• On GameFAQs: What causes the Red Ring of Death?
July 7, 2009 10:16 PM PDT

Google plans Chrome-based Web operating system

by Stephen Shankland

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, announced the Chrome OS project.

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

Reflections on Chrome
What was your first reaction to Google Chrome OS?

Microsoft is toast.
Google is the new Microsoft.
I'll be all Google all the time.
Meh. I'm happy with Mac OS.
Linux under the hood. Hurrah!



View results

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.
Recent posts from Webware
'Elf Yourself' returns with Facebook and Twitter power
Sneak peek: Xobni e-mail app for BlackBerry
More time needed for revised Google Books deal
With AdMob, Google seeks mobile-ad advantage
Closing chapter of Google Books saga near
Google to acquire AdMob for $750 million
After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges
Review redux: Flixster movie app for BlackBerry
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 4 pages (155 Comments)
by arondeau32 July 7, 2009 10:56 PM PDT
I think Google is really making a giant move and this move will definitely make Microsoft more nervous as google is now heading in the field where Microsoft is King.
[CNET editor's note: Prohibited self-promotion deleted.]
Reply to this comment
by mbenedict July 8, 2009 12:58 AM PDT
There's already another company making a "browser"-based OS: Palm. If Palm can port Pre's WebOS to x86 (i.e., beyond just ARM) then they can be a contender in the netbook space as well.

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.
by dhavleak July 8, 2009 4:27 AM PDT
I have a lot of trouble visualizing what a 'browser-based' OS does. I'll certainly need to see more details from Google or any of the other contenders such as Gazelle (from MS) before I can understand what this entails.

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.
by Shankland July 8, 2009 8:15 AM PDT
@dhavleak For an idea what it might look like, visit http://docs.google.com or perhaps http://www.google.com/profiles/ where I suspect they'll handle a lot of personal information. And of course iGoogle is a start page, with smaller apps and, presumably, links to other Web-based applications you might use.
by cosuna July 8, 2009 9:33 AM PDT
@mbenedict:

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.
by BogusBasin July 8, 2009 11:02 AM PDT
Anything bad for Microsoft is good for consumers in MY opinion.
by pentest July 8, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
Shankland,

Why are you trying to compare applications with operating systems? Don't you know the difference?
by Shankland July 8, 2009 11:42 AM PDT
@pentest Sure I know the difference between native and Web applications and between apps and OSes. I just think Google here is trying to foster Web apps, not native apps. Google's OS is the Web, not some embedded version of Linux with its own Windowing system. At least as I see it.
by BogusBasin July 8, 2009 12:02 PM PDT
My opinion: Anything bad for Microsoft is good for consumers.
by renGek July 8, 2009 12:06 PM PDT
As a consumer, yay because will be a viable choice that won't completely change my career. As a software developer, UGH because that may mean I have to split my development time between windows and chrome. Lets hope google is smart about it and thats not the case.
by gggg sssss July 8, 2009 5:11 PM PDT
@pentest the distinction is artificial. What you call an application, gets a bunch of files from the internet and shows them on a screen.What you call an operating system gets a bunch of files from a disk and shows them on a screen. A browser copies files from one location on the internet to anopther. An OS as we know it does the same on a disk. That is why it was once called DOS Disk Operating System. The only difference is there is no longer a disk - the files are accessed by communicting with their repositories soemwhere else.

Now, the EU may be unhappy when MS does that - as Gazelle seems to be doing. Who cares what the EU thinks tho.
See more comment replies
by queticomn July 7, 2009 10:57 PM PDT
Cool is uses Linux. Chrome no. No ad-block an no No-Script. It is new that g$$gle is planning a browser based o/s. But its old news when Mozilla-labs has been working on Arrora and other technologies for a while and as mentioned M$'s gazelle browser O/S mentioned in a recent previous article.

Go Mozilla!
Not for Profit!
Reply to this comment
by jemiller0 July 7, 2009 10:59 PM PDT
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.
by queticomn July 7, 2009 11:03 PM PDT
Someone will step up if g$$gle stops, perhaps the Linux community itself. :)
by July 7, 2009 11:07 PM PDT
This is really at @jemiller
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".
by Prime69 July 8, 2009 6:09 AM PDT
Can someone translate the above into English, just in case there is some actual bit of knowledge to be taken from it?
by codynews July 8, 2009 6:20 AM PDT
As much as I don't trust google, I trust a profit motive rather than a "not for profit" motive. If their motive isn't profit, what is it? Making the world a "better place"? What makes you trust someone that wants to make the world a "better place" (IN THEIR EYES!) over a company that wants to make money by providing goods and services that people chose to buy (or income from ads that people elect to view in exchange for a search result)?
by vikinzer July 8, 2009 6:30 AM PDT
Their motive is completely profit. They profit off of ads. They don't pose to make money directly from Chrome is a sales sort of way. Chrome serves two very specific purposes. One it was obviously part of a long term plan to create a platform that they have control over. While it sounds like they have learned from Microsoft's mistakes and are taking steps to avoid the pitfalls of anti-trust law (out of self interest more than anything I'm sure), it does give them an excellent venue to re-direct people to their services and therefore their ads. Firefox redirecting people to their ads gets them profit, Chrome also importantly forced Mozilla to shift their focus to performance in the last version. Something that was SERIOUSLY lagging in 2.0 and to a lesser extent the 3.0 versions. That lagging does Google no favors in terms of making their products look good in use. I honestly don't think Google sees Chrome/Firefox as a strongly competitive situation. Chrome serves much odder more esoteric purposes in Google's overall product plan, and the fact that they are using it in some way as a central interface of an OS reveals much of that purpose.

Google isn't following the normal product development playbook at all, and sadly the pundits are still analyzing them as if they were.
by codynews July 8, 2009 7:28 AM PDT
@ vikinzer: "Their motive is completely profit. "

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".
by exactlyy July 8, 2009 9:30 AM PDT
@ jemiller0
"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 .
by GajaKannan July 8, 2009 1:58 PM PDT
'Besides remember that Googles main focus is "not being evil".'

Haha... keep drinking that koolaid
by Shankland July 8, 2009 4:01 PM PDT
@jemiller0 Google does indeed supply Mozilla with 10s of millions of dollars each year. But it's not a charity, it's because Firefox drives a lot of search traffic to Google. That in turn generates search advertising revenue, and Google keeps some of that for itself while giving some to Mozilla. Cutting Mozilla off would be foolish financially. Besides, Mozilla generally agrees with Google on the Web application idea and is much more an ally than competitor. The big challenge for Chrome OS is getting developer support, and there Mozilla is helping Google's cause through HTML 5 standards, trying to speed up JavaScript, evangelism, and other work.
by kuraimauri July 7, 2009 10:58 PM PDT
there's no way I'm going to give my data to a google server. enough with the big brother.
Reply to this comment
by queticomn July 7, 2009 11:04 PM PDT
^5
by solitare_pax July 8, 2009 1:21 AM PDT
I thought Microsoft was already Big Brother, the way that they mess with your settings behind your back.

For instance, visit Bing with your IE, and suddenly that becomes your start page.

Very convenient.
by CTO_Dude July 8, 2009 5:51 AM PDT
@ solitare_pax

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.
by cougar888 July 8, 2009 7:10 AM PDT
@CTO_Dude

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.
by wolivere July 8, 2009 7:17 AM PDT
I just tried it myself, and no on a clean fresh image. Going to bing with IE as my browser and Google as the search default nothing changed. A box did appear asking if I wanted to add bing? Is that what you are saying?
by subslug July 8, 2009 7:29 AM PDT
Perhaps it only gets changed for those who allowed the "enhanced browsing" or whatever that is that first opens up when you install or upgrade IE.
by jessiethe3rd July 8, 2009 9:53 AM PDT
@ solitare_pax
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.
by mrrcdd July 11, 2009 8:29 AM PDT
I do not use any of the current Google products. They cannot be trusted with your data.
by July 7, 2009 11:02 PM PDT
If this gets hit with anti-trust issues it will put a big damper on the development of a Cloud Operating System. >.<

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.
Reply to this comment
by jemiller0 July 7, 2009 11:05 PM PDT
Personally, I think the bandying about with the phrase "OS" is a bunch of hype. It's a hot button word. If it runs on Linux, then, how is it that it's the new OS made by Google? I predict that it will run on all platforms, not just Linux. I highly doubt it will get any traction. Remember the days when Oracle and everyone was talking about thin clients and how the PC was dead? It never happened. As far as the new OS functionality goes that will be put into browsers, I think that is a good thing. There are too many security holes as it now stands. Whether it actually cures those problems remains to be seen.
Reply to this comment
by Shankland July 7, 2009 11:37 PM PDT
It runs Web applications on the browser, not Linux applications on Linux. So, this won't be Linux only. On the contrary, assuming it comes to fruition, nobody will know Linux is under the covers.
by CTO_Dude July 8, 2009 5:57 AM PDT
Hiding the fact that it's a Linux appliance does not mean that they wont use the underlying OS for things like file and print. How do you print without drivers? How do you expose local file sharing (not cloud file sharing) without an OS? How do you play music locally on your computer without an OS? Dont you people get it? It's not only about cloud computing. There are things that people want and dont want from their computers and assuming that they want their children's pictures on the Internet is not always viable. Assuming that they want all the old 12 inch albums they ripped only on the Internet is not viable. Assuming that they want private diaries on the Internet is not always viable. Finally, going back to analog is not viable for these people either. So there MUST be choice.
by vikinzer July 8, 2009 6:33 AM PDT
You're assuming it will do all of these things. There is a reason that the whole GNU/Linux argument happened. Linux is a kernel. That's all it is. If this product doesn't have CUUPS, or X.org, or GNOME/KDE/Xfce, then while it may have the linux kernel it will be no more "Linux" as the world thinks of it than a Tivo machine. The Windows "Operating System" has a lot going on other than the kernel, and if Google really does all of that from the ground up then they will effectively be creating an OS. More so than Red Hat or Canonical or Novell do.
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 10:40 AM PDT
@jemiller0

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.
by cosuna July 8, 2009 10:56 AM PDT
Hey everybody. The blog offers several key point to the strategy that shouldn't be missed.

"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).
by pentest July 8, 2009 11:36 AM PDT
Shankland,


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?
by ikramerica--2008 July 8, 2009 3:52 PM PDT
This is a GUI + program layer + browser, but not an OS unless it runs a modified Linux kernel and can't run on other Linux kernels. It think it's a bit hazy. Is Mac OS X an OS? it runs on top of a modified unix kernel, so isn't unix the OS and OS X the GUI? You can do just about anything from the Terminal, bypassing the GUI.
by gggg sssss July 8, 2009 5:18 PM PDT
@ Mergatroid Mania The BIOS does that. And parts of what we once called BIOS is now hardware. BIOS once did video, now graphics chips handle most of that.Its time to think outside the old box
by jemiller0 July 7, 2009 11:09 PM PDT
I'm not looking forward to having to do everything online either. i.e. not that I use Word, but, if I did, I don't want to have to pay Microsoft everytime I use it because it only runs from the web.
Reply to this comment
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 10:48 AM PDT
I agree, this Software as a Service model is just another way to suck every last coin from our pockets.

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.
by TyDiz July 8, 2009 12:04 PM PDT
I'm confused...why are you paying for these things? Google offers all their services free. This might not be true with 3rd party developers when these infrastructures are released but you probably won't need them or will be able to find a free alternative.

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.
by gggg sssss July 8, 2009 5:24 PM PDT
And how in your world is Word free unless you stole it? According to the MS website its $229. If you use it once a day for 3 years that is about 20 cents per use.Which may or may not be what one might pay for a subscription.
by TyDiz July 8, 2009 10:03 PM PDT
You're right, Word isn't free...nor is it a web app, which basically makes that statement completely irrelevant to this article. I was refrencing Google Docs, which is an office suite similar to Microsoft Office, but is a web app and is free. Same with GMail, Google Calender, and a couple others that have been out for a bit, and just recently pushed out of beta. I actually thing this OS announcment is directly related to the fact that these were finally official as of yesterday, anybody agree?
by queticomn July 7, 2009 11:11 PM PDT
Oh yeas, an all this time as far as Cnet was concerned Linux was irrelevant and almost completely ignored an so many on the Cnet community blog ripped Linux.

Anything to say for yourselves?
Reply to this comment
by codynews July 8, 2009 6:23 AM PDT
I'll say something for myself. I still think Linux is a terrible choice for the desktop.

Happy?
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
Unfortunately, I agree in that I also would not choose Linux for my desktop. It still has some growing up to do, the GUIs are not to the point where I would want to use one every day, and they won't run my games. And, no, I don't want to install multiple operating systems on my computer. One waste of space is enough thankyou.

However, I am rooting for Linux, but it still has a ways to go.
by pentest July 8, 2009 11:40 AM PDT
Funny how MS fans say Linux has a way to go when it is years ahead of Windows 7. It is solid and complete "out of the box".

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.
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 2:31 PM PDT
I'm not an "MS Fan", but I have read a lot from people who use Linux and install it on a lot of machines. I have also read reviews. I have found that there are still driver issues, that some video cards do not work very well (ATI comes to mind), that there are options in Windoze that I use that are not available in Linux (this may not be true of all versions, but I I'm less interested in multiple Linux versions than I am in multiple Windoze versions).
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.
by frobots July 7, 2009 11:11 PM PDT
This marks a new era. Wonderful.
Reply to this comment
by codynews July 8, 2009 6:24 AM PDT
And what era is being marked? Another company trying and failing to push a new compute model doesn't equate to a new era.
by calculatorwatch July 7, 2009 11:32 PM PDT
This is really cool, I've been waiting for a web based OS from google seeing as it's the next logical step in their fight against microsoft, I was actually really surprised to read the article about microsoft's "gazelle" since that would mean it actually beat google to the punch on this, this looks like this is actually going to happen fairly soon though wereas gazelle is still experimental, so yeah this is very exciting

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
Reply to this comment
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 10:53 AM PDT
Then apparently you'll still be waiting some more, since Chrome is not an o/s.
by pentest July 8, 2009 11:41 AM PDT
No such thing as a "web based OS".
by gggg sssss July 8, 2009 5:28 PM PDT
@pentest so says you - based on whatfacts? If Google says it is an OS, and it gets loaded on top of a BIOS like thing that knows how to do basic input and output( get it BIOS nudge nudge wink wink) to a remote system, then it is an OS, no matter how many times you say otherwise.
by jonothon77 July 7, 2009 11:39 PM PDT
what about Mac OS?
Reply to this comment
by kelmon July 8, 2009 3:56 AM PDT
Er, what about it?
by vikinzer July 8, 2009 6:34 AM PDT
Because the discussion about Eric Schmidt's place on the Apple board doesn't deal with that question at all. Maybe you should go back and read the whole article.
by renGek July 8, 2009 12:13 PM PDT
As a professional developer I wouldn't dedicate my time to mac OS because the jobs aren't there in abundance because the business world don't want to migrate in that direction. So there are fewer jobs in that realm which in turn means fewer developers and in turn fewer applications. Vicious cycle. I'm not a developer for my health. I want the job opportunities and the good pay. The mac development world is too small. All the good jobs at the moment are java or .net based. Would I want to take a risk and go mac development in hopes that it may pay off someday before I retire. Nope.
by slapppy July 7, 2009 11:50 PM PDT
Good! It will be one version. Not 5 or 7 or whatever the heck Microsoft wants to pretend that each version is sooooo different.
Reply to this comment
by codynews July 8, 2009 6:25 AM PDT
Totally. If only Ford made one car and General Mills only made one type of cereal. Choices suck eh comrade?
by pentest July 8, 2009 11:42 AM PDT
Cody, there is no real difference between the different versions of Windows. Some just have more features turned off.
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 2:34 PM PDT
You still have to choose, don't you?
by ikramerica--2008 July 8, 2009 3:57 PM PDT
What if Ford made one car, but then sold it in different models, where the more expensive one could go 75 MPH but the base model could only go 55, and the middle model had a fully functioning stereo navigation system, had HD radio, satellite and DVD, but the base model, even though it used the same stereo, could only tune in AM radio and use CDs.

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.
by DrtyDogg July 9, 2009 4:03 PM PDT
@irkamerica: They already do this. There are a variety of trims available for your Ford Fusion. S, SE, SEL, Sport, Hybrid. Same car different specs. And for the Mustang, V6, V6 Premium, GT, GT Premium, Shelby GT 500, Convertible V6, Convertible V6 Premium, Convertible GT, Convertible GT Premium, Convertible Shelby GT 500. Same Cars different features.
by Cheese McBeese July 7, 2009 11:53 PM PDT
This is a big step... but Google will stumble and fail. Google is a great search engine but NONE of their other home-grown applications are industry leaders. In fact they all lag the leaders by years yet the Google fan-base bows at the alter.

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.
Reply to this comment
by fazalmajid July 8, 2009 12:06 AM PDT
Why does everything have to be tied to the "cloud computing" buzzword hype? HTML5 introduces offline capabilities such as SQL databases in the browser, and you can run apps locally just as well as on the network. The JavaScript performance race between Apple, Google and Mozilla and the dramatic improvements in JS speed on all browsers other than Internet Exploder means JS is a platform that is at least as efficient as Java and .NET for writing apps. Chrome OS is just another web standards based nail in the coffin of Win32 and .NET.
Reply to this comment
by eadeguzman July 8, 2009 12:18 AM PDT
If this is anything less appealing than iPod Touch or the iPhone interface, it won't sell. I think the best NetBook would be one based in the iPod Touch interface. Not really a "new" OS because it's still based on Unix, but would a regular consumer care? It needs to be touch-screen so it might be more expensive than a typical NetBook.
Reply to this comment
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 10:58 AM PDT
There are already touch-screen laptops or tablet PCs available. Hardly anyone buys them because they are expensive. Mostly the medical community purchases them (which is understandable).

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.
by gggg sssss July 8, 2009 5:33 PM PDT
hogwash. MS is going to sell hundreds of millions of copies of windows 7 in the next year without multitouch or the thing that goes sideways ( although windows mobile goes sideways as well )
by jonathan0766 July 8, 2009 12:46 AM PDT
Anyone else think that weird chrome eye logo is a poor choice for a logo / icon if you're going to move to an operating system environment?
Reply to this comment
by sujitgr8 July 8, 2009 2:29 AM PDT
This is really a good news.But is it going to be free? As it is build on windows + linux kernel and + google wants it to be open source....! Will it be only limited to web ? and if it a OS..... millions of things comes in it. We are very eager to have a look into it .First WAVE and now OS ..... when is it gonna launched ?
Reply to this comment
by jessiethe3rd July 8, 2009 4:56 PM PDT
Sure it will be free to the consumer! It will cost the marketers who will get access to every segment of your business.
by rcardona2k July 8, 2009 2:41 AM PDT
Google is making a huge mistake having Android and ChromeOS. Google talks about compatibility with Windows, Mac and Linux but clearly something is wrong with Linux + Window Managers + Firefox.

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?
Reply to this comment
by get-a-freelancer July 8, 2009 2:41 AM PDT
Google will own the world one day although on this one I prefer a fully fledged OS even though I am on the web 95% of the time. It will however be interesting to see how things unfold for both Google and MS in the coming months and years.
Reply to this comment
by rcardona2k July 8, 2009 2:48 AM PDT
Sorry, history is littered with failed concepts:
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
by googlerules July 8, 2009 5:25 AM PDT
I agree! Google will take over the world...thank God!
Here is to vision, upsetting the status quo and rethinking what is possible.
Bring it on Google!!!
by googlerules July 8, 2009 5:25 AM PDT
I agree! Google will take over the world...thank God!
Here is to vision, upsetting the status quo and rethinking what is possible.
Bring it on Google!!!
by Mergatroid Mania July 8, 2009 11:01 AM PDT
@googlerules
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.
by ikramerica--2008 July 8, 2009 3:58 PM PDT
rcard - you forgot OS/2
by edentifier2 July 8, 2009 2:50 AM PDT
Superb news!

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'
Reply to this comment
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).

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.
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.

I think many could use this for day-to-day and only boot a full-blown OS when they really need to.
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?
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"
Showing 1 of 4 pages (155 Comments)
advertisement

About Webware

Say No to boxed software! The future of applications is online delivery and access. Software is passé. Webware is the new way to get things done.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Webware topics

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right