Is This Google's Sneak Attack on Apple?

By Anders Bylund (TMF Zahrim) | More Articles
March 30, 2010 | Comments (3)

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

A breathless report from ZDnet's cadre of "reliable sources" says that Google (Nasdaq: GOOG ) will bundle its Chrome browser -- and the Chrome operating system that has the browser at its core -- with Adobe Systems (Nasdaq: ADBE ) flagship product Flash. Other observers took a look at the recently updated source code for a version of Google's open-source Chromium browser and came away with the conclusion that Flash support will indeed be built right into the browser soon enough -- no need for clumsy and unreliable third-party plug-in programs!

That's great to hear, as I'm currently running Chrome with Flash disabled. The darn thing crashed my browser too often, and will now only run on my explicit command. If Google integrates Flash functionality into the browser itself, it stands to reason that this cleaner and simpler solution makes Chrome a better browser -- more reliable than before but without sacrificing functionality.

But Google's motives aren't what you might think. Some call this a direct attack on Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL ) , which is pushing HTML5 programming over Flash and refuses to include Flash support at all on the iPhone and iPad platforms. Well, phooey. If built-in Flash is an attack on anybody, it would be against Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT ) . The Chrome browser was never intended to become the world's favorite browser -- it exists to push the envelope and force every browser to improve or die. That's exactly what Flash integration would accomplish, and market leader Internet Explorer from Microsoft would have to make some kind of move to stay current.

A rising tide of security lifts all online boats, where no vessel is larger or benefits more than The Good Ship M/S Google. Better browsers means happier end-users, which leads to more browsing and more clicks on revenue-generating advertising links. It's a branch of the same strategy that makes the Android mobile phone platform a winner even if Apple or Research In Motion (Nasdaq: RIMM ) sells more phones: anything Android does better will soon be copied elsewhere enabling a better browsing experience and result in -- you got it! -- more advertising clicks.

So, congrats to Google for getting Adobe on board and to Adobe for one-upping Apple in an unexpected fashion. But whatever Adobe's goals are, Google really doesn't care to kill Apple in any way, shape, or form.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Anders Bylund owns shares in Google, but he holds no other position in any of the companies discussed here. He would never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Microsoft is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers selection. Apple and Adobe Systems are Motley Fool Stock Advisor picks. Motley Fool Options has recommended a diagonal call position on Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. You can check out Anders' holdings and a concise bio if you like, and The Motley Fool is investors writing for investors.

Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (1)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

Report this Comment On March 30, 2010, at 4:59 PM, gslusher wrote:

"If Google integrates Flash functionality into the browser itself, it stands to reason that this cleaner and simpler solution makes Chrome a better browser -- more reliable than before but without sacrificing functionality."
Why? The problem may be inherent with Flash, itself, as much as with the plug-in. How do you know that Chrome's support of Flash isn't just the plug-in code incorporated into the browser code?
Then, too, consider updates. Every time Adobe updates Flash, Google will have to issue an update to Chrome. That's why Flash is a plug-in. Smart browser developers use plug-ins for code that someone else controls. Even QuickTime is a plug-in for that reason.
Report this Comment On March 30, 2010, at 5:02 PM, gslusher wrote:

"... no need for clumsy and unreliable third-party plug-in programs!"
Uh, the Flash plug-in is written by ADOBE.
"If Google integrates Flash functionality into the browser itself, it stands to reason that this cleaner and simpler solution makes Chrome a better browser -- more reliable than before but without sacrificing functionality."
Why? The problem may be inherent with Flash, itself, as much as with the plug-in. How do you know that Chrome's support of Flash isn't just the plug-in code incorporated into the browser code?
Then, too, consider updates. Every time Adobe updates Flash, Google will have to issue an update to Chrome. That's why Flash is a plug-in. Smart browser developers use plug-ins for code that someone else controls. Even QuickTime is a plug-in for that reason.
Report this Comment On March 31, 2010, at 9:48 AM, ConstableOdo wrote:

I'm not certain why mobile internet users love Flash so much and want to protect it so badly. I would figure that most users just want content and not necessarily any particular delivery method. I do understand why Flash developers want Flash to live on forever. That's because it's their livelihood to build Flash sites. I think at least users should have some sort of alternative to Flash. I mostly use ClickToFlash in Safari so I don't have to deal with Flash. I very much try to avoid sites that use excess amounts of Flash to make their sites look all fancy. Some sites are so difficult to navigate with all those Flash menus and stuff. Navigating those sites might be OK on a desktop, but they must be battery killers on smartphones.
Apple is being made into the bad guy because they want a Flash alternative but eventually HTML5 should be the direction everyone should be headed towards, so what's wrong with trying to speed up the process a bit. I'm sure Apple also has it's own agenda to keep its users buying from the App Store, but that is still no reason not to have Flash alternatives. I just want something that doesn't crash or create security problems and hopefully HTML5 will provide a simpler solution.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1139512, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/27/2012 7:25:07 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 1 day ago Sponsored by:
	DOW	12,454.83	-74.92	-0.60%
	S&P 500	1,317.82	-2.86	-0.22%
	NASD	2,837.53	-1.85	-0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes