>This is not the case for Chrome: the browser keeps all the cached information indefinitely; perhaps this is driven by some hypothetical assumptions about browsing performance, and perhaps it simply is driven by the desire to collect more information to provide you with more relevant ads
>Some of these issues - such as the "infinite history" or the antiquated style of process isolation - may be driven by Google's business needs, rather than the well-being of the Internet as a whole.
How does caching the files indefinitely lead to better ad targeting? Keeping the history, perhaps, but I don't believe Chrome's web history is used to target ads when they have a lot of other ways of doing it, like Google cookies from people logging into Gmail at home and work, third party sites using Ad Words or Google+ etc. etc.
>> How does caching the files indefinitely lead to better ad targeting?
>It doesn't, of course. That's pure FUD; Chrome doesn't contribute to ad-serving in any form other browsers don't.
Actually, I'd argue that caching files (indefinitely or otherwise) speeds up the internet for the user; higher speed = more pageviews = more ad impressions and potential ad clicks.
Google's quest for internet speed is a win-win-win win for us since we get faster internet, win for them since they get more ad impressions / revenue, another win for them for gaining goodwill and a positive reputation.
I would go further with your argument (which is perfectly valid for me) for the sake of completeness: it helps them to have a foot in web standardization and, more importantly, to offer a viable alternative solution, fully integrated and "in control". Secured. I don't think it is only a matter of "speed". :-)
Before Chrome they were to the "mercy" of the leader in the market place: IE - with its OS companion MS-Windows, the first "barrier" to the the web. Which is the main playground of Google. IE was not really moving the web forward, and known for a lot of issues. I remember people reluctant to use they credit card on the web, because of their unconscious feelings of MS-Windows/MS-IE insecurities. Stuff evolved A LOT from there. Microsoft IE is now much more respectful of the w3c standard AFAIK, more stable, etc. And as you see, from that stability emerged a lot of business. I could not envisaged so much possibilities if the status-quo was still holding today as in 1998. I would make a bold statement, saying that thanks to FireFox, Chrome, Hackers, we are now seeing all those startups...
It was a very important challenge for Google (and it is not finished) because they have incentive in people using the "open" web more and more, as you told. The more user on the internet, the more time they spend on it, as you said, the more they watch ads/spend money/consume. And I still know people frightened by this "Tool" that they don't understand. Viruses, Credit card number steal, etc. "Who are those guys, the Anonymous hackers?" I was asked not a long time ago. I was visiting friends owning a PS3 when the PS3 network have been closed down because of act of pirating, totally chocked by its useless video games. Etc, etc. Long list of example.
Google understood early that it was in their interest to work on that matter. Those topics will take more and more place in news in the near future, I guess. Google won't be able to sort everything out of course. But they were needing to push further the control of their own fortune. Chrome was a step forward going into the action.
They are still working on that full "Vertical" offer. Chrome was just ONE part of the full scheme. They've released Android, now they are releasing Google Pixel. Tomorrow, Google glass. That must be exciting times at Google because the work of so much year is taking forms, and I guess it will translates in even a better future. At least they are showing to me that they perfectly envision from a long time ago which the treats are and the challenges for their business. And how to tackle them. Facebook, native guis, any other kind of "closed" web (as opposed to open web) are another kind of threats, but that is another story, I guess... :-) .
As soon as I read the part where the author is hinting that Chrome uses user's browser history to deliver more relevant ads I thought the author either does not understand how the history feature work or he is being disingenuous. I've been using chrome for nearly 4 years without ever deleting history. The only slow pages that I've experienced are the non-English pages (Arabic in particular). They (non-English pages) are slow specially after an update.
>Some of these issues - such as the "infinite history" or the antiquated style of process isolation - may be driven by Google's business needs, rather than the well-being of the Internet as a whole.
How does caching the files indefinitely lead to better ad targeting? Keeping the history, perhaps, but I don't believe Chrome's web history is used to target ads when they have a lot of other ways of doing it, like Google cookies from people logging into Gmail at home and work, third party sites using Ad Words or Google+ etc. etc.