The majority of Chrome users have no idea that their browser is silently updating itself without their knowledge or consent, and if they did, they wouldn't have any idea how to shut it off.
I can think of plenty of cases where most users would want to turn it off—tethered to a slow data network, throttled bandwidth, etc—but the precedent it sets bothers me more than any hypothetical inconvenience. It's like I'm suddenly, unknowingly leasing a little space on my machine to Google, and I'm not always sure what they're installing.
You raise a valid point about not knowing exactly what is being installed, but the flip side of the coin is that security fixes and new feature support get adopted much faster.
It's nice knowing that mom's laptop will automatically receive that security patch.
Because it's a usurpation of my role as the administrator of my system. Because it necessitates a level of comfort with a company—whose business model is based on collecting and selling user data—rooting my system, and trusting that they're not going to abuse that privilege, or forget my best interest when acting in their own best interest. I think that's a good enough reason.
It's debatable what the best default setting would be, and wether or not average users:
a) know how to disable this
b) care to disable it
Like you say, it necessitates a level of comfort with a company. I suppose most people don't give this a lot of thought, and thus feel pretty comfortable with any company.
Wether this is "good" or "bad" is a separate discussion imo.
I think the problem here is the "one size fits all" assumption of the Google-centric future the article describes.
The browser update policy is a great example. Probably the world would be a better place on average if mom and pop auto-updated, but the policy has serious downsides. For one, it's a pain for me as a geek who likes to know what is running on his machine (and who, frankly, doesn't trust Google as far as he could throw it). It's also a pain for me as a web developer, because of the various breaking changes Google is demonstrably willing to make in its browser, as discussed in several recent HN threads.
There are other problems with "one size fits all" that I think undermine the entire premise of the article, though. If Chrome is to be the new OS, then does that mean every application front-end in the world has to be written in JavaScript? On the evidence to date, this is not going to be a success...
Similarly, "[Google App Engine] just runs the code you give it, and you don’t much care how" sounds like a great argument, until you realise that you have to write your code using the tiny fraction of the available programming tools that happen to be supported by GAE.
Given that in this business, the two most common scenarios are keeping geek opinion on your side or your company failing rather horribly, I think we can safely assume that nothing Google offers today is even close to comprehensive enough to displace native apps and make cloud/browser software the norm. Oh, and if the article author thinks that broadband-speed wireless is going to become as ubiquitous as electricity within a few years, I think he probably needs to go back to physics school. :-)
The updates are really small. As they've detailed in a number of blog posts, the patch format is a custom binary diff that understands the format of ELF/EXE/etc. file formats to get the smallest diffs possible.
Also, on Linux systems Chrome does not automatically update. When you download the deb/rpm from Google it sets up a package repository (e.g. by adding a file like /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo) and you get updates via the usual package update mechanism on your system. I have no idea if this will ever happen, but it seems like if there was a better integrated update system for OS X and Windows then Chrome on those systems could have an option to work in a similar way.
It's not really the size but the principle of it. Google is installing something on my PC without asking me about it. Ev6en if in this case the result is good, it's not the kind of thing a program should do.
I know that when one installs Chrome, they are implicitly accepting that it will update itself, but it still is a very unique behaviour that wouldn't be accepeted in most programs.
When gmail rolls out an update, do you want to pre-approve it also? The only thing google does with chrome is bring the web model of automatic updates to a desktop app.
If you think about it, the only reason we want the control is because we don't trust software companies not to mess up our system. The crazy thing is wanting manual updates, because it implies gross incompetence from the software industry.
Well. Personally I see a whole lot of difference between web applications and code running on my machine.
In the case of gmail, I rely on their code only for checking/sending mail. And they have access to just my mail data. When something runs on my machine, I need to be a lot more careful about what data that code has access to and what privileges it has.
Since email is used to recover lost passwords, just checking/sending mail is equivalent to "the keys to every website I have an account on". By trusting Google to keep your email safe, you're trusting them to keep your entire online presence safe. In that light, letting someone run code on your computer seems relatively tame.
The majority of Chrome users have no idea that their browser is silently updating itself without their knowledge or consent, and if they did, they wouldn't have any idea how to shut it off.
I can think of plenty of cases where most users would want to turn it off—tethered to a slow data network, throttled bandwidth, etc—but the precedent it sets bothers me more than any hypothetical inconvenience. It's like I'm suddenly, unknowingly leasing a little space on my machine to Google, and I'm not always sure what they're installing.