The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

I consider it official since it's on Google's site, even if it's hidden. When I read unofficial, I assumed it was someone compiling Chromium for Mac... The definition of official is "Of or relating to an office or a post of authority", and in this case Google is the authority. If it's coming from Google, it's not unofficial.

↓↑report

Don't think it has the google updater but don't think it needs to. Chrome has an inbuilt update mechanism which automatically updates your browser and it seems the dev channel build has that enabled. http://twitter.com/mikepinkerton/status/2042621181 [Mike is the lead developer for chrome on mac]

↓↑report

Yes, Unfortunately it DOES include the freaking GOOG Updater.

As I ran Chrome for the first time, Growl informed me that a 'Google Updater.dmg was being mounted and executed in the background.

At this point, GOOG = MSFT

Oh wait, even MSFT isn't that evil.

I am not using Chrome. EVER.

↓↑report

OMG, you're right it does. I just looked in side the APP container, and it contains the "Keystone Registration" components.

It never asked me for my authentication, so I guess it couldn't install anything that will run at startup though.

Still, out of protest, I am deleting the app.

↓↑report

OMG How dare an application try to update itself! Such blasphemy!

I really don't understand why people are getting so bent out of shape about a freaking updater app. I find Firefox far more annoying because I actually have to think about the updates, I absolutely LOVE that Chrome "just works".

↓↑report

It's not that it updates itself, it's that in all other (released) Google products, it installs itself as root, and runs in the background all the time. It checks for updates to all Google products, even when you are not using a Google product.

If you're OK with something running all the time on your computer (and you have no choice), then good for you. The rest of us don't want a company like Google thinking they're so important that their updater needs to become part of our OS.

Besides these concerns:
- you may have a limited bandwidth Internet connection. Google doesn't care. They'll download updates when they feel like it with no input from you.
- Maybe you don't want the latest version. Maybe your IT department likes to test applications in a specific environment before rolling out new versions. Maybe you like to wait yourself. Some people like to hear from others if an update breaks anything before they update. Maybe you like the old version and don't want to update.
- Maybe having something running 100% of the time (even when you aren't running one of their apps) is a security risk. A daemon running as root, that you can't turn off... what if it has a vulnerability? It could be exposing your system 100% of the time.
- Maybe you just don't want Google's software running even when you didn't call up one of their apps. Maybe you want all of your CPU and bandwidth for your own purposes.
- Or maybe you just don't care, so you will support this and ridicule anyone that is against it.

An application checking for updates is a good thing. User control is even better. Most good apps check when you launch them, not when you're in the middle of running some critical application of your choosing.

Google apps used to do this. A checkbox in its preferences to automatically check for updates. It works well with most apps, and it worked for Google apps too. You had the choice, and you also were given the choice about actually performing an update. Google no longer gives you these choices, and they demand that you run their updater all the time.

Oh, and it's a 3rd-party app: Keystone. Remember Sony's forced software from a 3rd party?

If you check around on this topic, you'll see that people really don't want this. Sure, there's a few people arguing it's a good thing, but they don't grasp the issues of having some utility running every time they start their computers up, and running all the time. These people probably have tons of things in their startup, and either don't care that their system is slow, or don't have a clue what to do about it. In the Windows world, these are the people with 30 tiny icons in their system tray, each hogging some of the CPU, and doing who-knows-what.

Oh, and when Google started this, they weren't even telling people. Now they tell you as part of the installation but they don't let you opt out. If you say no, you don't get the app.

If you're running any recent releases of Google apps, you already have this thing installed. Either you installed it prior to them telling you about it, or you blindly clicked 'yes' on their little pop-up.

If you installed this pre-release version of Chrome, you have traces of the updater. Look in your ~/Library/Google folder. Look at the contents of Chrome's app file. You'll find the Keystone components in there (somewhere in Frameworks). Look through some of the settings files for clues on what that app does - and what it will be doing once the released version of Chrome comes out.

I suggest that TUAW take the lead on this issue, and do an investigative story. Most people don't realize what Google is up to. TUAW needs to help tell Google "it's my computer not yours", and to go back to their original plan of not being evil.

There is a good thread on this issue on one of Google's own forums. People are complaining about it, and Google basically says "too bad, we know better". You will notice that people just don't want this thing running, and Google's responses are not around removing it, but finding a way for it to exist and make everyone happy. They just don't get it.

http://groups.google.com/group/google-earth-browser-plugin/browse_thread/thread/146882feca2788c3/30a5a5eb60b0c6b6

↓↑report

The reality is that chrome is NOT a finished product. It got a VERY rushed 1.0 release (and a similarly rushed OS X release) due to public pressure.

This is NOT the browser you should be using if you want to control your version and build webapps. Firefox is thataway -->

At the end of the day, the updater is part of the chrome experience - in my mind a great one, in google's mind, a vital one. If you don't like it, again, Firefox is thataway. As with all things, its google's prerogative to decide how THEIR application behaves.

You can always go and fork webkit yourself if that's not good enough for you.

↓↑report

Plus, how can you use this to "proof" pages if it doesn't even have Flash support?

As you said, to proof webkit on mac, use Safari. To check for "real" Chrome users, better off using Windows.

↓↑report