Rant Time: Google should stop producing Chrome
I’m all for browser competition, but only if the organization that chooses to produce such a browser actually takes it seriously. Enter Google. Google’s initial motivation for producing the Chrome browser was all wrong. Instead of wanting to produce a browser because they wanted something technologically better, Google’s reason for producing Chrome was to facilitate their advertising initiatives and agendas. Google should stop producing Chrome. Let’s explore.
What is a browser for?
A browser’s number one reason to exist is to render web sites. That’s the single solitary reason a browser exists. Everything else is just bells and whistles. But you might say, “Well, Chrome does that.”. In fact, it doesn’t. There are many sites I’ve recently visited in Chrome 43 that don’t render. I have no idea why and I really don’t care the reason behind its failure. I just want to know that when I visit a web site that the browser will render it. For example, the same web site that produces a white page in Google Chrome produces a rendered page in Firefox. It’s clear, Google doesn’t care whether or not Chrome works.
Does Google Care?
It’s clear, if you visit the bug reports pages for Google Chrome, there are ‘low hanging fruit’ bugs that haven’t been touched for years. Google doesn’t care. They don’t care if the browser is half-assed. They don’t care that pages don’t render. They don’t care that when the pages begin to render, they show all manner of ugly gobbledygook just prior to applying the CSS… and, in some cases, even fail to apply the CSS.
Oh, Chrome didn’t start out this way. No. It started out as a fast browser with independent sandboxed processes. What it has devolved into is nothing short of a dictatorial memory hog of disaster.
“Automatic Updates are nice”, you say.
Yes, they are, until you realize you still have to restart the whole browser. Whatever happened to the initiative of incremental component updates that didn’t require a browser restart? Well, that clearly never materialized. Worse, when the three line menu bar starts to turn colors (green, then yellow, then orange, then red), that’s just the kiss of death for Chrome. The point at which the bar starts turning color, you might as well restart it. If you don’t, Chrome’s developers intentionally and randomly begin breaking web sites until you do. So, until you update, you can expect that some sites won’t load at all, won’t load correctly, or won’t work once loaded. And, this is intentional. It’s a gentle nudge (albeit, stupid) by the developers to force you to update your browser.
Worse, and as the color begins to change, the frequency of the breakage increases. I just don’t get this one at all. Why would you intentionally hobble the user’s browsing experience? But then, not actually just ask the user to update? Seriously, if you want the user to update, just present a notification panel that says, “The browser requires an update, restart” and force the user to restart. Don’t randomly stop parts of the rendering code from working and assume the user will take the hint. Just force the restart on the user… it’s a much more sane experience.
Broken renderer
And the crux of this whole thing is Google’s lack of seriousness (and experience) in producing this browser. As long as Google’s sites work, that’s all that matters to the Google. If you visit some other random site and it doesn’t work, Google doesn’t really care. They might or might not fix it if you report it. Oh, sure, they offer a place to report it, but it’s clear. No one really looks at these. There are bugs outstanding that haven’t been touched for years. So, don’t expect your bug report thrown into the ether to actually be touched in any timely fashion, if ever. Which comes to…
The Wrong Motivation
Netscape was formed to produce a browser. That was the reason for Netscape’s existence. Their commitment was in producing the best browser possible. However, Google’s motivation to produce Chrome was not from the goal of producing the best most compatible browser. No. Google’s motivation was to produce the best experience for displaying its own advertising and search content. If showing Google sites is the only metric by which to assess success of Chrome, then I guess it is a success. But, the rest of the browser experience is a failure.
Failures such as being unable to properly play flash content, failure to play Silverlight content at all, restrictive and unnecessary security ‘features’ and overreaching and heavy handed security tactics. Chrome is not about producing the best browsing experience, it’s about producing a browsing experience that Google mandates on you. In other words, if Google doesn’t approve of the site, then you can’t visit it. That’s not for the browser creator to decide.
A browser creator should remain entirely site neutral. If the user wants to visit a so-called malicious site, that’s their choice. If a user wants to visit any site, Chrome should dutifully render it regardless. Google’s involvement in the Chrome browser should be to produce a browser that ‘just works’. Not a browser that ‘chooses to work’ at some Google employee’s whim.
Technology Enhancements?
As lofty as Google’s initial engineering goals were for Chrome, that whole pretense has been completely dropped today. There have been effectively no browsing experience improvements to Chrome since its first year of existence. Yes, the version number has increased to 43, but there has been little change with each successive update. Oh, they’ve improved the extension system, but not to the point that enough developers take advantage of it. Yes, there are quite a number of extensions that exist, but still no where near the number that exist for Firefox. But, extensions aren’t the reason to use a browser. Sure, they’re niceties, but the reason a browser exists is to view the web. If a browser can’t even fulfill that basic function, what use are extensions?
Technologically, Chrome has also gotten worse over time. The whole browser is predicated on memory use (and lots of it). So, if you want to open 50 tabs, expect your browser to consume 12G of memory or more (depending on the sites you visit). With Firefox, this browser might consume 1-2G of RAM or less. I have no idea what Chrome is doing internally here, but whatever is going on is not right. There is no reason a browser should consume 12G of RAM under any circumstances. Effectively, the only relevant tab is the one that’s visible. This is the ONLY tab that should consume any active RAM (or any tab playing music). The rest of the tabs should be paged out of RAM freeing that memory. Which leads to the horrible tab system…
Tabs?
The tab system in Chrome is not only antiquated, it’s one of the worst implementations of tabs I’ve seen. At this point, I’d even call it broken. Not only do the tabs get progressively smaller as more are opened, there’s a tiny X on every tab to close it. Again, the only tab that’s relevant is the tab that’s visible. All other tabs are there for recall only. This means that the tiny X should not be visible on any tab but the active tab. If the tab is not actively focused, then the X should disappear. Removal of the X means no accidental way to close a tab on activation which does happen in practice far too often. The X should only reappear only when the tab comes into focus, but after the tab has been clicked.
Worse than the usability issues I just mentioned, there is no way to search through the active tabs that are opened. When the tabs get so small you cannot even see the icon, then you don’t even know what’s in the tab. So, the only way to find what tabs you have open is to search. Yet, Chrome provides nothing here. Firefox is at least aware of what tabs you have opened. So in Firefox, if you attempt to open a site that already exists in an open tab, Firefox will at least go to that tab. In Chrome, there’s nothing. Chrome happily lets you open yet another tab for a page you already have open, consuming yet more memory.
Chrome and its Future
It’s clear, Google is not serious about making Chrome better or more usable. Instead, it’s worried about making certain security obsolete to its own detriment. For example, Chrome developers removed certain key SDK features preventing Silverlight from working. Oh, I’m sure those software engineers would argue, that’s our right. Oh, I’m sure that it is. But, removing a key SDK feature that also eliminates a necessary browsing experience is not smart. It’s especially not smart for a browser that needs these features to stay relevant in an ever competitive browser market. I’d call this self-obsolescence.
When other browsers continue to feature this functionality and Chrome doesn’t supply an alternative, this is just stupid engineering design. It’s one thing to replace an SDK feature with a new one that’s compatible. It’s entirely different to remove SDK features that render certain features unavailable.
For example, because Amazon relies on Silverlight for its Prime TV experience, Google’s removal of the key SDK feature that allowed Silverlight to work means no more Prime TV on Chrome. This effectively says Chrome is no longer useful at Amazon. Meaning, if you want to use Amazon, you might as well switch back to Firefox. I ask Chrome developers, “Is it really a good idea to force users away from your browser?” Are the developers really stupid enough to believe that Prime users will ‘live without’ watching Prime TV and Movies and still continue to use Chrome?
Nails in the Coffin
It’s these stupid decisions by Chrome developers that really make no sense. Is it really the wisest of decisions to lock out web sites because your engineering team says this is what should happen? No. It isn’t. It also isn’t for your engineering team to decide. A browser is desgined to be flexible and expandable, not to offer limited browsing experiences. Chrome shouldn’t dictate which sites are ‘allowed’ by making wholesale changes that prevent sites from loading. Instead, Chrome needs to become open and flexible, not closed and unusable.
This software should let the user decide his/her browsing experience. If that leads the user into a trap that gets their computer infected, that’s not the browser’s fault. You can only prevent the user from their own folly for so long. But, the browser should remain neutral at all times. It should offer and allow all commonly used features, tools and protocols (whether they are good, bad, old or new). Who cares that SSL3 is old? Taking it out of the browser entirely will break user experience. It should never be taken out, but it can be set as a user preference to allow or disallow usage. If the user chooses to disable that protocol, that’s the user’s choice. It should never be a blanket choice dictated by the Google engineers.
It’s these stupid global wholesale decisions by the Google engineers that will make Google Chrome a thing of the past. Eventually, Google will become so constrained and so impossible to use that everyone will have to switch back to another browser. We’re quickly approaching that crux point… especially with removal of ‘insecure SDK’ features that remove key features like Silverlight.
No, I am not necessarily a fan of Silverlight, but I do want to be able to use it when sites need it. If Chrome simply can’t even support this most basic of uses, then what’s the point in using Chrome?
Chrome’s Dictatorship
It’s really surprising to me that Chrome’s developers are just pretentious enough to think they can dictate exactly how sites should be built. Meaning, when Chrome engineers remove SSL3 and other ‘weak protocols’ from browser support that these engineers think that sites will be forced to update the outdated protocols on their sites for Chrome. That’s a double edged sword. Chrome doesn’t yet wield enough power as a browser to make that unilateral decision. Oh, the Chrome engineers think that Chrome’s brand is that powerful, but I’m here to tell you it isn’t.
Chrome cannot and should not attempt to dictate what is ‘acceptable’ browser standards. That’s for the W3C to state. If a site chooses to use SSL3, that’s their choice, not Chrome’s. The only thing that removing these ‘features’ from Chrome will accomplish is to make Chrome itself less relevant. In other words, the more of these items that are removed from Chrome, the less reason there is to use Chrome. Sites have no obligation to support Chrome’s browser standards, especially when they become overbearing and unnecessary.
Overall
I am quickly coming to the conclusion that Chrome has outlived its usefulness as a browser. On my notebook where RAM is limited, I’ve already moved back to Firefox which consumes far less memory. On my home system where memory is a little more abundant, I’m still using Chrome. But, there are times where I want to watch Prime TV on Amazon and have to switch to Firefox. Because I’m tired of running multiple browsers and dealing with Chrome’s dictatorial approach to browser engineering, I’m about done with Chrome.
Eventually, more and more users will wake up to Chrome’s lack of basic features, such as viewing Silverlight content. I’m surprised that Chrome developers haven’t stopped Flash from working. That’s probably coming. That would be the ultimate nail in Chrome’s coffin. Once that’s done, Chrome is all but a thing of the past. For me, that day is already here. Bye Chrome.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
Hi Jack,
I have one simple rule for comments. No personal attacks. So, while I can’t post your reply in full due to this rule, I will at least comment on some of your points.
Nope. I’ve seen this problem exist on multiple computers using different operating systems. This is most definitely a problem with Chrome itself. So, while you may have not run into this issue, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Additionally, this is but one example of a bigger rendering problem with Chrome’s renderer. Even worse, Chrome has instituted some hackish and kludgy standards around security. So, instead of letting the user choose how they want to handle allegedly insecure sites as deemed by someone at Google (a form of censorship), Chrome simply won’t allow you to visit those sites. It’s not Chrome’s place, Chrome’s devs place or Google’s place to censor sites. A browser needs to remain net neutral and allow the user to choose what sites they want to visit. It’s fine if Chrome wants to offer a warning when attempting to visit a site, but as this is my computer, I should 1) be able to disable that warning permanently and entirely and 2) be able to visit that site fully without any developer censorship or interference.
No. Firefox devs invented browser extensions as we know it today. Google got all of its extension ideas from Firefox extensions. Though, while Internet Explorer also had an extension system, it was problematic by comparison and also had so few as to be almost useless. Chrome was the latecomer to the extension game. When Chrome’s extension system could barely render a window, Firefox had perhaps thousands of extensions with a full fledged and fully defined developer system. In fact, every Mozilla product at the time had full fledged extension system for years before Chrome ever hit the market. I should know. I’ve written an extension for both Firefox and Chrome at the time when Chrome’s extension system barely worked. Chrome’s extension feature set was so weak in the beginning it couldn’t do a quarter of what Firefox could do. It wasn’t until at least 1 year later that Chrome managed to get even halfway decent functionality for extensions and had a somewhat decent extension development environment. Even still, Firefox’s extension development system is still far better and has more functionality than does Chrome’s.
For the record, Internet Explorer is about to go away as we know it. It’s clear, IE has lost its market and that market is not coming back. For this reason, Microsoft stands poised to rebrand the entire browser and rework the way IE works completely. Internet Explorer has been on the way out for the last 5 years primarily due to tablets and phones. Chrome is now on that bandwagon that IE was on when it was being run out of town on a rail due to mobile devices. I won’t compare IE to Chrome at this point because IE is so much an underdog that anything is better than IE. IE also doesn’t work on Mac which is now a huge market because of the iPad and iPhone devices. And speaking of that, who uses Chrome on mobile devices? You can’t even install extensions on the mobile version. At least with Safari, you can install javascript-based bookmarks that can act at least somewhat like an extension. Other than Android which ships with Chrome as default, there’s no real reason to use that browser on a mobile device. Worse, the tabs on mobile, which leads to…
My problem with it is that having X’s on each tab is useless and only leads to accidental tab closure. Since you can only ever have one active tab, there’s no point placing the X’s on any non-active tab than for accidental closure. You only need to have the X visible on the tab that’s currently active. By the way, who ever closes a tab without first switching to it? That is, unless you choose to use ‘Close tabs to the Right’ for wholesale tab closure. The problem with X on every tab is that Chrome continues to squeeze the tabs ever smaller and smaller as more are created. This has got to be one of the worst user experience UI that’s ever been designed for a browser. Effectively, Chrome has no limit on how small a tab can get. Worse, when the tabs get so small as to comfortably hold the X, Chrome stops rendering them. This makes this UI interface completely inconsistent in that it renders the X’s sometimes and then other times not. Because it’s random based on tab size, it’s frustrating.
Worse, when tabs get to a certain size with X’s still being rendered (after being squeezed) there is no way to select the tab without hitting the X and closing the tab. Again, one of the most poorly thought out UI designs I’ve come across in a browser. Instead, X buttons should only appear on an active tab, not on every tab. This allows you to safely select a new tab without fear of accidentally closing that tab. Sure, you can reopen it, but if the tab you accidentally close happens to be an ecommerce site where you were just about to press ‘Buy’, you’ve lost your place and now have to start the entire transaction over from the beginning, forcing you to enter your address, telephone number, credit card number, etc all over again… all because of an unnecessarily cumbersome browser UI design. Firefox doesn’t suffer from this issue because Firefox’s tabs only get to a certain size and never get smaller. A much better design.
These are not non-issues. You may see them as non-issues, but they are fundamental design problems that need to be fixed. But, there was also a whole lot more argued in this article than these points. You chose to pick only certain points instead of discussing the article as a whole. In fact, because you’ve said these are non-issues to you, changing them wouldn’t change your ability to use Chrome. If Chrome devs removed the X’s on non-active tabs, it would mean you’d have to first click to activate the tab to render the X and allow closure: two clicks instead of one. I think you could live with that. It’s well worth having that safety net rather than having to lose your place and start over from the beginning on whatever tab was accidentally closed. Incidentally, you also can’t tell me that you have never accidentally closed a tab when you’ve clicked to activate a tab right on top of the X button.
LikeLike