Analyzing Google's Chrome OS strategy
Google is developing an operating system of its own, based on the company's Chrome browser and intended primarily for use in low-cost Netbooks. Now I'll tell you why I think Google is doing it.
Like any other commercial enterprise, Google is trying to make money. No secret there. But Google doesn't make money the way other computer software companies do.
(Credit:
Google)
Microsoft, for example, makes money mostly by selling software (and a few hardware products) to computer users. There are two sides to this plan. Microsoft wants to make computers more valuable, so buyers will spend more of their income on computers; and it wants to increase the share it receives of that budget.
What makes Google unusual is that it wants a share of a different budget: the time people spend in front of their computers. Google makes money by displaying ads on a small part of the display while people view Internet content on the rest. Not all the time, of course, but the opportunity is there, and Google's multibillion-dollar revenue shows how well this strategy can work.
Turning the Chrome browser into the Chrome OS is technically straightforward, though of course it'll take a lot of work. A browser already has most of the key elements of any OS: application programming interfaces (APIs) to allow application software to display content and accept user input, store and retrieve data from mass storage, communicate over the Internet, and so on. Google will have to add a driver model and some other things that don't exist in a browser, but it can learn from how these things are done in existing operating systems, and possibly even borrow much of the code directly from Linux; there's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Existing operating systems such as Windows support a far wider variety of programming languages and provide far more services than Chrome OS will, but Chrome will probably be plenty good enough for Netbooks. (Personally, I don't think Netbooks are good for much, and many Netbook buyers seem to agree as shown by the huge volume of refurbished systems now available from remarketers like Woot.com.)
CNET News Poll
So, Google is after your time, not your money. It can try to get more of your time in the same ways Microsoft tries to get more of your money. Will the Chrome OS increase the time people spend in front of the computer? No, quite the opposite. There will inevitably be less to do on a Chrome OS computer than on a Mac or Windows machine. Buying a Chrome-based Netbook means giving up the chance to run most Windows games, Apple's iLife suite, and other popular software.
But for Google, the key is this: once you've got a Chrome system, Google's in charge of ALL the time you spend with it.
I don't think that's good enough, and it looks like Google feels the same way; the company intends to implement the whole Chrome OS environment within the Chrome browser so Linux, Mac and Windows users can also run Chrome applications. This plan is necessary, since Google can't very well hope to muscle aside the incumbents, but it means that Netbook buyers will have no reason to prefer a Chrome-based machine.
Or will they? Linux may be free, but Google can undercut that price if it's willing to cut OEMs in on its ad revenue. In this way, Google could bring to market a subsidized pricing model we usually associate only with 3G-equipped notebooks. Google won't have nearly as much money to throw around as the cell phone operators do--maybe just a few unpredictable dollars per month averaged across all Chrome OS users vs. the reliable $60/month subscription fees associated with 3G cards--but that could still add up. Even a $20 subsidy could amount to 10 percent of the sale price of a cheap Netbook, which could tip the balance in favor of Chrome.
Like I said, it seems to me that Netbooks aren't the ideal platform for this strategy. The Google model can't work as well on a small screen, since users will be reluctant to share what little space they have with Google's ads. But they'll work well enough, and Google has no realistic chance to place Chrome on mainstream notebook and desktop systems except in the same narrow markets where Linux sells today. (And not all of those; for example, Chrome has no shot at the engineering workstation market, where Linux is popular.)
So I'm sure we'll see some number of Chrome OS-based machines on the market in 2010, and then we'll see what happens. My guess is that Chrome will do about as well as Linux has done in the Netbook business: not well. A lot of people will try it, possibly enticed by those lightly subsidized prices and the usual interest in novel computing platforms (the information-technology equivalent of the Coolidge effect, which perhaps could be known as the Glaskowsky effect.)
And then most of those people will return those machines, or give them to their ungrateful children, or just toss them onto a shelf to gather dust, and they won't buy more of the same--at least not until Google spends a few more years building Chrome OS into a fully competitive product, which I'm sure it will do. Google's big enough, and it knows there's a business here. It just won't be ready to take full advantage of the opportunity just yet.
Peter N. Glaskowsky is a computer architect in Silicon Valley and a technology analyst for the Envisioneering Group. He has designed chip- and board-level products in the defense and computer industries, managed design teams, and served as editor in chief of the industry newsletter "Microprocessor Report." He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 





But hey it's refreshing seeing that a mega-company is looking at the future and actually investing in it. Today we may see it as far fetched..in a year time we may see it as a disappointing product but in 3-5 years, when it has been developed well, we will accept it as a life working environment and soon it will become the norm.
That's how technology evolves, always. Just look at the Internet in general.
Microsoft is hobbled by the requirement to support its legacy APIs, a burden that gets worse with every release, especially given their tendency to put incompatibilities in as they go. A brand-new OS with a relatively clean slate might be able to provide all the functionality most people need with a lot less overhead. If the OS is any good, the programming languages will follow. We'll have to see.
Well to burst your bubble, MS is working on this very same thing for release.
No this is not a flame I myself have been looking at the 13" MacBook for myself.
Why does Mr. Glaskowsky narrow ChromeOS to just netbooks and then proceed to criticize Google's 'strategy of netbooks' because of his personal distaste of them when it isn't quite their strategy? I don't like to use the term too much, but this is mostly FUD.
Look at all the excitement & innovation in the web browser space these days.
Look at all the excitement & innovation in the smartphone space these days.
The same should be true for desktop OSes. I understand that OS X & Ubuntu are already compelling alternatives to Windows (I use Ubuntu as my primary OS). but I still think it is great that Google is getting involved, to bring their web perspective & innovative spirit to desktop OSes. Choice is good!
But Chrome OS, at least in its first iteration, isn't novel; it isn't the next big thing. It's the old thin-client concept with a new label on it.
We rejected it before, and we'll reject it again.
If Google decides to evolve Chrome into a truly new and fully functional OS, that'll be great. I gave them the benefit of the doubt in the article, but having slept on it, I'm less optimistic now. I'm not sure why Google would want to climb what amounts to a multi-billion-dollar learning curve. How would it profit from that work in the long run?
I'll keep thinking about it, though.
What happen to unbiased articles?
Now that I have that out of the way will you please tell me where in the Chrome browser are the embedded adds? Where in that incredibly efficient layout am I losing precious real estate for additional adds? The answer is nowhere they don't exist. As such i don't think that a Chrome OS will be any less streamlined or any more obtrusive.
What Google is trying to do here is create a means for more people to get onto a computer for all the tasks the vast majority of consumer computer users actually do on a computer. They want to increase the total internet user base. Their model is not based on obtrusively inserting adds anywhere they can (isn't that why Google so complete trounced its competition?) it is by the shear volume of people seeing the adds they have out there. They realize that 9.9 times out of 10 an on-line user surfing the internets will see a Google add.
As you pointed out they are a profit seeking entity, to increase profits they need to increase internet usage. To increase usage they need to increase utility for existing users so they spend more time on-line looking at those adds, and increase the total number of users of the internet.
To that end Google is not trying to create this browser for technophiles and hardcore programmers it is creating it for everyone else. It makes perfect sense to put this on a netbook which due to cost and portability is the internet usage device for "everyone else".
Based on these reasons I think that you have completely missed the point of this OS.
For example, Android may have a small market share and apps market compared to iPhone, but Android is plain smarter not glossier. The first Android system had a seamless Cut-Copy-Paste function throughout...iPhone just caught up. Android can maintain multiple apps in state and in processing in the background for a multi-tasking experience. The goal is a better mobile platform, not a shot at some iPhone killer.
The same is true of this Google Chrome OS gambit. What would a futuristic cloudbook be? Wait and see.
I mean, seriously, your argument sound like that old Internet meme:
1) Develop a new OS.
2) ???
3) Profit!
Either way, if we forget about the entire fact it's Google's Chrome "Operating System" and pay more attention to the applications that they will bring to the internet. How can you not be excited about that? Not only will the applications run on Google's OS, but they will run on others as well. Imagine that. Here's an exerpt from the Official Google Blog and it's article "Introducing Google Chrome OS."
"All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform."
If Google were to scrap this project, they would post-pone the future of the internet and what it's bound to become. There is no need for this. Google will evolve, Microsoft will evolve and the future will get closer.
Why so scared?
In fact, the _problem_ with any browser is that it's very difficult to make a sophisticated Web app that runs on multiple browsers. So for the most part, Chrome apps will be Chrome-specific apps. And similarly, Web apps for large-display systems suffer when run on small screens.
If Chrome OS Web apps are the only answer, you're asking the wrong question.
. png
Please check how newtbooks sales has increased, and try to be impartial, for God's sake
That's what I explained in my earlier post, "The Netbook is dead! Long live the notebook!":
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10145482-23.html
I'm as impartial as the truth allows.
. png
Great analysis!, apocalypsis for anything that is not Microsoft
Toyota has been building cars for decades and they couldnt see how important the Prius would be to their company for the same reason this idiot can't see how important Chrome OS could be. They are backward looking idiots wearing MS blinders. Wake up. The days of MS domination are numbered.
Anyway, I think if you look through my earlier posts you'll see I'm a neophile myself. I just expect new things to be NEW, and to be an improvement in some way over what we have already.
Haha, you have me rolling on the floor.
I can not wait until Google Chrome OS is released because I suppose then will be the only time that you will realize you're predictions are absurd and out this world. You're speaking as if Google has never done a thing to revolutionize the way people use the internet.
Hahaha.
And knowing them, they probably will.
True, half-true, false, true, true, false, false, true, true, and doubtful. Google people aren't that much better than Microsoft or Apple people.
Um, ChromeOS IS Linux. It's a gui running on a Linux kernel. You're supposed to be a technology analyst - try doing some technology analysis before writing! Failing to do even minimal research casts a shadow on everything else you write.
I don't know what Mr. Glaskowsky's background it, but the above statement suggests that either he has never had the basic undergraduate Operating Systems course, or he didn't pay much attention in class. Either way, he's clearly over his head in this area and might be best served to change the topic to something he is qualified to discuss.
Pretty much every "killer" app of the 21st century has been a web app, not a desktop app. MS has either bought out or crushed nearly every interesting non-MS desktop app, leaving only niche products like Photoshop unmolested. The only way to create something new without MS screwing with you is on the net. After while, there's not that much on the traditional desktop that matters anymore, if you don't need a niche app or all the power of MS Office.
"Microsoft, for example, makes money mostly by selling software (and a few hardware products) to computer users. "
vs
"Google makes money by displaying ads on a small part of the display while people view Internet content on the rest."
I think that this statement mis-understands the product that Google is producing, and who their customer is. Google's business is "Information" and advertising revenue is only one potential income stream. Google users are the product, and they sell it to interested companies who would are looking for particular markets. This is done through Google search, goog411, youtube, and soon to be Google voice. With Gmail, Gdocs, android, and soon google voice, the depth of information that they can gather and aggregate to provide to marketers gets more complex and valuable. Now imagine the depth of data, and the kinds of associations that they can dredge up from the users behavior if they have access to all data within the whole system. They will be able to tell you not only how many people searched for "iPhone", but also how long those customers spend on Facebook, myspace, CNN, and in yahoo mail.
I believe the writer missed this analysis, and because of that fails to see the real value statement for Google. This is not some insidious plan, it is just how they run the business, and they will give away any of their software "products" that help to seed the field in order to harvest the wealth of user activity information.
- by vikinzer July 9, 2009 9:01 AM PDT
- Why does no one on this site see the raw potential of this product. They are all talking about how it will do against Linux or Mac. Will it really be worth using? Blah Blah Blah. They don't really need to build a full blown desktop OS replacement. They just don't. They have to build a system that has a sustainable niche, and it can be minimally sustainable, and have that system offer some sort of experience that is superior to the current offerings. It can be lacking in several departments and still "succeed". All it really needs to do to "suceed" for Google is to push the other players into developing their products to match whatever functionality Google offers. It worked with the browser. Chrome came out and BOOM Mozilla suddenly cared about performance when they had been leeking memory and performance like a pasta strainer leaks starchy water for more than a full point release. Google apps suddenly feel much more responsive when people upgrade. Even the people not technically adept enough to know about Chrome and it's speed advantage. Mozilla didn't want to lag behind long enough for the tech friends to convince the non tech users they had finally dragged kicking and screaming away from Microsoft.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by dskarjune July 9, 2009 12:31 PM PDT
- Exactly! That's why Mark Shuttleworth has never worried about a supposed ?goobuntu? project inside the "Do No Evil" empire, and his response to the Chrome O.S. announcement was ?Google has a reasonable stab at redefining the desktop.? He gets it, admires the direction, understands it as a potential multiplier for Ubuntu, and will probably direct Canonical to take a stab at the cloud as well.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (60 Comments)Ubuntu is now moving on a big push to get Android apps running on their platform, boot times are shrinking all the time, and performance is at the forefront of development again. Google has said their OS will be open source. So whatever they bring to the table you know the other players are going to implement it in their distros, or work to make their products competitive with it. What is the end result? You guessed it Google gets to drive development of the major platforms by being competitive, and by driving development they get to have platforms their products run well on. This move is so not actually about the system they are deploying, and I can't figure out why no one else is talking about that angle.