ON GOOGLE UNPLUGGING BROWSER SYNC

SAY IT AIN'T SO

Must say that like many other geeks and early adopters, I was surprised and very disappointed to learn from Lifehacker, that Google is suspending support and development of it's popular Google Browser Sync extension software for the next version of the Firefox 3 browser to be launched next Tuesday.  Lifehacker posted a reply to a user query from the Google team responsible for the product:

"Thanks for trying out Google Browser Sync and for all of your feedback. It was a tough call, but we decided to phase out support for Browser Sync. Since the team has moved on to other projects that are keeping them busy, we don't have time to update the extension to work with Firefox 3 or to continue to maintain it.

For those of you who want to continue to use Firefox 2, we'll maintain support for old versions of Google Browser Sync through 2008. After that, we can recommend a few other products that scratch a similar itch. We hope that one of them works for you:

Mozilla Weave [labs.mozilla.com] from Mozilla Labs—Offers bookmark and history synchronization across computers.

Google Toolbar for Firefox [toolbar.google.com]—Store your bookmarks online and access them from any computer online.

Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer [addons.mozilla.org]—Synchronizes your bookmarks across all computers where it is installed.

Regards,
The Google Team"

Like many Firefox users, I find Google Browser Sync to be the single-most useful extension I use on Firefox, since it allows automatic syncing of not just bookmarks, but my passwords, usage history, and browser states across several computers, both Windows and Macs.  It's been a "Thriller" product for me since day one, despite occasional problems as the product evolved within Google.

If this news is true, I'm going to forgo using FireFox 3.0 into 2009, even though it's supposed to be a much faster and more stable browser.  I know there are other potential alternatives for this functionality, including the Fennec initiative by Firefox developer Mozilla, but I prefer getting this service from Google than anyone else.

It's especially puzzling that Google think this software is not critical to continue to support given that it's long-term strategic mission is to get hundreds of millions of users around the world comfortable doing their computing off the cloud, less tethered to specific computers and devices.

In fact, Google Browser Sync seems to be the perfect customer facing device to propagate the work it's doing with Google Gears, which is a set of emerging Google technologies allowing tons of Google and third-party applications to run on multiple computers even when the user do not have an internet connection. Nik Cubrilovic has a great post today on TechCrunch describing where that effort is at Google to date.

If anything, Google should be expanding it's investment in Browser Sync, and making every effort to make the technology less geeky and more appealing and obvious in it's benefits to mainstream users.

All this is especially ironic given that competitors like Yahoo! are pulling out all the stops to become the daily "starting point" on the internet for hundreds of millions of users around the world. 

Google already is the starting point with it's Search application, and services like Browser Sync were starting to act as the glue bringing the disparate computers together for every user, starting to do things on the internet every day.  And they didn't even think of it is a starting point.  User habits were changing to just expect that their computing environment would be the same as they flit from machine to machine, all using Google services.  What other Google product or service could be more important to invest in than that?

Other companies like Apple are also hoping to be glue together the browsing experience for it's users across both Macs and Windows, and into it's iPhone and iPod Touch hand-held devices, using it's Safari browser as the conduit.

Microsoft is also working on similar strategies on the multiple incarnations of it's Live platform initiatives.

But these solutions are vertically focused on a given company's hardware and software.  Google is uniquely positioned to be a cross-platform, and potentially cross-browser provider of this unifying functionality.  Technically, the task is not a trivial one, given that it requires tying together many standard and non-standard, proprietary and non-proprietary technologies to make a seamless user experience possible across computers and hand-helds.  Again, this seems to be totally aligned with Google's long-term strategic focus.

I like many geeks, am hoping that Google re-considers it's strategy with Google Browser Sync.  Here's hoping that Google has a strategy to continue to bring Browser Sync like functionality to future browsers and platforms to the masses, even if it's with a whole different name and approach.

Comments

[Javed Alam]

Michael

I do not use the product you mentioned. I use Google personal history through their Google tool bar. They already know enough about me so how does it matter if they also know what I am clicking.

I find my own clickstream data stored at Google very useful. I can always go back to it and search it and it is accessible from any computer and from any place. It does require Google toolbar installation while I am recording the personal clickstream data.

Firefox history also stores exact same data but it is slow to load and search once there is long enough history stored there.

I do however agree with you on the point that Google should support Firefox more then they are doing it. They are a web based company and browser is the application people use to access it.

[Eric Powell]

Discontinue Browser Sync Suddenly = Worst Possible Press for Google

Google revealed less than a week before Firefox 3 release they will not update the Google Browser Sync (GBS) extension for Firefox 3, leaving thousands of users with a choice: Upgrade to FF3 or keep GBS.

I am *beginning* to doubt Google, and for a very loyal follower, that could be a problem. Years ago, Yahoo used to be a leading service with many great features. Before that Lycos and AltaVista had a good share of the market. Each one lost market share when they failed to support users and keep up in the quickly moving internet application development and public
perception marketplace.

Google has remained on top now because they are good. And they remain good. They keep up. They develop more. Their applications are more innovative. And they are responsive. Responsive? Well. . .

The discontinuance of GBS has put doubt in the minds of thousands, if not a million users: Will Google do this to another product I rely on? I'm asking that question, and I use Gmail, GBookmarks, GHistory, GNotebook, GDocs, GCalendar, and many more.

If this new policy of Google, to abandon users with little or no warning, continues, then I need safer alternatives. I may find alternatives, but will they be better? I suspect in some cases, they will not. I started using Google products because they were good, not because they were Google. I only tried them because they were Google.

I point out something that Google may have failed to take into account: Google said the team that had developed GBS had "moved on to other projects." That is because they could.

They built a good product. The users had little trouble with it. It didn't require massive amounts of support. THE USERS USED IT, THEY LIKED IT, AND IT WAS GOOD.

The world has moved along a bit further, and Firefox has evolved. GBS needs to be updated. They could make it good like it was. So users will use it, they will like it and it will be good. Isn't that the Google Way? Or is that being discontinued too?

Google may have lost more than just a little bit of image. Time will tell. So will the actions Google takes with GBS. I still hope they update it. The work now will be worth more to Google in the future than it costs now. The worth is continued loyalty. The cost of abandoning GBS is the insertion of doubt.

If Google supports the users now while other alternatives are still in development it could be a positive move. If they fail to try, they fail not only the users, but the ideals of Google itself.