Google plans Chrome-based Web operating system
That Google operating system rumor is coming true--and it's based on Google's browser, Chrome.
The company announced Google Chrome OS on its blog Tuesday night, 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.
In other words, Google's cloud-computing ambitions just got a lot bigger.
"Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the Web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small Netbooks to full-size desktop systems," Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Linus Upson, engineering director, said in the blog post.
The move has widespread implications.
One is that it 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. Another: it opens new competition with Microsoft and, potentially, a new reason for antitrust regulators to pay close attention to Google's moves.
The move also gives new fuel to the Netbook movement for low-cost, network-enabled computers. Those machines today run Windows or Linux. Google Chrome OS provides a new option that hearkens back to the Network Computer era of the 1990s espoused by Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy and Oracle's Larry Ellison.
Sundar Pichai, vice president of product development at Google
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)Google is making sure its standard antitrust rebuttal, that "competition is one click away," remains intact with Chrome OS, though. "All Web-based applications...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."
Another bit of intrigue comes with the corporate politics. Google has argued that offering its Android mobile-phone operating system isn't a big enough competitive issue with Apple that Chief Executive Eric Schmidt must step down from Apple's board. Offering a full-on PC operating system could intensify the Federal Trade Commission's "discussions" about Schmidt's dual Apple and Google responsibilities .
Google has a track record of upsetting the status quo, though, taking on strong incumbent players and rattling cages well beyond the computing industry. Google Docs competes with Microsoft Office. Gmail competes with Yahoo Mail and Microsoft Hotmail. Google Books aims to digitize the publishing industry. The Android operating system is designed to make smartphones cheap and ordinary.
'Rethinking' the operating system
With Google Chrome OS, the company hopes to start afresh with personal computing.
"The operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no Web," the blog post said. "So today, we're announcing a new project that's a natural extension of Google Chrome--the Google Chrome Operating System. It's our attempt to rethink what operating systems should be."
Among the benefits Google touted are "speed, simplicity and security," Pichai and Upson said. "We are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates."
Google is talking to Netbook partners now, and the project will become open-source "soon." It will run on members of the x86 and ARM processor families, Google said.
Google declined to comment on its plans beyond the blog posting.
The company also didn't mention how exactly it hopes to profit from Chrome OS, but it seems likely it's the latest variation on trying to get more people using the Web more often and more deeply--behavior that correlates with more searching and more search advertising.
"Any time our users have a better computing experience, Google benefits as well by having happier users who are more likely to spend time on the Internet," Upson and Pichai said.
Hints of Chrome OS
Hints of the direction have been abundant, but it wasn't clear Google would go as far as creating a product branded as a full-on operating system.
On the software side, one hint was Gears, a plug-in to give browsers the ability to run Web applications even when offline.
CNET News Poll
Next came Chrome itself in September 2008. Google said its ambition with the open-source browser was to make the Web a faster, richer foundation for Web applications. Naturally, Gears was built in from the outset, and Google continues to bang the Web-applications drum loudly.
Next came Native Client and O3D, plug-ins that let browsers tap directly into the power of local processors and, if all goes according to plan, match the performance of PC-based applications. Native Client is for the main computing chores, and O3D is for hardware-accelerated graphics, and Google wants to build Native Client at least directly into Chrome.
The other set of clues came from the Web side of the company's operations. Google's cash cow is selling ads alongside search results, but the company has been trying for years to build a portfolio of Web-based applications that people could use for everyday computing. Google Docs offers a Web-based word processor, presentation, and spreadsheet, and Google Apps bundles that along with Gmail and Google Calendar.
For others trying to make a run at Web-based applications, Google offers Google App Engine, a foundation for online Python and Java programs that can run at the scale of Google's own computing infrastructure, though free use is more limited.
One of the primary advantages of Google's cloud-computing approach is that data is available from anywhere you can find a networked computer--or, increasingly, mobile phone. It also permits more natural collaboration, since multiple authors can work on the same document simultaneously rather than e-mailing variations or sharing them on a central server. And with data stored on the Net rather than on a PC, upgrades and laptop theft are relatively painless issues.
The disadvantages are abundant, though. Web applications are slow and primitive compared to those that run on PCs, network access is far from ubiquitous, familiar applications are missing, years of accumulated files and data must be migrated to a new system, and not everybody is prepared to have precious corporate or personal information housed at Google or other companies.
The Net is a different place than when the Sun's JavaOS and network computers flopped in the marketplace, and Google is powerfully profitable. But many of the original challenges remain.
Updated 11:03 p.m. with further details and context.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 





[CNET editor's note: Prohibited self-promotion deleted.]
However as I see it there are at least a few of problems with this approach:
1. Given current netbook pricepoints, consumers expect to have a full-blown OS to run existing apps on a familiar interface. A ton of applications users need are ONLY available on Windows or OSX. It's a reason why Windows XP netbooks globally outsell Linux-based ones by a 9:1 margin. Even those who like Chrome (the browser) might simply choose to run Chrome on top of XP, instead of selecting Chrome OS. Unless there's a huge price break there's little incentive for end-users to choose Chrome OS, but the price of the OS is only a marginal add compared to the cost of hardware.
2. One of the supposed advantages of Chrome OS is security. But you can't achieve real browser security without re-architecting web standards... or to say it another way, without breaking web standards. That's because issues such as "click jacking" are fundamental to the way browsers today work. Extending the web paradigm to the OS level doesn't solve these basic security issues.
3. No one has been able to figure out a model of Network Computing that works. Sun tired and failed. Oracle tried and failed. Heck even Bell Labs tried a long time ago with Plan 9... and failed. At first glance, Chrome OS doesn't appear to offer any new breakthroughs... only offering a browser "appliance" running on top of a stripped-down Linux.
Kudos to Google for trying. I'm thinking Android will be better positioned for the netbook (and even tablet / desktop) market.
Chrome OS might have to find a new niche (a very low cost "webtop"?) It would seem to be an ideal OS for specialized devices like Amazon's Kindle... maybe that's the direction Google's partners should pursue rather than trying to market a general-purpose netbook with Chrome OS.
Aside from that, I think people constantly misunderstand Google's positioning in the browser/OS/apps world. Any Google attempt at releasing an OS is most likely an attempt at undermining MS's OS dominance. The point being, Google's bread and butter is search. There is only one legit competitor to Google in search, that has deep enough pockets to go the distance and compete with them long term in that area -- Microsoft. So an important part of cementing their place in search is to take away MS's deep pockets. And to do that, they need to undermine MS's OS dominance.
In other words, as much as Bing is a defensive strategy for MS, any browser or OS is a defensive strategy for Google.
As consumers, this is good for us of course. While these two slug it out, the result can be nothing but more and more awesomeness (at an accelerated pace that too) in the products and services they release.
Please don't take this as a personal attack, but your reasoning is wrong on all three points, although I know where your reasoning came from, since I too thought the same a while back.
Point 1. Netbook price points are one of the key targets of "Chrome OS". In a $350 dollar Netbook, hardware account for no more than 150 bucks while software is between 40 (XP) and 80 dollars (Windows 7). So the profit margins are slim with XP and will be even slimmer with 7 (considering it will need bigger SSD). So a $200 dollar windows netbook is out of the question. Remember that in most countries outside the U.S., $250 is the average monthly wage. Chrome OS and Android (with their $15 to $20 buck licensing) could open a huge low cost, high volume market in emerging countries. Want normal apps? Just add a HD, a windows license and 100 to 150 bucks, and voila!! a dual boot laptop. This could even come as an external SATA HD or dock.
Point 2. Security, most (not all) Trojans and malware that get infected thru a webbrowser are binary files, that by nature, need to be targeted to a architecture. If chrome OS is multiplatform it is going to be real difficult to create a "universal virus". Interestingly this same thing happens with Apache Server. Interestingly, all binary attacks on PHP are Windows based, while the others are SQL Injection stuff. Not knowing the target platform helps deter binary attacks. Also, Linux runs a more tighter security model than NT, not because NT is flawed but because NT/2000/XP/Vista/7 users tend to want their machines in administrator mode. Vista/7 silly UAC has not stopped virus infection, since people don't realize they are giving full access when they answer UAC prompt.
Point 3. There are tons of examples of failed attempts that have not necesarrily killed the potential market. One key example is the Palm Foleo, which in some sense created the Netbook. In the mainframe era, there were tons of "Office" like products that failed, most notably IBM OfficeVision/2 which had a client/server schema. That didn't deter Microsoft from coming up with Office to great success. Same could happen here. By letting Chrome OS compete with Android, Google might have as well found the holy grail for Netbook Computing.
Why are you trying to compare applications with operating systems? Don't you know the difference?
Now, the EU may be unhappy when MS does that - as Gazelle seems to be doing. Who cares what the EU thinks tho.
Go Mozilla!
Not for Profit!
They form a symbiont relationship... if they pull funding FF switches to Yahoo, and Google loses more money than it pays to FF. Not good. :) Besides remember that Googles main focus is "not being evil".
Google isn't following the normal product development playbook at all, and sadly the pundits are still analyzing them as if they were.
I was talking about Mozilla/FF to address the superfan Queticomn who uses the cute "$" for 'o's in google (never seen that before). He seems to trust Mozilla with his newborn child simply because their "Not for profit".
"I'm wondering how much longer Google is going to continue to fund Mozilla. From what I've heard, a significant portion of their income comes from Google."
actually i am wondering how much longer Mozilla w'd allow google to be the default search engine, mozilla got nothing to lose , yahoo and microsoft "Bing" w'd be more than happy to offer mozilla more than google does but get their search engines as the default search engine in Firefox .why do u think google pay for mozilla ?? its not they love Firefox but if they pay 10 millions for mozilla they make maybe 100 millions by mozilla users who use google in their searches .
Haha... keep drinking that koolaid
For instance, visit Bing with your IE, and suddenly that becomes your start page.
Very convenient.
Where do you come up with this crud? Bing has never tried to change my start page and MS would get slaughtered by the entire world if they did.
When I visited Bing with IE, my preferred search engine box up in the top right got switched from Google to Bing without me asking.
Yeah - Microsoft changes your settings (this is worse case.) Google sells everything you do to someone else. Open a document and create it - they word scan the document and filter out keywords in GoogleDocs. Create an email, they keyword the email and sell the content to marketers to push crap to you. Imagine using their OS - you go to the web, they follow... BIG BROTHER.
I am very excited to see what happens with this Operating System, hopefully it doesn't crash as much as its browser. ;)
One other thing I hope to see with this OS is an integration of ALL their systems, it seems as though they forget some of their projects that are really awesome. Like for instance, most of their services use the GMail format, like Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Voice, but google reader isn't all that great.. and igoogle isn't pushed very well, and its hidious.
I would love to see them do more integration of their different services too... and hopefully they can do this with the OS.
I agree, by definition if "Linux will run under the covers" then this is not an o/s.
"Operating system (commonly abbreviated to OS, O/S or kernel ) is an interface between hardware and software in a computer system. The OS is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the limited resources of the computer"
That definition is straight from Google. The best they can say is that Chrome is a GUI running in a Linux o/s.
By no feat of the imagination is Chrome an o/s.
@Shankland: It doesn't matter if "nobody will know Linux is under the covers", a rose by any other name still reeks. Just because no one knows linux is there (which is a false statement by the way), doesn't make Chrome an o/s.
@vikinzer: "while it may have the linux kernel it will be no more "Linux" as the world thinks of it "
Apparently, if you read Googles definition of an o/s, they disagree with you about what makes an o/s. Just because they are not using the common Linus GUIs does not mean it is not Linux. Saying Linux is more than the Kernel is incorrect according to Google itself. All those things you mentioned are just graphic user interfaces, and they run on top of Linux JUST LIKE CHROME WILL. That makes Chrome a GUI.
Perhaps the author should check into the definition of an o/s, and perhaps the people at Google should read their own companies definition of an o/s (unless they have been misrepresented). Chrome is not an o/s, please stop calling it that.
"The software architecture is simple ? Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel." What they mean is that there are gonna use Linux for the drivers and the file system, but this beast won't run GNOME (GTK+) or KDE (Qt) or even X Windows (xlib). I don't know this is a clever idea, but might as well create a whole new Linux ecosystem.
What's the key. Android will compete with Chrome OS in netbooks. Android's mainly Java and Chrome OS would be mainly HTML 5 (similar to Adobe AIR). In both cases, Linux was chosen 'cause it offers a whole plethora of drivers not even XP can match (some new laptops don't offer XP drivers, just Vista, but most of them can run Linux pretty well).
If it needs an OS to run on top of it is not an operating system.
Is it too much to ask CNET to hire competent, knowledgeable writers?
If they keep it free (perhaps ad supported) then I have no complaints. I won't use it, but I won't rant about it either.
I will happily keep using the software on my computers (that I own, that do not require an internet connection to run and/or retrieve my donuments, and that cost me zero dollars to do anything I want to do with the software I own).
Once again these companies are programming people to think continually paying them for software that could be a one time purchase is a good thing.
I'm not saying this is what google is planning on doing, I'm just replying to jemiller0's legitimate concern.
You have to realize Google's market is based on how much you use your internet, and by pushing the modern computing towards cloud computing, Google is ultimately just creating a bigger cash flow for themselves. Keeping it free for the consumers always, allows an easier transition in the market.
Whether you are a fan of the idea or not, its a pretty amazing business plan on Google's part. The innovation that will be catalyzed by this will be remarkable because it is different and has no bounds(All the apps that will run on this OS will run on any other computer), giving developers, like me, an ability to do amazing things without restricting us. We'll really have to wait and see how this goes but I think its going to be a bright future for Google.
Anything to say for yourselves?
Happy?
However, I am rooting for Linux, but it still has a ways to go.
People who claim Linux isn't ready on the desktop are ignorant or have used it 10 years ago or are just parroting MS talking points without any first hand knowledge.
To my parents computers are magic, and they have no issues whatsoever, plus since I moved them away from Windows, I never get calls about slow downs, crashes, and general bad behavior.
And, there's still the matter of downloading some app or free piece of software and discovering that it won't run on Linux (actually, I wouldn't download it but discover it ahead of the download, I was thinking of your parents).
There's also the fact that there is a ton of software available in any store that does not run in Linux (Ya ya, I can hear you now, "But you just install this or that and you can get some (small percentage) of windoze apps to run"...what happened to complete out of the box?).
All this, and there is still no solution to my number one complaint, that my games will not run in Linux. Again, I am not interested in installing multiple operating systems.
So, please don't tell me about "People who claim Linux isn't ready on the desktop are ignorant", because that's just pure bunk.
Of course, there's still the problem of learning yet ANOTHER operating system. No thank you, I'll cross that bridge when I discover all the games and aps I want work in Linux (Uh, without the multiple o/s installs). Until that day, I will keep using Windoze.
I also really hope this helps get eric schmidt kicked off the apple board too, I'm quite tired of google going after microsoft so hard and yet completely sucking up to apple
That's what the flavors of Windows available to the consumer are like. It's hardly like offering a mustang and a fusion. Those are real choices based on completely different designs and market segments. Windows home basic v. Ultimate is just the same product with crippled features.
Why will Google stumble and fail? Because they are still playing Microsoft's game. They are trying to create a Web Version of Windows. Interesting, but still a version of Windows - Microsoft's game. Google will NOT beat Microsoft at their own game. Google - and others - can be giant-killers if and only if they change the game. All the desktop designs we have now are 20+ years old. Is Steve Jobs the only one who can design a desktop? C'mon, let's see some originality. Let's see a network desktop, not a PC desktop.
Touchscreen is cute, but not a replacement for a good keyboard and mouse combo.
I played around with an HP 26" touch-screen PC for an afteroon. It was "neet", but I would not trade it for my current PC. They do have a role to play, but it's just not on my desktop.
Also this is a joke: how many flavors will Google Chrome come in? Home, Professional and Ultimate.
Will we have choices to run Office Online and set the default search engine to Bing?
the network is the computer - Sun
the browser is the operating system - Netscape
cross-platform application compatibiity - Microsoft Office on Windows/OS X
PC gaming v. gaming in a browser, a joke
Here is to vision, upsetting the status quo and rethinking what is possible.
Bring it on Google!!!
Here is to vision, upsetting the status quo and rethinking what is possible.
Bring it on Google!!!
Apparently you can't figure out how to use a simple message forum. You would be Google's target audience, people who can't even use a Mac.
Now we can have hundreds of 'informed reports' caliming that the OS is dead (again), and / or that Microsoft is finished (again), that everything is moving to the web (again), that Linux is The Next Big Thing (again).
They come around every couple of years, in order to sell a few more adverts / page impressions.
I can imagine it now -
'I have been using Google OS for ten years, since it was in Beta'
The reply:
'It still is; check out the disclaimer, but you have to click on the annoying adverts to see it'
- by kzemach July 8, 2009 3:06 AM PDT
- mbenedict is correct I think. You can already get Linux, essentially a free OS on a netbook, so ChromeOS will NOT lower the price of a netbook. If I can already get to Google's online Docs and email and whatnot from a Linux-based, equally priced netbook that can also have free OpenOffice and whatnot, why would I try ChromeOS? The ONLY reason then would be viruses, which, while a valid point, is pretty minor on Linux for now at least. So I fail to see the point other than the novelty and a couple of niche applications (companies that want to control their support costs).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by freemarket--2008 July 8, 2009 8:17 AM PDT
- I think the point is that this will be a highly optimized web OS that will boot up much more quickly than a normal OS. It will also be more tightly integrated with the Chrome browser and Google apps for better performance.
- Like this
-
- by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 11:08 AM PDT
- Considering that it is not an o/s, and that it actually runs on top of an o/s, you're statement is completely false. How can something that runs on top of an o/s boot up faster than the o/s?
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (155 Comments)Plus, GoogleDocs, which is cool, is WAY suckier than Office or OpenOffice. And yes, I do use GoogleDocs every week for collaboration. But just try to format something as simple as a resume for printing on GoogleDocs and you'll see that it has a LONG ways to go.
I think many could use this for day-to-day and only boot a full-blown OS when they really need to.
The only way is if you keep the o/s on all the time, and leave the netbook in power save mode all the time, but of course that would suck your battery down and you'd be constantly recharging it.
Chrome has to wait for Linux to boot before it can run, therefor it cannot "boot up much more quickly than a normal OS"