Comments on: Google to Microsoft: It's on

With the announcement of the Chrome OS, Google has taken complete aim at Redmond's empire. But there are still plenty of reasons why Windows might not be dead man walking.

[DrtyDogg]

I'm still not sold on the whole OS in a browser idea. I work in to many places to have my data all hosted in "the cloud".

[JamesArsht]

That's supposed to be one of the selling points of the cloud: no matter where you are, or how many different locations you're connecting from your cloud data is always available.

[Seaspray0]

The idea is to put all the applications into the web and you would only need a browser to do everything. It looks good on paper, but there are pitfalls. You can't run apps if they are not available online, you need an internet connection to do anything, you are trusting the web with your sensitive data, and the biggest of all is that you are subject to the bandwidth constraint of your internet connection.

Companies have tried, and so far, failed at cloud computing. If it was me, I would first get the back end working (online apps) and successful before attempting to push a front end (computer with just a browser). I question google's approach of pushing a front end so soon. They don't have a successful back end running yet.

Didn't Google buy a lot of dark fiber a new years ago. Maybe they'll use that darkfiber to build a really high bandwidth WAN which serves as a platform for the Chrom OS. In any case this will be intresting for sure.

[Hugh_Isaacs_II]

I find it funny that no one seems to acknowledge Microsofts Gazelle OS which does exactly the same thing here.

Though I must admit, hearing that Google is doing it and that it's based off of Chrome makes me more excited than I would be for a similar product made by Microsoft.

[celticbrewer]

Good point on Gazelle, Hugh.

Linux on a netbook is nothing new- it's been available for years and very few people are chosing that option versus XP. Why does google think it'll do better?

Win7 is just down the road, and people are all thumbs up on it running on netbooks.

When we first heard about Android, people (myself included) thought that the vast majority of phones would pick it up. How many phones are using it today? 3, maybe. Just because it has a google name on it doesn't mean it's gold.

This OS sounds like it'll be better suited for devices rather than PCs. Where's that web connected fridge I was promised? How about putting it on a DVR box, NAS device, DVD player, etc...

What happened to the OS on a chip? It's been out there for a while and does essentially the same thing, but how many people do you know who use it? I can't think of one.

As for startup speed that google promises, when I put linux on the same PC that had windows, linux always took longer to boot. Also, on my laptop (vista HP 64), I just use the sleep function. I can go from sleep to browsing in under 10 seconds (no problem reconnecting with WiFi). So, I think their argument there doesn't hold water.

Google has done a lot for us, but they need to focus. I see them spreading themselves too thin and not producing the quality experience that they have in the past.

[Goatie2k9]

What use is the operating system going to be to people who don't have an internet connection? Or want to access their data locally whilst on a train or whatever (with no wifi).

I hate to be so negative but it seems to me these days that when it comes to Apple or Google, people are so quick to hail the great idea as the next best thing since the world wide web without a shred of objectivity.

I guess I'm the only person who wasn't very impressed with Chrome?

[mfurdyk]

You obviously have never used Google Mail offline... you don't need Internet - it keeps a local data cache and does search much better than Outlook!

[Super2online]

mfurdyk

" you don't need Internet -" Explain to me how you access it initially without internet?

[cougar888]

@Super2online

Obviously like any email, you need the internet to access it initially. Tell me one email client that can access its email without initially using the internet (Hint: there are none). But just like outlook, you can compose mail and read downloaded mail and when the connection is restored, everything gets synchronized.

The big help is with Google Docs. You can compose and print documents without having any internet connection what-so-ever (after you initially install the application obviously).

[myles taylor]

Currently it would be impossible for this to work. But with technology such as this, you have to realize that it takes years to implement and with fiber and high speed expected to explode in the country, it will work out fine once the technology is actually workable. You're thinking in terms of today's dragging "high-speed" connections that we have now. With fiber, you'd be able to connect to a cloud and run an application so fast that you'll actually notice a speed increase over anything your computer could do.

[Seaspray0]

@myles taylor. I don't think 2010 will fit into your timeframe of several years. Nor have they yet proven that online apps are desireable, other than webmail. Even there, my personal taste is to POP my mail directly to my computer (I find webmail to be much slower). I just don't think google has tested the waters well enough with the back end web apps to know if even that will be successful. Without a successful back end, the front end will collapse.

[wjsteele]

Interesting, but doesn't Google already have Android? And now they have this which they call a OS, when in reality, it's Chrome on Linux. Nothing new about that, is there?

[JavaMan09]

What's the deal? They want it to run on small ARM-based phones, so why don't they just use Android and make it useful for lightweight devices? Why throw more money into OS research when they already have an OS, Android.

[cougar888]

@JavaMan09

Here is what was posted on googleblog

"While there are areas where Google Chrome OS and Android overlap, we believe choice will drive innovation for the benefit of everyone, including Google."

[FF2009]

"Google plans to enter the operating system game in the second half of next year with a Linux-based operating system that can run on both traditional PC chips as well as the ARM-based ones popular in cell pones"


oh that will be sweet revenge :) bring down Bill Gates Empire, one day at time. Linux will prevail :)

[monkeyfun14]

1. Not everyone has internet
2. No internet connection compares to the gigabit connection between all the components in my pc
3. Its not close to stable enough
4. The infrastructure is not there.
5. Businesses won't want it.

[tomws]

@monkeyfun14: These are some of the most thoughtless objections that could have been offered. Responses:

1. Not everyone has a computer either, so Microsoft should just give up?
2. And no one will ever need more than 640k RAM, right? Technology evolution, anyone?
3. Actually, the Internet is more stable than Windows.
4. This would have been a valid objection 10 years ago - not today.
5. There is an increasing number of businesses providing their Windows computing environment through Remote Desktop already, so the foundation for a "thin client" is returning and growing.

[Archus]

@monkeyfun14: I'm a CIO and I like this idea. We already use a couple of "net" OS's (i.e. GOS). It gives me the ability to repurpose older machines into something useful for mundane, low power tasks like data processing. A lot of our data is hosted on our network and used through webapps already. Why should I purchase a new computer to run something so small?

I agree that this will most likely never be a remedy for M$ or Mac, but but it is (or will be) a good alternative to other web-based OS's out there.

Oh, BTW, kinda makes number 5 here an invalid point. Sorry.

[sythara]

@tomws

The internet is more stable than windows? Thats because its a series of tubes right?

In any case, bring down Microsoft? Given the market share, it would have to destroy Apple first.

[polaris20]

@tomws

1. While not everyone has a computer, there's a larger percentage of people with a computer than with internet access. More importantly as it applies here, there are far more people with a computer than people with both a computer and broadband internet access. Would you want to use a browser-based OS on dial-up? I wouldn't. Sadly, the US is far behind many other countries in terms of broadband deployment.
2. You're right; this is evolution. However not evolution I think the country's infrastructure is ready for.
3. Internet is more stable than Windows? This statement is hilarious at best.
4. No, it's still a valid objection. Do 5 minutes internet research, and you'll see that there are enormous portions of the US without broadband.
5. True. But they can already do this right now with a lightweight Linux, and that's yet to happen on a broad scale.

@Archus

Your statement, while being feasible, is completely anecdotal. As a CIO, I would expect you to realize this. Just because something works for your company doesn't mean it'll work for all companies.

[jessiethe3rd]

Linux distribution... this is not some kind of OS. It's Google taking linux and creating a specialized distribution. This is an absolute joke. Just like Linux's existing market share. Linux is a dead horse - until there is some VERY focused pushed by a company actually making money on this product it's going NO WHERE. Businesses will not adopt it in droves because it has it's only challenges with support (who do you go to when you need support of a kernal with all kinds of different authors?), with application support (uh... yeah, not all applications that businesses need can be webified), and just straight up end user understanding. Besides, what business wants to run their business on some Linux disty that not only is Linux but has Google's "we're going to hold all your information for ever and market you to death." Can anyone say compliance / security issues?

[adasha76]

I don't know of one single netbook owner who uses it solely for net-based stuff. They also use them as media players, lightweight development platforms and more. Heck, some of them even try running seriously heavy apps like Maya and Nuke on them, and they work - slowly, but still ;-)

People don't want to be forced to depend on the 'cloud' for their needs. For reasons of privacy, security, speed or whatever local services are still important.

[Hunnter2k3]

But they won't need to depend on it. (at least, if they were smart, i'd sure hope they start using "offline mode" for Gears more.

Plus, with Google Native Client (NaCi), applications can be downloaded and stored there.
If they really get NaCi up and running to the extent where it is really easy to work with, they might actually have a winner here.

But if they really do what you suggested and just have it fully online only, then it will fail big time.

[assman]

I'm not so keen on the browser-based OS idea.. I would probably dual-boot ChromeOS with Windows, but I'd never rely on it alone with a machine. I think this OS would be best put to use in libraries, schools, and other public places.I highly doubt businesses and home users would switch to it from Windows or Mac.

The Microsoft empire shows no signs of being torn down anytime for the foreseeable future. Google's got search, Microsoft's got operating systems. They're both trying to take over each other's main products, but they will both ultimately fail to make a dent.

[rcardona2k]

Who does number 2 work for?

[jessiethe3rd]

I had a very good laugh at this one.... WHO DOES NUMBER 2 WORK FOR!!???

[plbyrd]

What's funny is that the web enables client-server to actually work as it should and Microsoft, Google and Adobe have been working on the enabling technologies for years. To me it's asinine to think that Google will only have these applications run inside the Chrome browser. There will be native application "helpers" for each of the major platforms. And this "Chrome OS" is still just another GNU/Linux variant. The people with the most to worry about are the Ubuntu zealots.

[MadLyb]

It never ceases to amaze me the length that people will go to hurt *themselves* to avoid the "Great Satan".

Here's the truth, the browser is a terrible application container. It was not designed for this job and no amount of tarting it up will correct this. If you doubt this, then ask youself why we have things like ActiveX, JREs, Flash, and Native Client? Because the browser was designed to show web pages, end of story.

So, let's make things worse by stripping down the OS...yes...there is a lot of fat...but some of it is there for a reason...Operating Systems, like Windows, OSX and Linux are general purpose. They support many different kinds of activities and therefore need various subsystems that might not be needed for just using a browser.

And the question is what is driving this supposed need? Even in the mobile space, consumers are expecting devices to have multi-functional capabilities. The iPhone exploded in use with the rollout of the app store and I'm sorry that isn't a browser based solution.

People tend to assume that the cloud is about Web Based applications and nothing could be further from the truth. A SOA architecture insures that the front end is completely agnostic. It can be web based or lightweight Java app, it can a widget running in an application space, or it can be a full blown installed app. Yes, it can be about hosted applications, but the cloud is more about expanding the value of an application by providing access to resources and capabilities beyond the local machine.

I'm sure there are uses for these 'retarded' computers (kiosks come to mind), but ultimately when I buy a computing device, mobile or otherwise,I want to make every possible use of the device. Your mileage may vary.

[cougar888]

Here's the truth, the browser is a terrible application container. It was not designed for this job and no amount of tarting it up will correct this. If you doubt this, then ask youself why we have things like ActiveX, JREs, Flash, and Native Client? Because the browser was designed to show web pages, end of story.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last I checked, Google recognized this and developed their own browser to overcome these problems.
If you don't believe me, just check out http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ and see how well it works on chrome and on other browsers.

You should realize that Google won't strip Linux down too much, or the whole OS goes kaput. There is a balance. My guess is that it will only be the kernel and some peripheral subsystems.

[PerfectUgly]

"It never ceases to amaze me the length that people will go to hurt *themselves* to avoid the "Great Satan"."

That metaphor frightens me. But I think the guy prefers Lucifer Morningstar to Satan. Calling him Satan is like calling a duck a "winged thingie."

"And the question is what is driving this supposed need?"

First, good point. Cloud computing in general seems to be a solution looking for a problem to me.

Second, that's an easy one to answer if I'm understanding you correctly. If I were Google, and I served the VAST majority of internet advertising (we're talking CORE revenue model here), wouldn't it be to my advantage to provide the software allowing users to view it, connecting them as closely as possible to it? That said, wouldn't it even be to my advantage to free the pipe through which they can view it?

[MadLyb]

@PerfectUgly

Really good point. The need is not from consumers, but Google to own even more of the system. I hadn't looked at it that way. Honestly, I get a little more concerned with Google every day in how far their reach is extending and the fact that they *can* execute across that domain, while MS would just fumble it.

[kuraimauri]

I'm not going to run applications and store data on the big brother's servers. I prefer to have the OS and everything under control in my own computer. how invasive and dystopic this is. and anyway this "OS" needs another OS and a browser on the client computer, so it's not really an OS, just another way google wants to control the people's personal data.

[CDubber]

Anything that's bad for Microsoft is good for me. Our OS monoculture has to go.

[sythara]

What has Microsoft ever do to you?

[randy620]

yes, because going back to no interoperability like we had in the 80s will be great .... learn from the past CDubbber. Life without your hated MS was miserable (as far as computing goes.) Maybe someday all you MS haters will see why MS keeps thriving. It is because they bring everything together. People don't really want a dozen choices. They want familliarity.

[Seaspray0]

After reading alot of your posts, cdubber, it's pretty obvious you hate the company for being a monopoly. Well, too bad, so sad that you are jelous of their success. If you had half their brains, you could have made your own successful enterprise, but you didn't. You've only got yourself to blame for that.

[dzankizakon]

Google Chrome OS will FAIL if it's going to rely on browser, Gears, turbocharged JavaScript and such.

Repeated failure of Linux desktop has shown that people would rather pay good money for a great operating system than pay nothing for an OS that's "almost as good."

The reason why laptops have become so popular over the last few years is because people want to have access to THEIR DATA wherever in the world they are at the moment. Desktops have, in the mean time, become computers used for hosting, science, gaming, torrenting, HTPC, 3D rendering and other high-performance tasks where portability is irrelevant.

Why would we all take a massive step back, in order to make Google even richer?

Would I trust Google with my intellectual property? A resounding NO F WAY.

Would I trust Google not to disable my "cloud" account and not cut me off my data even though they have a problem with my online profile? A resounding NO. Their advertizing policies have shown that they have as much tolerance towards anyone who opposes them as the Chinese government does.

Would I stop using 3D modeling applications, Photoshop, Visual Studio and Microsoft Word just to make Google richer? A resounding NO.

Would I switch to butt ugly Google UI from the stunning Aero I'm using now? A resounding NO F WAY.

Yes, Google Chrome OS will reach a 2% market share. But I'm afraid that's all it's ever going to get.

[sythara]

Maybe 3%. Those "on the go" business people might use it, if their company is ok with storing their propriatery (client, product) data on google's servers.

I'm ok with storing contact info and emails and such on the cloud, but anything past that I wouldn't trust anyone else. Besides, if you're "on the go" that means you need internet connection for cloud based apps. That means either mobile broadband or other peoples wireless access points. And considering that any script kiddie can crack just about most wireless encryption, I say 'no thanks'

[cougar888]

Would I stop using 3D modeling applications, Photoshop, Visual Studio and Microsoft Word just to make Google richer? A resounding NO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think Google plans to market this to people who want to do that sort of stuff. From what I read, they plan to market it to people who spend most of their day on the web. People who check email, read the news and occasionally compose documents.

I also imagine that if Google wants to gain any traction with businesses, it will have to federate the server technology like it is doing with wave to allow companies to store their own data.

[Inconnux]

I agree with a lot of your post... I think the Chrome OS is dead in the water. The whole 'browser as the OS' has been touted as the next big thing since the mid 90's and it has never caught on.

As for Linux on the desktop, it actually looks and works quite well... I have a laptop with Vista/Ubuntu and Ubuntu works far better than Vista does and far quicker than Vista. The problem was that Linux is a pain to setup (wireless was a major pain) and most people don't have the technical skills to use/setup Linux therefore it is a poor choice for people who are not technically savvy.

[dzankizakon]

Ubuntu is a good operating system.

But it suffers from problems that open source cannot solve.

Namely, it's ugly. Whatever theme you pick, whatever icons you download, it's still ugly. I'm sorry, I'd rather pay $200 so I don't have to spend the next 5 years looking at ugly icons.

Also, its font rendering is STILL, after all those years, NOWHERE close to Mac's or Windows'. No matter what illegal source patches you install and hidden settings you change, it's still not as good. We all know it's because Apple and Microsoft hold patents on high-quality font rendering and hinting, but I don't care. I would have to look at badly rendered text all day long. No f way.

For a casual user who checks his mail twice a day and reads news for 5 minutes, yes, Ubuntu GUI is good. It's also good for people who think Audi A5 and Hyundai Getz look the same.

So, yes, it's good. But Windows and Mac OS X are WAY BETTER.

[sting7k]

So then what is the point of Android if this Chrome OS will run on mobile devices as well?

People may want all those things, but I don't know if those people are really ready to give up all the power of their PC and stay within a browser OS environment.

[rgersmrk]

Hmmm...they better do more to promote this than they did with Android. So far Android has been a pretty decent failure for the initial hype it received.

In any case this makes things even more interesting in the OS world. Looking forward to see how things move in the next couple of years.

[imsimsj]

Yawn, I do not think people are going to give up the power of the PC for some crap like this. Are you going to tell a customer you can't get to there information at this time because googles system is down again, I don't think so. I would never trust Google with personal data or any other web based OS. I would not trust them with any of my data. I will keep it all here on my PC and backed up where I know it is safe and It can't be Gone over by the Feds at any time they feel they need to go looking in all googles data. Not many people will use this as an os to replace windows but more as an app to play with.

[ScottDamery]

Is Google reinventing the wheel? Is this really just an extension of what android is doing? If this does not merge with android I will be surprised. In fact I can see this OS being named Android and the current version of Android being renamed as Android mobile....anyone?

[rohitharsh]

If any one wants a good perspective on this then pleae visit Michael Gartenbers's blog:

http://gartenblog.net/2009/07/08/chrome-os-is-not-a-threat-to-windows/

[jessiethe3rd]

Very solid blog. It's a scare tactic - there is nothing to be seen here just a bunch of chatter about a Vaporware OS that is really a Linux Disti. Google is not going to win at this game. They have a bunch of hype but to date name one truly successful Google application/os/product outside of Search. GMail? Sureee.... Gmail users - right. Everyone has a Gmail account. What revenue is that driving for Google? Ohh that's right!! They search your email and sell you stuff through keywords.... that's right!! SEARCH. Infer then that everything Google does is about search and selling you crap. They've taken the Microsoft model of vendors and applied it to advertising but unfortunately - you have no choice in who sells you stuff and how they sell it to you. Banner Ad? How about spam email?

[todd3617]

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. Google is working to take over the world. It won't be long before Google, the company, will find a way to become President of the United States. LOL

[Seaspray0]

Google is doing what they think will increase their market share and profits. Can you name a company that doesn't attempt to do the same thing? All you can say is that google is doing a better job at increasing their marketshare and profits. Most people call that "being successful".

You're alot like those who hate microsoft for the same reason... they are successful.

[cvaldes1831]

Count me amongst the people who are unconvinced about the browser as the OS.

On my iPod touch, I access the following Internet services without touching a browser: e-mail, stocks, weather, sports scores, news, maps, YouTube, TV and movie schedules, social networks, Internet radio and streaming audio, restaurant reservations, transit schedules. There are plenty more utilities and games that I can run without an Internet connection as well.

The web browser is an important application on a desktop or notebook PC, something with a decent sized screen and a full keyboard. When you move to handheld devices, the notion of a page of hypertext has little appeal.

I am happy to have a good browser on my iPod touch, but I avoid using it. If there is an app for a particular function, it is usually better than the web page it is replacing (at least on these handheld devices).

Best of luck to Google. Competition is good and I would love to see a credible competitor to Apple, the iPod touch/iPhone, and iTunes/App Store ecosystem. Heck, best of luck to Microsoft, too. I'm a shareholder of all three companies. I'd like all of them to improve their offerings.