The launch of Google's browser, which will compete with Microsoft's leading Internet Explorer browser and Mozilla Firefox, set off alarms in the media that a new "browser war" is in the works:
The decision by Google to create its browser...reflects a persistent concern on the part of the internet company that Microsoft would find ways to use its dominance of the PC software to favour its own internet applications, or at least hamper those of rivals.
Microsoft last week released a version of IE that makes it easier for users to block information about their browsing habits, a move that could hamper Google's move into display advertising.
This story raises fundamental questions for information professionals. Here are just a few:
1.) What is the ideal situation in terms of how people access information on the web?2.) Should people care if Microsoft blocks Google's ability to collect information about its users?
- If John or Jane Doe walks into a library, wanting to access the web, should they be presented with every available browser and make their choice? Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc., etc.
3.) Will thirst for profit eventually "Balkanize" the Internet?
- "Well, Google is just trying to profit off of knowing the websites I visit, so hooray Microsoft!"
- "But...I have found some interesting stuff clicking on ads every now and again...and if Google can't target me anymore, what then?"
4.) Does the "consumer" of information really benefit in the end?
- Microsoft rakes in billions of dollars with Microsoft Office. Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.
- Google wants a slice of that.
- Will we start going "back to the future," seeing "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" or "Google Chrome optimized" on every page? What implications does this have for information access?
- "Well, I have to use this browser with this website. But I have to use a different browser for a bunch of other sites. I'm confused!"
- While there is standardization in terms of what web browsers should be able to display (and most browsers are pretty decent), who's to say a vendor can't just intentionally lock out a competitor?
Let the discussion begin below!
- Greg
13 comments:
Personally, as a 'consumer' of information, I want to have access to what I need quickly and not be forced to make a choice between which browser to use.
I'm disappointed, more than anything, that MS and Google want to start a "tug-of-war" that, while it may lead to great innovations in information access and organization, it may also result in confusion for consumers.
Some websites still prohibit certain browsers from gaining access because they aren't as "powerful."
With increasing web and information access on cell phones, though, I can't imagine that a single company can dictate what information people can access and with what tool...
Greg has raised an interesting question in regards to the ideal of accessing information via the Internet and the benefit (or lack there of) of having multiple browsers available to the consumer.
As we explore the issue of knowledge as power, it is our job as information professionals to ensure that all people are given the opportunity to increase their knowledge. This provides a route to gaining power. Information professionals must be able to allow access to the information that is available to them.
In this age of technology and interconnectedness, it is becoming increasingly critical to be able to navigate a variety of websites for a variety of reasons. Information professionals must provide the services necessary for patrons to easily access all of the resources available on the Internet. Because of this, it is imperative that patrons be provided with all of the tools necessary to access any and all of the websites that could increase their knowledge.
As the article states, there are several different browser options consumers can choose to utilize. Even now, certain websites require a particular browser to view all of the content available. The need has arisen for multiple browsers to be installed on a single computer, simply so the consumer can maintain complete access to all available sites. Regardless of any possible or perceived inconvenience this may cause, it is a current and, quite possibly, future reality of information access on the Internet.
Information professionals need to keep up with the technology both available and required for the varying needs of all patrons. Currently, this includes having multiple browsers available for patron use. In the same way books and journals on a wide variety of topics are available in a library, the wide variety of resources on the Internet, and the browsers that support them, should be available for all patrons.
I agree with Greg that it would be more convenient to be able to use only one browser for everything; however, since that is not a current possibility, I think it is more important to provide access to all of the browsers necessary. I think it is our responsibility, as information professionals, to ensure that the information on the Internet is made available to all patrons, regardless of the format or browser required to see it.
A general rule of any capitalist system is that a "market war" ultimately favors the consumer. Considering Microsoft's history a little competition seems like a good thing.
However, in this particular case it appears that there is potential for consumer confusion or, at least, inconvenience. It should be interesting to see how this plays out in the marketplace. Ideally hostilities will be kept to a minimum and the locking out of competitors will be avoided. Advertising investment potential will hopefully contribute to retention of standardization of browser display. Either way, the innovations in information access and organization that Greg mentions will, in the end, most likely prove to be worth the sacrifice required.
Above all, I agree with Susan that, as information professionals, we must provide every tool necessary for our patrons to meet their objectives. It will be upon us to adapt to these potential changes and help our patrons to as well.
While the article explores not only the gain, but confusion and inconvenience, for the consumer, I must agree with my fellow classmates that ultimately this “browser war” could mean only technological and information advancement.
If anything, this could potentially offer information professionals a whole new way to help patrons. As information professionals, we must help others not only find information, but guide them to the information they are seeking. What better way to do this then to help patrons learn to navigate between different browsers? And ultimately teach them how to decide which browser suits them?
Also, it’s general knowledge that most public libraries offer courses in computer use. While Google making their own browser may seem like only an inconvenience for some, for others having to work within multiple browsers may prove to be rather daunting. I don’t feel out of place hoping that maybe this could prove to be one more push for patrons to utilize their public library and all it has to offer.
The launch of a new internet navigator by Google reminds me when Google launched “Gmail” with its huge capacity (Gigabytes); which was considered as the software that will put an end to hotmail’s success story. After all, we have discovered that Microsoft adapted with “Gmail” and adjusted its product accordingly so the damages were very limited.
The ever after advantage of Microsoft on other products is that it offers a set of softwares (sometimes for free) that constitute the basic programs for every computer, this will affect the success of “chrome”, since Explorer is the standard software in the majority of PC’s sold today.
Is it possible that Explorer blocks Google’s ability to collect information about their users? Why not? The world of internet is totally different from our World; it has its own rules. For example: you can post anonymously on the internet, and it is legal. However, in real life there are limits. So if Google created software to collect information on users without any agreement with them, Why Explorer cannot create software to block this?
The most important thing for us (the Information Professionals), is how it will affect our profession. In my opinion, the influence will be very limited, since in our profession we care the most about the information itself and the interface used comes in the 2nd place. The user is interested with the information not the software used to get this information. However it is important for the Information Professionals to set in their Libraries or Centers a set of homogeneous electronic programs which can work smoothly together and facilitate the user’s access to information.
At the end, every competition in the market is in the favor of the users. Every manufacturer wants to satisfy his users and attracts more users. Thus, as users and Information Professionals, we should decide what are the most convenient and useful tools for us, since we are the final users, and never let this decision to be taken by economists and marketing specialists who will favor the most lucrative products.
I think the most important thing to consider in the creation of even more web browsers is compatibility. Even the website Wayne State uses to broadcast online lectures requires the use of Internet Explorer over Mozilla, something I personally find rather annoying. There are so many people that have a very basic understanding of how to use the internet that I think it is important to keep it simple. The more steps that are added to the searching process, or the more hoops the user has to jump through to access the information he or she is searching for the less likely it is that he or she will be successful. What good is it if the information is floating around on the information super highway if some people cannot even find the on ramp? (please excuse the cheesy metaphor!)
Wouldn’t it be nice if some genius combo of a librarian/computer programmer has the resources and opportunity like Bill Gates to create a web browser that was compatible and more thorough than these possibly problematic browsers? Another browser may not be the answer but if an existing one could improve their technology for the good of information processing … and to include all resources available. It would seem highly ideal for universities and public libraries. It’s hard to do this in a capitalistic society, however when money is often the main issue. Of course in many libraries they have the filters which I imagine opens up a whole other can of worms.
What I think is most interesting about this is that Google's browser is open source. I see this as a form of cooperation that will undermine Microsoft's efforts to rig the competition game--if rigging isn't itself part of the game. I think it's a dogma, not a law, that competition benefits consumers. Yes, it can and does in basic instances. But with markets tumbling right now, we find that taxpayers are once again asked to foot the bill and protect corporate competitors from themselves. And on the technology front, I don't think people really behave as capitalistically rational actors. We choose all sorts of gizmos because they have some sort of appeal that isn't intrinsic superiority. Thus, we call something "better" after the fact of having survived competition. Better for what and whom?
The "for whom" question is one some of you are probing here--how will or won't this benefit our constituents? Particularly, how will competition through specialization work for folks with older computers, limited internet access, or limited technical expertise? And what benefits or challenges might come from Chrome's open source status?
Development of new technologies and an avocation for their use does not necessarily mean that the new technology is actually better or "advancement". Recently, the development of the new search engine "cuil" caused brief excitement; which wore off quickly after its limitations were exposed. It was not very long ago (or perhaps I just don't want to acknowledge my age), Netscape tried in vain to compete against Microsoft with their browser. Netscape's browser was an early internet favorite and was far superior to I.E. in many areas. However, eventually Microsoft was able to "muscle" out Netscape. In this case, the consumer did in fact "speak", yet the corporation with the financial means to outlast their competitor won out and the consumer lost – at that time. I feel that this situation is what facilitated the development of "freeware" and "open source" software, which in turn caused Microsoft to be humbled. In this case, the consumer won, but was grossly encumbered during this process.
One challenge information professional's encounter is how to best facilitate the dissemination of information and material to the general citizenry they serve. Technology changes at a pace that some information professionals can keep, while some may not. While technological and software change seems to be a temporal tenet, change just for the sake of changing to something new is potentially hazardous to the information exchange process. Put simply, using new technology and software just for the sake of using it does functions as a blockade, rather than as a means to increase productivity.
Even open source and freeware software can become problematic due to the amount of time needed for an information professional to become proficient in the use of the software. In addition, the inherent "hic ups" and contribution errors associated with open source and freeware can facilitate a "loathing" attitude; not only with the information professional, but with the general citizenry who "just wants easy access to information". This fact puts a potential strain on the information professional by being reduced to "relearning" every six months, or to become muddled with constant "tinkering" of software in order to realize simple electronic goals.
It is up to the information professional to be a critical evaluator of new technologies and software related to their profession. I feel information professionals are entrusted with the task of responsible and efficient dissemination of information, and should consider any means by which to realize that goal. However, the information professional must resist the urge to "jump on the latest thing just because they see the herd move in that direction" until a clear and responsible evaluation of technology and software can occur. This proactive approach is a means to improve productivity realized through efficiency.
Like many others mentioned before, having multiple browsers can be very annoying depending on the types of sites you are trying to run and the operating system that you have. Personally, I have a Mac and use Safari for almost all of my internet needs however, certain sites (i.e. a lot government and banking websites) aren't compatible with Safari. Im a minimalist when it comes to adding programs to my computer (i like it simple and uncluttered with seemingly useless application or rarely used programs). Having to add all of these different browsers to operate different applications is a pain in the neck to me, but considering a comment made in a previous blog I am a little torn between the development of these new browsers.
I was a volunteer worker at the Ford UAW family center where we taught people how to use simple computer programs such as Internet Explorer, Firefox and various Microsoft Office applications. Every time there was a new updated version of Office or a new browser came out there was a spike in the attendance of our workshops. So from that perspective coming out with a new browser that requires a different way to navigate information could be a good thing in that it could bring new users to the table (potentially in a library setting where someone could assist them in learning the new system). This would expose them to new options and then, for the most part (if certain sites don't only run using a specific browser), let them choose which browser they prefer.
Although, we, the information managers, are presented with all these tools does not mean we should or need to use all of them. We should look at what is the most practical, efficient, and beneficial. Who are our patrons? Do they need all of the browsers? Or is one enough for the general patron? Does the library have the staff to teach the patrons about every browser? Or the funds to hire more staff? This situation is similar to the librarian who decides which books to purchase. Ideally, libraries should have everything. But why don’t they? It is not practical.
I think it's ultimately up to the library staff to test all available browsers and choose which best suits the majority of their patrons. However, if web pages begin to be 'best viewed' on a certain browser, I believe it will confuse the user, as well as waste time (not to mention memory--if the user has to keep several browsers open at once.) People with older computers won't be able to store all of the browser programs, forcing them to upgrade--helping computer manufacturers. So Microsoft will still make loads of money off people buying new computers--so perhaps more browsers appearing on the market also benefits them in some ways. However, some people might not even bother with using different browsers simultaneously. If I can't use a database or web page simply because I have the wrong browser, often I'll surf onto the next that will be usable.
I have a little experience with this firsthand-the company I work for recently switched their computer program, which is presented through a password-protected web site. Whereas before I could use Firefox and Internet Explorer interchangeably, now the site only works in Internet Explorer. Before I used both, but primarily Firefox, and now I just make sure I've opened the right browser before I start work. I'm not sure how much others are affected, but since I've received a few e-mails reminding everyone, it's somewhat of an issue.
Also, Google seems to be busting at the seams with a need for more advanced software--like the role of information specialists, the software also needs room to evolve. I agree with Will that competition will force companies to vie for consumers, and in the end introducing a better product. What I like about open-source is that it relies heavily on consumer feedback, hopefully making it better for all. On the other hand, perhaps librarians could build a browser primarily for research work.
Post a Comment