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.

[shane--2008]

"3. Actually, the Internet is more stable than Windows."

so is my crazy uncle on lithium. hell i have known homeless people who talk to empty air that are more stable than windows. that isn't an achievement, don't get to snide about it...

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

ok, then explain windows. why pay tons of money for an OS that "isn't even close to half-baked"?

[dzankizakon]

"Tons of money?" Last time I checked, the most expensive version of Windows costs less than $200. That might be expensive for homeless drifters but for something that I will use heavily for the next 5 years, it's ridiculously cheap.

"isn't even close to half-baked?" Yeah, it must be real horribly bad if it holds 90% of the market for 2 decades straight.

On the other hand, Linux GUI can't possibly be "half-baked", oh nooo. Such is its quality that everyone writes about how great it is, too bad they do it in Microsoft Word on a Vista laptop.

[wschumacher]

Taking the long-term view, the Google Chrome OS or something like it will eventually be to Windows what Windows was to OS2.

Google started out as a service that individuals could access using Internet Explorer on their Windows PCs. Today it is beginning to make inroads against Microsoft Office in the enterprise and tomorrow it will begin to make inroads against Windows on PCs. Compare that to almost 20 years ago, when Microsoft (which had started out with the OS that IBM selected for its PC hardware project) turned against its original base, ditched its OS2 alliance with IBM, and focused its efforts to Windows.

Back in the early 1990s IBM was already hurting from what PCs were taking from its mainframe business, and it eventually lost the PC business too -- people stopped calling them IBM PCs within a decade.
But IBM had a lot of other things to fall back on at that time that helped it ease into what it is today. Microsoft does not. Windows and Office are the only Microsoft products that have made any significant profits in the last 15 years. Its on-line business as a whole still doesn't make money, while obviously Google makes gobs of money on-line. Five years ago, Internet Explorer had over 95% of the browser market; today it's about 70%. Almost the entire loss has gone to Firefox, which for the past several years has been funded almost entirely by Google.

Of course Internet Explorer on its own isn't really a product to Microsoft, and the conventional wisdom is that Google is going after the low-end market and will never make inroads into the enterprise market - but I don't think so. At first the conventional wisdom was that Windows was a joke and OS2 was where IBM, the industry leader (or elephant) was taking the industry. The same thing as happened to OS2 and as is happening to Internet Explorer will happen to Windows and to Office, although it will take 5 years for the shift to be noticeable (like 10-15% of the market) and 10 years for it be severe. Maybe that will be long enough for Microsoft to figure out what it wants to do after it gets over itself.

[portvista]

I wonder what the EU version of this will look like without the browser. lol!

[splendidcrm]

At SplendidCRM, we are die-hard Microsoft supporters, but we would be interested in a Google OS so long as Miguel de Icaza and his Mono team can enable us to run our .NET application on the new OS. As application developers, we are less enthusiastic about learning a new OS or a new API, but we would be very open to running our application on a new, fast, simple and secure platform.

[dr_no]

This is infoterminal class. It will very little wide appeal except to provide a slim, fast, cheap general applications platform for a specific niche. This needs a rugged $150 all-in-one widescreen device, a 5 second startup, with an SSD and some USB ports. It will push its way into large-scale mundane business uses, such as financial institutions, insurance companies, libraries, call centres, government, internet cafes etc. Hardware is the first block to most of these ideas. We already have the chrome browser that we can run on expensive computers. It has to be both solutions together. As for the general public, the majority just don't care and can barely make out the difference between a web browser and the rest of the computer's applications. When I see a matching hardware platform I'll pay attention.

[RighteousSoutherner]

You're right, Ina. This one is definitely going to be interesting! Now see, isn't competition great? We will all benefit from the new technology that emerges from this, no matter who it's from.

[reviewerHL]

I think this has to be looked at from a business perspective prior to that of a technical. Whether Google makes a dent in the Microsoft empire really isn't the primary objective. Their strategy seems to be one of building their web application on top of a lightweight Linux kernel leveraging the power of open-source in their development and that's a huge plus for Google.

Think of the cost benefits of development and minimized risk. By Google basically recruiting an entire community to give them superior and consistent development, they don't have to get a working solution on the OS end, they can just continue to focus on web applications which is the core of their initiative. Also by setting a release date in 2010, they ensure themselves the opportunity to essentially '1-up' the functionality of Windows 7 through analysis and reverse engineering any worthwhile functionality. The only danger with google is trying to be too far ahead of the curve.

It's really a win-win for Google as they don't have to stretch themselves too thin on the underlying Linux code and they get to make a play in a new market. Google dominates search, mail, maps, ad revenue, youtube and that's pretty much a huge percentage of the daily web..the only thing they don't have is facebook/twitter. Anyone underestimating their abilities should really reconsider. Google v. Microsoft is pretty exciting and is only capable of pushing tech to its limits.

[BDA123]

The idea of a lightweight Tablet Netbook PC could and probably will dominate in the few couple of years. There are only a few factors that need to be fixed. These are SS HDs need to drop in price significantly, NVidia Ion (with an ATI or Intel GPU substitute) needs to become ubiquitous, Adobe needs to fix the GPU acceleration problems of Flash, Intel Atom 330 needs to be a little faster, and battery technology needs to improve to give the more powerful systems a little more operating time. That being said all of the above changes appear to be well in the works. We will likely see an Asus T101 (or better yet a T121 12" tablet with a cheap SSHD, free Google Chrome OS, Wifi n, Bluetooth, with the necessary outputs (HDMI, 2+ USB2, SPDIF, eSATA, Gigabit LAN, etc.) This machine would significantly canabalize the current Laptop industry. More importantly with a sub $300 price point you would likely see it a requirement that every student in any decent elementary and high school in the nation have one. The combination of an OneNote/Outlook type free program on a Google Chrome OS based Netbook Tablet PC would be a world wide market shifter. The trend to small form factor, energy efficient, low cost, multimedia rich, web based computing is so well on its way that Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Via, Dell, Acer, Asus, LG, Nvidia, and Lenovo would all be fools to not see it for what it is. And honestly they have already seen it! Will the shift kill Microsoft or Intel. Of course not. They will drop the cost of their Windows 7 OS on Netbooks and make a strong shift toward web based apps. They are still so solid in the business market and government market that they will do fine. It might hit their market share and profit margins but it was bound to happen eventually.

[jessiethe3rd]

The question you have to ask is...

If this was the REAL DEAL do you think Apple's board of directors would allow Eric from Google to sit on it? Nope.

Eric to Apple...."we just want to scare them and think they really have competition *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* we know we aren't going to really get into the OS space and eat up your base first.... maybe we can fragment it a bit and make it easier for you to take over more marketshare."

The realities are so easy to see:

1. Google makes money off search - they aren't going to go into OS development unless there is a stake in getting more of your information into their databases so you can be scanned, broken down, assimulated, and sold to the highest bidder

2. Google and Apple are peas in a pod - they almost have a mutual development pact - they both have a common enemy that's Microsoft. Go after Microsoft and fragment it to hell is their strategy - secure revenue and build revenue

3. Google makes no money off of Google OS and you think they are developing it for free? You are kidding yourself - companies are in business to grow. Growing means making revenue - making revenue... that's the key part - how to make revenue. For Google it's yoru data and your marketability - therefore - make light OS and convert people to a Google only world where they have you from beginning to end

4. This is a Phony War... it's kind of like the Cold War right now and it shall be an epic Battle. One side you have Google - search monopoly. On the other you have Microsoft - OS/Office monopoly. Both want to secure and grow revenues. For Microsoft it's easy - create a search engine, make it good enough, market the crap on it - every % taken away from Google means more $$$ out of their bottom line. For Google it's create an OS - push the value of the web - try and get into Microsoft backend by partnering with Open Source, dig into it's consumer base by shackling up with Apple.... it has a tougher road to hoe here. Not only that but Microsoft has billions more in cash reserves, deeper revenue streams, more secure revenue streams and by far... BY FAR... a long, long, LONG history of taking out the compeition.

Hate'm or love'em I'd put my money on Microsoft if the battle got epic.