Google Chrome Operating System

[The Stig]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8139711.stm

All hail our mighty Google overlords.

[Buckets]

That article kind of glosses over a huge point in that the OS is going to be open source, and thus will most likely be free. They're releasing the source code later this year, most likely around the release of Windows 7. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the netbook market, considering how the Windows OS is a significant percentage of the cost of one.

Also will be interesting to see how Google ends up monetizing it.

[TC]

Buh-bye Ubuntu. Nice knowing you.

EDIT: After reading about it, does anyone really think this will contend with Microsoft? I don't.

[GIGAFAN99]

Jul 8, 2009 8:54:31 GMT -5 TC said:

Buh-bye Ubuntu. Nice knowing you.

EDIT: After reading about it, does anyone really think this will contend with Microsoft? I don't.

Agreed. Short google. This will be cool to geeks but as cash generating, I don't see it.

I have to open a terminal window for one application at work. We haven't even gotten to the point where shared functions are service-oriented within the organization (we have multiple interest calculation engines for example). But we're getting chrome? I'm sure we'll be sold when we hop on our Segways and go see a demo.

And at home, still too many people with slow connectivity.

I don't see it making money either.

[TC]

My take on it is that Google has no idea what people's expectations of a good operating system are and that anyone thinking that this is going to be a big deal has never had a problem getting a new wireless card working on Linux where you have to install seven things and muck with the kernel to get it working. Saying "it's all about the web" is all well and good until someone wants to download pictures from their camera, watch a DVD on a plane flight, burn a CD, play Quake 3, or scan a picture.

I think GWT and Chrome and several of their other technologies just got a big hike up given that they will be the most favored technology for their OS though.

[GIGAFAN99]

I'll go as far as saying I think they've lost their mind a bit here. It's that stage of tech company lunacy where you start thinking you can do everything better because "We're X." So you get into products and markets that you really shouldn't.

Your point that they don't know what anyone wants in an operating system is dead on. They do know what everyone in Google who wears Google t-shirts and talks about how they work at Google at parties thinks would be neat-o (nevermind those stupid consumers, it's so awesome they'll change everything to accomodate Chrome). This is definitely an inward-focused competitive play. Not digging it.

[DrumsGoBang]

It's biggest issue is that is going to be cloud-based. You always have to be connected to your Google overlords.

[DFW HOYA]

It'a all about thc cloud...and the bottom line.

PC users pay a premium for Windows to be pre-installed as an OS. (Apple customers pay even more for its OS, but Apple folks are fine overpaying for products... )

But here's the bottom-line--a PC manufacturer can install Chrome at no cost and that can deduce the cost of a netbook by 10 percent. Suddenly, price is dictated not by add-ons. What do you really get with Vista that you want to pay for?

One can theoretically get a Google OS (much as it will offer with the Android phones) at a more competitive price for the customer at large. When people then start getting comfortable with Google's word and spreadsheet packages, suddenly they won't need to buy Office, and then Microsoft has some trouble ahead.

[TC]

Jul 8, 2009 12:45:23 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

But here's the bottom-line--a PC manufacturer can install Chrome at no cost and that can deduce the cost of a netbook by 10 percent. Suddenly, price is dictated not by add-ons. What do you really get with Vista that you want to pay for?

The fact that USB/peripheral devices and components like your wireless card work. Linux has been an option in many forms as a base install for 10 years through retailers like Walmart, Dell, etc and "bottom line" has always been the argument but it basically has gone nowhere on the desktop because ordinary people would rather pay a couple of bucks than deal with a lot of hassle. Google suddenly slapping a window manager on top to replace KDE or integrating cloud apps doesn't change the equation.

Linux has gone far on the server because IT people will put up with the hassle to make it work.

Here's another question - anyone use any IT applications at work that only work with IE and won't work with Firefox?

[DrumsGoBang]

The cloud is the reason this actually might work. One of the main issue with linux for both business and personal users is the lack of drivers. Things just don't work. Connecting to the cloud would allow the driver to work as long as it exists somewhere on the cloud. No more storing up ini and dll files on the hard disk anymore.

The future is cloud computing. Even Microsoft knows that. They are just glad now that the high speed internet connectivity in the united states ranks under Costa Rica, so they have time to catch up and sell us more crap until we can use the cloud effectively and most likely cheaper.

[GIGAFAN99]

Agree with TC on all counts. I somehow managed to buy a computer without office on it the last time so I had to buy it after the fact. I got the brilliant idea to try out both google docs and open office, thinking I'd just use them instead.

I got a week in and both had some quirks and I said "F this" and bought office. I actually think a week is a generous estimate for most people. I choose convenience over pain every day. That's the problem here.

[SirSaxa]

CNBC piece and interview today suggested Google is not trying to outdo MSFT/Windows in developed markets, but has a developing markets (where computers/web are currently vastly underutilized/not available), and not to monetize directly. Current plan is to increase web usage globally and thereby increase Google revenues.

An "indirect" monetizing or revenue generating plan.

Not sure I completely grasp or agree, or even believe that is the sum total of their ambitions.

But I would not sell Google short considering the almost limitless resources they have to address this subject. Key point though is no one is expecting anyone to go into the office next week and switch over from MSFT. It is a much longer term and global developmental play.

[TC]

Jul 8, 2009 13:22:55 GMT -5 DrumsGoBang said:

The cloud is the reason this actually might work. One of the main issue with linux for both business and personal users is the lack of drivers. Things just don't work. Connecting to the cloud would allow the driver to work as long as it exists somewhere on the cloud. No more storing up ini and dll files on the hard disk anymore.

The future is cloud computing. Even Microsoft knows that. They are just glad now that the high speed internet connectivity in the united states ranks under Costa Rica, so they have time to catch up and sell us more crap until we can use the cloud effectively and most likely cheaper.

So what happens when the configuration on the cloud is busted and you can't even tweak your machine so that you get the right driver because it keeps defaulting to the broken one?

I believe in the cloud too - it'll make hosting cheaper and easier hopefully. I don't think you completely replace the client though.

[DrumsGoBang]

that is the current issue. Theoretically in the future the cloud will never be down....theoretically

[GIGAFAN99]

This is clearly a record for agreement between me and TC in one string. Everyone has gotten so cloud happy, and it's great but it is not a replacement for the client. You'll be mobile, you'll want to work offline even if you have the choice, there will be outages etc. So the cloud is cool but it's only part of a better design. There are very good reasons to have control over certain software locally that works with the cloud and not within the cloud.

[TC]

GIGA and I are all for small cloud and personal responsibility.