The Google OS Is Doomed(slate.com)
slate.com
The Google OS Is Doomed
http://www.slate.com/id/2222564/
4 comments
I would add, that maybe in Japan, Germany, USA, the internet connection is very fast, but there are countries where it's too slow or expensive.
What would happen if ChromeOS uses GoogleDocs? All the people without fast connections would be ruled out? I don't like the idea to need a connection to use web-photoshop.
What would happen if ChromeOS uses GoogleDocs? All the people without fast connections would be ruled out? I don't like the idea to need a connection to use web-photoshop.
It seems to me that the press is presenting this as Google Chrome OS vs Microsoft Windows 7 etc. When really its a competitor for Windows Azure which is another cloud based platform.
Of course Google isn't doing a very good job setting expectations for it either. I would be selling it as an alternative to Microsoft's cloud computing vision, where developers are required to host there apps in Microsoft's cloud if you want to leverage the Windows Azure's eco system.
Of course Google isn't doing a very good job setting expectations for it either. I would be selling it as an alternative to Microsoft's cloud computing vision, where developers are required to host there apps in Microsoft's cloud if you want to leverage the Windows Azure's eco system.
Google Chrome is the competitor for Windows 8. Hasn't Ballmer admitted that Windows 7 will be the last traditional desktop Windows?
I can't argue with most of the 5 points, but I think the first one misses the mark-- Linux is indeed "hard to love", but we don't know enough about ChromeOS yet to know if it will resemble Linux at all; all we really know is that it will have a Linux kernel. (Insert Mac/BSD analogy here.)
Isn't microsoft pushing out a web version office, wouldn't that imply a working version of excel within Chrome OS next year?
> Linux is hard to love
They didnt make the point I would have under this title (that consumers dont "trust" Linux). Instead they talk about software compatibility.
Now as I understand Chrome OS the idea is a completely cloud based OS (one assumes using Gears extensively too). Software compatibility it irrelevant because the ideal would be to put it all on the cloud using Googles services (music, well that is a bit of a sticking point...)
> We aren't ready to run everything on the Web
This is a key point. Though it is worth noting that we wont see Chrome devices till next year. Considering 18 months ago cloud services were only just taking shape for consumers it doesnt seem a long stretch to imagine things might make as big a leap forward again.
Irrespective there seems little point in waiting for the cloud to become our whole lives before making an OS to cater for it. Microsoft made a fortune on the policy of "build for the next generation and dont wory overly about supporting the old". Google are taking roughly the same approach - to get real market traction with their cloud offerings in the future they have to offer something cool :)
Yes Word is better than GDocs. Yes Word is coming ot the cloud - BUT it still has to be built using the same tech as GDocs. There is no reason GDocs cant compete with Word in the cloud - and no reason Word in the cloud isn't going to make the same "mistakes" as GDocs.
> Microsoft is a formidable opponent.
This seems irrelevant. MS do have weak points - one of them is probably the netbook market. they are weak there because Vista and W7 are too "over powered", really, for the current devices. So it's XP for the best performance. XP is not really designed for netbooks - the screens are too small for a start. Linux netbooks have done poorly because consumers are somewhat scared of Linux - Google wont have this problem because I seriously doubt Linux will be obviously mentioned to consumers :)
A well designed Netbook OS would stand a cracking chance at taking good market share from MS.
> Google fails often
This is a strange point to make. I dont get if their suggesting Chrome OS will be a failure or that Google's other failings will leave them lacking. I suspect the former - which is a bit of a straw man. right? If it fails it fails (myself I think it unlikely to totally flunk out). Saying "lets not do it, it might fail" is definitely not how Google got to where they are today....
> The Chrome OS makes no business sense.
This is the last and worst point of all. It sums up the shallowness of the article and needs to be dissected in several ways.
Google gives away nearly everything for free. That's because it makes pornographic amounts of money from a single product, Web ads, and can afford to dally in any other business venture it chooses, whether or not those efforts hold out any promise of profits
This shows a fatal misunderstanding of how Google operates. Everything is about the brand. It's about spreading out influence, getting developers onboard, reaching consumers. The writer is correct - Google does make a huge amount from web advertising; the stronger their brand the more money that is.
Put it this way: Google announcing an OS that was somewhat expected anyway and that will not even be ready for a year made national TV and radio news here in the UK. That is the kind of coverage companies kill for.
Microsoft often does things for no reason other than to frustrate its rivals—its new search engine Bing being a prime example. But by focusing so much attention on a venture that's unlikely to do the company any good, Google will only hurt itself.
This makes no sense - how can it hurt? The writer presents no outcome that would leave the company in a worse state. Microsoft has been desperate to launch a decent search engine for ages and now have a solid offering in Bing (asserting Bing is essentially there to piss Google off is, well, missing the point entirely....). They are launching web-Office including self-hosted solutions. Both of those are BIG attacks of services Google might consider core aspects of it's online service. Google Docs is certainly one of the most popular online office suites - cloud Office is a HUGe assault on that crown.
So why not do battle with MS on their own turf. They can probably nab the netbook market if they get it right and that will be good for them and mildly concerning for MS. And if the cloud proves to be the future Google have an established OS to bring to the desktop :)
Now Im guessing I am the prime market for Chrome OS. A young professional with some spare cash to burn who travels quite frequently. This is key netbook market territory - I want something fast, portable and gets me on the wbe on the move. Indeed it could be argued the only advantage that XP would have over Chrome is having a music player - but there is no reason a cloud solution cant be used (or even that Chrome OS will eventually cater for this).
Chrome OS netbooks could be lower spec without losing performance (just running a browser after all) ans smaller HDD's. That means a lighter device which should be substantially cheaper than an XP based offering. Covered in Google branding, backed by their marketing machine and the fact consumers trust them.
In my mind they would have to fuck this up really badly for it to fail entirely.
For me this writer seems to believe that Google is simply creating Chrome OS to spite MS and because everyone else is doing it. I think they have missed the point entirely. Google have sat and considered the OS angle (similar to how they watched Mozilla, learnt from their mistakes and achievements, and launched Chrome based on that experience) and decided this is prime time to launch an attack.
(sorry for the wall of text - I find this idea fascinating because Google and MS look more and more likely to be facing off in the next few years. Each with a huge user base, each with a lot of money, each with products in each others field. That is a fun and exciting contest to me)