Google: Why don’t we just rename the world Google? I swear, they know everything about us anymore. Your birthday, what books you read, the last four digits and security code of your credit card, what hair color you used… But must they really continue into our lives, further turning us into Googlites? (It does have a ring though…)

The mega-search kings and AdSense overlords released their first attempt in the browser world, Google Chrome. Why it’s called Chrome, I have no clue. It’s not shiny, so it’s not that. While we always appreciate a new browser contender, even though it is getting a bit crowded, I’m not so sure I want Google to now own my browser. It’s bad enough that I constantly use their search engine, have it as my homepage on my BlackBerry, AND have all my email go through them on Gmail and Google Apps. I’d like a bit of freedom, if you wouldn’t mind.

If monopoly’s could be declared on web services, Google should win that game easily.

Let’s get down to what Chrome does before I go into ripping it even more. Ok, to be honest, the only thing it really does is add shortcuts to your desktop for “your favorite web applications” (can we say Google Apps?). That, and the one-box Address bar/search bar is pretty nifty. But all of these other featured have been done in other browsers.

Disclaimer: I have not yet had access to Google Chrome as I don’t have a PC box at my ready.

Yes, I know Google is just trying to do the right thing and merge them all together into one splendiferous browser and I agree there should be one to do it all, but that’s what Firefox extensions are for, no?

One of the great things that Google did was build Chrome off of the WebKit engine, and from the early tests, it’s paying off. Chrome killed the other browsers in the speed tests and seems to be pretty speedy and snappy from reports I’ve read on my own. But does all this come at a cost?

CNet brought up three key points that are mentioned in EULA. The first; Google can automatically update and install Chrome.

“The software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the services.”

I agree that we should be notified of updates and (if severe enough) bugged constantly, but must we really have new software downloaded and installed? Apple tried that with Safari and got slapped on the wrist. Google, take notes.

Next: More ads!

“Some of the services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the services, queries made through the services or other information.

The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the services are subject to change without specific notice to you.”

So… If the people praying for extension capability get their wish, does this mean that the possibility of an Adblock-like extension being DOA?

Finally: All your content are belong to us.

“By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services.”

…Where do I start with this? So, correct me if I’m wrong (that’s what comments are for), but Google is essentially stating that some content that you may view and send can be used by Google, thus essentially licensing your content without you knowing. Listen up folks: PRIVACY IS DEAD. It’s been dead for sometime, and this has made it as dead as a doorknob.

While I applaud Google for wanting to branch out (it’s a soft clap, listen closely for it), they’re taking a bad approach to it. If they truly wanted a revolutionary browser, they wouldn’t have done a Windows-only launch, to begin with. They also wouldn’t be selling their users out and gaining control of their content freely. I’ll give Chrome a try when it comes out on OS X, but in the mean time, no thanks. I like Firefox very much, thank you.