Fake Steve Jobs on Chrome OS(fakesteve.blogspot.com)
fakesteve.blogspot.com
Fake Steve Jobs on Chrome OS
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html
23 comments
The joke is that Steve calls everything shit.
Even things that are useful, usable and exceed the quality bar for most shipping software.
As with Steve's other notable traits, Lyons exaggerates it for humor.
As with Steve's other notable traits, Lyons exaggerates it for humor.
Chrome has become my default browser, second place is Firefox. and i've seen increase in chrome share in my site, up from 3% to 7% for the past 6 months.
Against all odds, Chrome is my primary browser also (Windows for both work and home). I'm addicted to the speed and stable memory footprint and I only use FF for Firebug. I tend to leave my systems up for days at a time and I would always end up having to close Firefox daily to gain back the memory it had swallowed.
I use it just for short bursts of web 2.0 and javascript intensive browsing. It slows down my computer a lot, GoogleUpdate all the time touching some files, chrome itself maintaining its database. I don't like my harddisk led to be blinking constantly.
only thing lacking chrome is the plugin support and support for RSS feeds. come on! google, that should have been there from day one!
they held the extension system back possibly because it could have been a bottleneck or because they just didn't want
to give you the possibility to use an extension that blocks their ads. however, they are working on the extension system (http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensio...) and you can already start creating your own extensions (http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensio... or http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensio...).
Whoa, you're right... they don't want adblock. I don't see any google ads these days. Not even on google search... (occasionally in gmail's webclips).
Could it be... that not having adblock is a major motivation for google chrome/OS? I suspect the market share of adblock is relatively small, but it's the kind of thing that can only grow... and unlike anything else that has been discussed, adblock directly threatens revenue.
Could it be... that not having adblock is a major motivation for google chrome/OS? I suspect the market share of adblock is relatively small, but it's the kind of thing that can only grow... and unlike anything else that has been discussed, adblock directly threatens revenue.
I think they are holding back on plugins because this is what causes the various speed bottlenecks that FF is suffering from. Plugins are nice until they slow down the browser.
Yeah. Firefox needs (soft) realtime [1] plugins.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing
Chrome is my default browser at work where I run windows.
The toilet paper comment made me laugh hard though.
The toilet paper comment made me laugh hard though.
[deleted]
Interesting that Mozilla spent years to make nice add-ons support, so Chrome will be there only after ~2 years of work, but Mozilla will be far ahead in that time.
I'll just assume the whole SF thing applies to you too on that one. Just like most people don't give a shit about what OS they use, most people don't really care about browsers either.
I have never had issues with Firefox, I don't care one bit about Javascript speed and honestly Chrome is underfeatured to the point where I think I'm using NCSA Mosaic. I gave it a shot. I was back to Firefox before lunch.
I see there is a hype there, but I just don't get it. The post is clearly hyperbole and overly sarcastic, but to me and stuff which matters to me, Chrome actually is shit. I'm not buying it, even though it's free. I might even go for MSIE before Chrome.
For the same reason, a OS where Chrome is the only browser* would be 100% DOA on my hardware.
* Rumour has it that Google wants to ditch X. If that is the case, no other GUIed *nix software will run without a rewrite.
I have never had issues with Firefox, I don't care one bit about Javascript speed and honestly Chrome is underfeatured to the point where I think I'm using NCSA Mosaic. I gave it a shot. I was back to Firefox before lunch.
I see there is a hype there, but I just don't get it. The post is clearly hyperbole and overly sarcastic, but to me and stuff which matters to me, Chrome actually is shit. I'm not buying it, even though it's free. I might even go for MSIE before Chrome.
For the same reason, a OS where Chrome is the only browser* would be 100% DOA on my hardware.
* Rumour has it that Google wants to ditch X. If that is the case, no other GUIed *nix software will run without a rewrite.
My impression was that it had a faster Javascript engine, and it has spurred on other browsers. It's a market threat (users might switch), and an engineering goad (hey, it's possible - why can't you do it?) That serves Google's purpose as much as getting market share themselves.
Another aspect is blue sky: what webapps would become possible if the installed-based of javascript was an order of magnitude faster? What's good for webapps is good for google.
Another aspect is blue sky: what webapps would become possible if the installed-based of javascript was an order of magnitude faster? What's good for webapps is good for google.
Rumour has it that Google wants to ditch X. If that is the case, no other GUIed nix software will run without a rewrite.*
Not exactly: few modern GUI applications are written to use Xlib directly. If Google ditched X for a new window system and then ported GTK+, Qt, and a few other widget toolkits to their window system, a lot of software would run with relatively few changes.
Not exactly: few modern GUI applications are written to use Xlib directly. If Google ditched X for a new window system and then ported GTK+, Qt, and a few other widget toolkits to their window system, a lot of software would run with relatively few changes.
"and then ported GTK+, Qt, and a few other widget toolkits to their window system"
Wich is obviously done in an afternoon :)
Wich is obviously done in an afternoon :)
Of course not. It takes an entire weekend. ;)
Seriously now, is hard but doable. They could start by hiring the SkyOS guy: http://skyos.org/?q=node/650
Seriously now, is hard but doable. They could start by hiring the SkyOS guy: http://skyos.org/?q=node/650
Yes, and so that everything Just Works :p
I use Chrome to the point that I fire-up FF only when I need certain addons such as web developer, etc. FF is great but it cannot match the speed of Chrome.
Chrome is my main browser and I even switched back to Windows from Linux just so I could enjoy the incredible speed increase. Web browsing is one of my primary computer activities, so an OS that boots up quickly and uses the fastest browser would be greatly welcomed.
"Web browsing is one of my primary computer activities, so an OS that boots up quickly and uses the fastest browser would be greatly welcomed."
This precisely characterizes the intended market for Chrome OS.
This precisely characterizes the intended market for Chrome OS.
All of those criticisms apply to Safari 4, tho.
...which is why Safari is also not very popular in the mainstream.*
* http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/05/since-march-internet-ex...
* http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/05/since-march-internet-ex...
That it lacks features and there's no market for it? ...
Ditching X and breaking legacy support for existing apps does have the added benefit of forcing developers to accept a standardized look & feel and maybe rethink their GUI layouts. If Google imposes some strict UI design guidelines and offers a good UI toolkit they may be able to really raise the bar on OSS UI design for ChromeOS.
hey Fake Steve Jobs, I use Chrome too :(
It always amazes me how the best social commentary comes from those who have the least to lose. Without the artificial constraint of professionalism (or, I guess, the need to be factually accurate), Lyons somehow manages to be more honest and credible, not less.
Take his Fake Steve piece on the Microsoft-Yahoo merger: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/ballmer-im-completely-... which I felt was the most succinct and insightful piece on the subject from any journalist.
Take his Fake Steve piece on the Microsoft-Yahoo merger: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/ballmer-im-completely-... which I felt was the most succinct and insightful piece on the subject from any journalist.
Exactly. If you don't let the style distract you, Fake Steve is actually the most sensible and sharp tech journalism around. This is the first non-hyperbole analysis of Google's announcement I've seen today.
My bet is that Chrome OS will have similar impact to the Chrome browser - encourage everyone to step up their game, but not dominate the market. Google has a lot of money and a lot of bright people, and it acts just like a bright person with little financial concerns: It toys with a lot of ideas, many of them brilliant, but rarely bothers to execute them fully. An OS takes years of frustrating, boring work to mature, I doubt Google has the focus for that.
My bet is that Chrome OS will have similar impact to the Chrome browser - encourage everyone to step up their game, but not dominate the market. Google has a lot of money and a lot of bright people, and it acts just like a bright person with little financial concerns: It toys with a lot of ideas, many of them brilliant, but rarely bothers to execute them fully. An OS takes years of frustrating, boring work to mature, I doubt Google has the focus for that.
"My bet is that Chrome OS will have similar impact to the Chrome browser - encourage everyone to step up their game, but not dominate the market."
Fire and Motion.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html
The only way this makes sense is if they are trying to keep Microsoft distracted and too busy defending their core market to attack Google. If this forces MSFT to further lower their asking price for Windows 7 on low end devices, it is probably a success for Google.
The danger is if they take it too seriously. They do not want to get in a serious competition with MSFT for OS market share. But if this is costing them relatively little in engineering costs and executive focus, it's probably a good idea.
Fake Steve makes this same point: "Nah, the only point in Google giving away a free browser and OS is somehow to fuck up Microsoft."
Fire and Motion.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html
The only way this makes sense is if they are trying to keep Microsoft distracted and too busy defending their core market to attack Google. If this forces MSFT to further lower their asking price for Windows 7 on low end devices, it is probably a success for Google.
The danger is if they take it too seriously. They do not want to get in a serious competition with MSFT for OS market share. But if this is costing them relatively little in engineering costs and executive focus, it's probably a good idea.
Fake Steve makes this same point: "Nah, the only point in Google giving away a free browser and OS is somehow to fuck up Microsoft."
They put years of frustrating, boring work into Google search, Maps, Mail, Chat, Calendar, Reader, etc.
Why should we doubt their ability to stick with a Linux Windowing and Usability project? This 'Google is unfocused. Google doesn't follow through. Google leaves projects to rot' meme is particularly annoying, because there is so little evidence that it happens to anything on a significant scale.
Several of their large acquisitions have appeared to be neglected, but each and every time that I can recall, it's been a seeming public neglect followed by the introduction of the 2.0 successor.
Case in point: if you think their social networking acquisitions are being left to rot, vs their energy being focused on new services that integrate with WAVE, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Why should we doubt their ability to stick with a Linux Windowing and Usability project? This 'Google is unfocused. Google doesn't follow through. Google leaves projects to rot' meme is particularly annoying, because there is so little evidence that it happens to anything on a significant scale.
Several of their large acquisitions have appeared to be neglected, but each and every time that I can recall, it's been a seeming public neglect followed by the introduction of the 2.0 successor.
Case in point: if you think their social networking acquisitions are being left to rot, vs their energy being focused on new services that integrate with WAVE, I've got a bridge to sell you.
There's also Froogle, Google Notebook, Blog search, Google Video and there's still no way to delete a GAE app... My view is that, unlike what much of the media seems to assume, Google and other huge companies aren't executing some secret Harry Seldon-like plans to conquer the universe - they just do a lot of stuff, sometimes it works and sometimes not. (Eg: Sun paying $1b for MySQL. Conde Nast paying actual money for Reddit's "Crowd wisdom". Bebo acquisition and most everything else AOL does.)
As for their social networking acquisitions vs WAVE, I'm completely ignorant on both (and expect to remain so, along with most of humanity).
But my main point isn't Google, but FSJ's tech coverage. Between Techcrunch & co hysteria and The Register's empty cynicism, I think FSJ's piece remains the best analysis of the Chrome OS announcement yet.
As for their social networking acquisitions vs WAVE, I'm completely ignorant on both (and expect to remain so, along with most of humanity).
But my main point isn't Google, but FSJ's tech coverage. Between Techcrunch & co hysteria and The Register's empty cynicism, I think FSJ's piece remains the best analysis of the Chrome OS announcement yet.
Froogle's been continually updated, even if it's not very good it appears to be as good as comparable products. And blog search is largely integrated now. (One wonders if it's worthwhile to maintain the distinction at all, now that Google's algorithm has a better 'understanding' of blog-style posts and links.)
Google Video and Notebook are good examples of projects that seem to linger and rot, but are in fact just having their energy devoted to their successors. Google Video development is being channeled into Youtube updates and Notebook into WAVE-based document creation.
And the only reason I didn't respond to your comment about FSJ's analysis is I agree with you 100% on that. Lyons' is without a doubt the most insightful and interesting commentary thus far.
I just think the 'Google is unfocused/fickle/etc' meme needs to be approached critically and put out to pasture if it's found wanting. (which i believe it is)
Google Video and Notebook are good examples of projects that seem to linger and rot, but are in fact just having their energy devoted to their successors. Google Video development is being channeled into Youtube updates and Notebook into WAVE-based document creation.
And the only reason I didn't respond to your comment about FSJ's analysis is I agree with you 100% on that. Lyons' is without a doubt the most insightful and interesting commentary thus far.
I just think the 'Google is unfocused/fickle/etc' meme needs to be approached critically and put out to pasture if it's found wanting. (which i believe it is)
He is also good in weaving in trivia. Example from the Yahoo-merger story:
"But what, exactly, is the big vision here? I guess they'll talk about how phase one was the PC revolution and now we're entering phase two which is Internet computing and the cloud and they'll say that by joining together they'll become this giant powerful megacloud provider and the battle for utility computing is going to be all about scale."
Years ago Steve Jobs presented the digital-hub strategy for the Mac. He talked about the internet being the second phase of the PC and the digital-hub the third phase. So the above cited paragraph is mockery of the finest order. The better pieces of Fake-Steve are full of this stuff.
"But what, exactly, is the big vision here? I guess they'll talk about how phase one was the PC revolution and now we're entering phase two which is Internet computing and the cloud and they'll say that by joining together they'll become this giant powerful megacloud provider and the battle for utility computing is going to be all about scale."
Years ago Steve Jobs presented the digital-hub strategy for the Mac. He talked about the internet being the second phase of the PC and the digital-hub the third phase. So the above cited paragraph is mockery of the finest order. The better pieces of Fake-Steve are full of this stuff.
"nobody uses Chrome"
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20090708-2009070...
losing to safari by .05? I understand its a joke... I just didn't laugh. They also say they are planing on starting with netbooks, not only targeting netbooks. I do think its a good niche market to target first though since there isn't as much of a dominance and since netbooks target low prices, removing the windows cost might make it a better seller.
All and all I think google and apple use different marketing strategies, so perhaps Jobs wouldn't understand googles strategies. Is interesting that although google makes 60% the total revenue (2008) their gross profit is very close.
All and all I think google and apple use different marketing strategies, so perhaps Jobs wouldn't understand googles strategies. Is interesting that although google makes 60% the total revenue (2008) their gross profit is very close.
The joke is to portray Steve Jobs as someone who doesn't respect Adsense as a product.
Microsoft is shipping Windows 7 without a web browser in the EU, after several years of legal fuss largely because they bundled a browser with their OS.
I wonder if Google will consider shipping Chrome OS without a web browser in the EU?
I wonder if Google will consider shipping Chrome OS without a web browser in the EU?
Microsoft ran afoul of anti-monopoly legislation. Google (a) do not have a monopoly of the desktop OS market and (b) Chrome OS will be open source, so people would be able to legally distribute Chrome OS without a browser (or more likely, a different rendering engine).
They will only get into trouble if they manage to pick up any sort of significant market share.
If the Google browser is a flop no one will care less.
If the Google browser is a flop no one will care less.
i don't think anyone will force them to if they say that their OS is a browser.
I seriously doubt Google will be charging any money for Chrome.
For people who hate this article, can you please share why you hate it instead of just saying it sucks?
It was meant to stir things up obviously, but I thought that the various points brought up were really valid.
It was meant to stir things up obviously, but I thought that the various points brought up were really valid.
I liked Fake Steve Jobs when it first came out, some of it was really harsh but funny. But I was always slightly perturbed by the "freetard" stuff which seemed out of place for a Steve Jobs parody, and whenever they came up a strangely pro-micrsoft stance appeared too. When I found out that those bits where the opinions of the real author (Dan Lyons) leaking through I found that ruined it somewhat for me.
"freetard" seems pretty in character for Jobs to me.
I wouldn't have a clue what Steve Jobs would think, to be honest with you. However, I can comb through the work of Lyons and see that, yes, outside of the FSJ context he harbors great, almost excessive, disdain for the free software hardcore.
Indeed, I think he hates them because he sees his old-school world (and thereby his job-security) challenged by this, as he calls it, freetard-thing, which seems to be a blob in his mind consisting of elements from: blogs, linux, oss, free, internet, sandals, open, free. I think this is so, because when he gave a talk about his blog he stated that i got into blogging out of fear that Linux would kill old-school journalism.
It uses cheap humor to badly comunicate its point, however valid it may be. So although i agree with some of the points, its my believe that at least on HN sending your message in a non trollish and reasonable(and yes, boring for a 14 year-old) way, is just as important as being rational and intelligent. Im a cynical jerk myself most of the time, but i avoid sharing my spicy personality on HN, because i KNOW that it gets in the way of good conversation, even though i don't take myself seriously(and i know the author doesn't either). See, a lot of the comments(including my two) on the submission are not about his points, but about his controversial delivery, and THAT is not good for HN.
"Hate" would be too strong, but I thought it was a stupid article. What Google is releasing seems to be a Linux kernel with a new window manager running Chrome. I don't think that's nearly as difficult as he makes out.
He's right that the netbook market is tiny, but it's also poorly served by existing operating systems, so it might be a reasonable place to start. And it certainly makes sense for Google to make using webapps easier, because their core business is based on all that traffic.
Anyhow, the article felt to me like it was trying too hard -- lots of hyperbole but few ideas.
He's right that the netbook market is tiny, but it's also poorly served by existing operating systems, so it might be a reasonable place to start. And it certainly makes sense for Google to make using webapps easier, because their core business is based on all that traffic.
Anyhow, the article felt to me like it was trying too hard -- lots of hyperbole but few ideas.
The biggest point in my mind:
"You also may not have noticed, but nobody uses Chrome. I mean think about it. Do you know anyone who uses Chrome? Really?"
Aside from the stat-based argument (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=694756): I've been repeatedly surprised by the non-technical people around me who are on Chrome. My girlfriend downloaded it literally the day it came out, when I had read just a blog post or two about it. My parents, various friends' parents, the list just goes on and on, and none of them are nerds. It's startling how effortlessly Chrome has permeated public consciousness.
I don't hate the article, but I think fake steve jobs has jumped the shark.
"You also may not have noticed, but nobody uses Chrome. I mean think about it. Do you know anyone who uses Chrome? Really?"
Aside from the stat-based argument (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=694756): I've been repeatedly surprised by the non-technical people around me who are on Chrome. My girlfriend downloaded it literally the day it came out, when I had read just a blog post or two about it. My parents, various friends' parents, the list just goes on and on, and none of them are nerds. It's startling how effortlessly Chrome has permeated public consciousness.
I don't hate the article, but I think fake steve jobs has jumped the shark.
Behold.. What is a Browser? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ&feature=relat...
Most people don't have the slighest clue what a browser is, nevermind an opinion about them.
Most people don't have the slighest clue what a browser is, nevermind an opinion about them.
Change the question to "What browser do you use?" - in that very same video - and you get much better answers. Often from the very same people.
You can make a video asking people in Times Square what a preposition is, and get similar quality of response. That doesn't mean they don't know the difference between 'and' and 'but'.
As for opinion: people can distinguish between the fast one and the slow one.
You can make a video asking people in Times Square what a preposition is, and get similar quality of response. That doesn't mean they don't know the difference between 'and' and 'but'.
As for opinion: people can distinguish between the fast one and the slow one.
It still has a pretty mediocre takeup rate, regardless of the people around you that are using it. The latest stats I've seen (posted on HN) have been that Chrome is less used than Safari. FF seems to be the bigger winner at the cost of IE.
Dude, how long has each been around to grab marketshare? Chrome is absolutely meteoric when you divide by time.
FWIW, Chrome usage on Mibbit is already above Safari, Opera, and above IE6 and IE7.
Chrome usage is growing at an astounding rate in the 'webapp' world. Wouldn't be surprised if it overtakes IE8 soon.
Chrome usage is growing at an astounding rate in the 'webapp' world. Wouldn't be surprised if it overtakes IE8 soon.
Valid? This sounds like a bad immitation of linuxhater, at least linuxhater gets his facts right:
"Linux still doesn't run right." BS, his own blog runs on linux.
"Chrome is shit?" BS, Safari copied every single innovation of chrome.
"Nobody uses Chrome?" Lol, chrome is almost beating Safari already.
"Netbook sucks." Who cares, Chrome will start up on netbooks and go all the way up to desktops. They have to start somewhere and starting on a niche such as netbook is a good idea.
"Operatin system are hard to build." The GCOS is based on linux, 19 year old now, not to mention the gcc and glibc so almost 30 year old. And chrome already rocks.
"Linux still doesn't run right." BS, his own blog runs on linux.
"Chrome is shit?" BS, Safari copied every single innovation of chrome.
"Nobody uses Chrome?" Lol, chrome is almost beating Safari already.
"Netbook sucks." Who cares, Chrome will start up on netbooks and go all the way up to desktops. They have to start somewhere and starting on a niche such as netbook is a good idea.
"Operatin system are hard to build." The GCOS is based on linux, 19 year old now, not to mention the gcc and glibc so almost 30 year old. And chrome already rocks.
Point by point:
- He said Linux doesn't run right on the desktop.
- And Chrome copied every innovation of Firefox. And Firefox copied every innovation of Opera. Etc.
- And together they add up to less of the web's users than IE6, sadly.
- You don't know that.
- I'm done feeding the troll.
- He said Linux doesn't run right on the desktop.
- And Chrome copied every innovation of Firefox. And Firefox copied every innovation of Opera. Etc.
- And together they add up to less of the web's users than IE6, sadly.
- You don't know that.
- I'm done feeding the troll.
This is very well written (which is defined as not quitting after the first 3 paragraphs) and the first FSJ post I've read.
I'm firm in my belief that at least one of the main reasons for Chrome was to kick things up in the browser market, rather than a serious attempt to grab browser market share. "Look, you're doing it all wrong, just give it here a moment... ok, you can have it back now." And it worked - Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla all scrambled to include some, if not all of the features that identified Chrome, which were the features that made it use Google's services more effectively.
I'm fairly sure that a part of this (and, to a lesser extent, Android) is a similar deal.
I'm fairly sure that a part of this (and, to a lesser extent, Android) is a similar deal.
I would have agreed with you once, but I changed my mind since Google started advertising Chrome like crazy. You can hardly use a Google service these days without having Chrome suggested to you somewhere prominently. It seems like Google is really pushing Chrome to the mainstream. Whatever their reasons, they really do want to capture a significant portion of the market for it.
It's a long way to "capturing a significant portion of the market".
What they can do is reach some of the Internet users in dire need of an upgrade, like IE 6 users who trust the Google name, and get them to use a reasonable browser.
Not that that explains why Google had to invent their own browser. But their target market was average Internet users, so they might as well try to get them to run it.
What they can do is reach some of the Internet users in dire need of an upgrade, like IE 6 users who trust the Google name, and get them to use a reasonable browser.
Not that that explains why Google had to invent their own browser. But their target market was average Internet users, so they might as well try to get them to run it.
I wasn't sure if this is article should be taken seriously.
He pointed out that Google is targeting netbooks. He himself stated 11 million netbooks were sold last year and will be 39 million this year. The netbook category is a growing market that it would probably account to a substantial share in a few years.
Another is that "Chrome is shit." He probably has never used Chrome. I used the browser exclusively now unless I have a need to use Firebug in which I use Firefox instead.
I guess he's trying to be funny but he fell way short.
He pointed out that Google is targeting netbooks. He himself stated 11 million netbooks were sold last year and will be 39 million this year. The netbook category is a growing market that it would probably account to a substantial share in a few years.
Another is that "Chrome is shit." He probably has never used Chrome. I used the browser exclusively now unless I have a need to use Firebug in which I use Firefox instead.
I guess he's trying to be funny but he fell way short.
It was written so that the reader can take any given point and either embrace it as brilliant insight or disregard it as satirical Fake Steve humor.
I mean, the end of the piece entirely contradicts the earlier points... If Chrome OS is pointless and ineffectual -- occupying market niches that Apple isn't even interested in -- why should Fake Steve feel so threatened by it?
(BTW, he claims the 39 million netbook figure in the article is for the next four years, not next year, implying that the netbook market is minuscule compared to desktops, laptops, and phones.)
I mean, the end of the piece entirely contradicts the earlier points... If Chrome OS is pointless and ineffectual -- occupying market niches that Apple isn't even interested in -- why should Fake Steve feel so threatened by it?
(BTW, he claims the 39 million netbook figure in the article is for the next four years, not next year, implying that the netbook market is minuscule compared to desktops, laptops, and phones.)
some of it actually makes sense. how is google going to make money from this?
I know that I'm probably wrong.
Sergey Brin and Larry Page are neeeerdddssss, not business school kids that decided to make a web app.
There is a good chance that they're doing this just because it's really really cool, and because they can. I imagine that if I ever had the sort of cash that they have, I would be doing the same thing that I do on the weekends NOW, but on a larger scale: geekery.
Building a linux distro is geekery of the highest order. Good for them. Google makes billions and billions of dollars from their other projects. This is one that they can figure out later. :). (or I can figure it out for them now: adsense, lots of it.)
I understand that google is a publicly traded company; they have shareholders to answer to, but I imagine that all they have to do is point at their earnings and go "trust us, guys...trust us".
If anything, this will drive more traffic to their moneymakers.
Sergey Brin and Larry Page are neeeerdddssss, not business school kids that decided to make a web app.
There is a good chance that they're doing this just because it's really really cool, and because they can. I imagine that if I ever had the sort of cash that they have, I would be doing the same thing that I do on the weekends NOW, but on a larger scale: geekery.
Building a linux distro is geekery of the highest order. Good for them. Google makes billions and billions of dollars from their other projects. This is one that they can figure out later. :). (or I can figure it out for them now: adsense, lots of it.)
I understand that google is a publicly traded company; they have shareholders to answer to, but I imagine that all they have to do is point at their earnings and go "trust us, guys...trust us".
If anything, this will drive more traffic to their moneymakers.
There is probably some truth in what you say, albeit i wouldn't go so far to say that they're just nerds. They're business nerds, or they wouldn't be where they are today.
Also, i'd really appreciate if people would stop calling it a "linux distro". It makes as much sense than to call OS X a "BSD Distro"
Also, i'd really appreciate if people would stop calling it a "linux distro". It makes as much sense than to call OS X a "BSD Distro"
I'm a CS grad student right now, and even I can see that'd be a pretty damn irresponsible way to run a business. Not that I think that's actually the motivation...
By driving more eyeballs to the web and away from desktop apps.
Really? So you'll be working away, on your document or your spreadsheet, or you'll be playing a game, and some ad will pop up, and off you go, zero attention span? Why would anyone want that?
$50 on your Netbook isn't much if it means you hand your thesis in on time...
$50 on your Netbook isn't much if it means you hand your thesis in on time...
No, not really. I doubt there will be ads in Docs & Spreadsheets. But there ARE and WILL BE ads in Gmail* and Google search results. The main idea is to keep you in Google's ecosystem and to make advertising on the web more valuable.
Selling advertisings isn't about creating new places to put ads--it's about making advertising space more valuable. And that isn't as straightforward as you seem to think. :)
* And adsense ads in apps that others create.
Selling advertisings isn't about creating new places to put ads--it's about making advertising space more valuable. And that isn't as straightforward as you seem to think. :)
* And adsense ads in apps that others create.
It still sounds pretty far removed.
Release an OS that will drive traffic to your spreadsheet app that will drive traffic to your search engine where you can sell ads.
*Gmail still doesn't really makes much money.
Release an OS that will drive traffic to your spreadsheet app that will drive traffic to your search engine where you can sell ads.
*Gmail still doesn't really makes much money.
Release an OS that will drive traffic to your [...] search engine where you can sell ads.
Not far removed at all. Google makes billions by selling ads. Even if they budget a couple of million $/year for this project (might be less, depending on how you structure the proejct), they'll be making crazy returns if this increases their ad revenue just by 0.001. Not to mention all the FUD it'll cause inside MS :)
Not far removed at all. Google makes billions by selling ads. Even if they budget a couple of million $/year for this project (might be less, depending on how you structure the proejct), they'll be making crazy returns if this increases their ad revenue just by 0.001. Not to mention all the FUD it'll cause inside MS :)
Release an OS that will send more people to the internet, where your (profitable) search engine is.
lately youtube has been inserting overlays on top of playing videos, a highly annoying feature. If they ever do that to google docs there will be a mass exodus.
It'll be worse than office assistant paper clip.
Google isn't solely about advertising. In Google's other Linux-based OS, they make money off their app store.
I guess maybe
1)helping encourage widespread html 5 and better javascript support so more people can run google apps
2) deals with hardware vendors
1)helping encourage widespread html 5 and better javascript support so more people can run google apps
2) deals with hardware vendors
Eyeballs. Couple that with data mining and targeted ads and you end up with something that doesn't really fall outside Google's tried-and-true business model.
If they let Apple and Microsoft control how people connect to the internet one day they might see themselves superseded. This is a first move into making linux more acceptable to the consumer and maybe keeping the desktop the way they want it.
Google can get some eyeballs out of the effort by having more Google-apps users so this effort be somewhat self-supporting but more importantly, it serves Google's strategic goals.
Keep in mind that with the web constantly growing and constantly improving, Google doesn't need a new business model - being the entrance to the greatest show on earth will work for a long time now. Google today mostly needs to fend off outside monopolists who would aim to seize the whole thing by taking control of one or another choke-points. And having an OS to challenge MS is important here - even if the OS only takes minority share, keeping MS honest is important. Moreover, if all those other companies don't make monopoly profits, they won't have extra cash to throw at Google.
To get to a Google prompt, a user needs: 1) A PC 2) An operating system 3) A web browser 4) An Internet Connection from an ISP
The OS can potentially control search engine choice. Ditto with the browser and the ISP. Notice that Google has challenged monopolistic behavior in steps 2-4 by now (wireless venture, Chrome, Chrome OS). PC architecture is already mostly open so Google doesn't have to do anything there - but Google does build PCs!
Keep in mind that with the web constantly growing and constantly improving, Google doesn't need a new business model - being the entrance to the greatest show on earth will work for a long time now. Google today mostly needs to fend off outside monopolists who would aim to seize the whole thing by taking control of one or another choke-points. And having an OS to challenge MS is important here - even if the OS only takes minority share, keeping MS honest is important. Moreover, if all those other companies don't make monopoly profits, they won't have extra cash to throw at Google.
To get to a Google prompt, a user needs: 1) A PC 2) An operating system 3) A web browser 4) An Internet Connection from an ISP
The OS can potentially control search engine choice. Ditto with the browser and the ISP. Notice that Google has challenged monopolistic behavior in steps 2-4 by now (wireless venture, Chrome, Chrome OS). PC architecture is already mostly open so Google doesn't have to do anything there - but Google does build PCs!
1. Google owns the internet; search makes money, e-mail makes money, reader makes money, any website that uses AdSense makes money.
2. If there is more internet usage, Google makes more money.
----
Additionally, Google has a bunch of cool things that it wants to do but it can't because Javascript is a gimp piece of junk at the moment.
The more power Google gets, the harder it can push for its features.
2. If there is more internet usage, Google makes more money.
----
Additionally, Google has a bunch of cool things that it wants to do but it can't because Javascript is a gimp piece of junk at the moment.
The more power Google gets, the harder it can push for its features.
If you own the whole internet, as they would, surely there should be a way or another to make some money?
The goal is not to make money from the OS. IT was discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=693861
Disclaimer: my submission and my blogpost.
Disclaimer: my submission and my blogpost.
Simple: the more time people spend online, the more money Google makes off adsense, which is the vast majority of their profit.
[deleted]
No adblock
Guess I'm the only one that finds this not very funny.
Maybe one is not enlightened enough to fully understand its brilliance?
"Ours started out 20 years ago, at NeXT. You could say it goes back to 1977, with the BSD guys. Heck, you could even say it goes back to 1969 with Dennis Thompson and Lionel Ritchie."
"Ours started out 20 years ago, at NeXT. You could say it goes back to 1977, with the BSD guys. Heck, you could even say it goes back to 1969 with Dennis Thompson and Lionel Ritchie."
I "get" it, but the delivery falls flat like a stand-up comedian that makes the audience uncomfortable because no one is laughing. At least that's how it is in my head.
[deleted]
Its a little funny, but completely tasteless.
[deleted]
I know that Google says that GCOS is "aimed at Netbooks", but I'm sure that that's supposed to be just the initial target platform. So I think that the criticism that the netbook market is so small as to be meaningless will turn out to be moot.
Also, the precedent for this is probably the SplashTop and the (upcoming) Crunchpad.
Also, the precedent for this is probably the SplashTop and the (upcoming) Crunchpad.
> Linus Tordalv started working on Linux back in 1991 when he was a high school student in his native Denmark. That's nearly twenty years ago, and the shit still doesn't run right
That's kind of ironic when you that his own blog on blogspot runs on linux.
That's kind of ironic when you that his own blog on blogspot runs on linux.
he probably means as a desktop OS. UI for a complex system like the OS is incredibly hard to nail
[deleted]
Google's approach vs. MS or Apple's approach to product development offer an interesting contrast - feature rich apps vs. feature-poor but faster/stabler/simpler apps. Betting on a faster/stables/simpler OS is a worthy and possibly successful endeavor. Atleast it offers another alternative.
The thing that is bothering me about the Fake Steve Jobs piece is that Google aren't creating a new operating system. It's Linux, tuned for the tablet environment. If anyone knows about tuning Linux, it's the Google engineers, they tune Linux for millions of machines.
Why is everyone assuming that this is supposed to be a full computer? It isn't. It's an internet portal tablet. It is optimised for a purpose - getting the browser on the screen with the smallest amount of intermediate steps as possible.
If chrome OS takes away another 1 or 2% of IE usage, that's a big enough of a win for google and everyone else
I love Fake Steve. I'm so glad he's back. If only the real Steve were so forthcoming.
Fake Steve: "First of all, nobody seems to appreciate how goddamn hard it is to make an operating system."
From the Google blog: "[GOS is Chrome running] within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel"
So they're not building an OS from scratch. Did Fake Steve even read the post?
From the Google blog: "[GOS is Chrome running] within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel"
So they're not building an OS from scratch. Did Fake Steve even read the post?
That is, quite literally, one of the better things on the Internet.
I made a rebuttal to the Fake Steve Jobs on my Chrome OS blog here...
http://www.chrome-os-blog.com/fake-steve-jobs-on-googles-chr...
http://www.chrome-os-blog.com/fake-steve-jobs-on-googles-chr...
[deleted]
Seriously? Maybe I'm missing the satire or hyperbole here, but I really don't see it that way. Chrome on Windows is one of the fastest, most stable browsers I've ever used. And minus plug-in support, it's getting better on the Mac every week (I haven't tried the Linux version). When add-on support is added, I see no argument at all for calling it shit or a joke.