We've covered the launch of Google's new browser Chrome extensively this week. But as we near the end of the week, one of the questions yet to be answered is how Chrome will fare in the enterprise. As we all know Google is making a strong push into the enterprise with Google Apps, which received a further boost this week with the launch of Google Video for Business. However, there is a lot of work needed to get Chrome ready for the office. Already our readers have noticed compatibility and usability issues that will hamper enterprise adoption.
A RWW reader emailed us today, after trying out Chrome in his office environment:
"so far my attempts to use Google chrome at work have been unsuccessfull. I downloaded and installed OK, and seems to work fine for personal browsing. When I tried to use for my work tools it's useless
1) Can't logon to the VPN which uses a Cisco token that needs ActiveX.
2) Can't log onto my quoting tool. Seems to accept the password but won't load the page.
I also couldn't work out how to get chrome to allow popups on certain sites as my quoting tool opens new pages automatically.It seems faster than firefox for plain browsing, but google has some work to do to get usable in corporate environment."
The lack of ActiveX support is hardly surprising, given that it's a Microsoft standard for Windows applications. It's supported of course by IE, but can't be used for Firefox 2.0 and later (a plug-in provided partial ActiveX support for Firefox 1.5 and earlier versions).
This is an issue for Google because ActiveX is used a lot in enterprises and in some countries it is almost a requirement. In Korea, as TechnoKimchi notes, ActiveX powers most Web applications because it's all but required by law:
"Many Korean web sites, ranging from internet banking sites to TV livecasting sites, mandate users to install Active X components (a small bit of extension program used by Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser) to use the service."
There's also the issue of slow enterprise adoption of new software, particularly Internet software. This was the consensus of a "bevy of analysts" that InformationWeek spoke to. However that article also points out that "if Chrome's multiprocess architecture pays off and makes Chrome demonstrably more secure than the competition, companies will have a strong incentive to take Chrome seriously."
Google is certainly aiming just as much at the enterprise as the consumer world with Chrome. Earlier today Matthew Glotzbach of Google Enterprise mentioned Chrome in his keynote speech at the Office 2.0 conference, noting that it will be used to run fast, secure and stable web apps. And security is one of the main features of any enterprise web app, so Chrome will be targeting adoption in the enterprise based on this.
Security is important in enterprise, but so is compatibility with existing apps in an organization and overall usability. As our alert reader noted, the lack of ActiveX support will create problems in the enterprise and there are other usability issues that will occur (such as the password entry and popup problems our reader experienced). Some of this can be put down to Chrome being very new, but they're issues that Chrome will need to tackle if it wants to be used in the office.
Tell us in the comments if you've been testing Chrome within your workplace - and if so what your experience has been like so far.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
My opinion is that mainstream web technologies should be platform independent and not locked into one Operating System.
I don't think Google will support Active X, nor will any other browser company / org other than Microsoft.
Active X would be great if it was multi-platform, infact ajax would not need to exist because you could code it all in Active X.
Therefore the fact that AJAX / JavaScript exists it testament to the industries resistance to browser platform dependence.
Posted by: wolfyrabbit.myopenid.com
|
September 5, 2008 3:05 AM
A major problem for adaption of FF or Chrome in the enterprise may be the fact that most IT users don't have the option to install new applications on their desktops themselves and have to use whatever the corporate standard is, which is unfortunately IE. I suspect this is primary reason why awful IE v6 still has high share as well.
It is true that many critical enterprise web apps require ActiveX and hence need IE, but this problem may be easier to solve. Given that Chrome is open source, someone can the necessary IE components within Chrome to work with pages that require ActiveX. I think Netscape has done something like this combining FF with IE engine.
Posted by: berkay
|
September 5, 2008 3:09 AM
Chrome will NOT be used in the Enterprise, its a beta, its unproven, is it secure? No enterprise will (or at least should not) attempt to implement such a software solution at this stage.
Posted by: jason | September 5, 2008 4:16 AM
A beta 1 browser that has been called very erroneously a "RIA Browser" but that fails to support properly the ria web (high end flash 9, flash 10, flex 3.0, java, javafx and silverlight) and that also got problems with the rest of microsoft tech like asp.net, the mentioned active x and even some ms ajax implementations not being ready for the enterprise?. i think that you have some really good insight there Richard ;)
Posted by: Avatar | September 5, 2008 4:22 AM
I don't want to sound like a smartass but the title should say "Enterprises Not Ready For Web".
Posted by: Al Bens | September 5, 2008 4:23 AM
What kind of enterprise? That Microsoft based you mean? ActiveX you said? Isn't that a bit outdated technology with many security issues? ActiveX is very very stinky technology, it's kinda hack. Enterprises should drop support for it and think of other/better solutions like Java WebStart, Adobe AIR. ActiveX is just inproperly designed bridge between web and desktop apps, it gives more power over user's system to developers, than regular web app.
Automatically opened popups? That's also hack, if you want to notify user about some activity, use alert() or change web page titles, but popping window in front of user without any interaction is very bad practice.
Chrome is doing almost everything right, problems with enterprise are on the other side, on the side of developers creating enterprise apps.
Posted by: dusan | September 5, 2008 4:38 AM
Currently, there's been a huge speculation about Chrome beating Firefox and Internet Explorer in the coming years. However, I feel that Chrome will not succeed that fast as I can see from their new browser that it is plain and simple, unlike IE and FF, which are better and cool features than Chrome.
Therefore, I would like to say is that Chrome is NOT ready for enterprise.
Posted by: Kid Tech Guru | September 5, 2008 4:50 AM
Complaining any browser different than IE should support ActiveX is ... arrogant stupid.
Why don't you complain IE does not support Firefox Plugins?
Posted by: Stoicho | September 5, 2008 5:27 AM
These concerns are scaremongering. Google will maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information and personal preferences in pornography. And your DNA code.
Posted by: David Gerard | September 5, 2008 5:32 AM
This article is jumping the gun. Of course it's not ready. It's beta stage software. It's not complete, and will move forward as the market pushes it. Why are we expecting everything to be perfect the moment it hits the market place. Give it some room to grow, and when we see an agressive push towards enterprise use of it, then lets determine if it's ready.
Posted by: Frank Bright | September 5, 2008 5:53 AM
Enter "about:plugins" into your Chrome address bar. I can't comment as to its completeness but Chrome definitely has some support for ActiveX and other MS proprietary extensions.
Posted by: Justin Driscoll | September 5, 2008 6:06 AM
I love ReadWriteWeb, but come on, this is a cheap article bundled around a cliche headline. Focus on quality, people!
Posted by: David W | September 5, 2008 6:32 AM
I think people are missing Googles actual gameplan somewhat.
When people ask why Chrome dont support addons and plugins, maybe they miss the point of V8 and it's optimizing of javascript?
I hear that V8 is working feverishly to further enhance the support for javascript, making it even faster, so at some point the benefits of doing plugins will be less obvious from the standpoint of pure performance.. at some point, the web is going to be enough.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvkist | September 5, 2008 6:36 AM
Google never claimed that Chrome was ready for prime time. What exactly did Google say that made you think otherwise? Google Apps? Google Apps will continue to work perfectly on Firefox and IE. That will not change whether Chrome becomes a success or not. If we all used "the enterprise" as the ultimate vote of confidence for measuring technology progress and readiness, all of us will still be using punch cards!
Richard, I'm very disappointed with this article. It's not meaningful at all. I'm sure you'll get some nice traffic using a title like that.
Posted by: Jimmy | September 5, 2008 6:48 AM
There are few problems.
- Like other Google products, Chrome installs in C:\ drive. I still dont understand the logic of this.
- Still lot of features are not exposed in menus. We need to tweak the config to enable this.
- Crashes are very frequent.
- Gecko engine specific features are lacking.
Posted by: the-geek | September 5, 2008 6:50 AM
Gee, a beta release of a web browser isn't "ready for the enterprise."
No kiddin. That's not news.
I'd understand that point about lacking Active X support, except that Windows Vista isn't ready for the enterprise, either.
Posted by: blunderdog | September 5, 2008 7:32 AM
The enterprise has a lot to learn. They need to think beta, agile, fast. Business moves fast in this world and organizations need to also.
ActiveX? Come on...
Posted by: Jibber | September 5, 2008 8:56 AM
Al Bens had the best comment. If all "Ready for Enterprise" means is support for ActiveX, then hopefully one day NOTHING will be Ready for Enterprise. I think the point of Chrome has been completely missed...it's about removing proprietary barriers, not maintaining them. Real web developers are serious about working with open standards. ActiveX has been dead for many years now, it just doesn't know it yet.
Posted by: E | September 5, 2008 9:23 AM
I have downloaded & installed the new "Chrome." Within the first two hours of use, it has crashed three times so far! It will not accept Java applets properly to play games with, and stalls just like FireFox! Time will tell, but at this point, it just looks like a new type of browser, but acts the same as the two others; FLAWED!
No rush to change browsers yet; like so many "new" softwares, this too needs a lot more work on it to offer anything different or better than it's two popular cousins.
Posted by: Dean | September 5, 2008 9:37 AM
ActiveX is a Microsoft proprietary extension that is non-standard and is tied to the Windows operating system. The need for ActiveX support to use a web application is an indication of poor programming. There are standard ways of achieving the same results.
Posted by: SM | September 5, 2008 10:19 AM
Chrome also seems to lack NTLM authentication. So if you hit site that would normally log you in automatically using IE or Firefox with ntlm turned on, in Chrome you'll have to put in your id and password to login.
Posted by: Shawn McCollum | September 5, 2008 2:44 PM
Have installed Chrome on Vista machine and found it incredibly slow and won't operate properly on lots of sites.
Doesn't work with Logmein.com which is vital to me. Even takes ages to load my google apps site!
Why must Google always have to be different and create problems which it's own users have to find ways round and then publish in it's own forums for others!
You can't even contact them for help.....they make it virtually impossible. Come on Google face up to the public you want to use your products!! and give answers to problems instead of expecting forum users to get each other out of trouble.
Posted by: Marc Damon | September 5, 2008 3:21 PM
Some great points made in the comments here. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Chrome *should* be ready for the enterprise at this point, but as I wrote "they're issues that Chrome will need to tackle if it wants to be used in the office." I do accept though that there are standards-based ways Chrome can tackle these issues, without necessarily supporting ActiveX. Thanks everyone for the informative comments.
Posted by: Richard MacManus
|
September 5, 2008 4:17 PM
ahem.
in othere words, both Firefox and Chrome won't support locked -in blinkered Microsoft-flavoured enterprise systems.
so, nothing but IE 6 and 7 will access our internal MS Dynamics CRM system, mostly becuause of propriortry HTC controls.
boy will that change when the public portal needs to be brought into the equation
microsoft are now shooting itself in the foot by being so committed to locking in IE into the equation.
Posted by: barry.b | September 6, 2008 3:04 AM
My enterprise has already adopted chrome, on a user-choice basis. We are a tech company, but we are pretty large, over 15k users. And personally, although it still has some rough edges, I think Chrome is amazing. The speed of the browser combined with the stability (when one of our old crappy enterprise apps crashes, it doesn't bring down my whole browser). I think, as one commenter said, the average enterprise isn't ready for the Internet. Those are the same companies that are getting beaten by the newer upstarts who get it.
Posted by: g.fan | September 6, 2008 12:05 PM
What people are doing is missing the point big time. This is not a case of Chrome vs IE, or Chrome vs Firefox. This is about progress and about getting even with the developer trends, and new technology on the internet. Yes, we have been using Firefox or IE for the past decade, but, no big technology jump there. Upgrades yes, but new, significant additions, not really. You must remember that Chrome is written from scratch, leaving all biased ideas behind and starting fresh, looking at how the internet is now and molding itself to it. It is still beta, so we can expect NOTHING from it, still, at better, it does work 95% of the time. No other browser or software has done that before. Before we start babbling nonsense, why wont we give them time to adapt, to develop and release. I have no doubt that this browser will be better then IE, maybe even better then Firefox, given a bit of time. It is about time something like this happened, and, its OPEN source. I think we should continue using IE or Firefox for the time being, BUT, lets all encourage and demand more from google, to make it better. We need it.
Posted by: Alexandre Silva | September 6, 2008 11:42 PM
1. I find that 'Chrome' does not show all the tabs on a Net Banking Site which are visible when using IE.
2. While reading E Newspapers & E magazines, the pages do not enlarge as in IE, because to unblock Pop Ups is tedious for each page.
3. The 'Google' toolbar in use with IE is not visibile and hence a bit disconcerting.
4. While it has 'Imported' the 'Favourites' from IE, it does not pick up form 'Favourites' as you begin typing the address as IE does.
Posted by: Vijay Kakkar | September 7, 2008 9:31 PM
"Can't logon to the VPN which uses a Cisco token that needs ActiveX."
Then use Internet Explorer for that specific application.
The way the Microsoft HTML control uses ActiveX is inherently insecure, and it is not possible to make it secure without major changes in the API... sufficient to break every application that uses the HTML control.
Any website that requires ACtiveX is complicit in what has been the biggest security problem on the Internet for the past decade (it was introduced in 1997, over 10 years ago). If a site requires unsandboxed native code to perform some function, then let them provide a plugin to do the job.
Posted by: Peter da Silva | September 8, 2008 10:49 AM
No major browser, other than Internet Explorer, will ever have built-in support for ActiveX. The other technologies, from Java to AJAX and Flash are more accessible to web developers -- and more open.
Many features that people are clamoring for should most likely not appear in the next versions of Chrome. I just wrote about it here...
http://tpgblog.com/2008/09/09/where-google-should-not-do-more/
Check it out and let me know if you agree (or disagree).
Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy
http://tpgblog.com
Posted by: Jeremy Horn | September 9, 2008 1:57 PM