Comments on: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/ neat fun stuff Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:55:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ez http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-461830 ez Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:39:04 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-461830 i try to install theme firefox liscence under google, now i cant even load google page cause it says that the im using a un-liscenced theme, so is it a joke, no viruses or errors were found on my pc, did everthing delete all files and install new ones, same problem, any idean how to solve this problem please, cause thats desapointing, i try to install theme firefox liscence under google, now i cant even load google page cause it says that the im using a un-liscenced theme, so is it a joke, no viruses or errors were found on my pc, did everthing delete all files and install new ones, same problem, any idean how to solve this problem please, cause thats desapointing,

]]> By: Chris http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-358253 Chris Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:33:14 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-358253 Biggest flaw of your analysis from my point of view: you assume that every unique visitor of Google apps is a "user", as opposed to an "evaluator" or simply a "vistor". You make no attempt to differentiate between the two. However, the compete data you cited said the average length of a visit to the Google apps site was 2 minutes. 2 minutes! Clearly, there are far more folks landing on the site for 10 seconds than are actually doing real work with the online apps. Given this, I think the estimates in the range of 1% are more accurate. Biggest flaw of your analysis from my point of view: you assume that every unique visitor of Google apps is a “user”, as opposed to an “evaluator” or simply a “vistor”. You make no attempt to differentiate between the two. However, the compete data you cited said the average length of a visit to the Google apps site was 2 minutes. 2 minutes! Clearly, there are far more folks landing on the site for 10 seconds than are actually doing real work with the online apps. Given this, I think the estimates in the range of 1% are more accurate.

]]> By: Insipid http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-352455 Insipid Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:03:18 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-352455 I know I'm late, but I have to say, Matt did quite well in this article. He brought the issue into the open and explained the situation thoroughly. At the same time, many people posting in these comments have already made up their minds when it comes to google. To matter what Matt says, they are entirely convinced that Google has some grudge against them and secretly wants to steal their data, log their location and kick puppies. Your information is stored no matter what you use to browse the web. Your ISP stores everything you do, and this can be accessed by any federal bureau. That is not surprising. As far as browsers go, all of them log your information and usage patterns. IE, Chrome, Mozilla. Mozilla has you even accept its license where you allow them to save and control your personal data. To keep it short, no matter what you use to get online, everything you do is kept somewhere. The good news? No company really cares about you (on the web, I mean!). The lone office clerk in San Diego doesn't matter much to a corporation, nor does the waitress in a rural restaurant in Atlanta. They aren't going to come to your home, kick down your door, and browse through everything you do while pointing their accusatory fingers at you. Now in some instances, if you are involved in piracy or other illegal e-activities, you can be targeted. But if that happens, you will be target no matter what browser or ISP you use (all they need is your ISP, and then they simply grab your cpu ID). Bottom line, I'm happy that Google changed the TOS. We can all complain that "oh, now they can dismiss their EULA" or "they are unreliable" (despite the fact that they are able to change their EULA at any time without warning, as indicated in pretty much every TOS). What matters is they fixed it, and they are healthily maintaining a great tool for many to use. If you don't care for it, that's understandable, but I'm sure more people are willing to give Chrome a chance now that the terms were changed. I know I’m late, but I have to say, Matt did quite well in this article. He brought the issue into the open and explained the situation thoroughly. At the same time, many people posting in these comments have already made up their minds when it comes to google. To matter what Matt says, they are entirely convinced that Google has some grudge against them and secretly wants to steal their data, log their location and kick puppies.

Your information is stored no matter what you use to browse the web. Your ISP stores everything you do, and this can be accessed by any federal bureau. That is not surprising. As far as browsers go, all of them log your information and usage patterns. IE, Chrome, Mozilla. Mozilla has you even accept its license where you allow them to save and control your personal data. To keep it short, no matter what you use to get online, everything you do is kept somewhere.

The good news? No company really cares about you (on the web, I mean!). The lone office clerk in San Diego doesn’t matter much to a corporation, nor does the waitress in a rural restaurant in Atlanta. They aren’t going to come to your home, kick down your door, and browse through everything you do while pointing their accusatory fingers at you. Now in some instances, if you are involved in piracy or other illegal e-activities, you can be targeted. But if that happens, you will be target no matter what browser or ISP you use (all they need is your ISP, and then they simply grab your cpu ID).

Bottom line, I’m happy that Google changed the TOS. We can all complain that “oh, now they can dismiss their EULA” or “they are unreliable” (despite the fact that they are able to change their EULA at any time without warning, as indicated in pretty much every TOS). What matters is they fixed it, and they are healthily maintaining a great tool for many to use. If you don’t care for it, that’s understandable, but I’m sure more people are willing to give Chrome a chance now that the terms were changed.

]]> By: Amit http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-280190 Amit Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:59:35 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-280190 After reading the Chrome terms of use, I wasn't able to sleep for few months. Reading this post now I sleep better and longer.. Thanks for that ;) After reading the Chrome terms of use, I wasn’t able to sleep for few months.

Reading this post now I sleep better and longer..

Thanks for that ;)

]]> By: John http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-209126 John Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:57:43 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-209126 I guess I'm a little late to the game with regards to Google Chrome, but now that I've tried it, I love it! Another nail in the coffin for IE and it's broken code and wanton disregard for standards. (I hope) I guess I’m a little late to the game with regards to Google Chrome, but now that I’ve tried it, I love it! Another nail in the coffin for IE and it’s broken code and wanton disregard for standards. (I hope)

]]> By: Mike http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-189665 Mike Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:10:29 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-189665 Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see how much chromes populrity increases over time. Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see how much chromes populrity increases over time.

]]> By: Dan Keldsen http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-186698 Dan Keldsen Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:12:08 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-186698 Any news on an OS X version of Chrome? I've used the unofficial version, but it's just a tad buggy. And by a tad, I mean very buggy. :) Firefox, Safari, Flock - all cross-platform. Chrome? Anybody? Any news on an OS X version of Chrome? I’ve used the unofficial version, but it’s just a tad buggy. And by a tad, I mean very buggy. :)

Firefox, Safari, Flock – all cross-platform. Chrome? Anybody?

]]> By: Scott http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-167469 Scott Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:36:52 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-167469 LOL this seem's like a liberal terms of use, i'm un downloading my chrome. Sure, they have modified their terms of use, but you still can't even disable your history! History is useless for me, wasted space on my hard drive. Their settings only let you control so little, it's horrible! I just got it and I can't modify crap! They really DO want control of what your viewing. LOL this seem’s like a liberal terms of use, i’m un downloading my chrome.

Sure, they have modified their terms of use, but you still can’t even disable your history! History is useless for me, wasted space on my hard drive.
Their settings only let you control so little, it’s horrible! I just got it and I can’t modify crap! They really DO want control of what your viewing.

]]> By: alisterm http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-134169 alisterm Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:09:22 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-134169 Although they've changed the EULA for Chrome, that nasty condition is still there for google mail, for example. Really, it should be expunged completely from any and all EULA. Unless "do no evil" really is just a smokescreen to create a benign air. Although they’ve changed the EULA for Chrome, that nasty condition is still there for google mail, for example. Really, it should be expunged completely from any and all EULA.

Unless “do no evil” really is just a smokescreen to create a benign air.

]]> By: SwWright http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/#comment-133285 SwWright Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:23:10 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=1013#comment-133285 In fairness to Google, I must reply to Stonehead's question. Check the very first paragraph of the TOS. It says, "These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html." This statement satisfies the "in writing" condition in Paragraph 10.2. Now, why they forbid you to decompile the application built from the source code that they freely give you, that is a very different question... In fairness to Google, I must reply to Stonehead’s question. Check the very first paragraph of the TOS. It says, “These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.” This statement satisfies the “in writing” condition in Paragraph 10.2.

Now, why they forbid you to decompile the application built from the source code that they freely give you, that is a very different question…

]]>