Google to Microsoft: It's on
There was already little doubt that Google was aiming at Microsoft's empire, but the announcement of a Chrome OS takes the competition to a new level.
For those who missed it, Google said late Tuesday that it plans to enter the operating system game in the second half of next year with a Linux-based OS that can run on both traditional PC chips and the ARM-based chips popular in cell phones. The idea behind Chrome OS is to create an extremely lightweight operating system that boots directly to the browser, in which all applications run.
In a blog, Google lists the advantages of such an approach.
"People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up," Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Linus Upson, engineering director, wrote in the blog. "They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them. They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files. Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates."
While it is hard to deny the appeal of those attributes, it's worth pointing out that some awfully big names have taken that approach and seen it fail.
Notably, it's the same pitch Apple initially made with the iPhone. There was no need for direct access to the phone's operating system, Apple said. Developers could simply write Web apps.
Even on the iPhone, developers and users demanded more.
That said, this is Google--and Google brings a considerably larger arsenal. With Google Gears, Google Native Client, and a host of other projects, Google is trying to blunt many of the browser's shortcomings, including the inability to fully tap local processing and storage.
This effort will take time, as Google itself acknowledges, but the company's full-frontal assault on Windows is definitely out in the open.
Obviously, this will be a fun one to watch. I've asked Microsoft for its take, and I hope to have more to say once I've had a chance to sleep on all this--literally.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Companies have tried, and so far, failed at cloud computing. If it was me, I would first get the back end working (online apps) and successful before attempting to push a front end (computer with just a browser). I question google's approach of pushing a front end so soon. They don't have a successful back end running yet.
Though I must admit, hearing that Google is doing it and that it's based off of Chrome makes me more excited than I would be for a similar product made by Microsoft.
Linux on a netbook is nothing new- it's been available for years and very few people are chosing that option versus XP. Why does google think it'll do better?
Win7 is just down the road, and people are all thumbs up on it running on netbooks.
When we first heard about Android, people (myself included) thought that the vast majority of phones would pick it up. How many phones are using it today? 3, maybe. Just because it has a google name on it doesn't mean it's gold.
This OS sounds like it'll be better suited for devices rather than PCs. Where's that web connected fridge I was promised? How about putting it on a DVR box, NAS device, DVD player, etc...
What happened to the OS on a chip? It's been out there for a while and does essentially the same thing, but how many people do you know who use it? I can't think of one.
As for startup speed that google promises, when I put linux on the same PC that had windows, linux always took longer to boot. Also, on my laptop (vista HP 64), I just use the sleep function. I can go from sleep to browsing in under 10 seconds (no problem reconnecting with WiFi). So, I think their argument there doesn't hold water.
Google has done a lot for us, but they need to focus. I see them spreading themselves too thin and not producing the quality experience that they have in the past.
I hate to be so negative but it seems to me these days that when it comes to Apple or Google, people are so quick to hail the great idea as the next best thing since the world wide web without a shred of objectivity.
I guess I'm the only person who wasn't very impressed with Chrome?
" you don't need Internet -" Explain to me how you access it initially without internet?
Obviously like any email, you need the internet to access it initially. Tell me one email client that can access its email without initially using the internet (Hint: there are none). But just like outlook, you can compose mail and read downloaded mail and when the connection is restored, everything gets synchronized.
The big help is with Google Docs. You can compose and print documents without having any internet connection what-so-ever (after you initially install the application obviously).
Here is what was posted on googleblog
"While there are areas where Google Chrome OS and Android overlap, we believe choice will drive innovation for the benefit of everyone, including Google."
oh that will be sweet revenge :) bring down Bill Gates Empire, one day at time. Linux will prevail :)
2. No internet connection compares to the gigabit connection between all the components in my pc
3. Its not close to stable enough
4. The infrastructure is not there.
5. Businesses won't want it.
1. Not everyone has a computer either, so Microsoft should just give up?
2. And no one will ever need more than 640k RAM, right? Technology evolution, anyone?
3. Actually, the Internet is more stable than Windows.
4. This would have been a valid objection 10 years ago - not today.
5. There is an increasing number of businesses providing their Windows computing environment through Remote Desktop already, so the foundation for a "thin client" is returning and growing.
I agree that this will most likely never be a remedy for M$ or Mac, but but it is (or will be) a good alternative to other web-based OS's out there.
Oh, BTW, kinda makes number 5 here an invalid point. Sorry.
The internet is more stable than windows? Thats because its a series of tubes right?
In any case, bring down Microsoft? Given the market share, it would have to destroy Apple first.
1. While not everyone has a computer, there's a larger percentage of people with a computer than with internet access. More importantly as it applies here, there are far more people with a computer than people with both a computer and broadband internet access. Would you want to use a browser-based OS on dial-up? I wouldn't. Sadly, the US is far behind many other countries in terms of broadband deployment.
2. You're right; this is evolution. However not evolution I think the country's infrastructure is ready for.
3. Internet is more stable than Windows? This statement is hilarious at best.
4. No, it's still a valid objection. Do 5 minutes internet research, and you'll see that there are enormous portions of the US without broadband.
5. True. But they can already do this right now with a lightweight Linux, and that's yet to happen on a broad scale.
@Archus
Your statement, while being feasible, is completely anecdotal. As a CIO, I would expect you to realize this. Just because something works for your company doesn't mean it'll work for all companies.
People don't want to be forced to depend on the 'cloud' for their needs. For reasons of privacy, security, speed or whatever local services are still important.
Plus, with Google Native Client (NaCi), applications can be downloaded and stored there.
If they really get NaCi up and running to the extent where it is really easy to work with, they might actually have a winner here.
But if they really do what you suggested and just have it fully online only, then it will fail big time.
The Microsoft empire shows no signs of being torn down anytime for the foreseeable future. Google's got search, Microsoft's got operating systems. They're both trying to take over each other's main products, but they will both ultimately fail to make a dent.
Here's the truth, the browser is a terrible application container. It was not designed for this job and no amount of tarting it up will correct this. If you doubt this, then ask youself why we have things like ActiveX, JREs, Flash, and Native Client? Because the browser was designed to show web pages, end of story.
So, let's make things worse by stripping down the OS...yes...there is a lot of fat...but some of it is there for a reason...Operating Systems, like Windows, OSX and Linux are general purpose. They support many different kinds of activities and therefore need various subsystems that might not be needed for just using a browser.
And the question is what is driving this supposed need? Even in the mobile space, consumers are expecting devices to have multi-functional capabilities. The iPhone exploded in use with the rollout of the app store and I'm sorry that isn't a browser based solution.
People tend to assume that the cloud is about Web Based applications and nothing could be further from the truth. A SOA architecture insures that the front end is completely agnostic. It can be web based or lightweight Java app, it can a widget running in an application space, or it can be a full blown installed app. Yes, it can be about hosted applications, but the cloud is more about expanding the value of an application by providing access to resources and capabilities beyond the local machine.
I'm sure there are uses for these 'retarded' computers (kiosks come to mind), but ultimately when I buy a computing device, mobile or otherwise,I want to make every possible use of the device. Your mileage may vary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last I checked, Google recognized this and developed their own browser to overcome these problems.
If you don't believe me, just check out http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ and see how well it works on chrome and on other browsers.
You should realize that Google won't strip Linux down too much, or the whole OS goes kaput. There is a balance. My guess is that it will only be the kernel and some peripheral subsystems.
That metaphor frightens me. But I think the guy prefers Lucifer Morningstar to Satan. Calling him Satan is like calling a duck a "winged thingie."
"And the question is what is driving this supposed need?"
First, good point. Cloud computing in general seems to be a solution looking for a problem to me.
Second, that's an easy one to answer if I'm understanding you correctly. If I were Google, and I served the VAST majority of internet advertising (we're talking CORE revenue model here), wouldn't it be to my advantage to provide the software allowing users to view it, connecting them as closely as possible to it? That said, wouldn't it even be to my advantage to free the pipe through which they can view it?
Really good point. The need is not from consumers, but Google to own even more of the system. I hadn't looked at it that way. Honestly, I get a little more concerned with Google every day in how far their reach is extending and the fact that they *can* execute across that domain, while MS would just fumble it.
Repeated failure of Linux desktop has shown that people would rather pay good money for a great operating system than pay nothing for an OS that's "almost as good."
The reason why laptops have become so popular over the last few years is because people want to have access to THEIR DATA wherever in the world they are at the moment. Desktops have, in the mean time, become computers used for hosting, science, gaming, torrenting, HTPC, 3D rendering and other high-performance tasks where portability is irrelevant.
Why would we all take a massive step back, in order to make Google even richer?
Would I trust Google with my intellectual property? A resounding NO F WAY.
Would I trust Google not to disable my "cloud" account and not cut me off my data even though they have a problem with my online profile? A resounding NO. Their advertizing policies have shown that they have as much tolerance towards anyone who opposes them as the Chinese government does.
Would I stop using 3D modeling applications, Photoshop, Visual Studio and Microsoft Word just to make Google richer? A resounding NO.
Would I switch to butt ugly Google UI from the stunning Aero I'm using now? A resounding NO F WAY.
Yes, Google Chrome OS will reach a 2% market share. But I'm afraid that's all it's ever going to get.
I'm ok with storing contact info and emails and such on the cloud, but anything past that I wouldn't trust anyone else. Besides, if you're "on the go" that means you need internet connection for cloud based apps. That means either mobile broadband or other peoples wireless access points. And considering that any script kiddie can crack just about most wireless encryption, I say 'no thanks'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Google plans to market this to people who want to do that sort of stuff. From what I read, they plan to market it to people who spend most of their day on the web. People who check email, read the news and occasionally compose documents.
I also imagine that if Google wants to gain any traction with businesses, it will have to federate the server technology like it is doing with wave to allow companies to store their own data.
As for Linux on the desktop, it actually looks and works quite well... I have a laptop with Vista/Ubuntu and Ubuntu works far better than Vista does and far quicker than Vista. The problem was that Linux is a pain to setup (wireless was a major pain) and most people don't have the technical skills to use/setup Linux therefore it is a poor choice for people who are not technically savvy.
But it suffers from problems that open source cannot solve.
Namely, it's ugly. Whatever theme you pick, whatever icons you download, it's still ugly. I'm sorry, I'd rather pay $200 so I don't have to spend the next 5 years looking at ugly icons.
Also, its font rendering is STILL, after all those years, NOWHERE close to Mac's or Windows'. No matter what illegal source patches you install and hidden settings you change, it's still not as good. We all know it's because Apple and Microsoft hold patents on high-quality font rendering and hinting, but I don't care. I would have to look at badly rendered text all day long. No f way.
For a casual user who checks his mail twice a day and reads news for 5 minutes, yes, Ubuntu GUI is good. It's also good for people who think Audi A5 and Hyundai Getz look the same.
So, yes, it's good. But Windows and Mac OS X are WAY BETTER.
People may want all those things, but I don't know if those people are really ready to give up all the power of their PC and stay within a browser OS environment.
In any case this makes things even more interesting in the OS world. Looking forward to see how things move in the next couple of years.
http://gartenblog.net/2009/07/08/chrome-os-is-not-a-threat-to-windows/
You're alot like those who hate microsoft for the same reason... they are successful.
- by cvaldes1831 July 8, 2009 7:24 AM PDT
- Count me amongst the people who are unconvinced about the browser as the OS.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (61 Comments)On my iPod touch, I access the following Internet services without touching a browser: e-mail, stocks, weather, sports scores, news, maps, YouTube, TV and movie schedules, social networks, Internet radio and streaming audio, restaurant reservations, transit schedules. There are plenty more utilities and games that I can run without an Internet connection as well.
The web browser is an important application on a desktop or notebook PC, something with a decent sized screen and a full keyboard. When you move to handheld devices, the notion of a page of hypertext has little appeal.
I am happy to have a good browser on my iPod touch, but I avoid using it. If there is an app for a particular function, it is usually better than the web page it is replacing (at least on these handheld devices).
Best of luck to Google. Competition is good and I would love to see a credible competitor to Apple, the iPod touch/iPhone, and iTunes/App Store ecosystem. Heck, best of luck to Microsoft, too. I'm a shareholder of all three companies. I'd like all of them to improve their offerings.