Wouldn't this mean a lot of extra, cross-platform development of the "Flock enhanced" features? Wouldn't they have to re-develop all of these features for each platform's GUI toolkit, instead of just a single XUL codebase?<p>Nevermind the regression of features that Firefox has which Chrome doesn't. Seems like a lot of work to me.<p>Most likely Techcrunch just up to it's usual ways: authoritative headlines with mysterious, anonymous sources. Oh, and with this nugget thrown in at the end: <i>Flock hasn’t yet returned a request for comment on this story.</i>
If there are two products I think I'll never understand the motivation, those are Flock and Cuil.<p>"it didn't work at first iteration, we burn a few million dollars... no worries! Let's rewrite the whole thing and pray... again"
Flock is built on Mozilla using XUL. As far as I can tell (and I really haven't done my homework on this) Google Chrome doesn't have this kind of extensible architecture.<p>Having raised 30 million (most of which I assume is still in the bank or they're really doing something wrong) they should have plenty of time to explore new options. If the Google Chrome angle is real, then they'll have to re-implement all the work they've done on Flock so far ... from scratch.<p>Ah well, whatever. I never understood their business model anyway.