> (well, apart from google being default search provider)
That's a rather significant difference, you know.
But control over a given user's browser has incredible potential value for Google. Controlling both client and server means that you no longer have to sacrifice performance in the name of standards compliance (so long as you have a standards-compliant fallback mode for other browsers). What that means if you're Google is that a visitor using Chrome can 1) cost you fewer resources, and 2) walk away with a smoother, more satisfying experience.
Does Google currently take much advantage of this potential? I can't say for sure. But we are talking about a company that omits the </html> on its homepage in the name of performance.
Comments
> (well, apart from google being default search provider)
That's a rather significant difference, you know.
But control over a given user's browser has incredible potential value for Google. Controlling both client and server means that you no longer have to sacrifice performance in the name of standards compliance (so long as you have a standards-compliant fallback mode for other browsers). What that means if you're Google is that a visitor using Chrome can 1) cost you fewer resources, and 2) walk away with a smoother, more satisfying experience.
Does Google currently take much advantage of this potential? I can't say for sure. But we are talking about a company that omits the </html> on its homepage in the name of performance.