Maek discuss
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... me-os.html
Chrome OS
Moderator: Moderators
-
HeavyLancer
- Posts: 421
- Joined: 19 May 2007, 09:28
Re: Chrome OS
Interesting. It looks like a nice way to shake up the Netbook market, but if the progress Android and the Chrome browser have made are anything to go by, it won't be crash-hot.
Intel already has Moblin, Android is being put out on some of the smaller netbooks and smartbooks (Although, Google will probably "encourage" manufacturers to move to Chrome OS) and Windows 7 will probably eat any market share it makes at the top end of the netbook market.
Also, netbooks will be run "off the grid" so they had better have some good offline functionality built in.
The winner from this probably won't be Chrome OS, or even Google. Other OSes will be better, and get more market share in the netbook area. The winner will be the Linux community, because of the publicity, and the source code releases will enhance distros like Ubuntu embedded and mobile edition.
Intel already has Moblin, Android is being put out on some of the smaller netbooks and smartbooks (Although, Google will probably "encourage" manufacturers to move to Chrome OS) and Windows 7 will probably eat any market share it makes at the top end of the netbook market.
Also, netbooks will be run "off the grid" so they had better have some good offline functionality built in.
The winner from this probably won't be Chrome OS, or even Google. Other OSes will be better, and get more market share in the netbook area. The winner will be the Linux community, because of the publicity, and the source code releases will enhance distros like Ubuntu embedded and mobile edition.
Re: Chrome OS
I read the Wall Street Journal version.
On the one hand, I want to be excited, that an organization who's not Apple and not the Linux anarchy is getting into the fray.
On the other hand, I've been expecting this announcement for about five years now. I knew that this was going to happen long before they got serious. Now that I've seen their cards...
I was left with a lot more serious objections than answers, frankly. I'll see whatever presentation they put up before I make up my mind.
The WSJ version indicated that they think that they'll have a browser-OS that behaves like a more-powerful Firefox... if you want to customize it, you get a Widget (or write one).
Problem is, I can't see for the life of me how that wouldn't create an industrial-sized nightmare, in terms of security, standards, and stability. Not to mention forking and potentially project-killing audience split.
Mainly though, the WSJ concentrated on how Google's bid sounds like it's... for lack of a more civil way of putting it... or just because I'm an asshole... an e-peen issue with a guy who was on the losing side at Novell and Sun, who joined Google and still has a massive hard-on for taking down the Monolith.
Personally, just on the basis of who the competitors are, and what their motivations seem to be... I vote "stupid idea". My mind remains open until I see their presentation, but that's my gut reaction.
But they don't seem to have a serious business plan for this, and I have yet to hear why the basic idea is compelling. It's not like Wave, which is a fundamentally better mousetrap- it's another Picassa, a reinvention of something other people were doing better already.
They need somebody who has the vision to unify the Open Source world, a plan to do it, and who can figure out how to create the financial motivation to make it utterly compelling from a business-case standpoint, imo.
On the one hand, I want to be excited, that an organization who's not Apple and not the Linux anarchy is getting into the fray.
On the other hand, I've been expecting this announcement for about five years now. I knew that this was going to happen long before they got serious. Now that I've seen their cards...
I was left with a lot more serious objections than answers, frankly. I'll see whatever presentation they put up before I make up my mind.
The WSJ version indicated that they think that they'll have a browser-OS that behaves like a more-powerful Firefox... if you want to customize it, you get a Widget (or write one).
Problem is, I can't see for the life of me how that wouldn't create an industrial-sized nightmare, in terms of security, standards, and stability. Not to mention forking and potentially project-killing audience split.
Mainly though, the WSJ concentrated on how Google's bid sounds like it's... for lack of a more civil way of putting it... or just because I'm an asshole... an e-peen issue with a guy who was on the losing side at Novell and Sun, who joined Google and still has a massive hard-on for taking down the Monolith.
Personally, just on the basis of who the competitors are, and what their motivations seem to be... I vote "stupid idea". My mind remains open until I see their presentation, but that's my gut reaction.
But they don't seem to have a serious business plan for this, and I have yet to hear why the basic idea is compelling. It's not like Wave, which is a fundamentally better mousetrap- it's another Picassa, a reinvention of something other people were doing better already.
They need somebody who has the vision to unify the Open Source world, a plan to do it, and who can figure out how to create the financial motivation to make it utterly compelling from a business-case standpoint, imo.
Re: Chrome OS
I don't know whether I will ever use Chrome OS, but if it is successfully we could finally see some real competition in the OS market by breaking the MS stranglehold. This could lead to more innovative products from all developers and a drive towards open standards that multiple dominant OSs would necessitate. Also, because Google is using the Linux Kernel this could mean better hardware support, development, and funding for Linux.
Although Google isn't infallible (google knol for example), Google is likely one of the few companies with enough clout to take on MS head-on and not chip away at the sides (apple, linux distros to date).
Although Google isn't infallible (google knol for example), Google is likely one of the few companies with enough clout to take on MS head-on and not chip away at the sides (apple, linux distros to date).
Re: Chrome OS
I told you it was coming, it's just so predictable of Google :D
Re: Chrome OS
Well it has been predicted for a long time that google would release an OS, it was just a question of when. Surprised it took so long to be honest. Maybe the netbook phenomenon was the driving factor.
Re: Chrome OS
The thing with Google is that they're rarely first to market. Google, Apple and MS each have their own approach, but fundamentally they innovate only rarely. Microsoft goes into a market where a solution already exists, and offers up the most comprehensive, complete, enterprise-ready solution. Apple goes into a market where a solution already exists and offers up the most stylish and user-friendly solution. Google goes in and offers a minimalist, snappy, and information-integrated with the Google network.
Each of them have their own way to add value. Picasa and Blogger are noteworthy failures because they're places where Google's ability to integrate software into their information network would be a huge asset... and they kind of failed to do so. Remember that Picasa and Blogger were both purchased from 3rd parties, which is apparently something that Google kinda sucks at.
However, when it comes to integrating open-source technology, Google doesn't have their usual problem dealing with 3rd party tech. Look at the Google Office system.
As for the issues with integrating user-generated extensions, this is a problem that has been solved many many times. Sandboxing, forced-open-source languages, certificates, etc.
I can see Google OS working well if they a) start out with the Apple approach of forcing the user to work in Google-land (Google-approved hardware, Google services) and (b) make everything really, really intimate with the google online apps.
I'm betting the use of Linux is incidental, and it's really going to be the Google Chrome browser and the bare minimum infrastructure needed to support the Chrome browser.
Each of them have their own way to add value. Picasa and Blogger are noteworthy failures because they're places where Google's ability to integrate software into their information network would be a huge asset... and they kind of failed to do so. Remember that Picasa and Blogger were both purchased from 3rd parties, which is apparently something that Google kinda sucks at.
However, when it comes to integrating open-source technology, Google doesn't have their usual problem dealing with 3rd party tech. Look at the Google Office system.
As for the issues with integrating user-generated extensions, this is a problem that has been solved many many times. Sandboxing, forced-open-source languages, certificates, etc.
I can see Google OS working well if they a) start out with the Apple approach of forcing the user to work in Google-land (Google-approved hardware, Google services) and (b) make everything really, really intimate with the google online apps.
I'm betting the use of Linux is incidental, and it's really going to be the Google Chrome browser and the bare minimum infrastructure needed to support the Chrome browser.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: Chrome OS
The real question is when will google get in on the gaming console market.
Re: Chrome OS
Google is only gradually getting into hardware, so I dont' think they'll be there soon.SwiftSpear wrote:The real question is when will google get in on the gaming console market.
If anything, I'd imagine them getting into some bizarre hyper-casual web-based gaming product... but Google's first attempt in that kind of thing, Lively, bombed.
Re: Chrome OS
I think I have read (likely on slashdot) that Google has a pretty cool server design for datacenters they are thinking of licensing. If they ever go into hardware I would doubt consumer stuff would be the first step.
Re: Chrome OS
Oh, right, forgot about those. I meant consumer stuff. Yes, Google makes a "datacenter in a box" product. And by "box", I mean "shipping container".Relative wrote:I think I have read (likely on slashdot) that Google has a pretty cool server design for datacenters they are thinking of licensing. If they ever go into hardware I would doubt consumer stuff would be the first step.