Comments on: Google plans Chrome-based Web operating system

Watch out Microsoft: Google's browser project is the foundation for a Web-based operating system. Chrome OS Netbooks are due in 2010.

[Mike Acker]

make it tamper-proof. the first step is to recognize that all modern documents must be considered to be executable code. for that reason all modern documents must be processed in the sand-box (RING3/protected mode) so that they can be ABENDED if they try anything funny.

Chrome is on its way and I'd love to see it appear as an O/S, fully armored for operations on the Web.

[FF2009]

Sweet revenge....shrinking Windows shares is worth the effort by Google, especially when it's Linux based OS. :)

[jessiethe3rd]

??? Dude... you have got to be kidding me right ???

[Vegaman_Dan]

And it will reduce marketshare to Apple as well, don't forget.

[Jim Hubbard]

Web-based applications.......*yawn*

[Super2online]

Calling this an OS is a joke. It requires Linux to run and applications already run on the web without it.

[freemarket--2008]

Duh! Chrome is a browser, Chrome OS is a browser plus a custom Linux OS. Why is this so hard for you people?

[codynews]

I love Chrome but come on, Chrome OS? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Yeah, because getting into the Netbook market worked out so well for Linux (which this "new" OS will be built on). Even with so many OEMs and Linux superfans (and MS haters) BEGGING for Linux to take over that new market.

If Linux, as "established" as it is, can't make it into the netbook market (it's getting trounced by XP -- something like 10:1), how is Chrome going to make it?

Another thing, Windows 7. It's f'ing bad ass. It'll be on every new PC. Do you think your adverage netbook user is going to want something other than W7 on their netbook? BZZZT. Nope.

I'm starting to dislike google more and more every day.

[joshaidan]

I thought they already had one, called Android. :)

[clamenza]

Android and Chrome OS? Talk about fragmentation of the company!

[freemarket--2008]

A phone based OS is really not appropriate in desktop environment. Nobody wants to be poking at a vertical touch screen or to use a mouse/keyboard on a touch-based OS. If tablets start to come back, Android would be great for that.

[a_flores]

So, someday, somehow, I just install Google Chrome in my computer, nothing else. It is just about 50 to 100 MB. Right? I Can do office work with word and spreadsheet, I can do photoshop, I can do many things else. All are in Google servers. That's great. But I will not save my documents in Google servers, I have to save it in my own computer. Next problem is, in case I have internet problem, let us say, the cable was cut off below the ocean by the sheep anchor. Unfortunately, just last month, for 3 days we had no internet at all in our office because those criminals cut off the cable for reselling it in black market. This happens everyday in underdeveloped countries. The reparation needs days or sometimes a full week. So, how do I run my office in this case? Can do nothing for a week? That's the hell of the cloud computing. Xie xie.

[cougar888]

From my experience from Google Docs offline, that is not a problem. You work on your docs all you want offline (That is the purpose of Gears), save and print them as you like, and when the internet comes back on it all get synchronized.

[rakker91]

Yawn. Nothing to see here. Their OS is based on Linux, so they aren't creating an OS, just modding an existing one, which people have been doing for a long time.

Let's count the os's: 1. Windows (1, 2, 3, 3.11, NT 4, 2000, XP, 2003, 2008, ME, 95, 98, Vista, 7, and the mobile and pocket pc versions), Linux (Mandrake, ubuntu, Android, Chrome, Red Hat, slackware, and who knows how many other distros), Symbian, Palm OS, Next OS, Unix (OS X 10, HP, and others), Dos (in all its varieties), OS/2, OS/400 (and all of the other IBM OS's), Mac OS (pre unix days), Solaris, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Even with all of those choices, Windows is dominant. I have to wonder why, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they have done a lot of things RIGHT and make a good OS.

Google has a severe case of Not Invented Here syndrome. Why does everyone assume that just because google makes a product, it's going to be better? Office is far better than google's online products (largely because they don't have barrier of the internet!). the iPhone is better in many ways than Android, and for that matter, so is the pre. Firefox is better than Chrome. Bing is better than Google Search. Outlook is better than GMail. Wave is really kinda pointless.

The statement that the user won't have to deal with "viruses, malware, and security updates" is laughable. As long as there is software, there will be those things. You can't prevent them, and there isn't a single mainstream os that hasn't had them (linux, DOS, windows, mac os have ALL had them).

I'm ranting, I know, but this kind of propaganda piece just makes my teeth ache.

[weegg]

Doh! Everyone is not using the correct term, it should be Chrome Desktop. OS is patently false (its linux). Anyway, so we have yet another desktop metaphor to deal with. I suspect they (Google) will undercut MS in installed costs by having it run ads (that would suck). But, for those looking for dirt cheap netbooks it is something they can probably live with.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Although I agree with your comment about it being a desktop (or GUI), I would rather pay more money and not have to put up with ads. I HATE ads unless they're put off to the side somewhere so you don't HAVE to click on them.

In other words, I won't be rushing out to buy a netbook running Linux with the Chrome GUI.

[flickrz]

And, what about privacy implications? Google would put daemons in the "OS" that will report it back what the user is doing at every moment. Thanks but no thanks.

[gidstelios]

I totally agree. Take a look at Google Chrome, lots of services pretending to help with the safety of WWW but in reality spying upon every action we make.

I prefer Windows OS for sure.

[gidstelios]

Ladies and gentlemen I have a few questions for you:

1) What about those PCs that are NOT networked?
2) What about our privacy?
3) What about all those developers who face Internet in the way it was meant to be built from the very beginning? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#The_World_Wide_Web)
4) Why Google?
5) Why now?

Please I desperately need an answer ( a well justified one).

[Vegaman_Dan]

1) There is no such thing as a non-networked PC. Everything is connected these days. Anything less is obsolete like a calculator.

2) Privacy? Google? Buahaahahaahahaahahaaa!

3) In an ideal world this may have been the case, but reality dictates otherwise.

4) Money.

5) See #4

[Mergatroid Mania]

I'm afraid that not every PC is connected to the NET, and obsolescence has nothing to do with being connected to the net. There are thousands of PCs being used for various tasks in this world that have no requirement to be connected to the net, and to do so would be a tremendous waste of time and money.

[pase121]

Bout damn time Google....game on Microsoft!

[Mergatroid Mania]

If it's "game on" right now, then MS wins...Game Over.

[jessiethe3rd]

Let's see... not only will people use Google to search and have their information sold to companies their complete OS will be a marketing target and Google will own the cloud, the place to put your documents, your document creator and guess what? They'll search that information and sell it just like they already do with email. Seriously - until Google starts thinking about privacy this is going no where - it's failing just like all the rest of their useless apps.

[umbrae]

Why would I want a device that only works when I am connected to the internet? Am I the only one that lives someplace with thunderstorms?

Just stupid. If your using the web then it is unsecure by default because at least one other person (the site operator) has access to everything you are doing. If everything runs in the cloud its a long way to fall.

[Dan7637]

what about when we dont have an internet connection, how would we get stuff done?

this OS based on the web is a flawed idea, a regular OS would be just fine

[Vegaman_Dan]

Interesting idea to have Google Chrome OS on netbooks. There are a few roadblocks to be overcome, but not impossible:

1) EU: The European Union will need to be bought off, bribed, or otherwise made complacent to allow an OS that has a browser (Chrome) as part of it. They will require you to also include FireFox, Opera, Safari, and yes... even IE on the desktop if they hope to protect their own basis for fining Microsoft and others for antitrust issues. Failure to attack Google on this would jeopardize their entire finsancial model based on fining others.

2) Price points. Just because the OS may be less for the OEM doesn't mean that OEM is going to drop the retail price of the device. They may just keep the profit themselves. Look to current pricing of Linux based netbooks compared to Windows versions for that example.

3) Profit. If Google gives away the OS, they don't make money on it. They give away the browser already. The only two ways they can make money from this is to either datamine your content and monitor your activities with the device (big brother) or put ads on your screen, in which case the resulting device better be free if they are going to be putting ads on my device.

4) Compatability. Walmart already went through this when they have offered Linux-based PC's twice now in their stores without success. Customers don't look at the OS- they see a computer and software and expect it to work. If you have consumers who are used to using Windows or Mac OS X and they get a Google netbook, they will have to be taught that nothing they buy in the store will work on their machine, and none of the apps they have on their existings systems work on this new one either. They will have to learn all new methods of installing applications and only from sources provided- it's a whole new learning experience. Some may adapt quickly, while others will find this a huge obstacle- Walmart did and that's why the experiment to sell Linux based PC's direct to consumers failed at the world's largest retail outlet. The world simply wasn't ready and didn't want it... then. Maybe it will change.

5) Fanboys. Linux has their own OS holy wars going on internally as they fight about which kernel is better, this particular flavor of *nix is better than yours, why doesn't anyone support this hardware, I thought Tom was doing that project but then he lost interest and now it's abandoned, etc, etc, etc. Google can help to unify things a lot there, but they will have to go in with an iron fist to make it happen and that will cause backlashes from existing entrenched fans.

Conclusion: If the netbook they produce is free, fully subsidized by the company or by ads, they might have a chance. If it requires a data plan, then we already saw an article yesterday by one cell service provider offering netbooks for 99 cents with a two year agreement. That's going to be very hard for Google to beat. When you offer an unknown Google OS device next to a Windows system they are familiar with, it's also going to be a tough offer to make for Google.

It can be done, but should it? I just don't see the profit here.

[ender21]

Great summary!

[freemarket--2008]

@ender: Great if you like irrational blather...

[Sporlo]

Regardless of where this ends up, it's just yet another step to bring everyone's entire lives online.

[dennisl59]

You use what you can afford and that works for you to get your job done. Everthing else is just a pi**ing contest by people that have nothing else to do than express an opinion. In my opinion.

[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.