Week in review: Google goes after Microsoft with OS
The company announced Google Chrome OS on its blog, saying lower-end PCs called Netbooks from unnamed manufacturers will include it in the second half of 2010. Linux will run under the covers of the open-source project, but the applications will run on the Web itself.
The move shows just how serious Google is about making the Web into a foundation not just for static pages but for active applications, notably its own such as Google Docs and Gmail. It also opens new competition with Microsoft and, potentially, a new reason for antitrust regulators to pay close attention to Google's moves.
In short, Google is aiming to render desktop software irrelevant. To thwart them, Microsoft needs Windows to do things that a browser can't--or do the same things significantly better.
Interestingly, if Microsoft wants some tips on how to do this, it might want to look toward Apple. Essentially, this has been Apple's challenge all along: make the Mac experience better enough than a generic PC that it is worth the added cost.
Google has a long history of tracking user activity, and the introduction of its Chrome operating system later this year is sure to follow suit. While we know that it's being built off of Linux, one big thing we don't know is how its terms of service will differ from those found in other Google products, and what kinds of user data it will be collecting. Based on the company's track record of watching and monetizing user data, it could track anything from the applications you're using, to all the information that's coming in and out of your computer.
• Why Chrome OS? Google says, why not?
• Google reveals its Chrome OS cohorts
More headlines
Andreessen: Facebook revenue to top $500 million in '09
The Netscape founder, a member of Facebook's board of directors, says the social network has the potential to be a billion-dollar company already.• So is Facebook for old people now or what?
• Facebook debuts 'fan box' tool
• Wife exposes chief spy's personal life on Facebook
• Facebook movie screenplay reportedly doesn't suck
T-Mobile launches iPhone challenger
T-Mobile sees its second Android phone, the MyTouch 3G, as its best hope to take on Apple's iPhone on AT&T.• DOJ looks into telecom dominance
• Manage multiple Twitter accounts with your iPhone
• Can RIM get its mojo back with the BlackBerry Tour?
Judge sides with YouTube on several copyright issues
Federal court dismissed some of the copyright complaints made by a class of plaintiffs because they were made overseas and aren't protected by U.S. copyright law.• Jammie Thomas asks for new trial
• Odd-couple lawyers aim to save Jammie Thomas
Microsoft opens Hohm to energy monitoring
Can a slick Web application give you decent advice on cutting your home energy use? Based on a first look at Microsoft Hohm, CNET News' Martin LaMonica says yes.• GE appliances to connect to smart grid via Tendril
• Control4 adds energy monitoring to home network
URL shortening is hot--but look before you leap
Fueled by Twitter's popularity, services to abbreviate Web addresses are taking off. They bring a host of problems, but some are working to fix them.• Shortened URLs spike in e-mail spam
• How to vanquish mobile spam
Google Earth event hints at moon mapping
An event scheduled for July 20--the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing--could mean the addition of new moon imagery to Google Earth.• Google image search gets usage rights filtering
SEC review of Apple disclosure now more complex?
The federal inquiry into whether Apple made misleading statements over CEO Steve Jobs' health is ongoing, according to a Bloomberg report.• N.C. town sweetens pot for an Apple move
Also of note
• U2 releasing 'mobile album' for BlackBerry
• VCs more confident about recovery
• News sites stay up during Jackson memorial
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. 
Does anyone realize how much stuff we keep connecting to the internet?? PC's, laptops, PDA's, Xbox, Wiii, Playstion, Blu-ray player, etc...it gets mind boggling. And we keep adding more & more!
I use the web every day, just like everyone else....for work, research & fun. Even with Internet 2.0...this will still be a strain. i attended a seminar, back in the 90's , when MS & & Sun were making these proposals. I stood up and started listing then "what if's":
What if....
A major router goes down
Hackers attack the web based apps, data bases & OS'
part of the internet backbone gets damaged (anyone remeber 911 & California rolling blackouts??)
Telcoms that go belly up (worldcomm, MCI)
_i'll stop here_
Will anyone be able to do any work? the answer would be NO! If you OS & APPs are web based & the web goes down, for any reason, you will not be able to do s.h.i.t.
These people need to get out of the "Clouds" & get back to "Reality"
Here is something fundamental that Windows can do that a browser based OS cannot... function without a network connection.
I really wish that news organizations, bloggers, etc. would stop pitching Google's non-existant OS as something that is going to take over the desktop and oust Windows. They may make some money with things like Netbooks; especially if they get a lot of open source contributions lowering their costs), but a "Windows killer", ain't gonna happen.
Apple has a much better shot at that than Google does. Funny how people just forgot about the progress Macs have made just because Google has a press release about an OS. Apple and Linux have been trying for years to take a bite out of Windows and they still have 90% of the market.
Stop spreading this maddness. Love it or hate it, most of the world runs on Windows.
For the vast majority of businesses, governments, power users and other institutional users Microsoft Operating Systems would still continue to be the defector OS, because they are truly solid, tested, in-place and because of (TOC) cost of ownership. Linux stands a much better chance to be a significant player than Chrome, at least in the next 10 years or so.
In the last 20 years in the frontlines of IT business, I have never come across a single client that mentioned anything to me about switching to some other operating system, because of initial cost considerations or some other reason. Businesses are driven by total cost of ownership, such as support, learning curve, ability to run business applications, employee motivation, disruptiveness.... not the initial purchase price, even if the price is free. So no, if I were Microsoft, I would not lose sleep over Chrome OS.
To NewsReader: umm, what exactly is Apple's market share in PCs that Google should be emulating? 5%? And yes, things always stay the same: those cell phones are just a fad, it's all about land lines. And Windows has always had 90%+ share. Etc.
windows on the other hand has applications and games that keeps us locked. everything i use at work only runs on windows and in rare cases on macs (i am a software developer). same story with my home activities... linux cant substitute for windows, how do u expect chrome os do that? it's even further from windows in it's capabilities...
i wonder what all these bloggers use their computers for...
The only immediate limitations I can see are production applications like video/audio editing. Eventually there could be web-versions, but it will be a while before HTML and Javascript can handle these in real time.
Personally, I prefer Yahoo!
How come no one else has recognized this ? Google is not innovating here. They are copying Palm !
And let me know when my games such as Halo and Chrysis will run on my "Chrome OS" LOL
Google?s Chrome OS is not an operating system, it is a browser configuration over LINUX ? perhaps a way for LINUX to find a good seat at the desktop table for netbooks. This is not a great leap in innovation, nor is it any real competition for MS, though in the end it may end up being competition for the mobile computing platform on PDAs and cells.
What editor let this slip past the reality check? Where?s the reference to ?MAC OS Killer? in the article, and why the illicit statements regarding MS vs Apple in an article that should have been focused on a new low overhead netbook schema? Where?s the analysis of desktop vs netbook, and the need for Google?s Chrome OS (actually browser driven LINUX) to have a robust and reliable network connection to be useful? Desktop PC power for processor demanding and graphic intensive applications will not be overcome by Chrome OS to be sure. I have a couple of netbooks, 1 state-of-the-art running XP and 1 state-of-the-shelf running LINUX, and neither can handle multitasking with a couple of browser windows and the network activity greatly increases the battery burn rate. They are useful tools for low demand applications with periodic network access, but portraying them as desktop or laptop killers is dishonest (snake-oil ? IMO).
CNET ? this is disappointing, and would hardly qualify as incompetent editorialism. Shelve the bias, and get some objectivity back in the analysis of emerging tech.
Oh, and Chrome OS isn't just a browser over LINUX, from all accounts. If it was, it'd be out next week. It looks to be a complete desktop/interface overlay (I think of it as the "Gnome-killer") that will be tightly integrated with LINUX to keep efficiency and optimization as high as possible... They know the limitations of the hardware platform they are targeting, so they want to make an OS that exploits and complements the limitations, rather than just shearing down a big bloated OS and kludging it together to make it at least passable on a netbook. It's a complete 180 degree divergence from how MS is handling it - Chrome is being built from the ground up, based on the LINUX kernel (which is really very lean and light); MS is shredding their existing bloated OS down and trying to cobble it into a limited platform. It's going to be interesting, in the end, to see which performs better.
Google should subsidize the devices or give some type of ad revenue sharing back to the OEM manufactures. As a matter of fact I bet you that's in the pact... some type of ad revenue sharing potential to get names like HP on board. Seriously it's a shame - people need to wake up and think about who you share your information with. Google's "Don't be Evil" is an oxymoron. They are a company, their aim is to gain revenues and grow revenues.... if those revenues don't grow that stock does not go up. Exploitation is the name of the game and no matter what Green Project you think up the end results is to build revenue, secure business, and take out the competition at all costs.
"In short, Google is aiming to render desktop software irrelevant. To thwart them, Microsoft needs Windows to do things that a browser can't--or do the same things significantly better.
Interestingly, if Microsoft wants some tips on how to do this, it might want to look toward Apple. Essentially, this has been Apple's challenge all along: make the Mac experience better enough than a generic PC that it is worth the added cost."
I think CNET (and Google, and Apple, and Linux-backers) should stop smoking that weed, get back to reality, and give a try to (read "learn from") Windows 7. Google might have talent enough to give Windows some tuff competition (even if IMO is in a better position to compete against Microsoft in this area), but let's not turn things around: if someone has something to learn with someone is Google, Apple, and Linux-developers from Microsoft, not the other way around (last time I checked, Microsoft was the one winning this "OS war").
- by Vrmithrax July 14, 2009 5:36 AM PDT
- I'm always amazed at how stupid people thing Google is. Sure, they'll take advantage of the cloud computing thing, but we are talking about an OS that is targeting netbooks first, here. You know, those little things that people throw under their arm and wander off the grid, get on planes, open in their car to look up an address. Anyone who thinks that Google is making an OS that will ONLY work effectively when connected on a full scale broadband connection to the internet, well those people have to be idiots. They will no doubt build an offline system that is built to take advantage of a connection whenever it is available. And if they don't, well then THEY are the clueless idiots in the equation.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)Google didn't get where they are today by being stupid and ignoring market research, they are big now BECAUSE they are one of the few groups that listen and tailor their path to meet what their consumers need and want.