Chrome OS for the clueless: What it means for real people
Late Tuesday night, Google, the company that became a tech giant through search and advertising company, announced that it's branching out into an unrelated direction, the operating system business. It will release next year the Chrome OS, a free competitor to Microsoft's Windows operating system. It will be targeted at Netbooks, a class of small, inexpensive computers, although eventually it will make its way to full-powered notebooks and desktop computers. It will be designed for accessing Web applications (like Google's own GMail and Google Docs), and it will take a lot of design and technology cues, as well as its name, from Google's browser, Chrome.
What does this mean to people who are thinking about buying a new computer now, or next year? Is the Chrome OS something to get excited about, or even wait for?
We won't know for sure what the operating system looks like until it comes out, which answers the second question handily: do not wait. If you need a new computer now, spend the money and get the use out of the machine while Google figures out how and when to get the Chrome OS out the door.
But to the other question: yes, this is very interesting, and potentially could cause some transformations in the computer industry, although they may be more subtle than Google--and Microsoft's detractors--hope.
Who cares about operating systems?
Computers need operating systems. Even computers that do nothing but run Web browsers need one. An Application like a Web browser--Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome--needs to run on top of a platform that gives it access to the hardware resources of the computer (the memory, the persistent storage, access to the networking and communications hardware, the screen, the keyboard, and so on); to peripherals plugged into a computer (printers, cameras that connect, memory cards); to the other software on the the computer (like the system for storing files); and lastly, to you, the user.
Or do they? What if you combined the operating system's functions with a browser's functions, which include accessing and displaying Web pages, keeping track of bookmarks and passwords, and connecting to computer-attached resources like Webcams?
Google is answering that question with Chrome OS. Google is saying, with this product, that the modern computer user spends so much time working with Web-based resources that the main control system for the computer should be the browser, not the operating system. Furthermore, Google sources tell us that the Chrome OS experience will bear little resemblance to existing way that users interact with their computer's main control program. A person familiar with the Chrome OS project told us, "All existing operating systems predate the Web, and the user interfaces are stuck in a desktop metaphor." The Chrome OS, we're led to believe, will be very different.
How? We don't know. It's a safe bet that the Chrome OS will lean more heavily on so-called "cloud storage" products--like Google's own productivity suites, Google Docs--that let users store their data and documents not on their computers but rather on the systems of the Web apps they are running. The great thing about cloud storage is that it's untethered to any individual user's computer. Log in to your Google Docs account from anywhere, and there's your whole workspace, right in front of you. It's liberating.
Google may also take a cue from its own e-mail application, GMail, which blends the traditional idea of having folders for e-mail with the concept of "labels." In GMail, you can drag messages into folders to file them, or you can drag folders (or labels) over messages to categorize them. It's the same thing, but the hierarchy people are used to in operating systems, where a file is in one folder at a time, and the folder may be nested in another folder, is simply not there. Folders and labels are interchangable and far more fluid.
But in Windows 7, Microsoft's next operating system, Folders are also less rigid than they've been in previous versions of Windows.
We can also expect that the Chrome OS will borrow user interface elements from Chrome the browser--like a tabbed metaphor for switching between "apps," and the mind-reading command line (address bar in the browser). It may also evidence Google's traditional obsession with clean (if not necessarily attractive) design and speed. The Chrome OS should be fast.
A ruse by any name
But under the hood, the Chrome OS will still be a traditional operating system. It will be an adaptation of Linux, a free operating system lovingly maintained, in various versions, by a global community of programmers. The Chrome OS will likely borrow the gritty bits of the operating system, the parts that connect to the computer's CPU, the memory, and other hardware. Google's most visible contribution, in addition to the human resources it puts on the project of working at the core of the operating system, will be in the user interface and how the OS handles user data and files.
Will users buy it? They haven't so far. The first Netbooks came with Linux-based operating systems, and users shunned them (or more specially, returned them to their points of purchase) in favor of computers running yesterday's version of Microsoft Windows, XP. Even though XP adds cost to a computer due to the high licensing fee that the manufacturers have to pass on to consumers, those consumers voted to pay the extra money for the familiarity of Windows.
The Chrome OS could well be better than any of the Linux variants that have come before it. It will certainly be cheap--Google says it will be free to manufacturers. Google also says it will be safer, thanks to technologies like "sandboxing" from the Chrome browser that prevent one app from infecting or stealing data from another.
But no matter how much better the Chrome OS is than Windows, users are still accustomed to Windows, and the first target market for Chrome OS, the Netbook category, presents special challenges. First, it's a small market, and second, many Netbook buyers get the machines as secondary, portable computers. They already have a larger laptop or desktop and they want a mini-size, portable accessory to go with it. For those users, a radically different operating system is a stumbling block, no matter how good it is by itself.
The stakes are big enough that it's worth the shot for Google. Google makes money through targeted advertising. The more they know about what you do, the better the ads you get will perform. If Google knows what you do at the operating system level, they can deliver you more specific advertising content. Also, a Google OS would likely lead people to Google services--and not Microsoft's or Yahoo's. Also, this is a long-term game. Google doesn't need to knock Microsoft off its peg tomorrow, or next year. But over time, the company may be able to chip away at Microsoft's pre-eminence as the leading operating system vendor, or at the very least force Microsoft to make its own operating systems more Web-friendly, which benefits the most popular Web service provider there is: Google.
Google needs to start spreading the word on the Chrome OS now, and not a year from now when the product comes out, to get developers and computer manufacturers excited about the platform, and working on compatible products. That takes time. It's also an area where Microsoft has an excellent track record; the Windows company spends a ton of money and energy on developer relations.
The most likely short-term impact the Chrome OS will have on the Netbook market is that it may encourage Microsoft to drop its prices on the Windows 7 licenses it sells to manufacturers. But until developers start writing major software for the operating system (games, photo editors, and major productivity suites like Office), it's very unlikely that Google will have much of an impact on Windows sales.
Meanwhile, it's worth noting that Microsoft is hardly standing still. Its new Bing search engine is actually quite good in comparison to Google's most popular product, Google Search, and the upcoming version of Microsoft Office will have Web capabilities that put it in competition with Google's online word processor and spreadsheet.
A year from now, there will likely be Google Chrome OS Netbooks (and possibly larger laptops) available for sale alongside Windows-powered models. Will people like me recommend them? Maybe, for some users, in particular those on tight budgets and those with no or only limited knowledge of Windows or Apple's OS.
Building an operating system is a major project, but it's only part of the job. Even if the Google OS is fantastic, it will need to steal customers accustomed to using Microsoft and Apple devices. And even if those customers want to be convinced that Google's product is better, they may find it very difficult to make the switch.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 



Chrome is open source last I looked, can you say the same for IE?
IE supports open source. But the question that 999 asks is fair. My biggest worry is that Google will steal my PI. If IE and MS can post privacy policies, why cant Google. Its EVIL...With a capiltal E....
Microsoft is in trouble because they used their OS monopoly to obtain a monopoly in the browser market by bundling IE with Windows. That was (and is) against the law.
Google does not have a monopoly in the OS market and is therefore free to bundle OS and the browser in any way it wants. In fact, they could probably bundle Chrome with their search service as long as the browser market share stays relative small (i.e., as long as there is no or little danger that such bundling would lead to Google's monopoly in the browser market).
Finally, to @Apacheking:
(a) IE does not support open source in any way. IE is a proprietary browser from Microsoft. It also happens to be the least compatible of all major browsers when it comes to open browser standards.
(b) Google has their privacy policy posted at the bottom of their main search page.
That said, Google does have a monopoly (or near one) on search... and I disagree that Rafe's assertion this is ChromeOS unrelated to their core business. Google is in the business of behavioral targeting, and getting control of your *complete* computing experience gives them that much more of your data to profit from.
I always thought that their "Don't Be Evil" was inside joke at Google about Microsoft being the "evil empire", and they were going to try to establish a different sort of business... and yet here we are, Google's embracing (copying) Microsoft's vision for the best of client software and the best of the web working together.
As for privacy worries, lets face it - Microsoft does intrude on our web browsers (the ancient PC I have at work that runs Windows 95 keeps on asking me to upgrade to IE8 whenever I try to use the browser instead of sending me to the home page I defined) and their security has been less than stellar.
Microsoft was not very sly about it; after initially calling the WWW a fad, they laid out a game plan to destroy Netscape by making IE near-impossible to remove, and making it difficult to install another browser and make it your default.
My one gripe is that lots of articles have referenced a massive consumer rejection of linux netbooks, but I haven't seen any statistics to back this up. There have only been about a half dozen netbooks that offered linux, and as usual the manufacturers do everything they can to push the XP machines.
One major problem Linux has faced is that it doesn't have all the software Windows does. It has a lot, but not the same, or as recognized. And the problem is, big developers don't think its worthwhile to develop for such a relatively small market. So they will not likely code for Linux.
KEY POINT: In Chrome OS, the applications don't run in Linux, so it's not actually a Linux platform.
In Chrome OS, the applications run in a browser. Every operating system has web browsers available. Developers who develop for Chrome OS will be developing software that also works on Windows and Mac (and Linux). This kills several birds with one stone. Cost effectiveness: near universal market if developing a web app compatible with Chrome OS; Recognition: People who get used to web apps on Windows will be right at home using them on Chrome OS; Breadth: As more and more apps are move to the web, all these capabilities are immediately gained by Chrome OS; Simplicity: Pretty much everyone knows how to use a web browser; Compatibility: all files on any OS can easily be passed around and collaborated on because, again, the OS isn't the platform, the web is; etc...
And finally, brand. Non-techies are unlikely to know who Canonical or Red Hat, Inc. are. Almost everyone knows Google. There's a certain level of trust behind that.
And finally, Chrome OS isn't really about gaining market share. Its a unified system around which to design all the components needed to make web apps directly competitive with desktop apps. By being able to build the OS around the needs of the browser rather than restrict the browser based on the needs of the OS, Google has free reign to create the infrastructure that would allow the web to reach its full potential. And besides, if, a few years from now, every body is using web apps, and its apparent that Chrome OS is better at doing that than other operating systems, Chrome OS might be a success after all.
I chose my netbook as an XP desktop replacement. I believe that some part of the netbook popularity is simply because it's the last option for those who want a new windows PC without Vista. The portability thing is great, but the "purchase point" was simply that I have no desire to run Vista.
1) About your key point: Having less capabilities than regular linux - which is already less capable than Windows in terms of apps it can run - is hardly a selling point for ChromeOS. (BTW, linux can already run web apps)
2) IE8 complies with existing standards as well or better than any browser available. This is a change from IE7, and IE8 is only been available for 9 months or so (including the beta period), so I understand why not everyone may have realized that yet.
3) Google is certainly a recognized name.. but I think Google is actually *losing trust*... how much information do you want Google to have about you?
4) Ask the Electronic Privacy Information Center what they think of Google's privacy policies. (HInt: Not good). To give you a sense of how Google thinks - the orignal Chrome browser EULA gave Google the rights to everything you *created or viewed* inside their browser. Amazing what you can learn when you read those things. They evenutally changed this policy under public pressure, but that was their first choice??? (Don't be Evil? You've got to be kidding me.)
5) Make web apps competitive with desktop apps? What exactly is a web app? An app that consumes things like html, flash, silverlight, and/or data from web servers? Among the OS's that already allow that, both inside and outside a browser: iPhone, Palm's WebOS, OSX, Linux, and first to the party: Windows.
And what exactly is a desktop app? Well, a browser is a desktop app. Also: Adobe Air apps are desktop apps, flash and Silverlight apps outside a browser is a desktop app. And Flash and Silverlight within a browser are desktop apps. They are all just apps... modern operating systems like Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. completely integrate the desktop and web experience. Windows Update? How could you get any more desktop-y! And yet's a web app as much as anything else. iTunes? desktop with web. How about Office? Want help? It's on the web? Want clip art? It's on the web. Want to slideshare.net presentations inside of PowerPoint, that's there, too. Every decent app these days is a combination of so called web and so called desktop these days.
6) Short term (until ChromeOS launch), Google is just trying to get a little attention the shift in mindshare Microsoft has been getting around Windows 7, Bing, Office on the web, Silverlight, XBox/Project Natal, and of course, the Windows Azure cloud platform.
7) Longer term (after ChromeOS launch), Google wants to leverage it's core competency of behaviorial ad targeting - and extend it's ability exploit your data for it's profit to your complete computing experience.
3)
Also: your comment about compatibility -- apps written for ChromeOS will also work on other OSes -- is a good one. The question is, why woudl anyone give up everything else an OS can do... including running Adobe AIR, Silverlight, iPhone-style apps, etc, just so they can have a less capable experience?
My netbook (Acer eee pc 1000 HE) running Windows 7 RC already boots fast, runs fast, does great on the web, and lasts all day...
I was kind of confused. So, why do this? Well, because of what I was saying. Microsoft now has a strangle hold on the market, not necessarily because their operating system is better, but because, as a monopoly, almost all the software is made for them. Open source projects have a lot of decent software. A lot of it is for *nix. But that strategy of near equivalent replacements hasn't been working. And there still is little incentive to develop for Linux. So Google's strategy is to push for applications to no longer be dependant on an operating system. Or more specifically, Windows. Others have tried this with varying degrees of success, but each attempt was narrow minded and focused on a single solution.
Almost all os independent solutions are geared to work in the web browser. (Java, Flash, JavaScript, other scripts, rich HTML...) So what's Google trying to do? They're trying to expand what you can securely do in a web browser, irrespective of the specific technology. They're trying to securely give 'web apps' (which, for now, I'll give the definition of app built on web technology, though there can be more meaning added, like ability to use the cloud) all the capabilities of apps written in os specific languages. For an idea of what I'm talking about:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10227150-2.html?tag=mncol;txt
And how about you? Well, I don't think Google will be getting rid of plugins. Win7 does come up pretty quickly on my laptop. However, if you've ever just wanted to check that one thing, you turn on your computer, you wait a minute for it to boot. You wait another minute for the desktop to become usable, you wait another minute for the browser to be able to start because something is still happening in the background... and then you spend 20 seconds finding the thing you wanted to know. What if you could cut out the rest of it? Then you go to shut down your computer, because you have to take it somewhere, and it goes into Windows Update. You're stuck.
So, its not necessarily a must have, but it does have some perks, and, hopefully, the tech behind it will make all our experiences on the web that much better. Its an interesting project. And I would like to see how successful it is. Its not the "Jesus walks the Earth" (excuse the religious reference) of technology, but it is something that might have a significant impact on the evolution of software and the web.
"2) IE8 complies with existing standards as well or better than any browser available. This is a change from IE7, and IE8 is only been available for 9 months or so (including the beta period), so I understand why not everyone may have realized that yet".
IE8 is definitely an improvement over IE7, but it still scores only 20/100 on the acid3 test benchmark (vs. chrome 100/100 and firefox 93/100). So it does not "comply with existing standards as well or better than any browser available". Here is a link to a good browser-comparison page in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers. Look at "Acid scores" and "Web technology support" sections.
"4) Ask the Electronic Privacy Information Center what they think of Google's privacy policies. (HInt: Not good). To give you a sense of how Google thinks - the orignal Chrome browser EULA gave Google the rights to everything you *created or viewed* inside their browser. Amazing what you can learn when you read those things. They evenutally changed this policy under public pressure, but that was their first choice??? (Don't be Evil? You've got to be kidding me.)"
It is true that Chrome browser EULA was too broad when the browser was released, but the company changed it immediately as soon as it was notified about it. They also explained that the cause of the problem was that they simply reused a generic EULA by mistake. You may believe them or not (though I personally think it is more likely to be a mistake than an evil plot to launch an !open-source! browser), but your comment "They evenutally changed this policy under public pressure, but that was their first choice???" make it sound like the company refused or was against changing the policy, while that was not the case. If I am not mistaken, they changed it on the same day the problem was noticed.
"1) About your key point: Having less capabilities than regular linux - which is already less capable than Windows in terms of apps it can run - is hardly a selling point for ChromeOS. (BTW, linux can already run web apps) "
I think ChromeOS is going to be less capable in some areas and more capable in others. For example, I agree that there is no chance it will be a substitute for a full-blown OS for those who want to run computationally intensive apps any time soon. However, I do not run those on my laptop either. In fact, I do not think I use my laptop to run any desktop apps except the browser and music/video players. I think there are a lot of people like me out there.
Regarding selling points, if I have to pay $50 for Windows that comes with a $300 netbook, that's a substantial part of the overall cost. If I can get ChromeOS that uses little resources, boots fast, and has all the basic features I need (as listed above) and I can get it for free, why would I pay to install Windows?
Again, I do not think it will work for everyone, but I think it will be great for many. And if it helps to weaken MS OS monopoly, increase competition, and to drive down prices for everyone, the better.
"7) Longer term (after ChromeOS launch), Google wants to leverage it's core competency of behaviorial ad targeting - and extend it's ability exploit your data for it's profit to your complete computing experience. "
I think "exploit" word here is somewhat out of place. I think the company makes a lot of money precisely because its interests are very much aligned with those of its users. The way their ad system works, the company gets paid only when you think the ad is of any interest to you. If you are not interested and do not click on an ad, the company does not make any money. I personally do not click on those ads often, but I still do it sometimes when I see a useful ad.
If you want to run a bunch of great services for free, the money must come from somewhere. Ads is just one way to do it. If those ads can also be useful, the better. I think that any other alternative such as charging access to the search engine or maps or displaying useless ads would be only worse. But if you do not agree, it is up to you, it is not like anyone forces you to use any of Google services.
Given that the ChromeOS will be open-sourced, I think the idea is more about challenging Microsoft in the OS market than making money on ads. I think that more competition is a good thing for everyone.
Google = advertisement = media.
This is not about the technology this is about how do we sell more crap with our ad partners and make more money. The media is hyped on Google because Google is advertising. If you read through this article you can easily see that it is not a balance. It's hype... be prepared for a major ad campaign - Google is going to try and steal Microsoft thunder and couple that with Apple a two pronged approach (Apple taking high - Google shooting low) it is going to be very interesting to see how much of a dent these guys can really make.
Me personally, I'll keep my information on my computer. As I run my MacBook Pro with Windows 7 RC I have a feeling the experience that Windows 7 is going to present to consumers is going to be very hard to beat. They're going to try as hard as hell to dig in... it's going to be tough regardless for both of them. No thanks Google - I don't want more crap targeted at me and I certainly don't want you holding onto all my personal information forever.
dumb terminals and time-shared network servers are so stone age.
Google does a good job with what they have so far.
The only thing I ever had against Google was they allowed China to censor their peoples use of Google
This may also bring down the cost of Microsoft Software.
I will be watching for it.
It considers some of my searches as Illegal.
It spams me with ads that are inappropriate.
If anything ChromeOS will push the linux distributions further and start to be a more widely accepted OS. Then Developers will consider designing for Linux/ChromeOS, Mac OSX and Windows. I see Google expanding to installed apps in the future so they can have more user base on their OS.
Any competition to Microsoft, how little it may be is a good thing for everyone, and most importantly the industry.
Don't really see this happening. I can see people getting other programs to run on whatever Google builds, but, if Google succeeds, they won't need native apps, because web apps will be the native apps. And Chrome OS will be the best at running them, because running them in a browser on another system will be the equivalent of what running Windows apps in a virtual machine on Linux is today. ;-) Though they might get outstripped... who knows what will happen?
And I agree. More competition is always better. It will push everyone to have to come up with reasons why their technology is still relevant, or create new ones, which will even further competition :-) !!
Yeah you are totally right.
It's just going to be a browser at the end of the day I just can't see myself using it on a desktop PC. Would seem a waste of power not being able to run high end apps and games.
For office tools email, internet and casual games it will be a winner at the right price and a lot more simple to use than most linux flavours.
Otherwise, there are plenty of open source utilities that do it. If someone can make a web app that does it, and makes the interface really nice, then there won't be a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4D3vnj5pC8&feature=channel_page
Two Linux distros already set up either exclusively or almost exclusively as browsers. The only difference will be this one uses Chrome instead of Firefox.
But deep inside, it's still not that great of a browser yet. It does not yet support extensions, though they promise it's coming. It does not yet have customizable menus or interface, like Firefox or Opera. It does not (and may never) support AdBlocking, because Google's main source of income is through ads. Chrome's "options" are so limited that I feel like I'm playing with a "my first browser!" application for children.
So, build a browser first. Then worry about an OS.
I think what Google has up its sleeve is that it will more tightly integrate web apps and extensions.
However, I do think their choice is wise. Focus on functionality, then customization. All to often, we get a highly configurable piece of junk.
Chrome is less "my first browser!" and more "back to basics."
But that's just me...
I recall it failing.
Also, I think Win7 is not doing well, considering that its min. specs are almost even with the Vista specs. Considering a 7 -year-old computer cannot pull of Win2000 but easily uses Ubuntu Jaunty, the idea of a slim-and-light Chrome OS sounds like great value, considering it's not a "product." Also, this computer would be useful to the really common folks that use a computer because it would be much more simplified. The icons would be the bookmarks, and installation would be measured in milliseconds. The idea has potential, but it will have to meet expectations faster than their browser loads google.com. If it meets expectations, it will add value, as it will cut some of MS's costs out from under it. That's value.
But lets get back to reality. Google is providing a basic, fast, light OS for Web applications.
It is a new paradigm that seems to fit well with the direction of the future, portable hardware, and Cloud Computing.
It is not suppose to be a cheap Windows knockoff, but an OS for the Web Age.
Windows is an OS with proprietary APIs that is not really focussed on the Web.
Hasn't that myth been debunked plenty of times by now? Why is the author uncritically repeating Microsoft's propaganda?
Loads real fast, wireless Internet and Firefox. My kid watches movies on it. And it sits in the boot of my car so I can use where ever. I really don´t like lugging round my Windows laptop everywhere.
It is so useful that I actually gave my Windows laptop away because I hardly use it.
I use Windows on my home PC and Linux on my portable. This arragement suits me fine.
I am sure it will be better than what I use and what I use is very good.
Though whether they are developing a more advanced web app framework as Google is, I don't know. However, I'm pretty sure they're just tossing a custom Firefox in. Oh well :P
1. They sell you to advertisers, your privacy is null in a Google world - in a perfect world all the information you have will be used to push more stuff to you - envasive, intrusive, and all up in your business.
2. Google is building a health vault for all your private healthcare information... what does this mean for you hm? Welll... Google has lobbied to exempt themselves from HIPAA - the Health Insurance Portabilityand Accountability Act... for the uninformed this is what is ensuring that doctors keep your personal information from being shared from prying eyes who of course would love nothing more to sell you more drugs, services, and anything else to make you feel better.
3. Google is partnering with CVS - a company who is already emboiled in lawsuits for selling private healthcare information to it's partners. Now CVS is using Google Health solution to pass your information right to vendors without blinking an eye because unlike CVS, Google is not regulated byHIPAA
People just don't get it Google = your privacy bye bye... your information is kept on file for-ever... it can be sold forever... I guess people are sleeping now that the Patriot Act is all good and dandy. Everything is all good - your personal information is up for sale and yeah not only does the Government get a nice taste when they need to advertisers now as well.... Love Love Love the ignorance of the common folk tripping over a great "free" product. Your life is for sale and Google is marketing it.
Do your research. Google is not selling health data or using it for advertising. Google is a place where software engineers have near free run to engineer solutions to problems they see. They make proposals, get backing... not all Google projects are built around supporting Google's main industry.
Also, Google does not sell personal information, they sell computer generated statistics.
And finally, as it's open source, any component that gives your data to Google can be altered. Meaning all Google is doing is introducing new technologies. If they benefit from an increase in data collection at their existing sources, then good on them.
Love love love the rhetoric of riled conspiracy theorists. Your fears are on show and they're manipulating them.
- by dlauber July 9, 2009 9:32 PM PDT
- As usual the computer industry is acting trendy without analysis. This whole cloud computing thing is bizarre. Why would anybody with any sense want to store their data files on some server they can access only via the Internet? Aside from the security issues, there's the issue of availability. The Internet goes down -- at least individual ISPs go down all the time. I'm sure folks will be thrilled to lose their access to their data at inconvenient times. So much for meeting a deadline when your ISP goes down. Sure, ISPs are more reliable than they used to be, but they're still much more risky than keeping your data and settings on your own hard drive.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by FF2009 July 10, 2009 4:01 AM PDT
- The security issue is much more important to me, because only God know who has access to my info some where up there on Google servers.....Uncle Sam will definitely be looking LOL
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (115 Comments)The only people excited about cloud computing seem to be IT writers who cherish the idea of accessing their data from any computer. But they can do that already. This cloud computing just makes no sense. But then again, when did sense have any place in the IT world?