I'm not sure if I like implications of a web-centric OS, especially when its producer is as rich and powerful as Google. I see the market for it, and I think it will be a huge benefit for the average user. However, I see the transition from desktop-based software to web-based as a loss of user control. Today, when governments decide that mp3 sharing, porn, articles of political dissent, or news from non-national sources should be eliminated, they quickly realize, if they don’t already know, that elimination is impossible, because no agency can track down and deal with every user who has decided to install software allowing him/her to do these things. When software moves to the web, I think it will likely end up existing on the servers of one of an oligopoly of computing providers, who will be much easier to influence because of their small number, and because they will have no choice but to abide by legislation if they wish to remain in business.
This may not seem like an issue right now, because there is still choice. But with Google pushing a web-centric OS, I think within a decade, many people will have a hard time choosing something else, much the same way they had a hard time choosing something other than windows until the last five years.
Maybe I’m just a Big Brother fearing nut, but I don’t like where we’re heading.
I concur. I've become more and more aware of the looming Google benevolent giant, but one day that giant's going to get angry and by that point it may be too late.
That being said, I still use Gmail, Google Docs, Google Reader, Analytics, and other services. So I'm not exactly avoiding the apocalypse here.
The FUD is strong with this one. If you want to run your own apps, run your own server. Those who don't care will use the public cloud. Nobody controls the whole Web, and as long as your ISP is reasonable (which none are), hosting your own private app is still possible.
I think the inevitable consequence of fears like yours is that you'll be able to pay different institutions, so that you can store part of your data here, and part of your data there. So that you can surf behind company A's proxy most of the time but use company B's when you feel like/need to.
Yes, there are going to be less entities on the whole. But if the internet keeps growing, that might be a temporary setback--the infrastructure is going to hopefully become more spread out, more resilient to attack, and more designed to protect individual rights, and individual property. Think about it this way: as we move more and more pieces of our lives online, the value of our digital "stuff" grows higher and higher, and systems to protect that stuff, and our hopefully our constitutional rights (including the right to privacy), will appear.
At the very worst, you can always wait for some kind of massive privacy or fiscal (or even just data loss) tragedy would at least cause governments to act quickly to more clearly define the rights of an individual online :p
But what if there are web-centric OSes and desktop-centric OSes?
In a world where the OS market is fragmented, centralized control and opression becomes even more difficult than it was in a desktop-centric world where one OS had huge market share.
Now that's not the case if we end up with one web-centric OS, but I don't see that happening any more than I see Bing taking over 65% of the search market without any response from Google.
Maybe Google should enable the users to save their data to whichever place they wish. And the web OS, or the authorities who're running it should never have access to users data. The OS should just be the communication interface. Maybe this is utopian, but i guess its the right way to go from here.
If ARM and x86 are targeted, this means no Flash (not surprising, given how poorly it runs on Linux), which presumably means YouTube will be operating in full-on HTML 5 video mode by the time these devices launch.
If netbooks continue their meteoric ascent, and if Chrome OS grabs a significant share of the market, we may finally see the realization of the mythical Year of Linux On the Desktop. The ironic aspect, of course, is that even though a large number of non-technical users will finally be running on a fully open-source platform, they will use it to run applications whose workings are even more opaque than traditional closed-source, client-side apps.
I wonder what role, if any, Native Client will play on these devices. I understand Native Client to target only x86, but I find it difficult to imagine Chrome OS -- Google's first direct challenge to Windows -- not being able to run Native Client applications.
So effectively your PC becomes a Google ThinClient.
Got all the Office Applications with Google Apps. Email/Communication with Gmail. The rest of the web. Multimedia with YouTube/Hulu/etc. Sounds like what majority of the people need. Even for work environments, would be pretty good (you can offer your proprietary application in the form of a web application).
If their approach to Android is any guide, much of the work will consist of eliminating any GNU or GPL components from the (userspace) runtime environment.
I wonder if people will be able to take this new windowing system and use it for their own purposes. That would be fantastic, if the new windowing system is good.
I personally would never trust google with something as important and all encompassing as my OS. I value my privacy far too much for that, and seeing as how google collects usage data for just about every action you perform on services they offer, I'm not sure i'll ever go the google way on desktop software.
Google knows who my friends are (Contacts), what I'm saying to them (Gchat/Gmail), where I'm going (Gmaps), what I'm reading (Reader), what I'm writing (Docs) and what I'm looking for (Search).
As far as I'm concerned, operating systems are pretty interchangeable. The things I care about are already all going through Google. Does anyone besides Google offer a similar suite of apps? The only one I can think of is Apple's MobileMe.
The key to supremacy in the enterprise market is to seize control of the entry point.
IBM did it in the 1960s and 1970s with the entry point being a highly skilled personalized sales force in an era where relationships established the trust needed for enterprises to commit to large systems.
Microsoft did it in the 1980s and 1990s with the entry point being its proprietary API for its desktop OS which, with the help of OEM hardware partners, it used to choke out anyone who sought to compete with it in the desktop applications market. It then tried (and failed) to use its desktop monopoly as a vehicle by which to dominate the back-end of enterprise computing.
Google now seeks to gain similar supremacy with the entry point being superior proprietary products ultimately derived from or at least capitalizing upon Open Source in a web-centric computing environment. What form this will take, I don't know. But it will take a form by which Google tries to seize and maintain control of the entry point and ultimately bend the world's primary computing environments to its proprietary advantage. The Chrome OS is one piece of this effort.
The question is one of which company will become the ultimate gatekeeper to all or most of enterprise computing, which is where the money is. Google wants that role and that is where its fight with Microsoft will lie.
As they say, "The law of human nature - it ain't been repealed yet."
Microsoft's success was based almost entirely on lock-in: they made everyone depend on something that only they could provide. The equivalent strategy for Google would obviously be to hoard the world's data in their private silos, which they are arguably already doing. I would find that scenario more plausible if it weren't for Wave.
Wave, by its nature, will obsolete or radically transform, many of Google's existing web apps: gmail, docs, blogger, picasa, calendar.. anything related to communication or collaboration. Yet, it seems as though they've gone to great lengths to make Wave decentralized, even as far as open sourcing their server implementation. They've done this even though a silo style Wave app would likely be a huge success anyway. I can't fathom why they would allow Wave to exist if they were hoping to control everyone's data, as it clearly represents a threat to the control they already have.
I'm not dropping my guard, but at this point my best guess is that Google is just trying to create an open and fair web ecosystem, in which they will compete based on their momentum and massive resources, and in which their major competitors lose their existing advantage. Either that, or they don't have much of a plan at all and the company is really just a bunch of smart people doing cool stuff with a huge pile of money that fell from the sky.
Yes, that would be a perfect device for it. Because, when we talk about netbooks, I am not so sure I'd like to have Chrome OS on it. Ok, it would boot faster and maybe also run slightly faster, but the boot time isn't that much of a concern for me. On the other hand, I have a half dozen windows apps I want to run on it, since I don't live on the Internet only.
It's taken 14 long years -- and it's Google-Chrome-plus-Javascript rather than Netscape-Navigator-plus-HotJava -- but the browser has finally become a complete alternative to a desktop OS.
The article's final sentence: "In the age of the hollowed-out computer, the king of the desktop rules an emigrating empire."
Im convinced it's not a coincidence that this week they also announced dropping a load of beta tags, hid the free apps sign up page a little more and made a number of other tweaks.
I get the impression they are trying to repackage their cloud services together: it would make sense if the plan for Chrome OS is to ultimately tie it all together.
I'm glad Google has identified a need for something like this, but I don't really trust that Google has the right talent to build an operating system. They have serious problems with user experience and interface design (see: Doug Bowman). The mere idea that they are attempting to encroach on an aspect of experience as large as the operating system is to me somewhat scary.
I do hope they prove me wrong. But based on their past performance, I am not holding my breath.
Also: Google, if you're reading this, please at least make the typography render properly in this OS. You've already failed at this with Chrome, which has some of the worst antialiasing I have seen in a browser (surpassed in crappiness only by IE).
Interesting. The one missing piece--a RAD development environment that's as efficient as Visual Studio is at producing fat clients. The business world will only embrace the webcentric model when it becomes as efficient to code in as .net click-once fat clients. The idea of simple, cheap, rugged hardware is very appealing. But programmer time is the #1 cost--businesses go for easy drag/drop fat client apps. Software written for 5 users has to be thrown together pretty fast or it never pays back...
I don't think that Google Chrome OS would be suitable for most corporate shops that are generally Microsoft centric (and have been for quite some time). I think this free OS will be geared towards light users that primarily use their computer for surfing the web and checking their email.
They don't need application vendors to target Chrome OS in order for this to be a success - the whole point is that it just runs web apps, period.
Its targeted at consumers and netbooks, not those that want to run heavy duty, CPU-intensive applications. The whole idea of a netbook is to be small, light, quick, and primary a web browsing device.
Google has already indirectly "extended" Native Client with native 3D graphics using their O3D API (http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/). It's just a matter of time until someone codes up a library to expose that API through JS interop in Native Client.
I think we can expect very close integration of Native Client into the Chrome OS as soon as or right after it goes public. To the level of accessing hardware ports to control external devices right from your Native Client web-app.
Imagine drivers that get loaded and updated on-the-fly. Of course, Google will have to implement a smart security mechanism (along the lines of RSA authentication for dynamic device/driver coupling) and provide a way for device manufacturers to register their driver's public keys with Chrome OS.
I think this is great. Most people don't know what a browser is anyway, so for them it probably won't make much of a difference. It will be interesting to see how much of an OS you can strip away.
I don't see that anyone has mentioned Apple in any of this. They certainly aren't just going to roll over and let Google take this entire space. They will launch a netbook at some point with the iPhone OS, some storage, the app store to get everything you want, a superior user experience and industrial design, and oh yeah, the browser to also run all these other apps...And it will be this kind of weird hybrid old model vs. new all over again.
I think Google will continue to "win" and we will use their applications/reader/ecc until they will have the dominant search engine. If you look at what they offer (with the exception, maybe, of excel-like webapp), they are not killer application. We are using them because our online-life is Google-centric.
So we should remeber that everything else they do is buld on their search engine dominance (think to the omnibox)...
For the webos is the same. It's fine, for a netbook IF Google will remain Google.
If you look at what people do with a Mac, they do far more than just using web application. Far Far more.
[+] [-] koepked|16 years ago|reply
This may not seem like an issue right now, because there is still choice. But with Google pushing a web-centric OS, I think within a decade, many people will have a hard time choosing something else, much the same way they had a hard time choosing something other than windows until the last five years.
Maybe I’m just a Big Brother fearing nut, but I don’t like where we’re heading.
[+] [-] trickjarrett|16 years ago|reply
That being said, I still use Gmail, Google Docs, Google Reader, Analytics, and other services. So I'm not exactly avoiding the apocalypse here.
[+] [-] calcnerd256|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kilowatt|16 years ago|reply
I think the inevitable consequence of fears like yours is that you'll be able to pay different institutions, so that you can store part of your data here, and part of your data there. So that you can surf behind company A's proxy most of the time but use company B's when you feel like/need to.
Yes, there are going to be less entities on the whole. But if the internet keeps growing, that might be a temporary setback--the infrastructure is going to hopefully become more spread out, more resilient to attack, and more designed to protect individual rights, and individual property. Think about it this way: as we move more and more pieces of our lives online, the value of our digital "stuff" grows higher and higher, and systems to protect that stuff, and our hopefully our constitutional rights (including the right to privacy), will appear.
At the very worst, you can always wait for some kind of massive privacy or fiscal (or even just data loss) tragedy would at least cause governments to act quickly to more clearly define the rights of an individual online :p
[+] [-] mooneater|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colins_pride|16 years ago|reply
In a world where the OS market is fragmented, centralized control and opression becomes even more difficult than it was in a desktop-centric world where one OS had huge market share.
Now that's not the case if we end up with one web-centric OS, but I don't see that happening any more than I see Bing taking over 65% of the search market without any response from Google.
[+] [-] s-phi-nl|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] socratees|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Micand|16 years ago|reply
If netbooks continue their meteoric ascent, and if Chrome OS grabs a significant share of the market, we may finally see the realization of the mythical Year of Linux On the Desktop. The ironic aspect, of course, is that even though a large number of non-technical users will finally be running on a fully open-source platform, they will use it to run applications whose workings are even more opaque than traditional closed-source, client-side apps.
I wonder what role, if any, Native Client will play on these devices. I understand Native Client to target only x86, but I find it difficult to imagine Chrome OS -- Google's first direct challenge to Windows -- not being able to run Native Client applications.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|16 years ago|reply
Whether Google wants or needs it is another question.
[+] [-] skorgu|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aussie_bob|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rythie|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] access_denied|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dryicerx|16 years ago|reply
Got all the Office Applications with Google Apps. Email/Communication with Gmail. The rest of the web. Multimedia with YouTube/Hulu/etc. Sounds like what majority of the people need. Even for work environments, would be pretty good (you can offer your proprietary application in the form of a web application).
[+] [-] derefr|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skorgu|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinks|16 years ago|reply
http://vimeo.com/5404358
[+] [-] mcav|16 years ago|reply
> The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.
[+] [-] tc|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmars232|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markbao|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaosprophet|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samg|16 years ago|reply
As far as I'm concerned, operating systems are pretty interchangeable. The things I care about are already all going through Google. Does anyone besides Google offer a similar suite of apps? The only one I can think of is Apple's MobileMe.
[+] [-] grellas|16 years ago|reply
IBM did it in the 1960s and 1970s with the entry point being a highly skilled personalized sales force in an era where relationships established the trust needed for enterprises to commit to large systems.
Microsoft did it in the 1980s and 1990s with the entry point being its proprietary API for its desktop OS which, with the help of OEM hardware partners, it used to choke out anyone who sought to compete with it in the desktop applications market. It then tried (and failed) to use its desktop monopoly as a vehicle by which to dominate the back-end of enterprise computing.
Google now seeks to gain similar supremacy with the entry point being superior proprietary products ultimately derived from or at least capitalizing upon Open Source in a web-centric computing environment. What form this will take, I don't know. But it will take a form by which Google tries to seize and maintain control of the entry point and ultimately bend the world's primary computing environments to its proprietary advantage. The Chrome OS is one piece of this effort.
The question is one of which company will become the ultimate gatekeeper to all or most of enterprise computing, which is where the money is. Google wants that role and that is where its fight with Microsoft will lie.
As they say, "The law of human nature - it ain't been repealed yet."
[+] [-] extension|16 years ago|reply
Wave, by its nature, will obsolete or radically transform, many of Google's existing web apps: gmail, docs, blogger, picasa, calendar.. anything related to communication or collaboration. Yet, it seems as though they've gone to great lengths to make Wave decentralized, even as far as open sourcing their server implementation. They've done this even though a silo style Wave app would likely be a huge success anyway. I can't fathom why they would allow Wave to exist if they were hoping to control everyone's data, as it clearly represents a threat to the control they already have.
I'm not dropping my guard, but at this point my best guess is that Google is just trying to create an open and fair web ecosystem, in which they will compete based on their momentum and massive resources, and in which their major competitors lose their existing advantage. Either that, or they don't have much of a plan at all and the company is really just a bunch of smart people doing cool stuff with a huge pile of money that fell from the sky.
[+] [-] Xichekolas|16 years ago|reply
Slap this on a tablet with a hybrid display and you might have something very interesting.
[+] [-] david927|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greyman|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skorgu|16 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oawX3wenxNc&feature=relat...
[+] [-] btw0|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|16 years ago|reply
http://www.gilder.com/public/telecosm_series/software.html
It's taken 14 long years -- and it's Google-Chrome-plus-Javascript rather than Netscape-Navigator-plus-HotJava -- but the browser has finally become a complete alternative to a desktop OS.
The article's final sentence: "In the age of the hollowed-out computer, the king of the desktop rules an emigrating empire."
[+] [-] gaius|16 years ago|reply
General purpose computing device, or a Google Terminal? That's your choice.
[+] [-] huherto|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErrantX|16 years ago|reply
I get the impression they are trying to repackage their cloud services together: it would make sense if the plan for Chrome OS is to ultimately tie it all together.
[+] [-] kylec|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dcurtis|16 years ago|reply
I do hope they prove me wrong. But based on their past performance, I am not holding my breath.
Also: Google, if you're reading this, please at least make the typography render properly in this OS. You've already failed at this with Chrome, which has some of the worst antialiasing I have seen in a browser (surpassed in crappiness only by IE).
[+] [-] jeffspost|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Adrenalist|16 years ago|reply
I don't think that Google Chrome OS would be suitable for most corporate shops that are generally Microsoft centric (and have been for quite some time). I think this free OS will be geared towards light users that primarily use their computer for surfing the web and checking their email.
[+] [-] die_sekte|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|16 years ago|reply
They don't need application vendors to target Chrome OS in order for this to be a success - the whole point is that it just runs web apps, period.
Its targeted at consumers and netbooks, not those that want to run heavy duty, CPU-intensive applications. The whole idea of a netbook is to be small, light, quick, and primary a web browsing device.
[+] [-] blasdel|16 years ago|reply
There's games, obviously, but what about a NaCL port of iTunes? It's not that far-fetched.
[+] [-] niktechx|16 years ago|reply
I think we can expect very close integration of Native Client into the Chrome OS as soon as or right after it goes public. To the level of accessing hardware ports to control external devices right from your Native Client web-app.
Imagine drivers that get loaded and updated on-the-fly. Of course, Google will have to implement a smart security mechanism (along the lines of RSA authentication for dynamic device/driver coupling) and provide a way for device manufacturers to register their driver's public keys with Chrome OS.
[+] [-] eelco|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yankeeracer73|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billpg|16 years ago|reply
(Joke. Please don't downvote me again, I'm already at -5.)
[+] [-] netsp|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alessandro|16 years ago|reply
If you look at what people do with a Mac, they do far more than just using web application. Far Far more.