Google Chrome OS

[sarongsong]

July 7, 2009
...an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010...
googleblog

"Let the games begin!"

[mugaliens]

It's nothing more than a mix of their Google Chrome web browser (originally designed for Windows - and still is) and Linux, which is Old Hat (slur on Red Hat).

The goal is to recognize that the web itself is becoming the operating system (or platform, actually), and that the days of having stand-alone apps are dying.

Personally, I think it's a neat idea.

[Demigrog]

If the days of stand-alone apps dies, I'll continue to use my existing, old stand alone apps. I had this argument at Microsoft TechEd last year, in a discussion session on "software as services" versus "software with services". I argue that web-based apps will never be universally accepted, as most businesses and individuals would rather buy their software once than have to depend on a 3rd party:
-Companies go out of business. Even Microsoft will discontinue a product if it isn't profitable (ask Money users).
-The servers/internet connection go down. Ran into this one myself trying to check into an Econo Lodge once; they couldn't even tell what rooms had guests in them, and couldn't check me in. I found a (much nicer anyway) Sleep-Inn not far away.
-Web based apps change frequently, causing retraining and retooling efforts to be continuous.
-The web model pretty much only supports a subscription model, which can cost a lot more over longer time periods. Of course, when I used my copy of Office 2000 still running fine on my laptop as an example I was mocked mercilessly. Apparently I have no pride as a geek to be running anything but the latest and "greatest". I suppose I should not have been surprised at a Microsoft conference.

As for the Google Chrome OS, it actually explains a lot for me. I suspect now that the entire purpose of Chrome was to be a platform for Google's web apps running on their own OS. They now have a complete software solution to sell for netbooks with no dependencies on 3rd parties.

[nauthiz]

I honestly don't expect "cloud computing" to take over home computing any more than thin clients took over business computing. The scheme has its uses, but so does the standalone computing model, and until the cloud can do everything a local app can do as well as a local app can do it (which seems doubtful, since network latency still exists), the best I'd expect the cloud to achieve is to stake out its own niche.

[Argos]

It´s not clear how this enterprise will handle certain aspects, as privacy. Will it become another platform for Google´s advertising scheme? As said above, there is still a lot of room for desktop based applications, so, unlike certain media gurus have said, it´s not a menace to Microsoft. It aims the cloud, and laptops in particular.

[Nick Theodorakis]

I'm getting a sense of déjà vu. Thin-client computing has been pushed before, most notably by Sun, but didn't seem to make much of a dent. I also remember back in the Netscape days (when Netscape was the dominant browser over IE) that there was talk about Netscape issuing a browser-like OS to challenge MS, and we all knwo how that worked out.

Nick

[AstroRockHunter]

The problem I have with web based apps is the security, or rather, the lack of it. I can't think of any company that would trust its financial or inventory data to a web app. And as Demigrog points out, why should I pay a subscription fee for 20+years to use a program like Quicken? If you are thinking that the response is that I would get the latest bells and whistles every few months, I'll counter that I have been using the Quicken version that I bought 10 years ago and it works just fine for me. I have no need for the latest doodads.

[Larry Jacks]

The security issue is paramount to me. Running a simple app like Quicken, I keep track of my family finances. There's no way I'm going to use a web-based application for that.

When the Chrome browser was released, Google had a clause in their EULA that claimed any content created or even viewed became the property of Google. In effect, if you went to read a website, say the Washington Post, then Google was claiming that the content of that website belonged to them. I don't know what moron thought Google could get away with such an outrageous claim (and it may have been rescinded since then) but for that reason, my employer outlawed installing Chrome on any of our company systems.

Everyone likes to bash Microsoft but honestly, I don't see Google as being any better in some regards and perhaps even worse, such as cooperating with dictators to identify people within certain countries who try to do things the government doesn't approve of. For a company that claims their top principle is to "do no evil", it sounds like they're coming up short to me.

[Fazor]

I absolutely hate all web-based apps*. At home, I think it'd make me cry. Particularly when our internet goes down; that'd leave the user stranded and unable to do anything. Or, in situations where I take the laptop outside of our Wireless-LAN range (ie, anytime I'm not at home).

Lastly, I'm really not a fan of the web-interface anyway. I'd say at work we're 50% traditional and 50% web-based for our apps. The later can sometimes work great, but often results in tedious or superfluous user input. Admittedly, it could just be our coding-monkeys don't know what they're doing, but my experience with it has not been good thus far.

*okay, over-dramatic for effect.

[matthewota]

I do not believe standalone apps will die. There are always times when your system, especially portable notebooks, are not on the web. This is why I sometimes save web pages to my hard drive.

[nauthiz]

I particularly don't grasp why the industry is trying to attach cloud computing to netbooks. It's completely missing the point of both. The primary advantage of the cloud is that everything's theoretically available from any computer as long as it's connected to the Internet.

That's most beneficial when you have a couple different desktop (or otherwise mostly-stationary) computers you move among, since they're hard to move and they're almost always plugged into a network.

That's least beneficial when you have a tiny computer that fits in your purse so you can take it and use it pretty much everywhere, including places with limited or no Internet connectivity such as buses, airplanes, and the city park.

[HenrikOlsen]

such as cooperating with dictators to identify people within certain countries who try to do things the government doesn't approve of. For a company that claims their top principle is to "do no evil", it sounds like they're coming up short to me.

Germany?

Just to mention what I believe was the first country to get Google with personalized censorship filters.

[Larry Jacks]

I was thinking more in line with information like this. Censorship is bad enough, but it appears I might have confused Google with Yahoo when it comes to the matter of turning over the names of dissidents to the Chinese authorities. For that, I apologize. The guilty company was Yahoo.

Instead, Zhao's anger is targeted at Yahoo (Research). "A company such as Yahoo! which gives up information [about dissidents] is unforgivable," he says. "It would be for the good of the Chinese netizens if such a company could be shut down or get out of China forever."

As controversy heats up over the role of U.S. Internet companies in China, Yahoo finds itself in an unwelcome spotlight. The $5.3-billion-a-year company has been a darling of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, financial journalists and Internet users. But Yahoo has a China problem, and no easy way to solve it.

It's not just Zhao who is pointing fingers at Yahoo. Human rights activists, congressional critics and pundits, notably New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who used to be based in China, say that of all the U.S. Internet firms, Yahoo is most vulnerable to the charge that it helps the Chinese government repress political dissidents.

Yahoo provided data that was used in the prosecution of at least three dissidents, according to The Washington Post. The best known is Shi Tao, a journalist serving a 10-year sentence for leaking a propaganda directive.

[HenrikOlsen]

I find it funny that people raised a big stink when Google cooperated with the Chinese authorities on censorship as if it's something new when they completely ignored when Google did the same with Germany.
If they didn't like censorship the beginning of the practice should have been the time to stop it.

As it is now, it's difficult for me to believe it's censorship rather than the Chinese Government they don't like.

[Larry Jacks]

What were they censoring in Germany verses what were they censoring in China? For example, it's one thing to censor pornography (and I'm not agreeing with it). It's another to censor things that might threaten the status quo such as news on Taiwan or what happened in Tiananmen Square.

[HenrikOlsen]

They block all material on Nazism that isn't strictly condemning it, so for instance an eBay auction for a WWII German soldier's helmet wouldn't be shown by google.de.

My objection is basically that one can't claim to be against censorship if it's acceptable when it's against something you don't like.

[Ara Pacis]

I won't trust internet apps anymore. I've been vissezed by Yahoo too many times with different apps to risk it anymore. I think of it like RAID, post content to multiple sites and if one goes down, you still have it from another. I will never give in to dependence on netapps. I will learn to code on my own before I do.

[Argos]

Hey you, get off of my cloud. Don´t hang around cause two´s a crowd on my cloud..

[eric_marsh]

Seems to me that the basic flaw in the internet apps approach is that web connections are not always available.

[baric]

1. Access
2. Security
3. Loss of Control

Those are three big reasons why there will always be a market for stand-alone apps

[Celestial Mechanic]

... and they want their thin clients back.

[sarongsong]

Well, it is free and it will be interesting to follow any reaction by MS, who has a reputation of fighting tooth-and-nail over any incursions into "their" market.

[Ara Pacis]

Well, it is free and it will be interesting to follow any reaction by MS, who has a reputation of fighting tooth-and-nail over any incursions into "their" market.

Earth?

[Fazor]

Earth?

Boardwalk and Park Avenue.

[nauthiz]

Earth?

Not necessarily. I think it might still be possible to sell Dixie cups on a street corner without attracting Microsoft's attention.

[rommel543]

Not necessarily. I think it might still be possible to sell Dixie cups on a street corner without attracting Microsoft's attention.

Until they brand one of their operating systems as Dixie Cup then they will come sue you for copyright infringement.

The idea of cloud computing works on paper, in reality there are people still with dial-up, behind excessively tight firewalls, or have really crappy networks. The first day that the cloud OS is public, some teenager is going to send a virus up to the server and crash it, after that people downloading movies will lag the network connections and no one will be able to boot their computers.


Unless Microsquish is going to install a T1 line in your house along with your OS, they may as well forget the idea for now.

[mugaliens]

I honestly don't expect "cloud computing" to take over home computing any more than thin clients took over business computing.

I do, for the same reason stand-alone apps have all but died now that all that information can be found on the Internet.

Anyone remember Microsoft Encarta? (RIP)

...until the cloud can do everything a local app can do as well as a local app can do it (which seems doubtful, since network latency still exists)

I'll buy that, but only for system-intensive operations, such as gaming and media editing.

The best I'd expect the cloud to achieve is to stake out its own niche.

I think it's already past the half-way mark, and standalone apps are already occupying the niche.

Here's a short list of my apps:

Banking: online
Investments: online
E-mail: online
Media editing: stand-alone
Media sharing: online
Community: on foot, in car, and online
Research: online
Encyclopedia: online
Entertainment: theaters, DVDs, face-to-face, and online
Typing Documents: stand-alone
Spreadsheet: stand-alone
Map Database: online
Chess: face-to-face and online
Taxes: online

Seriously: 11 out of 14 (79%) of my time, energy, and efforts are spent online.

I'm still mowing the lawn in person, but I suspect someone will figure out how to convert robot lawnmowers such that they're controlled via online location, so that you can be sipping a Mai Tai in Barbados while telling RoboRabbit to go nibble that patch he missed...

[dwnielsen]

Well, just look at the cache in today's chips, such as the Core2 at 4MB and not too different for mobile procs. Just imagine making a mobile device out of nothing but an ARM-based CPU, a wireless port, an input interface, an LCD (the main cost), audio output, and a few controllers. No need for main RAM, ROM, complex routing, useless CPU components, or other controllers. You wouldn't even have to have GSM, using VOIP. The thing would have a great battery life. Most basic well-written applications could download in literally 2 seconds. It'd be very cheap. I don't know why they aren't everywhere.

[cjl]

If you don't have any system RAM or cache, you'll have an incredibly slow computer, even for just web use. Have you ever tried to play HD flash content on an older machine, for example? As for basic apps downloading in 2 seconds, you are aware that some people still use dial up, right?

[dwnielsen]

If you don't have any system RAM or cache, you'll have an incredibly slow computer, even for just web use. Have you ever tried to play HD flash content on an older machine, for example? As for basic apps downloading in 2 seconds, you are aware that some people still use dial up, right?

I am talking about more of a particular cheap device, just for getting people on a wireless connection and allowing them to do things like run basic apps and play certain games. It would take a new kind of processor, but what I mean is, RAM would be integrated directly on the CPU, so there is only the cost of the single chip. An SOC, basically.