew apart from Apple, as more users were beginning to use Windows for their photo editing and movie making needs. It was a market traditionally controlled by Apple, but became quite a bit smaller as the software went cross-platform. One of the main features of the Apple experience was the software, combined with the revolutionary (at the very least, evolutionary) style of the hardware.

Adobe went after Flash/Macromedia to control the web space. They saw a market here for controlling, much like Apple did with video. Both companies have always been interested in controlling the apps that are “generally” proprietary, suited for getting specific forms of content online. In this case, it’s Flash and some type of QuickTime format. Both can be viewed with some form of plugin, and both can be quite sluggish at times.

We’ll discuss more about the competing aspect in the section titled “Cannibalizing Sales.”

Why Users Want Flash

When you see all these comments concerning the lack of Flash on the iPhone platform, it is likely from about 5% of Apple’s market who are complaining on forums and blogs, hoping that Apple sees their rants. Apple likely receives emails from customers who want Flash, and only they have the answer to why Flash isn’t on the iPhone yet.

Whenever YouTube is embedded into websites, using Flash, it results in a degraded experience, as you can’t play any Flash content other than through a dedicated YouTube app. It also means that sites like Hulu and Netflix (commonly referenced) aren’t able to display videos or television content, which are either based on Flash or a desktop experience. People want to have open access to this content, but the lack of Flash prevents it from happening.

A large portion of games on the web also run in Flash. Just a few of them are good, and up to the standards that Apple set, but it would be convenient on a much larger device to have access to this content. On the preview of the iPad Wednesday, there was clear evidence that video wouldn’t display on the New York Times website without the ability to display Flash content.

Cannibalizing Sales

No. The discussions that state Apple is preventing Flash due to it cannibalizing sales of content through the iTunes Store are completely misinformed or not looking at what is available. Last.fm, Pandora, TV.com, and hundreds more, which all compete directly with the iTunes Store by offering consumers the ability to view and stream their favorite TV shows and, in many cases, movies.

If the introduction of Flash would really result in fewer iTunes sales, then why would Apple create a new interface for YouTube, which is single-handedly the main source people use to find music videos (and soon-to-be rented movies and TV shows)?

Here are several ideas that I can see as a reason behind Apple’s decision to “opt” out of Flash (supported here and here).

1. Apple is forcing Adobe to innovate Flash, bringing with it a faster experience to the whole web. Even on Windows, Flash isn’t considered the best performer for viewing HD content through a browser. If a company as large as Apple can reject Flash on such a large platform (and still be successful), that might be giving Adobe the hint that it needs to improve a flawed plugin.
2. We have to congratulate Flash on getting where it has. Sites that use it for viewing all their content aren’t effective, but the platform is pretty solid for serving a large portion of the web’s video (especially through YouTube, Hulu, and the likes). We need to see it improve, though.
3. Open standards involving CSS 3D, WebGL, Canvas, and HTML5 were created to help eliminate the need for Flash in certain circumstances. These formats are rather new, and we’ve only seen a few demos of them from interested companies. With anything “open,” you’re looking at a process of implementation that is often long and drawn out. Even though developers have the opportunity to use these, it may still be more convenient and more affordable to use the standard, which at this point is Flash.
4. Performance on the Windows vs Mac side is a major concern of some. However, according to john Nack’s post on this, there are more resources being poured into the Mac side, although GPU acceleration hasn’t been addressed at this point. This needs to change, and even though you may think on OS platform is better than the other, it all comes down to how well they work for you. If Flash prevents you from opening multiple tabs running Flash, there may be a problem.
5. Cost. It’s a simple aspect when it’s like this, but the Flash and QuickTime/etc. teams at both companies are building technologies that are simply costing millions per year to further innovate upon. Underlying technology is several decades old, but the front-end experience is becoming more modern with each new release. These 2+ platforms are what help drive sales of software (indirectly). Imagine if Apple restricted Adobe from getting anywhere near their products – no browser Flash support at all and no access to their industry-leading suite of Photoshop and similar editing apps.

Browsers

Competition is good, don’t get me wrong. But the browser wars continue, with even more contenders on the market hoping to capture a slice of the pie. Adobe’s employees claim that Flash works across all browsers without additional plugins required for each browser (other than the automatic process of integration), but nearly every other runtime requires additional plugins for each browser. Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Safari, and Opera may (and likely will) have a hard time being able to display the same content across all the different browsers if it weren’t for Flash. Adobe stands apart from the main companies, as they don’t offer their own standalone browser. Instead, they have to rely on what the main companies are offering, then tailor a plugin compatible with, across billions of devices.

No matter how you look at it, Adobe is the sole supporter of video across billions of devices, and that is staggering. Competition may be seen as positive on some fronts, but for video (at this stage in the game), we can only hope that Flash gets a major revision with improvements or Adobe integrates some more modern features into Flash to support the much higher-resolution content and more rich experiences which are being created.

The blame game doesn’t stop at the browsers, either. No one can be held completely responsible. All the browser companies have a say in what goes into Flash, and pushing “different” open standards may set us back even further.

The Message

Much like the 20+ years that went into the iPad, Flash on a mobile device still isn’t seen as a good experience. Apple wants to be assured that the experience is still good when viewing video, dozens of Flash-based ads in a browser window on a 600MHz to 1GHz mobile chip. When Flash has a hard time displaying HD video on pretty much any variety of Mac, there is an issue.

Some reference the relatively small market share of Macs, and the lesser need of optimized Flash, but if the market was ten times larger, the problem would still exist. After all, millions are being poured into the Flash project. 5% of the market is huge due to how many computer users there are. Look at sales of the iPhone and iPod touch – 75 million in 2.5 years. I don’t hear too often of cases where Safari has crashed on these devices, as Flash isn’t on them. Ask any Mac user (and many Windows users) what causes their browsers to crash. A majority will tell you that it happened when they were on a Flash-heavy site or watching a video. That’s all it boils down to.

Adobe isn’t providing the experience that Apple wants its users to have, so there will be no Flash support until this happens. I could be wrong about the relationship between the two companies, but it may be just about the different ideals at the companies, and more about the standards each is setting out to create.

I am not a developer or programmer by any means, but wanted to contribute what I saw happening in the industry surrounding Adobe’s Flash and Apple.