Browster—a nifty search utility or a new way to "frame" third party web sites?
By Tom Foremski - July 13, 2005
. . . is the business model sound?
![]()
Browster was a hit at the Demo conference earlier this year. It's a nifty utility that lets you search through pages of search links very quickly. You just mouse over a link and a pop-up page of the source web site appears instantaneously.
That means fewer clicks. Compare it with the current alternatives: Clicking on a link, waiting for it to load, then clicking back to the search results, or opening new windows and then trying to find your way back to the search results.
On Wednesday, Browster launched its 1.0 version. I spoke with Scott Milener, CEO and co-founder of Browster.
"Our goal is to enhance the search experience because that has become such a big part of our lives. Search is where a lot of us spend a large part of our day, and Browster makes it possible to speed through many pages of search results," said Mr Milener
When a Browster-enabled web browser displays a page, Browster looks for links and downloads the home page of that web site into a cache on the client.
Mousing over a link causes a pop-up of that web site page in a separate window. The window also displays five text ads in a horizontal row in the tool bar area.
"By using Browster, people can search deeper within Google, rather than stopping after the first page or two. That means users have a better chance of finding what they want," Mr Milener said.
Foremski's Take:
It's a nifty utility - but is it a "feature?" Browster has filed four patents, but how defensible is its IP?
Downloading web pages in the background is not novel and is done by Internet accelerator products. And pop-ups are generic.
Prefetching and caching web content is going to be a standard feature of many more products, I would think.
Business model: Browster wants to make money by selling advertising that is part of a "frame" of a third party's web site. [Browster, BTW, does not identify itself to web sites that it visits.]
The framing of third party content was something that was tried and failed during Internet 1.0. This is a different twist, but not different enough to avoid the attention of web site owners. Those web sites will undoubtedly see Browster trying to profit from their work — with no kickback.
Another issue: Users are unlikely to click on Browster's text ads, which pop up and pop away, as quickly as they speed through searches.
Another issue: The web sites prefetched by Browster register the hits, but that doesn't mean that the user actually viewed the web page, because a Browster user might not preview all the links on a page of search results. This skews usage data.
However, this somewhat makes up for the fact that ISPs, telcos, and large corporations cache web site content all over the place and those page views are not recorded/reported to the original web site.
Another issue: Corporations will not like Browster because it dramatically increases the bandwidth load on networks. Suddenly, thousands of users are downloading 10 to 20 times as much web content each time they load a web page. Browster will very likely be banned from corporate work environments, which is where a large proportion of web searching is done.
Another issue: Browster can generate clicks on pay-per-click advertising, raising costs for advertisers. That's another reason Browster should identify itself to any web sites it visits.
I like the utility but, I don't like the business model. My advice would be to try charging $10 for the software instead of selling ad clicks around someone else's content.
Content producers are going to fight back against the aggregators, scrapers and all the others that want something for nothing, much.
Producing good content is not easy or cheap.
July 13, 2005 | Permalink | Comment | Category: | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Socialbrite: Helping Non-Profits Master Social Tools For Social Change
- The Pressure Is On When Every Company Is Now A Media Company...
- Vinod Khosla: How To Succeed In Silicon Valley By Bumbling And Failing...
- Saturday Post: If You Are In The Path Of A Disruptive Technology You Are Toast - Goodbye Newspaper Companies
- SDForum Garden Party Notes: Vinod Khosla is the Antichrist; Jim Clark has a size problem; Silicon Valley Trophies - Hot women and large yachts...
- Traveling Geeks Trip Next Week ... Join Us In London!
- Bitten and Smitten: Why Journalism Is Like Falling For The Wrong Person
- Year One: The Lessons Of The Intel Insider Media Advisory Program
- UberCEO Survey: CEOs Of Fortune 100 Snub Social Media - None Blog, Only 2 Twitter
- From Big Blue To Big Brown - IBM Launches Green Services In Smart Sewage And Beyond
- Keeping It Real: PR's Real-Time Web Challenge
- A Saturday Post: The Internet Devalues Everything It Touches, Anything That Can Be Digitized
Comments (7)
Another issue: Doesn't support Firefox or Mozilla browsers
Posted: July 13, 2005 5:28 AM
I was about to download it when I noticed it only works with IE. Too bad - somebody will soon write a similar extension for FireFox ..
Posted: July 13, 2005 9:25 AM
IMO, the search engines themselves should be providing this feature. How is it that there's been literally no advance in the UX of search results for years? Unless you count the addition of advertising that a majority of users mistake for search results...
The fact that a 3rd party had to come out with a product to advance the UX of search result pages is truly sad in my opinion.
Also, there's a Firefox extension that provides the preview thumbnail functionality, but it's nowhere close to the functionality of Browster. It's called GooglePreview :)
Posted: July 13, 2005 11:19 AM
Tom,
Thanks for your comments about Browster. I really appreciate your insights and am keen to hear your feedback after you've tried it for a while.
Browster is committed to being a good part of the web ecosystem. On that theme, here are a couple thoughts on two points you made.
- Corporate IT folks we have talked to like Browster because it is a time saver for their workforce, and increasing productivity is really their job. The benefit of saving people's time searching and browsing everyday far out weighs the slight increase in bandwidth cost they may experience. We are considering a fee-based version, as you mentioned, for the corporate community.
- Since we also provide free value to the end user like publishers do, which is hard to do as you mention, we feel it's reasonable for us to use some of the Browster real estate just as a publisher would, to display relevant PPC ads.
So far publishers are fine with the model since we facilitate their sites being found on Google. Publishers are fighting the SEO battle everyday, anything to get a visit without the expense is good for them.
Thanks, Scott
Posted: July 13, 2005 2:36 PM
> So far publishers are fine with the model since
> we facilitate their sites being found on Google.
> Publishers are fighting the SEO battle everyday,
> anything to get a visit without the expense is
> good for them.
A simple Google search will turn up plenty of evidence that this comment is a bold face lie. Web publishers are upset with what Browster does for many reasons and contrary to what Browster claims, it does more harm to websites than it does them good.
Prefetching drives up bandwidth costs and server loads for websites. Sure one or two people prefetching might not be an issue, but if a large fraction of users try to prefetch multiple pages every time they visit a site, they will tremendously increase bandwidth costs without off setting those increased costs with increased revenues.
Browster plans to try to deliver content targeted ads ala what Opera does. Web publishers consider this a to be a parasitic practice that drives up their costs while driving down the website's own advertising revenues.
Don't go around spreading lies about how Browster is good for web publishers. To informed web publishers, Browster is nothing more than a piece of parasitic software that needs to be exterminated.
Yes publishers typically like free visits by REAL people, however, the traffic Browster generates for a website is anything but free. For every page a Browster user actually views, there will a mess of pages that these users downloaded but never looked at. These unviewed pages mean that many times more bandwidth will be wasted on Browster users than on non-prefetching users. This represents a very real cost in terms of increased bandwidth expenses.
May Browster and similar money making schemes be forced out of business via bankruptcies that create significant losses for their investors.
Posted: August 2, 2005 11:11 PM
To call Browster parasitic is to ignore many user's normal Google-usage patterns:
i) Enter Search criteria
ii) Once 10 results are shown, right-click on each and load them into a new browser or tab
iii) Wait for each to be loaded; view them and either explore or discard the browser or tab
Browster seems to provide a simple facility for this common practice.
Posted: September 20, 2005 4:47 AM
I think Browster is a nifty utility and very much helps usage patters as you describe. It's the business model that I'm not a crazy about because it piggybacks on other people's work. If it cost $10 and was a utility, I'd be happy to pay it.
Posted: September 20, 2005 4:56 PM