Anybody know anything about this?

tanstaafl.

There's this: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
...or this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/02/google_browser/

Personally, I agree with Ned Batchelder: It'll end up taking market share from Firefox, rather than IE.

Very interesting. I like what their goals are for the browser.

For me, personally, they're going to have to duplicate (or make "gears" available) for all of my Firefox plugins before I could switch over... but I'll certainly try it out.

I will try it out, but, to me, "starting over" means abandoning JavaScript altogether. Writing a faster JS interpreter and making it the core of everything in the world seems like a band-aid to me. Fixing the shittiness of the web, to me, means getting rid of JavaScript as the lingua franca, not trying to make it suck less.

That said, competition usually leads to better software. Let the games begin.

I'm okay with JavaScript -- you need some way of specifying behavior, and it's an entirely reasonable programming language. About the only thing I'd change in JavaScript, itself, would be to add visibility features (public, private, etc.) and maybe some modularity features. I believe this sort of thing is part of the ECMAScript 2.0 proposal, which may or may be going anywhere.

Where things get ugly is the API for interacting with the DOM, with remote servers, with other frames in the browser, etc. That's something that could stand to be completely overhauled.

What's intriguing to me about Chrome is that it's running each page in a separate OS process. That's good for stability, but I'm wondering how they do cross-process communication. You want to keep a single cache, a single cookie database, a shared network services, etc.

I have to agree, I have written some very decent code and complex in Javascript. It it interacting with the DOM where it gets nasty.

Get it now
http://www.google.com/chrome

I should have been more precise in my criticism.

The language itself is indeed "reasonable", but you can't separate the language from the infrastructure that's grown around it. My point is that, if you're going to go in and overhaul these things, why not go the whole nine and start pushing for client-side Python, Ruby, or any of the other languages that are traditionally used to develop the back-end applications serving data to the browser? The only reason developers use JS is that it's the only wheel in town for AJAXy web apps, and that there's a massive library of existing JS code out there to steal from. But are those good reasons to stay with it?

This looks like a good first step...

"Sign up to get news about development for Mac."

It's real purty so far.

Can't compete with Firefox until it does the stuff my plugins do, but, it's purty. And fast.

The developer tools are pretty as well

Running in WinXP under Parallels and it is really fast. Shame it currently doesn't work with iPlayer, which is currently my killer web app.

Unsurprising, but

It's very fast hopefully they will add some more features to it.

I have successfully watched bbc iplayer using some random free uk proxy

I'm not seeing a huge speed increase overall. It seems to be loading some parts of the pages I'm going to quicker, but the overall time is just slightly shorter.

There's a slight possibility that I might use this browser in conjunction with Firefox. Seeing as my whole life is in Google's products, I could see this as being my "Google services browser." I've already set my homepage to be my GMail inbox, and I might just set it to open Google Docs and Google Reader upon launch as well.

I just don't see any way that such a simplified browser, as appealing as that is, could replace Firefox for me. Even in the above scenario, I'd have to give up the extensions I use for Google's products. Like one that puts Remember the Milk in my GMail inbox, and another really great extension for Google Reader.

I'll certainly keep it on my machines, and see how much utility I get out of it over the next couple months...

Mmm... I wonder how much of one's browsing actions and history get uploaded to google's servers whilst using this tool ?

Hopefully not much, if any.

That was my first thought also. There was a dull uproar when it was announced that gMail was going to be skimming email to do the targeted ads. Now people are willingly just giving them all kinds of data by using their online tools (spreadsheets, organizer, word processor and now a browser). There is a whole wealth of data to be mined by them now.

Why is there a double standard when it comes to Google and when did them not being an evil company change?

Until they change the EULA, you're giving Google the right to use anything you do via Chrome...

As for actually using Chrome, I'd hold off until they release the first update at least. They're using an old version of WebKit and its vulnerable to that file download trick. Even if it didn't have that I'd wait to see if there were any other issues or bugs. Let the rest of the world be the guinea pigs on this one...

That is the part that bothers me. People will always complain when something invades their privacy (like the books you check out in the library), but for some reason let Google do it with open arms (such as the books you read from Project Gutenberg or whatever). It is just baffling to me.

Huh?

The EULA looks like the generic Google one so its worded assuming that you're using one of their webapps. I hope that they change it to one specific to Chrome which chops out that part at least.

Looks like the EULA has been changed so that may cheer folks up, however the speed increase is not measurable for me, and combining that with the lack of plugins, I'm out.

Firefox 3.0 solved a lot of the speed and memory issues, so I agree that Chrome isn't going to win me over on those points. But some of the niceties are tempting, such as resizable text areas (I know, supposedly a firefox plugin can solve that for me) and the nice way it handles the difference between searching for a word and surfing to an intranet site of the same name.

If they can start implementing decent plug-ins, it'll definitely give firefox a run for its money.

What would be truly awesome if if they can somehow give Firefox plugin developers an easy path to Chrome plugins. Something where you can take your existing Firefox plugins and easily convert them to Chrome. I think at this point that would be the Killer App.

Those problems are better, but still exist on slower computers. On my old work laptop, which is a 1.7GHz, 1GB machine, Chrome is noticeably faster.

Flipping keyword.enabled is one of the first things I do with a new FF installation. I hate that autosearch crap.

No XUL maybe?

Somebody else said that the paint delay is basically 0 for Chrome. You can or used to be able to tweak the Firefox one as well.

See, I'm the opposite. I prefer to type my searches into the location bar. I love having that bar be both my search bar and my URL bar at the same time. Usually I'm searching for a term that involves multiple words with spaces between the words, so I can simply type the search into the location bar and up comes the google result.

What I'm saying is how I like Chrome's way of handling it so that it makes my already-ingrained behavior even more useful, making it so that I could even do the same with a single word search term.

Yeah.

A quarter-second is pretty long. Maybe I will tweak that.

I solve that problem with Bookmark Keywords. I set one up so I can just type "g search term" into the URL bar to search Google. My way is more advantageous in that I can set up a variety of searches from the URL bar: IMDb and Wikipedia are also frequently used. I also get rid of the search bar.

Edit: I just tried Chrome to see what you were talking about. I don't like it. The simple fact that pressing return might go to a web site in my local domain or do a search for the term, based on criteria I don't know (and even if I did know, wouldn't (want to) take the time to process), makes it bad UI.

Hehe. Type "about:internets" into Chrome's URL bar.

I'm wondering why Firefox seems to need the paint delay. What is it about the rendering engine that would get messed up without the delay?

Nothing. Just tidiness in not having to redraw too much as it gets new data.

I never said it messes up the engine. Its to make the page display in hopefully one go instead of loading in each part as it receives it and reflowing things. Less CPU load etc...

I kind of want to know if the url I've input actually exists, and that I've not been sent somewhere similar.

"Don't Clog the Tubes"

I can't stand plug-ins. Every time I ask "does Firefox (or Thunderbird or something else) have this feature?", the answer is "no, but there's a plugin for it". Great, so I go to the plugin site, and there's about a million plugins all claiming to almost-but-not-quite implement the functionality I want. None of them install cleanly, and they all suck in different ways.

Is it just me?

There certainly are some poorly implemented plugins, but many of them are very, very good. I can put my hand on my heart and say that the following work absolutely flawlessly:

Adblock Plus
Foxmarks
Google Toolbar
Hide Menubar
IE Tab

I really do have zero problems with them, they just work. Using Chrome has brought home to me how much I need Adblock Plus, I'd forgotten how many ads there were on the net.

It's not just you. The idea for plugins as a means of extension is a valuable one, however, most of the plugins available are there to make up for a deficiency or a perceived deficiency in Firefox's design and implementation.

Something like AdBlock plus is a fine example of what a plugin would ideally offer. In Safari I rarely missed plugins, save for the example I just gave of ad blocking.

I sincerely hope Google put together a good browser, but they have some way to go. I'll be very interested to see how the Mac version shapes up, for if it looks anything like the Windows version currently in Beta, it might just be a complete write-off.

The comic describing Chrome started off shakily but got better as it went. However what I can see in screen shots of the beta leave me sorely disappointed and quite revolted. I want a native looking application with the benefits that native development bring. Not something that looks like it was created IN a web page.

Plugins are important, else I won't get my delicious.com buttons and integration that I love so much in Firefox.

I've never (that I know of) had any sort of problem getting rid of extensions that I decided that I didn't want for whatever reason.

Better than not having the functionality at all.

Computing is so personalized these days that no single company making a general purpose tool (such as a browser, or an audio production studio, or an image manipulation program) can possibly implement every feature every user could ever want.

I think the concept (and in most cases, even the execution) of plug-ins is great. It is the future.

It's the next level, the next "layer" of of all general-purpose computing. In the old days, you had a computer that did one task only, such as calculating or census tallying. Then we had a general-purpose operating system with generalized I/O, and we could then run individual programs, each written by different people, each of which did different things in varying ways and we could pick and choose which ones we wanted to run. Now we've got the next layer: Those programs are like little platforms of their own, creating a generalized framework under which other little specialized programs can run. I think it's wonderful refinement of the overall computing experience, and I love it.

It also opens up the market more. Can't compete with Photoshop? That's OK, make your living by writing a great plug-in. Or, write another image-editing application that accepts photoshop-style plug-ins, and then suddenly Photoshop isn't as important as it used to be any more, and people might just use your application instead. (That's what I do, actually: I'm still using Paint Shop Pro.)

I agree that a lot of plug-ins suck. So there's some time I spend trying out a new plug-in, and sometimes deleting it if it sucks. But in general, I've found that plug-in architectures enhance my productivity more than they detract from it.

With apologies for being pedantic, but the proper term for Adblock Plus and so forth is "extensions." Firefox also supports "plugins" which are for things like PDF viewing, Flash, etc. I just now realized that you guys are talking about extensions but saying plugins.

The distinction is important, because, unless I'm mistaken, Chrome *does* support plugins, at least for Flash and various media players. It doesn't yet have the kind of extensions Firefox has, though, and it's not clear to me it has a mechanism for them like Firefox has with XUL.

Oops, yes, Extensions. Even Safari supports plugins for things like PDF and Flash.

I love Foxmarks, but it seems to waste a good bit of CPU time.

I have had almost nothing but problems with IE Tab. It almost works, but then things just fail for mysterious reasons. Virtually everything I need IE for fails to work quite right in IE Tab.

That said, it's not as if they crash the browser or anything.

Interesting. I've had exactly the opposite experience. I'm curious what sorts of problems you're having.

We might be using it for completely different reasons though. I use it to check the rendering of web sites that I compose, and to access a couple of internal company web sites that don't quite work right under Firefox.

I think the problem is the attitude: there's no need to roll this functionality (which everyone is using) into the core product, because there's a plugin/extension/addon that implements it.

That'd be fine, if there was some kind of editorial control over the addons available. For example: the "We recommend" addon at the moment is "FoxyTunes", which allows you to listen to music from your browser. WTF? It's a web browser, not a music player.

Similarly, number 5 or 6 in the list is a management console for SQLite databases.

I thought this was a mail client.

I vaguely recall seeing an addon that showed you whether it was hunting season or some such nonsense -- in the status bar in Thunderbird.

Hey, sure, if you release an extensible application, people are going to write stupid plugins for it. There's no need to put them on the front page of your friggin' website.

I have the impression that many ideas for features in FF come from the popular extensions. It's part of how FF3 got to as nice as it is.

The extensions also allow for the FF team to distance themselves from behavior that they can't associate with- i.e.; adblocking.

The list of the most recently updated? I guess I don't really have a problem with that.

Strange, I've not had any problems with it at all, across an whole range of machines and Windows versions.

I've thrown loads of odd stuff at IE tab over the last few years, ActiveX heavy online banking sites and lots of IE only Intranet apps. I can't remember anything that didn't work just as well in IE tab as it did in IE.

A fine example of an add-on (extension) that should never have been written in the first place. If you need to run IE, then run IE - while putting pressure on the site/page/app developer to remove their reliance on IE and/or ActiveX.

What bugs me about many extensions is that they end up suffering the same issues that inspired their creation. There might be enough there to make it compelling, but there's just enough missing to make it complete. Then you have other extensions that offer that missing bit but miss something else. Installing multiple will often result in unwanted duplication and possible conflicts.

Trying to get everything to play nice with themes only further complicates things. I suppose it's always going to be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, as they say, when you have as popular a platform as Firefox.

Back onto the Chrome topic for a bit... I think the most unfortunate outcome of Google's entry into the platform space will be the loss of market share for pretty much every other player out there except IE. At least in the shorter term.

The loss might be quite significant given the smaller numbers of some of the players out there. IE still commands at least 70% market share according to most quoted sources, much of that due to use in the workplace/enterprise.

Does anyone know if Google published aggregate browser data from the sites it serves with Analytics? Most of the research companies providing stats have sample sizes ranging in the tens of thousands of sites (40000 for example). Even publishing the agent stats for their own search site would be infinitely more meaningful.

Why on earth should I be forced to fire up IE just because I need to use a brain dead web app ? Having IE Tab makes life so much more convenient when you have to have IE to make something work.

As to putting pressure on the app/site, that can be a very long wait when it is your bank or employer's site/app. Thankfully only one of my three banking websites needs IE now.

I can't agree with that. The people that wrote IETab wrote it because it was necessary. They didn't invent the environment that brought about its necessity.

The environment that made it necessary is the irritating differences between IE and non-IE browser rendering and functionality. Don't blame that on the people that wrote the add-on. Don't blame it on the people who write the web sites. Blame it on the people who are responsible for the differences in the browsers.

Edit: I guess I could agree with the statement if it were worded "should never have needed to be written in the first place." That I could get behind. That would place the blame properly.

I'm not trying to place blame with my comment. But I don't think it's a good idea to facilitate using IE within a firefox wrapper. It just keeps people using those same IE-only sites and keeps the developers of those sites thinking nothing's wrong. It helps perpetuate the problem.

Have a bank that only works in IE? Close your accounts and tell the bank why. I would email one bank weekly telling them to make sure their site was working with the Gecko engine and telling them to remove any user agent checks. The last few times I threatened moving my business elsewhere which coincidentally brought a follow-up email stating they had just removed the agent checks and the site should now be accessible though they could not guarantee it would render perfectly. It did and I stayed.

IE is so much a part of WIndows that "firing up IE" doesn't really mean that much. No more than opening the IE engine within a Firefox tab anyway. Hopefully the inconvenience will be incentive to voice your dissatisfaction in the right direction.

When I try Chrome I'll be doing it for the ability to run one tab without affecting the responsiveness of another. Safari is killing me in that respect at the moment and the memory issues are why I am looking at Firefox in the first place. I need some theme adjustments and extensions solely to make up for deficiencies in Firefox's design at the moment. I only wish all its issues could be remedied with these types of band-aids.

What do you suppose the chances are that Google, in its relentless march towards total global domination, is working on its own operating system to go head to head against Windows?

Google (at the moment, at least) is probably the only outfit on the planet with the cachet to pull it off.

tanstaafl.

Unless you meant "coincidentally" non-ironically, yeah, I'm suuuure that that was their impetus.

Having web sites that you know won't work in Firefox automatically be rendered using IE is a huge time saver: activate the URL bar, type in the URL, and hit return, as opposed to Start->Programs->blah blah blah->IE, select URL bar, type in URL, remember that when IE finishes loading its start page it resets the URL bar, enter the URL again, etc.

Either you're inclined to complain or you're not. Saving yourself time isn't going to modify that.

Try entering "about:%".

Out of curiosity, have you ever been satisfied with any piece of software ever?

Zero.

How could that expenditure possibly increase their ad revenue? People who are willing to not use Windows are already using Linux. Those not willing aren't inclined to change. Those using Linux aren't likely to go to something else that's ad-sponsored.

OUCH! Hehehehe.

Maybe it was different in the US, but here in the UK when online banking first started all the online banking sites only worked on IE for quite some time, so there wasn't another bank you could switch to*.

The one remaining banking site that I use IE tab for does actually support other browsers. However they also have a handy service on their site that lets you display all your online bank accounts on a single page. That service does require ActiveX and IE.

It lets me see the details of two current accounts and half a dozen credit cards on one page and automatically logs me into them. No one else offers this service, so I am more than happy to keep using IE Tab to make use of that unique service.

* the first couple of online banking services here insisted on you dialling into the bank's own vISP to get connected !

I disagree.

1. We've already had many years of multiple-browsers-working-differently. Without IETab in the mix. Some web developers are still not getting the message. IETab is just easing the pain of a long-existing problem. From this point of view, your argument is like saying band-aids perpetuate the problem of paper cuts.

2. IETab is used by only a small fraction of Firefox power-users. Not enough to make a dent in the general attitude of web developers. If a web developer is on the brink of making his site cross-compatible, the existence of IETab is not going to sway his decision.

3. IETab might actually have the opposite effect. Here's my reasoning: Let's say that I have certain IE-only web sites that I need to use as a part of my day to day work. If it weren't for the existence of IETab, I might not have switched permanently to Firefox as my default browser. I might have stuck with IE. But hey, here's a plugin that lets me use Firefox as the default, and band-aids the rare situations where I need IE. Do you know what that does? It increases, by a count of one, the number of users who have switched to Firefox. Web developers often use marketshare numbers to decide which browsers they're going to support. By allowing me to use Firefox 100 percent of the time, I've increased that marketshare number, thus increasing the chance that a web developer is going to "get with the program" someday.

Being satisfied and seeing room for improvement are two different things. Firefox has not ever previously left me satisfied. I was looking for a replacement the day after I started using it. It took a while for the alternatives to become less painful.

I was, until the problems I've mentioned before came up, satisfied with Safari 3. Lightroom fits the bill. Apple's own Mail until Leopard. Squeeze Center. Quite a lot of other software in fact. Some software one might be satisfied with at one point and then grow out of favor with for whatever reasons.

Choice isn't bad, but there are bad choices. I don't think any piece of software needs to have 99% of the extensions and add-ons available for Firefox to be successful. And I do think Google will be able to eat a significant share of FF market with or without extensions or an extension repository.

I can see the points Tony has made with regards to IE. I suppose I'm more elitist when it comes to web compatibility. Using a Mac I'll don't have an option of loading IE in any way shape or form natively, so it's not an issue I have to personally manage. I'm also fortunate in that I don't visit any sites that require, recommend or even work better with IE.

For me, it's almost all web-enable firmwares for networking appliances that make me have to use IE.

And I can't believe you like(d) Mail.app. Probably the worst email client I've ever used. Except maybe Eudora.

I'll tell you about one I hated: Thunderbird. Damn, what a pile of crap when I tried it in 2004 and again in 2005. Haven't tried it since though, so it might be amazing by now.

I used to use Agent (also a news reader) in Windows a long long time ago and then The Bat. I can't stand Outlook (used it for some 8 years at work), Outlook express was (and is) a complete joke and Eudora has always been a PITA on all platforms - that was on my ban list 15 years ago.

I can think of things I'd change and add to Mail, but right now the only thing that pisses me off day to day is the instability and slow speed introduced with Leopard.

I'm okay with Outlook assuming you've kept it patched and turned off some of the dumb defaults like HTML email.

I've tried Chrome finally and currently it doesn't have anything that'll make me switch from FF3. I can't make it work with Cisco SDM/ASDM either which is a tad annoying.

Ah, those were the good old days. I *loved* Agent.

I think I kept using it for years after it no longer became really feasible to do so. It was text-only, so if I wanted to see rich-content emails I had to save them as HTML and open them with the browser. But oh did I love it.

I think I finally stopped using it around 2004/2005, when I switched completely over to gmail and didn't need a POP3 reader any more.

I use Thunderbird day-to-day. It has a lot of faults, but it's straightforward and simple.

The thing that pisses me off most about Mail.app is that it decides that it needs to combine all of my Inboxes into one view. I really don't want my personal mail mixed up with my work mail. Yes, I know that it doesn't "save" it that way, but I still want to keep my lives separate.

You're right that Outlook is a piece of garbage, though. I'm forced to use it for corporate calendaring. My main complaint with it is it defaults to horrible-netiquette mode, encouraging everyone to quote and forward wildly improperly. (Someone should write a virus that fixes people's Outlook settings.) My favorite new bug is that if you send to an Exchange mailing list, it goes ahead and expands it into all the individual users. So if you're trying to search for that email you sent to a group; too bad.

Surprisingly, I end up using MS Entourage as my MacOS mail client. It has a few things that bother me, but it mostly does things the way I want or lets me easily change its behavior with easy-to-find options. (Someone on MS's Mac UI team really needs to have a talk with folks over at the Windows UI team.)

When I started using Mail (see below) I found it had everything that I first liked about Thunderbird without any of the stuff I didn't.



I wouldn't stand for that problem either. But Mail doesn't do that. At least not in the past two OS versions. When I said I used Mail I didn't mean to imply I have always used it. I found it pretty craptastic up until the version in Mac OS 10.4 Tiger. As a matter of fact, while I was running Mac OS 10.3 Panther on my then new PowerBook, I still kept The Bat running on my Windows machine as my primary mail client.

Getting fed up with having to use the other machine for Mail I then switched to Thunderbird for a little while but then when I started using develo seeds pment of Tiger (remember where I worked and that I was also testing stuff I was designing on this machine) I switched over to Mail.

Anyway, back to the gripe... "INBOX" is a meta object with a disclosure triangle to its left, just like every other "Mailbox," including Sent and Deleted. Flipping the triangle reveals all the unique Inboxes of all your accounts (you can name each one whatever you want). I always have the triangle flipped so I can see each inbox. I don't do this for the other mailboxes though except for on a special occasion when searching for something.

I can't recall if the UI design you describe was in the 10.3 version of Mail or even an earlier version. I do know that I disliked earlier versions enough to not even consider them. I didn't even consider Mac OS as a primary platform until 10.3. 10 and 10.1 I'd even consider technology previews. Anything below that wasn't even a proper OS and not worth my time except for my paycheck.

It seems the Mac OS version of Google's Chrome will likely only debut well into the Windows beta cycle, with no mention of how far away that might be. Let's hope a significant amount of time and effort are spent polishing everything up so it behaves like a proper OS citizen while the backbone of the app receives the must-have features everyone on every platform is sure to request.

I use Thunderbird, and have three separate inboxes -- one for general email (me), and one each for the Linux-IDE and Linux-Kernel mailing lists.

By default it has a single screen with all three down the left side, but right-click and open on anything gives a new window for it.

Cheers

I am now using Foxmarks but I wish google would have updated browser sync for firefox 3 it was much better.

Other than taking a bite out of the billion or so dollars a year that Microsoft takes in selling its Windows OS, you mean?

tanstaafl.

Doug, I think you need an economics refresher course.

If you give something away for free, it doesn't matter if the consumers used to pay for it; you're still getting nothing. The only reason to do that is to drive the other company out of business, and that is illegal; it's called dumping or predatory pricing.

Of course, even that ignores the fact that 95% of Windows users get their copy of Windows with their computer. That's just not going to change, and MS would still get paid via that avenue. I suppose Google might be able to get a vendor to offer GoogleOS on their systems, but, again, I don't see any real advantage for them in that sort of development expenditure.

Edit: Okay, I just looked back, and despite the fact that I could have sworn you said free at some point, you did not. So I take it back. But Google currently doesn't charge for anything other than advertising, AFAIK, and I doubt they would change their business model that significantly.

What is Google going to add to its own OS to make people want to buy it? They've got gOS already but thats a Ubuntu Linux variant and free.

Oops. Well ignore that bit then

Somebody told me it was.

It would probably take a billion dollars to develop and market a new OS. That still wouldn't guarantee any significant market share even if the price were $1 per installation. It would probably take another billion or at least several hundred million to get a lot of great applications ported to it without said marketshare.

They could do it, but it would likely be more of a bespoke/vanity sort of thing. I don't know if they could really make it fly for the masses.

They'd likely have a better chance of creating a site to compete with eBay. And I don't think that could be done even by a Google-Microsoft-Amazon-Yahoo consortium.

Or Apple. I was thinking about this the other day. Apple does make a lot of money on the Mac hardware they sell, but they also now have a growing non Mac market with the iPod, and iPhone. Plus they also have 18 billion in the bank. So, they now have a good setup to at least experiment with the idea of releasing their OS to a wider market. It doesn't have to be built to work on every system out there nor sold in retail. Instead, they can release a hardware spec list, similar to what Microsoft does, and license the OS to a few other OEMs like HP or Dell. Think of it like the HP branded iPod deal, but letting the other OEM do more of the hardware part.

They did do that before and it didn't turn out so well. As you point out, they have other significant sources of revenue now, so it might turn out differently this time, but I'm inclined to say they'd still be gunshy. Now that I think of it, they recently sued Psystar.

A Google OS makes some competitive sense for them as a loss-leader for the other Google products, particularly as a response to Microsoft's attempts to "embrace and extend" search and tie it to the desktop.

Google's first shipping consumer OS will be Android, of course. Whether they push anywhere beyond that remains to be seen.