Imagine for example someone keeps talking to you about their refrigerator cooling fan - you can kinda relate; you even probably possess the same piece of technology yourself, but nonetheless there's about 50 other things you'd rather think and talk about than that. Browser extensions can be a bit like that for most people. You really need to be in the right company for that kinda thing.

But despite knowing all this, right now I just can't help myself: I'm going to tell you all about a Chrome extension I really like and just hope that somehow it's not a complete turn-off. The main reason for this is that Klip.me really is just so damn good.

The main function of the extension is simple: it adds a button to your Chrome toolbar which allows you to instantly push web articles that you are reading in your browser to a mobile device - either an Android/iOS phone or tablet or your Kindle. But that's not all - Klip.me also removes all the annoying c**p which sometimes makes reading in the browser additionally tedious (i.e. all the stuff around the text: ads, tag clouds, link bars etc) so that you just get the text which you actually want to read and not the hundred other things competing for your attention.

I have mainly used Klip.me with my Amazon Kindle and the performance is simply superb. The average waiting time for an article to transfer is probably about 20 seconds in my experience, while the success rate of transfer is 100% - in other words, the extension never misunderstands which bit of the page I want 'klipped' and which bit I don't. It almost never drops any of the text either, probably about five or six letters and two words across the 20 or so articles I've used it for this week.

For someone that hates reading from a computer screen (and thus loves the Kindle), Klip.me is a godsend - you can just whizz everything you want to read over in a matter of seconds and then enjoy it all from your mobile device whenever (it's pretty good for stocking up material for a holiday for example).

Anyway, that really is all there is to it, such a simple and basic extension but one that provides a function that hugely enhances the potential for Kindle owners (and Android phone owners - though I haven't personally tested that option) to massively expand the uses of their device and, in general, enjoy a less cluttered, less eye-straining, more mobile - all round better - reading experience of web content.

Facebook's size and status by now is such that each amendment (i.e. relaxation) of user privacy settings is met with at least some complaint and protest. Sometimes, if the backlash is strong enough, this complaint turns into something a little bit more concrete - be it an organised mass deletion of profiles by users, or more long-lasting expressions of dissatisfaction such as the launch of the now much-publicised privacy-conscious Facebook rival, the Diaspora network.

In the most recent example of this, a Google engineer, Brian Kennish, has (in his spare time) build a Chrome extension aimed at removing the Facebook Connect function from the web for those who wish to enjoy a Facebook-free browsing experience. Some controversy has erupted over the reporting of this, but essentially Kennish is simply a Facebook user who has for some time been contemplating deleting his profile due to privacy concerns and recently tried to find a solution to this by building the extension (not at the behest of his employer Google, but in his free time).

Now, clearly the number of users (relative to the network's total base) adopting this extension will be marginal at best, especially in the short term, but in a sense this is not important - the example is illustrative. What it shows is that Facebook is now so significant, that the level of customisation and attention paid to its privacy approach is exponentially increased. Imagine if all Facebook users who use Chrome downloaded and installed this plug-in - the impact of Facebook's monetization potential would not be negligible (especially with Chrome's current rate of expansion in the browser market).

Even though this is unlikely to happen, the option is increasingly there that if users are fed up with Facebook's privacy policy - they are well aware enough by now that they can either adapt their usage to tighten this up (FB settings, Chrome app etc) or simply jump ship (Diaspora).

Ultimately therefore the point is this; as social networking encroaches ever further into all aspects of our computer and internet use, both at work and in leisure, privacy debates are becoming more and more central to how we move forward and what kind of products we build. For developers working with providing social networks for their clients, it's becoming increasingly essential to be up-to-date with latest trends, opinions and approaches to personal data-storage and sharing. Only then do we stand a chance of striking the right balance between functionality and privacy - ignoring the importance of the latter is simply no longer viable if a social networking project is to succeed.

However, there is also one other significant detail about the Web Store, which is already worthy of some serious discussion - and that is Google's pricing and revenue models for the product. Initially a 70/30 developer-Google revenue split was expected (similar to Apple's app store model), though Google have since confirmed that their slice of the pie will now actually only be 5%. This is quite a considerable strategy decision which has clearly been made at some point during the development process.

I find this especially interesting in the context of some recent discussion and posts we had on this blog last month, about Google's emphasis on value-for-money in the mobile market, both for consumers and developers, which has arguably been one of the reasons why Android is continuing to grow very impressively in terms of its market share. In essence what we discussed back then was that Android boasted the highest proportion of free apps, as well as having a relatively competitive average price for its priced apps, unlike the app market leader, Apple, whose apps typically cost much more and were less likely to be free. This wasn't intended as a criticism of Apple (they have a splendid business strategy in the app market - tailored to work for them), but more as an observation of one key area in which Google has identified that it can distinguish itself and win users in such a dynamic and crowded market place - to which it arrived later than many rivals.

Well, it seems that the lessons of Android's success (fast growth and market penetration IS achievable by the deployment of serious financial incentives for users and developers) are now being applied to the Chrome Web Store. The folks at Google are clearly aware that in terms of corporate economies of scale, they are sitting at the helm of the super giant of the industry sector, and you don't need a business MBA to know that such companies often maintain their position by offering good value-for-money to customers, as they can afford to implement price cuts that squeeze out smaller competitors.

To return then to the Chrome Web Store, I expect that the considerable incentive offered to developers by the low 5% cut will yield impressively rapid growth in the number of apps available, and likewise in the number of users purchasing them (who will probably also feel the benefit of Google's low cut in the form of cheaper finished apps). In other words, I expect we will see some overlap with the way Apple's iPad app store works for example in terms of interface and app types etc, but also a considerably contrasting revenue model driving things behind-the-scenes. Anyway, that's about all we can say on this for now - more details and comment to follow as the launch approaches.

While the new release is nothing major (basically some added privacy controls, added control over cookies and java plug-ins for individual sites and a neat translation service),  it does come at a time when Chrome's market share is showing continued progress at eating away at Mozilla and IE's users (both shares of the market continued to fall incrementally, but consistently, over the past three months). 

At the moment however the relative numbers involved hardly indicate a collossal swing away from the previous status quo (IE still has almost two-thirds market share, Firefox just under one quarter, and Chrome around one-twentieth) - but it seems undeniable that in the next year or two these imbalances will even out drastically.

Indeed it might not even be too fanciful to imagine that Chrome could one day dominate the browser market in the same way that IE did for years. Regardless of what happens though, the reason I indulge in this hypothetical speculation is not to be alarmist but to highlight the fact that, even though I'm a happy Chrome user myself, I'd sooner switch to another browser than see Chrome displace IE as market dominator (or any other competitor for that matter - I only focus on Chrome because at present it is the only one which could maybe one day achieve this, as things stand right now).  

What the EC ruling mentioned above recognises (and the reason I fully support it) is not that IE is somehow a mandatory inferior product and hence must be punished - but that the browser market will on the whole benefit from an extension of diversity and a more evenly divided playing field. Not just for the sake of greater innovation, but also even more immediately in order to reduce the security risks from malware (it's just far too easy for hackers to target vastly significant numbers of users simply due to IE's market dominance). 

In fact the more one thinks about it, there is pretty much no reason to feel that this greater diversity is a bad thing. Maybe governments will find it trickier to regulate over legal issues now that they'd need the co-operation of more browsers than before, but one surely envisages that the creation of a universal body with representatives from each company could easily solve this issue. Otherwise, with regard to negatives, I'm stumped - if you can think of any reason why this might be a flawed decision please do share your thoughts below (please don't say it makes it tricky for developers though - those guys and girls are learning new stuff all the time anyway; it's part of the job!), but until then I'm very firmly in support of this major ruling from the EC.

Dejan Levi

Having released 14 major updates in just over 100 days since Chrome's launch, Google now feel they have an adequately stable and developed product to end the Beta testing stage. Though even now Chrome is by no means perfect, Google clearly feel it is ready to step out of Beta mode and into the pre-install ring with IE.

With their unrivalled brand power, Google's browser has the potential to match IE's status as a standard pre-install browser - something that was always beyond other competitors (though good, Mozilla never really had a chance to increase user levels through any channels other than web downloads for example).

The main question now will be how computer stores decide which browser to offer on pre-install packages. One option would be to include both (though this might be unnecessarily cluttered) or to let buyers decide by offering systems with either browser.

However PC World and others eventually make the decision on which to choose, the main thing to remember about Google's decision is that it does not mean that Chrome is a 100% finished and complete product. Rather it is at a stage where the company feels it can start to make a serious claim on the pre-install market, and hence provide a realistic and significant challenge to IE's market dominance. The smart people at Google have known all along that it would take enormous brand power to compete with IE for the browser crown with it being won or lost in the pre-install arena. Bearing in mind the extraordinary current strength of their brand, the timing of this move couldn't be better.

Dejan Levi

(N.B. the current available Chrome version is a beta one, free to download, but limited only to Windows XP and Vista users)

Starting first with the actual features of the browser, it has to be said that it doesn't attempt to offer anything drastically different or new. Having said that, it does have a few neat touches that might edge its nose ahead of the pack.

Google are most excited about the home/start page which rather than being a pre-specified particular site is instead a springboard for managing surfing - with links (and thumbnails) of all your most visited sites displayed in the main window. This is a useful feature and allows you to keep track with favourite sites without having to visit them to find out if updates have been posted; the small thumbnail on the main page refreshes with new content if available.

The start page also features a useful bookmarks bar at the top of the main window, which allows for quick access to popular sites, and is probably slightly more convenient than using Firefox's bookmarks system. The bookmarks bar can be turned on and off with a handy shortcut (Ctrl+B) and, along with the aforementioned start page features, is probably the most striking initial feature.

These smart new features are slightly undermined by the fact that there is no 'home' button on the main interface. This makes it far more awkward to return to the main start page (featuring the snapshots of 'most visited' sites) than it should be. Why the button was omitted seems quite a mystery, as I very much doubt I was the only one who found its absence unhelpful.

One quite noticeable advantage Chrome has over its competitors is in the size of the main browsing window, especially if the bookmarks bar is turned off. No matter how much I simplify my Firefox or IE interfaces, the control bars and buttons always encroach far more into the main window that with Chrome.

All in all Chrome seems to offer a pretty handy browser option, and promises to only get better as the beta release is tweaked. The 'kill the tab, not the browser' feature, whereby page crashes impact only the individual tab rather than the whole browser, also appears to be quite a sensible solution to one of the more frustrating problems of tabbed browsing.

Ultimately Google's current offering has more than enough potential to compete and hold its ground in the browser market - but since it offers nothing radically different from the other available options (of which there are already perhaps too many) then it is hard to predict what its level of success will be.

Microsoft's IE curerently holds nearly 80% of the browser market, with Firefox taking most of remaining 20% (Safari, Opera, Camino and Flock all hold a relatively negligible share). Despite Mozilla's success with Firefox it has always struggled to win users outside of the small minority of web-savvy types who are both aware that alternatives to IE exist, and care enough about the features on offer to actually download and use them.

Google's brand power is certainly far greater than Mozilla's, not to mention the huge difference in potential advertising budgets and marketing operations. Despite this however it seems hard to see how Chrome can break the IE dominance with no way of effectively rivalling Microsoft's distributive position. All in all it is probably far more likely that Chrome will establish itself as a major alternative browser (like Firefox for example), popular mainly with quite web aware users.

Google hopes that its browser will help build a cohesive platform from which to unite current Google services and launch new ones. Whether they can persuade casual users for whom all browsers are pretty much the same (and who invariably use Windows which comes pre-loaded with IE) to make the switch is the hurdle they must overcome to achieve this. The challenge seems pretty immense but it will be interesting to observe Google's efforts to do so in the coming months.

Dejan Levi