Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral 817
Al writes "Technology Review has a feature article that explores the business strategy underlying Google's decision to develop its Linux-based operating system, Chrome OS. Writer G. Pascal Zachary argues that Eric Schmidt has identified a sea-change in the software business, as signaled by Microsoft's recent problems and by the advancement of cloud computing. Zachary notes that Larry Page and Sergey Brin have pushed to develop a slick, open-source alternative to Windows for around six years (with the rationale that improving access to the Web would ultimately benefit Google), but that Schmidt has always refused. While developing Chrome OS is a significant gamble for Google, Zachary believe it will exploit Microsoft's historical weakness in terms of networking and internet functionality, forcing its rival to better serve Google's core business goals, whilst initiating its own steady, slow-motion decline."
Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft like SEGA will survive after it's core product ends. Microsoft makes a lot of tools, these will still be used and profitable once Windows is gone (the thought of now more windows makes me giddy though)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has nearly missed the boat before. During Chicago's development, Microsoft all but dropped the ball on that whole Internet thing, at the last moment pasting in Windows for Workgroup's networking engine to support TCP/IP. The initial version of IE sucked, but, in the end, they beat the snot out of Netscape. They even retroactively threw in the Shiva PPP dialer and their own Winsock stack for Windows 3.1, thus pretty much killing Trumpet Winsock.
I won't believe Microsoft's going down the tubes until I actually see Microsoft down the tubes. They're the Energizer Bunny of the computer world, even if they have to steal or assassinate their competition to keep going.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Funny)
They're the Energizer Bunny of the computer world, even if they have to steal or assassinate their competition to keep going.
This is just in: Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Funny)
You know why the Energizer Bunny takes so long in the bathroom?
He keeps going...and going....
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget they are also willing to purchase any small companies that threaten comptition.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Funny)
GATES Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
Homer and Marge step aside to talk privately.
HOMER This is it Marge. I've poured my heart and soul into this business and now it's finally paying off. (covering his mouth) We're rich! Richer than astronauts.
MARGE Homer quiet. Acquire the deal.
HOMER (to Gates) I reluctantly accept your proposal!
GATES Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Bill Gates' companions begin to trash the "office".
HOMER Hey, what the hell's going on!
GATES Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
Bill Gates lets out a maniacal laugh.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Informative)
Just like Google!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, it's not like Microsoft beat Netscape with a superior product, but Netscape completely wasted their market share on bad business decisions.
Both the US and EU court decided that M$ used their monopoly position to force Netscape out of business. But hey, you are still free to believe it was Netscape's fault.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Interesting)
I know when I'm looking for insight into the software industry and the relative merits of different Web browsers, court decisions handed down by narcoleptic 70-year-old judges who still have their secretaries print all their emails are the first place I look.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
I used Netscape instead of IE, and it was pretty damn bloated. The feature-set was just barely worth dealing with the sluggish performance. Especially since IE wasn't exactly a lean mean browsing machine at the time. If it had been, the would not have needed to abuse their position.
I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
As for why this is a good move, it has already been discussed several times. You either understand what monopoly is or you don't.
Best argument ever. "If you don't agree with me it's because you don't understand the concept!" I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose we should feel sorry for every company that ever released something for pay that eventually went out of business because someone else was able to do it for free? Damn Microsoft for including TCP/IP in WIndows! They forced Trumpet Winsock out of business!
Where do we draw the line?
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has nearly missed the boat before. During Chicago's development, Microsoft all but dropped the ball on that whole Internet thing, at the last moment pasting in Windows for Workgroup's networking engine to support TCP/IP. The initial version of IE sucked, but, in the end, they beat the snot out of Netscape. They even retroactively threw in the Shiva PPP dialer and their own Winsock stack for Windows 3.1, thus pretty much killing Trumpet Winsock.
I won't believe Microsoft's going down the tubes until I actually see Microsoft down the tubes. They're the Energizer Bunny of the computer world, even if they have to steal or assassinate their competition to keep going.
Missing the boat didn't hurt them that much. Why? Because third parties(like Trumpet that you mentioned) filled in the gap for the most popular OS. I don't see a reason that will change much now. Why? Because even Google said this during their announcement. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html [blogspot.com]
All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.
So Windows and Macs will run all the Win32 and Mac programs like Office and Photoshop and also run the same web apps that Chrome will run. That means Google Chrome won't have a Killer App, except for the UI, security and cost? So Chrome has to be THAT GOOD in order to make people switch from Windows since stuff like Gmail already runs well in browsers.
And there are lots applications that make no sense to be run in a browser with Back, Forward, Refresh buttons. And not to mention the performance overhead. For example, I like my IDE to be native, thanks. It's slow enough as it is. Will people be willing to give up their native apps just to make the interface better or faster(lets assume Google can do that)? Will Chrome OS innovate that much in UI and security that it will make people switch? I doubt it. Chrome browser already has improvements in speed and UI but that hasn't motivated people to switch.
Fake Steve's interesting take on Chrome OS here --> http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html [blogspot.com]
You are missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of Chrome is not for people to switch to Chrome. Nor is it to write killer apps unique for Chrome. The point of Chrome is to make Microsoft start writing web apps, and moving away from desktop. It's like luring the shark out of water to compete in your territory on the land. Google lives on the Internet, and Chrome OS is the Internet OS, that will hopefully move Microsoft to the Internet even more than they have (Office online, Windows Live etc). And more of Microsoft services online, the better it is for Google. Since Google are the king of Internet and in effect are making Microsoft compete with them outside of their core competence (desktop). And having to compete with Google online, takes away resources from desktop.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, running your apps on timeshared mainframes is hardly "new". I have a relative who is an accountant, and she was using timeshared accounting apps back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This ain't new tech, people, it's just a new (and horribly bastardized and slow) variant of what dumb terminals and X have been capable of for decades. In a way, the "cloud" is much worse, because it's piggybacking asynchronous protocols on top of http, rather than making or utilizing or building much more efficient asynchronous protocols directly connecting the client to the server.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, a voice of reason.
-dZ.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
>The whole web app fad caught on largely because people are too dumb to care.
What? The web caught on because the alternatives like gopher or dumb terminals were terrible compared to being able to embed images and other content. Remember actually using gopher or archie or whatever? Or using a big ugly VMS thin client? Sure, people have nostalgia for this stuff, but its pretty obvious which technology was more marketable.
As far as the web revolution goes, well, I think we're just seeing the natural cheapness of people again. A lot of the web office apps are free, yet Office costs $99 for the student/home edition. Sure, putting these things on the web is putting another layer of junk between you and the code, but if the market consists of cheap people who dont care, then here we are.
Not to mention, you get some big advantages with web based apps. Sure, they'll be slower, but they can store all your documents. You never have to install anything other than a plugin once per browser. You may have 2 or 3 laptops in a typical family, yet everyone just logs into their google apps and does their work. Dad doesnt have to buy the family 5 pack for office.
I think geeks need to stop thinking about which solution is the better technical one and think in terms of markets. The computer industry exists within capitalism. Markets rule, not pedantic geeks arguing over the internet.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't a "geek" issue. It's a security issue. Even if I wanted to, the organization I work for is restricted by some pretty severe privacy rules, which makes storing on the Cloud (or, more to the point, on someone else's servers) all but impossible. I suppose, if I looked hard enough, I could find a service, but considering the hoops I'd have to jump through, and still face the possibility that my managers would say no simply makes the whole thing a losing proposition.
What's more, and this is something we face with our satellite offices, network infrastructure does go down. The more apps that are remotely hosted (either on the main office servers or on hosted services), the more likely that a network failure beyond my networks will severely hamper the satellites' capacity to do the work. The way my networks work now, if some moron with a backhoe comes along and rips up the fiber, they can still use their office apps and contact management software, in other words, they're not twiddling their thumbs until someone fixes the outage.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea behind a network, any network, is to enable collaboration.
That's just ridiculous. Or have you never heard of a mainframe?
The idea behind a network, any network, is to ship information from point A to point B. That could be data from person A to person B over some sort of collaborative software suite. OR, it could be an application from server A to thin client B, so that B doesn't have to have all those apps installed locally, thus resulting in lower deployment and upgrade costs, cheaper hardware, and so forth.
In short: the Internet does not, in fact, conform to your limited personal view of it. Get over it.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Informative)
What, thousands of man-hours for games? Look around you, majority of people don't play games (or at least you wouldn't call them PC games - Peggle, Solitaire, etc.; that is a typical PC game)
Nowadays majority of time of average user is spent in the browser. Heck, I even see a trend of listening to music "from the cloud". Convince them that writing (no, they don't need MS or even Open Office, formatting with Tab, Space & Enter, styles unknown to them) or presentations (they are a travesty usually anyway...) can be also done in a browser...and there's your market for Chrome OS.
Having said that, I also think that Chrome OS won't succeed on "large" machines. But I also suspect that those using today cheap laptops for all their (pretty basic) needs will, in some part, shift towards using smaller form factor.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Web applications are *not* the same as using a dumb terminal connected to a timeshared mainframe. Generally, "source code" is provided by the server, "executed" on the local machine using local resources, and data is stored back on the server. Dumb terminals require faster links, more powerful servers, and will inevitably have higher UI latency than ajax-type applications.
If you have perfectly reliable links to the server, and trust the server to be reliable and secure, web applications are very good, and much better than the old server/dumb terminal system. Of course, those are very tall orders.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, running your apps on timeshared mainframes is hardly "new".
The fact that it's not new doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. It wouldn't be the first time that technology moved in cycles. Also, it's only the concept of big iron and thin servers that's old; the implementation today will be much faster because networks are much faster. So fast that inefficient protocols don't matter.
I used to work on a Unix "mainframe" (a Convex, actually), using a diskless Sun workstation. It was a great collaborative environment, and it was sure a lot less hassle for the IT folks to maintain than a zillion PCs all running Windows. Yeah, it was slow...that was the big drawback. If there was more than one user on the network, they all complained that it was too slow. (One user would complain too, but nobody would hear him.) But there were compensations—like starting "Crabs" on somebody else's Xdisplay. *Evil laughter*
But slowness isn't what killed the diskless Suns...it was the managers. They wanted to run Excel and do "roll-ups" (whatever the farking hell those are), so they got PCs. But then they noticed that they were cut off from our network. That could not be allowed. So we all had to get PCs. And here we are. Personally, I wouldn't mind going back to the dumb terminals at work, with fast networks.
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
What cracks me up is that the tech press--perhaps the most uninformed and overhyped group of hacks I can think of besides the gaming press--uses the phrase "cloud computing" in place of "Internet." Internet is a word that already describes an interconnected network of computers, but we needed a stupid new buzzword to make money off of now that "Web 2.0" and "blog" have grown stale.
Do you use web mail? Now you're "sending mail through the cloud." Do you upload pictures to a website like Flickr? Nope, you're "uploading pictures to the cloud." Cloud implies some kind of distributed, redundant storage using multiple locations, but you're really just using one company's server in the same client-server paradigm that we've been using since Hotmail in the mid-90s. Was I "cloud computing" back then? Give me a fucking break.
It really bothers me that I can't find any vocal resistance in the press to these buzzwords. Is there anyone with a brain?
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
This ain't new tech, people, it's just a new (and horribly bastardized and slow) variant of what dumb terminals and X have been capable of for decades.
Ever used X outside of an academic/office setting with gigabit both ways? It ain't pretty. Or fast.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] That means Google Chrome won't have a Killer App, [...]
Not a "killer app" but "killer features" like having always the latest software version, having access to professional tools on demand - while at the beach in between different kinds of surfing - tools you wouldn't dream of installing on Windows (because of the price, or just because you didn't think in time to purchase/download them).
I think a few years from now we will look back and see that through this way of thinking a whole new class of applications will evolve. Like how we take Facebook, cell phones, online news, email etc. for granted, who would have thought that 20 years ago?
For now the weak point is the availability of internet access...
The latest software version can be(and is) taken care of with updates. Access to professional tools on demand? So stuff similar to AutoCad would be free to use on the Web from the beach and would work as fast as AutoCad on Windows? I'm sorry but this sounds like hyperbole and almost vaporware. And for your claim that "a whole new class of applications will evolve", what prevents them currently from evolving on Windows/OS X/Linux ? What do you think will Chrome OS enable that the current OSes cannot? The point is that not everything needs internet access and hence doesn't need to be used in a browser. Not to mention that HTML/JS/AJAX/CSS is one of the worst development platforms ever in terms of developer effort requirement to make things working.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it just has to make MS irrelevant.
Irrelevant is a bit of a stretch. Just make it non essential, and you have a severely damaged Microsoft empire.
Re:Hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
> I won't believe Microsoft's going down the tubes until I actually see Microsoft down the tubes.
Oh I agree they should not be 'misunderestimated'. But this is a totally new threat. Netscape was a company and could be killed. Microsoft 'choked off their air supply' and they died. But note what happened next:
"Mammon slept. And the beast reborn spread over the earth and its numbers
grew legion. And they proclaimed the times and sacrificed crops unto the
fire, with the cunning of foxes. And they built a new world in their own
image as promised by the sacred words, and spoke of the beast with their
children. Mammon awoke, and lo! it was naught but a follower.
from The Book of Mozilla, 11:9
(10th Edition)"
Netscape didn't just take their source tree with them into the long sleep of death. They cast it out into a lonely world where it suffered for years, but now it is back and kicking butt. And without much of a corporate structure to attack.
Now it gets worse again. The world is changing, and in ways Microsoft is finding it hard to follow. All of the other efforts at Microsoft lose money, supported by the gushers of cash Windows and Office produce. They grew to believe that 'every non-mac PC would pay tribute to Microsoft forever and every corporate PC will license Office.' And they might continue to do so. But the price of a PC is falling to such new low prices they simply cannot support the current pricing for Windows. So they must soon make a decision. Lower the price and maintain the universal aspect of Windows or maintain the cash cow by focusing on the more profitable end of the PC range. Both probably aren't an option any more and the question is whether either can be maintained for long without the other. There just aren't enough PCs sold to make the stockholders happy with a $25 license fee. And there probably won't long be enough expensive PCs sold to keep the profits flowing with $100 licenses either.
So the only good option they have is to quickly get the other divisions to stop being places to bury the obscene profits from Windows and Office and get them profitable as new revenue flows to replace the ones about to go in to decline. So the big question is: Can an XBox sold at a profit compete?
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Informative)
And not only that, but the entire Xbox 360 platform would have to die off with it, since all development is done in Windows and Visual Studio.
My Bet (Score:4, Insightful)
I will gladly bet that Microsoft will still be a highly profitable company in twenty years. The fallacy of this write as with many other prognosticators is that the game is zero-sum. This is false. IT is growing and will continue to grow as long as there is an economy to support.
Microsoft likely will need to reposition itself in the market as Google grows. However, Microsoft will be a big player for at least another generation and likely many more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Bet (Score:4, Interesting)
Where I agree with MyLongNickName is that Microsoft is also a moving target. Google may roust them out of the OS game, and FOSS may scramble their software niche, that doesn't mean that M$ is up the creek sans paddle. MS just has to adjust their direction and change targets, using, as usual, Apple as a model. 10 years ago Apple made hardware and a small handful of fairly minor applications. Apple changed targets and focus and now it Rooolz the roost with iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and has a large stable of other fine apps (FinalCutPro, Logic, Keynote, GarageBand, etc.) Watch MS do the same kind of zig zag. It probably won't be the same as Apple (Apple's already there and has staked out the turf) but MS will find some other equally lucrative direction.
As an iPhone has more RAM, storage, speed, and video capabilities than my first half dozen computers, COMBINED, it is absurd to discuss IT in terms of Only Computers. This is where I think we will see even Google's first stumble.
Example: give an iPhone HDMI out and two 6pin USB ports. Game over. No more need for desktop, laptop, anything. Just your "iPhone" and a charger, a monitor and keyboard at home and at the office. Done.
If google's phone system can do that on (x) brand phones (and can convince someone like RIM or Panasonic to build one with HDMI/USB) then Google beats Apple to the punch and wins almost the entire future computer market.
And MS in all of that? They have enough money they could build their own damn phone w/ HDMI/USB, and sell them with Verizon for $200 and beat Google AND Apple to the punch.
It's not a matter of if - it's a question of when and how.
RS
Re:My Bet (Score:5, Insightful)
I will gladly bet that Microsoft will still be a highly profitable company in twenty years. The fallacy of this write as with many other prognosticators is that the game is zero-sum.
Much like what happened to IBM.
Re:My Bet (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're correct, but I don't think Microsoft will continue indefinitely as they are now. Like it or not, tons of stuff IS moving onto the web ("cloud" or whatever trendy word they want to call it this week). Linux and Firefox have already shown that enough volunteers are out there to produce software that gets you to that web for FREE. When a free product will do what you want it to people won't continue to shell out mega bucks for windows over and over.
What I think Microsoft will continue to dominate at is Office apps. MS Office has always beat Google Docs for usability and with the introduction of web-based MS Office products I think Microsoft is already preparing to capitalize on it's strengths.
Besides Office, (and windows which as mentioned I think has a limited lifespan left), they also are prime supplies of development tools (Visual Studio) and SQL Server. In the future I see ports of SQL Server to non-Windows platforms, as well as more shifts in Visual Studio towards developing web-based applications.
Having worked in corporate IT, I can honestly say that while Google or Microsoft hosting our web based apps just won't fly, hosting web based application in house on our own servers is a God-send. Switching out user workstations is trivial, there's no worry about the users saving the data into the wrong location, and upgrading an application only has to be done once. Not to mention we just get fewer "quirky" machines this way. If the browser works right and the server is configured right, it works. No DLL's to track down and register on one stubborn machine or anything.
So yeah, I think MS has strengths and will continue to be powerful and profitable for a time to come, but the Microsoft of 20 years from now will very likely not look much like the Microsoft of today.
Re:More Bets against the American Worker (Score:4, Interesting)
Two things:
Yes, housing prices have corrected themselves. The fact that 50% of mortgages are upside down is irrelevant. Those mortgages were taken out then housing prices were seriously inflated, so when the price of the house goes down to a sane level, I'd expect the mortgages to be upside down.
When Bush threw money at the Fed, the Dems bitched. When Obama threw money at the Fed, the Repubs bitched. No one really cares about the country anymore. It's all about getting your guy on top and the other guy knocked down.
Screw that.
Actually a third: "Grow the economy" does not mean "buy more shit". Buying more shit is what put us in this mess. I fail to see how doing more of the same will get us out of it. We need to be focusing on paying down our debts and being fiscally responsible with the money that is coming in.
I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Hilarious, but I'd like to show you this fun bit of trivia...
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html [psu.edu]
So, the death spiral will spin whichever way prevailing forces decide. I suppose this means the spin will be googly...
Entirely Net-Based? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Entirely Net-Based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
E-mail is an application that only makes sense if there's a network connection
Have you ever been in a train or plane with three days of e-mails to catch up with ? Obviously not :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Entirely Net-Based? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's why not everyone uses g-mail (and similar), and why many companies ban its use.
What the GP tried to tell you, but I think you missed, is that there isn't an either/or situation, but room for many players with different types of solutions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many corporations use gmail as their email system?
Personally, I use Gmail, but I still want my files to be on my computers and on my own backups.
Especially since Gmail lost about 4 years of my mail archives and couldn't be bothered to restore them from backup (if they ever have backups)
Re:Entirely Net-Based? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It ain't the kernel that's slow and bloated about either Windows or Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google observes that Windows is too complicated, slow and bloated. But another big bloated monolithic solution such as the Linux kernel doesn't seem an answer. Why don't they go with a microkernel architecture based on something such as Minix 3? We've known for years the potential advantages of microkernels: smaller, simpler, more robust.
You've just got yourself tied up here already. NT is probably the most popular microkernel architecture in the world. What makes it "hybrid" is pretty minimal... it's a lean mean high-performance microkernel. A lot of what still made it hybrid has gone away in NT 6.
I don't think Chrome OS has a shot in hell in outperforming Windows 7 or Mac OS X at any media application aside from the Chrome Browser itself. Google simply lacks the organization and expertise to create something like DirectX or CoreVideo, or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Malodorous Headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral
Hopefully that's not their primary goal. Remember, if your primary goal isn't to do something positive for the customer then it ain't gonna work.
... you've got a long way to go. You also need to consider that everyone is using something right now and you need to convince die hard Linux fans to leave their loyal distro of choice and follow you onward. That's just as important to success as targeting Windows, I would wager. Me, personally, would be impressed if you can get better hardware support and either work around Flash or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux. Those would be huge and I think would be highly decisive.
... nobody wants another Duke Nukem or Hurd [gnu.org] where we're perpetually waiting and cracking jokes about it.
Luckily I know that there's a bit more to Chrome OS than Microsoft death threats. It's a nice thought but
Also, I'm glad they didn't break this news six years ago when they started thinking about it
Re:Malodorous Headline (Score:5, Informative)
or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux
They've supported Flash on Linux for quite some time now since they started doing simultaneous OS releases. Linux was even the first to get experimental 64-bit support.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your doing it wrong, i have no such errors file a bug report if you want it fixed (thats why its alpha/beta software)
as for gp, just because to versions have the same number does not make them equal, flash on linux still sucks!
Re:Malodorous Headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Me, personally, would be impressed if you can get better hardware support and either work around Flash or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux.
Hardware support is essentially a question of OS market share!
Sad but true.
As Firefox has gained market share the support suddenly appeared and you are starting to see the same thing happening with OSX.
You can see that from the number of websites which now support Firefox, a couple of years ago at least 60% of websites I visited required IE, now there are hardly any!
Even those websites that require IE are almost all stuck on "IE 6" - which by itself says a lot about the website support!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess the expression is a bit too hard. Google in this case has the same view as the Linux community: make operating systems better (and if Windows can't adopt, they will see a slow and steady decline - well, maybe a bit faster than now).
Google's core market are web applications, and they figured they could get a lot of support by doing the right thing and improve on an existing platform.
Currently - out of the perspective of commercial entities - Linux has 3 main problems: minor market penetration, lacks a
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I'm a Apple advocate, but Apple has had a far superior OS to Windows for the last 8 years, and they've barely dented the PC market. If OS X can't change the Windows mindset, Chrome sure as hell can't.
Chrome is just a shiny object in Sergei's eye. It won't have an impact outside the geek arena.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm a Apple advocate, but Apple has had a far superior OS to Windows for the last 8 years, and they've barely dented the PC market. If OS X can't change the Windows mindset, Chrome sure as hell can't.
I really must object. This is a dangerous stance as I cannot say I've seen much more of Chrome OS than hype but let's imagine it's got really good hardware support and really good software support (tangible). Now let's also say that it's geared toward virtualization ... which this cloud article leads me to believe. Now let's also assume that it works (as a virtualized instance) on every other operating system. Okay, so my problem with OSX is that I can't just download it and run it legally on whatever the hell I want. That's overcome. The other thing is that people are going to go looking for solutions to problems. If Chrome OS is that solution, they will be able to virtualize it, see that it works and probably make the switch if they want to. The whole preview first thing would be benefit since it's going to be open source.
... but then we're on to the corporate strong arm support Google is promising. Hardware and flash support would make a lot of people happy (as I posted earlier).
Also, everyone can be encouraged to try it virtualized like any other application and get rid of it if they don't like it with no change to their system. Very appealing trial marketing here. Also, it's open source, OSX isn't.
There's a lot of differences I could continue to cite but I think you're mistaken in comparing it to OSX's failed attempt at desktop domination. You'd do better to compare it to Linux's failed attempt at the desktop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X isn't Apple's downfall, its the fact their computers are so annoyingly expensive that most people won't buy them. I know I don't have $1K to spend on a laptop, especially w
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh. The expensive computers aren't their downfall, they are their business model. Say it with me, folks: "Apple is a HARDWARE company." OS X is a value-add, maybe the biggest one in history, to sell more hardware. They don't make cheaper hardware because enough people will buy their expensive hardware to keep them profitable. Apple doesn't make discount computers for the same reason you can't buy a Cadillac subcompact: they are a premium hardware company. Making cheap computers will cut into their profit (why make $50/computer when you can make $300/computer?) and turn out crappier 'value' Macs, further diluting the brand. For the same reason, they don't offer OS X for other platforms. It's designed to sell their hardware. Selling it for PC eats into their hardware sales while upping the numbers of people who install OS X inexpertly or on wacky hardware and then decide it's unreliable.
Rate this -1 or +1, but make sure it says 'Obvious'.
Not the cost of the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really expect anyone to believe that the cost of the computer is the cost of your computing?
Intelligent people who also factor in other costs often end up choosing Macs as the TOTAL low-cost alternative.
I bought a Mac for my wife, it is by far the cheapest solution because I spend zero time fixing it for her.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
more like close to $3000 for a 15" MBP once you get the 9600M which is still obsolete compared to current PC laptop graphics cards, Applecare, tax and a few other accessories. You can configure a Dell laptop with better specs for $1500. only difference is MBP's have DDR 3 RAM which is expensive and you'll probably never notice the difference. but the MBP is 8 ounces lighter for all you wimps out there
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
...but I don't have $600 I can just spend on a desktop that will quickly go obsolete...
Ok, therein lies the biggest misconception of a Mac. It doesn't "quickly go obsolete." I'm using a Mac Pro that is ... six years old and it's still working damn well. Not "adequately" - it's working incredibly well. Photoshop, Warcraft, Final Cut, Soundtrack Pro, and more. I would love to upgrade to a newer computer (namely something with an Intel chip) but I just can't justify upgrading because what I have now is more than sufficient. Upgrading now would be buying a new toy just because - there's no real justification for getting a new computer because I don't _need_ to upgrade. Short of a catastrophic failure of hardware, I see it remaining more than adequate for several more years. I will not be the least bit surprised if I'm still using it a full decade after it was bought and still using it at a high level. Now, call me crazy, but in the realm of computers, getting a decade worth of use out of a computer is FAR from it quickly going obsolete... I challenge you to get the same sort of life out of a PC, to be blunt (and I say that having a newer-but-dead PC sitting beside my Mac, it's power supply having given up, rendering the newer PC nothing more than a large and expensive paper weight...).
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Right because we all know that Xeons themselves run more than $1000. But sure, go on and believe that you have the same spec'd computer as Mac Pro.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly you can get a cheaper laptop/desktop than Apple. If all you value is money, then Apples are definitely not worth their value. If you value other things than money, than Apples might be worth it. I spent over 15 years building desktops at home and work. Some ran Windows; some ran Linux. I have a networked MythTV system at home. The reason I bought a Mac is my time has become more valuable than the money.
I did a quick comparison and the price difference between the cheapest PC laptop and the c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
This "superior" line always bothers me a little. Anyone who reads my posts here knows I dislike Microsoft intensely, but is OSX really any better than Windows? It has a microkernel architecture, which tends to mean greater stability, but also means a hit to performance. Windows still runs on a larger variety of hardware. If you toss something like Cygwin in, you've pretty much got the equivalent of the BSD userland that ships with OSX. We could go on about interface, but to be honest, I think all GUIs kinda suck (I learned my trade on DOS and *nix machines, and still revert to the command line for all but the simpler file copy operations). OSX certainly is less "messy" than Windows, but judging by the number of people who prefer KDE over Gnome, I would suspect some people like busy desktops, and some people like all-but-empty desktops.
When I'm planning a new server, OSX never really crosses my mind. For 90% of the tasks, I'll pick a Linux or BSD box; no GUI, a quarter century worth the tried and tested tools (that kind of conservatism appeals to people like me, who don't want to have to rewrite shell scripts everytime the OS maker decides to shake things up), incredible support (I've gotten solutions to problems in an hour for problems I was having with Samba and ACLs) and, well, very low licensing costs. I'll use Windows for domain controllers and Exchange servers, and for the odd server app that requires Windows. As to the users on the network, well most of them would have seizures if Office 2003 didn't show up, and I can pick up a low-end Windows box for web browsing, word processing and spreadsheets (which encompasses about 95% of what my users do) for significantly less than anything Apple offers.
As to security, the only reason non-Windows machines sem more secure is because market share is too low for most malware writers to waste their time. But look at recent iPhone SMS attacks. Apple has no special magic security aura, and neither does Linux or BSD, though I will grant that because most things do not run as root, security flaws tend to be more limited.
So, to my mind, "superior" is wholly subjective. It depends entirely on the parameters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, MacOS is actually better than Windows.
Put simply, Apple makes technology for the end user rather than
as a means to making money or a product to be sold to OEMs.
This is something that has always been apparent in Apple products
even if you don't necessarily agree with what their user-centric
focus led them to.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
MacOS 10 is not the maggot infested malware fest that Windows is.
For that reason alone and despite of all of it's "walled garden"
nonsense and being just different enough to be annoying it is a
clearly superior product for the consumer.
"Performance" is a really stupid thing to focus on for a consumer
product. A consumer product first needs to be robust. Unfortunately
consumers tend to first focus on CHEAP or perhaps "brand awareness".
I don't give a damn if MacOS is a microkernel. I'm more concerned with
whether or not I will being doing unpaid tech support for Jobs or Gates.
I don't want to be the one left holding the bag when their piss-poor
engineering choices cause problems.
Not every Linux user is allergic to GUIs and some of us have been using them since the System 6 days.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I wouldn't write Chrome off so simply as that. First, for every bit that Apple is cool and stylish, there's also a tremendous backlash against it. There are people who absolutely hate Apple for its trendiness alone.
Second, OSX is good, and you can even argue that it's "the best desktop OS available", but that doesn't mean that it's "the best desktop OS for meeting every single person's needs". It's not perfect, and in fact often aims for the lowest common denominator. I don't mean that to be insulting (I use OSX), but if there's a feature that Apple thinks will make things more complicated and won't be used by 90% of users, they'll drop that feature. That may even be the right choice when you get down to it, but it means that they're not addressing the needs of that 10%.
Third, Apple doesn't have an extremely varied hardware line, and OSX is (theoretically/legally) bound to Apple's hardware. That means that even if OSX meets your needs, if Apple's hardware doesn't also meet your needs, then you can't use it.
And fourth, Apple *has* made a dent in the PC market. How much depends on who you ask and how you measure it. Is it market share? OSX sales? Dollars spent on Apple/OSX products vs. Windows products? You'd probably need a lot of data and experts to hash it all out, and those are things I don't have. But you know who does have them? Microsoft. And why do you think they've focused most of their recent advertising in attaching good feelings to the phrase "I'm a PC," while claiming that Macs are too expensive? If Apple weren't a genuine threat, they wouldn't bother.
Of course, none of this is to say that Chrome is going to kill Windows.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)
If OS X can't change the Windows mindset, Chrome sure as hell can't.
The difference between OS X and ChromeOS is that OS X is Apple's crown jewel. It is how they differentiate their computers and make money.If they were to seperate it from their hardware they'd be directly competing against windows and MS could use their Windows monopoly to crush Apple unless Apple wrote it off as a loss and used their other revenue streams to support it. In short, Apple would have to put 50%+ of their profit on the line for very little return at high risk. It's not good business.
ChromeOS, on the other hand, is a value added to Google's crown jewels, their advertising and search business. Google is not risking any primary investment and can afford to develop the OS at a loss. Further, they can go past Apple's use of open source and gain more free code and work from the community than is practical for Apple.
Apple's only practical business model is to chip away at the Windows monopoly and hope others do the same until it is no longer powerful enough to be used to crush them. Google can go whole hog right away and directly compete with Windows by giving Chrome OS away and supporting it without any fear of their profits being destroyed. It's a different game.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, as you put it, ChromeOS is nothing more than a customized Linux distro (wow, never saw that before) with a bunch of cloud extensions (never saw that before either). So on that score you've got a point.
But the difference between Chrome OS and Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Mandriva or whatever is that it's going to be Google Chrome OS. The whole thing is a marketing game, and it's there that Google may be able to penetrate.
Chrome OS + Cloud = New Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Google: Buy our OS, it'll run on any computer and you can buy the speed you need.
It seems likely that this will be Google's new market once Chrome and the cloud are developed further. Microsoft and Apple will most likely follow suit.
I see where this is going ... (Score:5, Funny)
apt-get search will have advertisement on the right side
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And Google Bash will say:
Did you mean: apt- cache search [slashdot.org]
oh FFS slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you not learned yet? You've been screaming doom and destruction at MS for years now and it still hasn't even made so much of a dent. I'm glad that Google is entering the OS market - having another competitor, and one with a history of excellence that google has is a good thing. However, this is not going to start the death spiral of any thing, just like the chrome browser isn't killing any of the major players off.
These sensationalist headlines do not belong here.
Re:oh FFS slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Where do you think you are, exactly?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny. He admits that for years /. has been sounding off about the death of MS... then questions why they're sounding off about the death of MS.
Chrome isn't an OS (Score:5, Insightful)
It is geated for appliances, not general-purpose computers.
Now I will grant that most of what people do today would be easily fulfilled by an appliance. And we would all be far more secure with appliances that could not be subverted by botnets, viruses, trojans, etc. An email/web appliance would satisfy 99% of home users and probably could be slightly extended with web applications to work for 50-60% of business users as well.
So who is building the hot new appliance? Nobody. All previous email appliances have died, mostly from a lack of functionality. Today people see a very false progression from a full-function appliance to a "real ocmputer" as being a short leap, so why not take it? The reality is the appliance with limited (or zero) local storage and no ability to install software (or trojans, viruses, botnets, etc.) would be much, much better for everyone using the Internet.
Could you make an appliance immune to phishing? Probably.
OK, so Chrome OS would be great for an appliance... except nobody is even contemplating building an appliance today. With the thousands (millions?) of Windows-based x86 applications out there for our general-purpose computers, who is going to displace Microsoft? An OS with a rich API, multimedia capabilities and access to the full capabilities of a computer? Or an OS where the API is a browser and nothing else?
Sorry, but Chrome OS might be OK for a netbook. Maybe. It has no place on a desktop computer.
Nice article (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good article, and well-worth reading. But it bears only a marginal resemblence to the teaser headline CmdrTaco has slapped on it...
Cloud Computing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cloud Computing (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember that most of the people that hang here is not a good representation of the "common people". Common people don't know much about computers, internet or security. And they don't care. They use what's fun and easy, even if it's bug-ridden, insecure, unhealthy and radioactive. They are not computer geeks, they're just people.
And people, not geeks like you and me, is what drives the market. If Chrome OS is easier and funnier to use than Windows, many people will use it. Even if has a security hole so big that you coud fit a truck into it, even if it makes their pictures being naked and drunk available to anyone in the Internet. Because they, and most of their friends, won't care. They just want to play with the damn thing.
Good Luck With That (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't count the number of companies that have made the same claims only to be crushed by the Microsoft Juggernaut by simply having better PR and marketing. In fact the Bing marketing blitz over the last month has been very visible and well put together. Google search is remarkable but some of its functionality is not at all intuitive for the lay-searcher. Microsoft is trying to take advantage of that and if there's one thing Microsoft IS good at it's marketing.
If you want to RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
yet Google and Apple are locked into Active Sync (Score:3, Insightful)
for their cloud and cell phone products
and Google's products are routinely left unpolished in the usability arena unlike Apple and MS. i gave up trying to scan my photos into Picasa and went back to one of Microsoft's free apps or one of the ones in MS Office. the google desktop has been banned in a lot of companies for its ability to kill MS Exchange and Blackberry Enterprise Server. Android is seen only on brand x cell phones where no one cares what the model is. iphone and pre seem to get the cool branding.
If Chrome OS is like any other Google product then Apple and MS have nothing to worry about.
If Google keeps current attitude, it will hurt (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google passes the line between privacy and convenience, we will read some horror stories about it and it can actually lead to some very interesting developments like FSF getting into the future drama as it will be based on Linux.
We may end up reading things like "World's first spyware OS" right here, on Slashdot. We may see FSF or Linus openly protest it.
Google thinks everyone buys their "not evil" kind of slogans and design software based on it. Someone should remind them that those times are over. Also, being open source won`t change a thing. If it gathers your location and posts it to Google servers, it won`t matter if it is open source or not. Even if they hire (!) rms to code it, it won`t matter.
The OS is not the key to market share. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nothing to do with the OS. There are two factors that drive change. Price, and features (and by features, I actually mean the software you can use on it. The OS is worthless on its own to an end user.)
OSX (or the hardware that runs it) is more expensive, so that keeps many users, and big business out.
Linux may be free, but there's no truly viable MS Office alternative, nothing that matches Exchange, there's no professional level Photoshop, there's nothing to edit videos with, nor post processing, good luck doing complex audio work. Sure you can browse the web, and do many things, but not at the convenience/utility level that you can in Windows. If you work in an office environment, you'd have to be a zealot to use Open Office, and you'd struggle to get your corporate email and meeting system working. If you are a creative professional -- Linux is completely worthless. Sorry, but it is. I wish that were not the case, but there's no professional-level creative apps for Linux.
And that's is why there's been no year of Linux so far. End users don't care about the OS that much, they care about what they can install on it. Of all the programs available for Linux, few are of comparable quality to those available to Windows or OSX.
And this will be the case for Chrome OS too -- at least in the short term.
Slow down, cowboy (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what one of Microsoft's Open Source competitors had to say about SharePoint:
Microsoft has found a way to create ties between SharePoint and its more traditional products like Office and Exchange. Companies can tweak Office documents through SharePoint and receive information like whether a worker is online or not through tools in Exchange. These links have Microsoft carrying along its old-line software as it builds a more Internet-focused software line.
"SharePoint is saving Microsoft's Office business even as it paves the way for a new era of Microsoft lock-in," said Matt Asay, an executive at Alfresco, which makes an open-source content management system. "It is simultaneously the most interesting and dangerous Microsoft technology, and has largely caught its competitors napping."
Microsoft has managed to undercut even the open-source companies playing in the business software market by giving away a free basic license to SharePoint if they already have Windows Server. "It's a brilliant strategy that mimics open source in its viral, free distribution, but transcends open source in its ability to lock customers into a complete, not-free-at-all Microsoft stack - one for which they'll pay more and more the deeper they get into SharePoint," Mr. Asay said. Microsoft's SharePoint Thrives in the Recession [nytimes.com] [Aug 7]
SharePoint is the hottest selling server side product for Microsoft ever.
In its next iteration, SharePoint will have "stronger ties to the corporate search technology Microsoft acquired in the $1.2 billion purchase of Fast Search and Transfer. Best Buy uses the Fast technology today to provide on-the-fly pricing information to customers performing product searches on its Web site."
The Net Applications global market stats for July are out. The weakness of Linux and FOSS in these stats is startling - and if you were looking for evidence of a real "death spiral," this would be a good place to begin.
Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com] [Rounded]
XP 73%
Vista 18%
OSX 10.5 3%
Linux 1%
OSX 10.4 1%
W2K 1%
Win 7 1%
Browser Version Market Share [hitslink.com]
IE 6 27%
IE 7 23%
FFOX 3 16%
IE 8 12%
FFOX 3.5 5%
Chrome 2%
Safari 2%
Country Level Weighting [hitslink.com]
Re:Start the Microsoft death spiral? What again? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has been in a death spiral for years.
Huh? They've increased revenues for 5 straight years now at around 10%. And they're last year net income grew 25% over 2007. Yeah, that's a real death spiral. Gee, I wish I could run a company in a "death spiral" that generates 60 billion in revenue and almost 18 billion in net income.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry, but 2007? Really? I can't tell if it's just a typo or what, but either way, how about some up-to-date news on that? Is that too much to ask [indiatimes.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anticompetative behaviour (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, I'll bite. Why would Chrome ever be "required to support IE"?
I assume Microsoft would be capable of writing IE for Chrome if they felt like doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but it sure makes the summary less linkable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, you raise good points about linux. I'm a UNIX admin by trade and I'm fairly familiar with all flavours of unix/linux but I still use 75% windows at my house for those reasons. The thing with Linux is, even if you do know what you are doing, the fact of the matter is that there is often still a long process to go through to get something to work.
Sadly, most linux developers take the attitude of 'Fine we do