Google wants to catalyze the era of Web applications with its Chrome OS project, but Mozilla has no plans for its own browser-based operating system, at least for now.
"We're really focused on making the Web the right platform of whatever operating system one is using. That's a fair amount of work," Mozilla Foundation Chairman Mitchell Baker said. "I think we're going to continue to focus for quite awhile on the Web itself as a platform and the capabilities of the Web rather than build an operating system of our own and pull everybody into our world."
Mozilla Foundation Chairman Mitchell Baker
(Credit: Mozilla)Baker shared the thoughts in an interview about the Mozilla Foundation's report of $79 million. The foundation isn't strapped for cash, but it is financially tiny compared to the three main rivals in the browser market today, Microsoft, Apple, and Google.
Microsoft was largely dormant when Firefox was getting its start five years ago, but the company is lighting a fire under its Internet Explorer developers for IE 9. Among the features the company touted are faster execution of Web-based JavaScript programs, better compliance with Web standards, and higher performance in general.
Internet Explorer remains the dominant browser in use today. Today, the elderly IE 6, dating from 2001, still is the most widely used version, and its widespread use is an anchor that keeps Web developers and therefore other browsers from advancing as fast as they might. So, unsurprisingly, Baker was comfortable with the prospect of a higher-powered IE being resurgent.
"If it could resurge enough to pull the hundreds of millions of people still using IE 6, we'd all be ecstatic," she said. "A lot of people are going to continue to use IE. They get it on their machine. If Microsoft makes that product more capable so the Web can move forward, there's good in that."
The Mozilla Foundation, of which Firefox developer Mozilla Corp. is a taxable subsidiary, gets the bulk of its revenue from Google through a search-ad deal that runs through 2011 at present. Search traffic that stems from Firefox's built-in search bar is set by default to go to Google, and a portion of the resulting Google search-ad revenue goes back to Mozilla.
Mozilla is looking to diversify its revenue sources, though, Baker said, and has taken some small steps.
"We did some small diversification in search, for example in Russia," using Google rival Yandex's services, she said. "We look at diversification, but we're not rushing into it."
And she's comfortable with today's funding situation because it doesn't force Mozilla to take Firefox in a direction it doesn't want to go.
"We have search in the product because we want it. We don't have any other discussions with Google about what the product is," she said. "The search and revenue relationship is completely distinct from the product development relationship."
Though Mozilla's revenue grew only at 5 percent from 2007 to 2008, compared to 12 percent the year before, Baker isn't concerned. "It matches our projections" of slow, steady growth, she said. "We're pretty much in line."
Digging into the financial statement, it should be noted that the foundation's $79 million in revenue is after a $7.8 million unrealized loss in the value of its investments. As the economy improves, it's possible those investments will recover some of their value.
The foundation is making more money than it loses. Expenses were $49 million for 2008, according to the financial statement.
"We have adequate resources to do what we have planned, plus save a little bit," Baker said. "Right now we're not bumping up against the ceiling. Our revenue is adequate to meet our needs. We try to be careful with money."
The Internal Revenue Service is scrutinizing Mozilla's corporate structure--a foundation with two taxable if not exactly for-profit subsidiaries. The foundation disclosed the scrutiny a year ago, and that investigation is continuing, Baker said.
"The IRS can be a very slow-moving organization. It's still an open discussion," she said, and the foundation is taking the matter seriously. "We don't have a clear idea what the IRS is thinking."
Two years ago, the Mozilla Foundation established its second taxable subsidiary, Mozilla Messaging, which focuses on the Thunderbird e-mail software and more recently on the Web-based Raindrop universal communications service. For now, that project gets its funding from the Firefox side of the house, but Baker plans to increase its financial focus once the near-final Thunderbird 3 is finished.
"The task now is to ship first Thunderbird 3. We expect to see that this year," Baker said. Mozilla overall is set up to be sustainable, not to be a money machine, but Mozilla Messaging will need to generate more revenue on its own eventually to help with that sustainability effort.
Google's Chrome operating system isn't the only thing threatening Windows these days. In a recent New York Times story, VMware CEO Paul Maritz highlighted how dynamic Web frameworks and languages are fundamentally shifting our understanding of the operating system. He said, "If you are in Ruby on Rails, you have to work really hard to tell what the operating system is, it is so far removed."
I spoke with Engine Yard's Yehuda Katz, a member of the Ruby on Rails core team, who said that open-source platforms like Ruby on Rails are changing the game by giving power to the developer to make decisions. "The freedom that comes with open standards and open-source software like Rails will ultimately make software applications better. We believe the replacement of the traditional desktop with application-centric development will benefit everyone."
These comments bring to light the changing nature of application development. A decade ago, if you were writing an application, chances were you were writing it for Windows. Today, there's a good chance you're writing it for the Web as a platform. A new generation of applications are both Web-centric and OS neutral thanks to open-source development platforms.
Importantly, the language and underpinning architecture for Web applications doesn't matter to the end-user (though it has serious impact on the development and operations teams). What matters is the ability to add new features quickly and affordably.
... Read more
Departing significantly from what other browsers offer, Google has begun building its O3D plug-in for hardware-accelerated 3D graphics into its Chrome browser.
"The O3D team is working on getting O3D integrated into the Chromium build, and we're close to being able to complete our first step towards integration," said programmer Greg Spencer in a mailing list announcement Wednesday about Chromium, the open-source project that underlies Chrome itself. "I'll be making the Windows build of Chromium be dependent upon building O3D as part of the build process."
By helping to pave the way for high-powered Web-based games, the move furthers Google's ambition to speed the transformation of the Web from a static medium into a foundation for applications. Another piece of the work is Google Native Client, which is designed to let Web applications take advantage of a computer's native processing power.
... Read moreThough Dell didn't have much to say about Google's Chrome OS announcement last week, the PC maker is apparently looking closely at it.
Dell says it has options for Linux OSes for Netbooks.
(Credit: Dell)But for Dell--which was not listed as one of the PC makers working with Google on Chrome OS--it is just one of a number of Linux-based operating systems it is evaluating.
"As with most new technology, Dell plans to evaluate the Chrome OS and other alternative operating environments, like we've done in the past," a Doug Anson, a technology strategist for Dell, wrote Wednesday in Dell's Direct2Dell blog. He added that Dell has a "great relationship with Google."
But from that post, it appears Dell is far more interested in a different distribution of Linux, called Moblin. Doug A. writes:
Moblin is the next evolutionary step of the traditional Linux environment where focus on smaller devices and small screens is a requirement. It takes a different approach to its user experience from either Dell's current offering or Ubuntu Netbook Remix by further simplifying the self-directedness of the desktop - no user guide should be needed to learn how to use Moblin. Additionally, Moblin replaces some of the traditional Linux applications, such as media players, browsers, etc..., with equivalent versions that have been specifically optimized to align with this new design behavior/look and feel of Moblin.
Basically, Chrome falls in line with what Dell has been working on. It sounds like Dell believes it will be a good option for Dell Netbooks. But until Chrome is ready to ship on a product, Dell users are going to get Moblin Linux or Dell's own flavor of Ubuntu, which it already offers.
Intel is endorsing Google's future Chrome operating system, but the chipmaker is being cautious as it already has a successful strategy supplying chips for Windows-based mobile devices.
Last week, makers of processors based on the ARM design, such as Texas Instruments and Qualcomm, were quick to cheer the news of Google's Chrome, which is slated to first appear on Netbooks in 2010.
"We're thrilled about the news that Google just issued," Ramesh Iyer, TI's head of worldwide business development for mobile computing, said last week. "You can see how simple the user interface is and how easy it is to access stuff," he said, referring to current Google applications available on the Web. "Think of (Chrome) as the next-gen of all of that."
Intel was more guarded in its statements. "We welcome Google's move," said Intel spokeswoman Claudine Mangano, but added: "We try to ensure Intel processors run on a variety of software." Chrome is slated to launch simultaneously on both ARM and Intel processors.
Though Intel is officially software agnostic, unofficially its chips are inextricably linked with Microsoft's Windows software as the hardware half of the most popular hardware-software PC platform on earth. And Intel's Atom is already the processor of choice for the most popular Netbooks worldwide from Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, and others.
Atom will hold more than an 80 percent share of the 23.5 million Netbooks sold in 2009, according to a report released Monday by the Information Network, a New Tripoli, Pa.-based market research company.
Most of those Netbooks run Windows--which Google is looking to displace. "Consumers buying Netbooks so far have voted Windows," said Jeff Orr, senior analyst, mobile content, at ABI Research, in a phone interview.
The ARM chip camp is hoping to link its processors with Google in much the same way Intel is associated with Microsoft's popular Windows software. "Coming from the ARM side, they lack a Windows XP, Windows 7 solution," Orr said.
ARM processors are supplied by chip manufacturers Texas Instruments and Qualcomm, among others, and power devices such as the Palm Pre and T-Mobile Android smartphones, respectively. The Information Network projects that the ARM processor will gain a 55 percent market share of the 96 million Netbooks sold in 2012.
But for the foreseeable future, Netbooks will run Windows on top of Intel's Atom processor. And for those few Netbooks not running Windows, Intel is hedging its bets. The world's largest chipmaker also showed, as part of a technology demonstration, an Atom-based Netbook running Google's Android operating system at Computex.
The company announced Google Chrome OS on its blog, 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.
The move 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. It also opens new competition with Microsoft and, potentially, a new reason for antitrust regulators to pay close attention to Google's moves.
In short, Google is aiming to render desktop software irrelevant. To thwart them, Microsoft needs Windows to do things that a browser can't--or do the same things significantly better.
Interestingly, if Microsoft wants some tips on how to do this, it might want to look toward Apple. Essentially, this has been Apple's challenge all along: make the Mac experience better enough than a generic PC that it is worth the added cost.
Google has a long history of tracking user activity, and the introduction of its Chrome operating system later this year is sure to follow suit. While we know that it's being built off of Linux, one big thing we don't know is how its terms of service will differ from those found in other Google products, and what kinds of user data it will be collecting. Based on the company's track record of watching and monetizing user data, it could track anything from the applications you're using, to all the information that's coming in and out of your computer.
• Why Chrome OS? Google says, why not?
• Google reveals its Chrome OS cohorts
More headlines
Andreessen: Facebook revenue to top $500 million in '09
The Netscape founder, a member of Facebook's board of directors, says the social network has the potential to be a billion-dollar company already.• So is Facebook for old people now or what?
• Facebook debuts 'fan box' tool
• Wife exposes chief spy's personal life on Facebook
• Facebook movie screenplay reportedly doesn't suck
T-Mobile launches iPhone challenger
T-Mobile sees its second Android phone, the MyTouch 3G, as its best hope to take on Apple's iPhone on AT&T.• DOJ looks into telecom dominance
• Manage multiple Twitter accounts with your iPhone
• Can RIM get its mojo back with the BlackBerry Tour?
Judge sides with YouTube on several copyright issues
Federal court dismissed some of the copyright complaints made by a class of plaintiffs because they were made overseas and aren't protected by U.S. copyright law.• Jammie Thomas asks for new trial
• Odd-couple lawyers aim to save Jammie Thomas
Microsoft opens Hohm to energy monitoring
Can a slick Web application give you decent advice on cutting your home energy use? Based on a first look at Microsoft Hohm, CNET News' Martin LaMonica says yes.• GE appliances to connect to smart grid via Tendril
• Control4 adds energy monitoring to home network
URL shortening is hot--but look before you leap
Fueled by Twitter's popularity, services to abbreviate Web addresses are taking off. They bring a host of problems, but some are working to fix them.• Shortened URLs spike in e-mail spam
• How to vanquish mobile spam
Google Earth event hints at moon mapping
An event scheduled for July 20--the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing--could mean the addition of new moon imagery to Google Earth.• Google image search gets usage rights filtering
SEC review of Apple disclosure now more complex?
The federal inquiry into whether Apple made misleading statements over CEO Steve Jobs' health is ongoing, according to a Bloomberg report.• N.C. town sweetens pot for an Apple move
Also of note
• U2 releasing 'mobile album' for BlackBerry
• VCs more confident about recovery
• News sites stay up during Jackson memorial
Google is gearing up for an assault next year on Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems, yet the companies that would have to be complicit in the battle have little to say about it.
CNET News Poll
Judging by their public reactions to Google's news, much of the top tier of consumer PC makers appear caught off guard by Google's announcement Tuesday of Chrome OS, an open-source operating system the company is preparing for launch in 2010. Google specifically noted in its announcement that its operating system would be lightweight enough to work on Netbooks, low-cost mini laptops that almost all PC makers have flocked to in the past year. According to a person familiar with the operating system, Google is talking to Asus, Lenovo, as well as other original equipment manufacturers, and chipset makers about using Chrome OS.
Neither Asus nor Lenovo responded to requests for comment.
It makes sense that Google would target Asus. It's the pioneer of the Netbook movement and dominates the market. But there are other potential partners too, whose names have not come up yet: Acer and MSI. Along with Asus, they've been happy to cut Microsoft at least partly out of the equation of building a computer. The three have led the charge in Netbooks, and while they have offered versions with Windows XP, they also were early to make Linux versions available. Adding Chrome OS as an option would make sense.
But both Hewlett-Packard and Dell, who account for 35 percent of computers sold worldwide, had mostly nothing to say about Chrome OS.
Will Netbook makers flock to Chrome OS?
(Credit: Acer)HP said that while it is "studying Chrome," it had no comment on whether it would incorporate it into forthcoming Netbook models, or any other HP computers.
"HP wants to understand all the OS choices in the marketplace that may be used by its competitors, and remains open to considering various approaches to meet its own customer needs," company spokeswoman Marlene Somsak said in a statement Wednesday.
Dell was equally noncommittal. "Dell constantly assesses new technologies as part of managing our product development process and for consideration in future products," said spokeswoman Anne Camden.
Of course they do. But a Google OS could completely change the long-established process of putting together a consumer PC and would totally change how it is priced. Yet neither of the two giants of the industry have a comment. Acer, which is the fastest-growing PC maker right now, said it "had no answer" yet.
Reading between the lines, it appears the top three hardware vendors have little or no relationship with the search and online advertising giant. But if Google plans to make inroads into Netbooks and eventually notebooks, that will have to change very soon. Every consumer desktop and notebook, and most Netbooks today (excluding computers from Apple) are designed to run Windows. Microsoft has deep hooks in the manufacturers' design and engineering processes, and the hardware companies' marketing and product launch cycles always take Microsoft's plans into account.
... Read moreGoogle's revelation that it will create its own operating system will bring just one reaction from operating system enthusiasts worldwide.
"Not another Linux distribution," they'll cry.
They'll say this because if there is one problem that the Linux and open-source community has suffered repeatedly over the past two decades, it's been fragmentation.
It was bad enough that the Unix operating system fragmented repeatedly through the 1980s and 1990s. Systems administrators (like myself, earlier this decade) were forced to learn several different platforms: Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, FreeBSD...the list was always growing longer.
But the hojillion different directions Linux has taken over the past several decades has even dwarfed that problem. Depending on what part of the world you live in, odds are that you (and sometimes the company you work for) have personally switched among different Linux distributions several times over the past decade, as one or the other gained prominence.
Personally, I started off using Red Hat, which split off into the official Red Hat version and a community edition dubbed Fedora. I toyed with Mandriva and Suse for a while, before settling on Slackware for some years, and then moving to Debian. Throughout that time, I've had to learn quite a few different package management, configuration, boot, and window management systems.
Of course, I have also used a variety of Microsoft operating systems and Apple's more focused Mac OS X and its predecessors.
Now, over the past few years, some of us had begun to believe that we could see a bright light forming at the end of that confused and heterogeneous tunnel. Out of the ferocious Linux distribution wars, one contender has emerged with the seeming strength to take on the rest--at least when it comes to the Linux desktop platform.
I speak, of course, of Ubuntu.
Mark Shuttleworth's juggernaut has, over the past few years, blasted through the Linux community like he blasted into space, drawing in all like some kind of monstrous black hole.
If you attend conferences like Linux.conf.au these days, where you used to see Debian and Slackware die-hards, you'll see a massive wave of Linux laptops proudly sporting Ubuntu paraphernalia. I switched the Linux half of my home desktop PC to Ubuntu four years ago, and my media center followed this year, as I said goodbye finally to the venerable Windows XP.
The growing dominance of Ubuntu (at least on the desktop, the server room seems to have been won by Red Hat) has delivered the Linux community a serious advantage in its ongoing war against the incumbent Windows and Apple platforms because of its ability to give software developers a single platform to concentrate on and polish to a degree not seen previously.
In this context, Google's decision to create its own Linux distribution and splinter the Linux community decisively once again can only be seen as foolhardy and self-obsessive.
Instead of treading its own path, Google should have sought to leverage the stellar work already carried out by Shuttleworth and his band of merry coders and tied its horse to the Ubuntu cart.
If Google truly wants to design a new "windowing system on top of a Linux kernel," there should be nothing to stop the search giant from collaborating openly with the best in the business. I'm sure Linus Torvalds would have something strongly worded to say about Google's plans to "completely redesign" the underlying security architecture of Linux.
There's no doubt Google has made moves in this direction with its pledge to open-source Chrome OS, the same way it did with several previous projects: the Chrome browser itself and its Android mobile OS.
But doubts still remain about those projects also. For example, where do they fit in between true open-source projects, maintained and supported by the community, and to what extent are they extensions of Google's online advertising empire?
Android is a great mobile operating system, second only to Apple's iPhone platform. But Google still controls most aspects of Android's development. Also, anyone using Android would have no doubt that the operating system ties in very nicely with Google's cloud offerings (for example, Gmail). But things are a lot trickier if you prefer Windows Live or other rival systems.
Chrome too, is a great browser that I use for much of my daily needs. But it's mainly still in Google's hands, and so those of us who prefer true competition to exist in the browser world take great comfort from the fact that Mozilla Firefox is completely independent and not pushing anyone's agenda.
Who are you going to trust and believe in? The noncommercial Ubuntu Foundation (and wider project), which has developed an open-source operating system second to none and virtually ended the Linux distribution wars? Or Google, which also makes free products (well, mostly) and packages advertising in (sometimes)?
You can e-mail Torvalds or Shuttleworth directly and get answers to your Linux questions, sometimes within minutes or hours. Try that with whoever is in charge of Android or Chrome development.
Google makes great products. But it's currently trying to tread a nice middle ground between completely embracing the open-source community and keeping control over software it has developed. That's an impossible path to walk and one that leaves it open to being criticized for the same sort of arrogance that operating system vendors have been accused of for decades.
Renai LeMay of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.
- prev
- 1
- next
