I tried Google Chrome, or at least I thought I would try it. Apparently it’s not ready yet for Small Business Server 2003, but it works fine on Windows Vista / XP versions.
Spartan design, very Google-esque, and it draws on Apple WebKit and Mozilla Firefox technology, open source… and it’s free.
I have some concerns about the “fine print” of this service — the end-user license agreement or EULA. Such a ruckus has been caused that Google changed their EULA
Take for instance, Google Chrome’s infamous section 11. Google has acted with speed and retracted the original objectionable sentences in Chrome’s EULA, so that any content you post via Chrome is yours, and yours alone.
It originally said:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
and then: 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
Hmmmmm… ok? SocialMarketinExpert is feeling quasi-queezy. Made me do a spit take of my Diet Coke.
Now Google has altered the EULA to magically state
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services.
That 11.4 is now all gone – and apparently when they highlighted and erase they includes sections 11.2 and 11.3.
OK…better…definitely better. Head’s no longer spinning. Safe to resume drinking caffeinated beverage.
Matt Cutts feeling the pressure quickly blogged what Rebecca Ward, senior product counsel (ie top lawyer) for Google Chrome told him:
“In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product.
We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”
Cutts goes on and corrals the confusion at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/:
“But it was clearly a mistake on Google’s part to include that language when it shouldn’t have been there, and I should have been grateful to the people that pointed it out. Instead of getting snippy with people, my reaction should have been more along the lines of “Oh crap, I don’t think that’s intentional. Thank you so much for noticing that and pointing it out. I’ll see if we can get an official clarification or reaction as soon as possible.” I apologize for that, and I appreciate the people who push Google to be better.”
Some feel that this license is just a money grab by Google to profit from any labor and it would also allow them to display or reproduce items that you may consider personal, sensitive or of commercial value.
The jury is still out for me on this point…
However, Chrome loves to call home. It’s not checking for updates for the program (I think), rather it’s constantly updating the anti-phishing list of sites that it keeps in its database. Google essentially had two options for anti-phishing, take the FirefoxF/Internet Explorer approach of phoning home every time you type in a URL to see if it matches with a known phishing site, or occasionally download and compare to a list of “bad” URLs.
In the first scenario, they’d be accused of spying on everyone business, which is exactly what Billy Gates is accused of doing with IE. Unfortunately it seems that’s exactly what people are already trying to claim Google Chrome does. In the second scenario they have to make a trade off between constantly updating to catch a phishing site as soon as it pops up, or updating less regularly and potentially missing a potentially damaging phishing site. Due to the inherently short-lived lifespan of most phishing sites (usually 24-48 hours), Google Chrome need to update on a fairly regular basis.
