In that sense, this might really be a third browser war. I think Google is pushing Chrome largely to support performance and standards.

I think Google would like to make browsers into commodity pieces of software. Browsers might have different looks and perhaps different features, but when it comes down to core rendering and performance they are exactly interchangeable.

I don't see Chrome so much as a vehicle to compete for browser share as much as I see it as an attempt to eliminate browser control as a point of competition.

> I think Google would like to make browsers into commodity pieces of software

But isn't what Mozilla is already doing? I honestly don't see the point of putting all this effort in creating something new to support performance and standards, when there is already something else in place achieving those very same goals.

Also, mind you that Mozilla is a foundation, while MS and Google are monopolies.

I'd say that Mozilla and Google doing it are effectually different. Yes, the end products are both open source and browsers.

Practically, especially from the perspective of the business community, I think these are very different things. One is a product from a foundation which may or may not decide to keep operating. The other is from a very heavy weight company perceived to be a dominant up and comer.

If you own the browser you can decide what the default search engine is.

As other search engines catch up with Google on quality of results and usability, the relative switchover cost will become more significant.

So I don't think this is just about standards and performance, though obviously that is powerful too.

> As other search engines catch up with Google on quality of results and usability

That was quite a while ago, in my experience. I often fail to find technical information with google that I can find via other search engines.

If you excuse the analogy, Firefox was like the Vietnam war, started very small/gorilla style and has now escalated into a larger conflict.

Chrome is more of a full frontal assault on both MS and Mozilla (not to mention Opera/Safari), some one else probably come come up with a fitting historical conflict.

How about WWII?

Mozilla coming from the remnants of Netscape was like the transition from the decimated Weimar Republic to Third Reich, starting over.

Microsoft of course would represent USSR, and just to force the analogy, because their PR in retrospect seems to be terrible (this western education of mine re:USSR & considering that bashing MS is the standard online really).

And I guess that leaves Google with America, only entering into the (browser) war half way through.

Not implying anything about the future of course, just forcing an analogy.

(And sure, let's stretch it and have Safari as Britain, because it's an island, independent of the bigger land masses).

You know who destabilized the Weimar Republic?

And Opera?

Japan, I guess. They were fast to strike in Pearl Harbour (i.e loading speed). However, their extensions are lacking (nuclear capacity) and so they suffer for it.

I'm not convinced it's still a war because no single browser is going to be able to dominate and have undue influence on web technologies as a result. All browsers (yes, even IE) are slowly but surely converging on standards compliance - even if it's taking a while.