5501025
story
Comments: 817 +- Technology: Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral on Monday August 10 2009, @10:21AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
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."
Related Stories
Submission: Chrome OS Designed to Start Microsoft Death Spiral by Anonymous Coward
leverage, n.:
Even if someone doesn't care what the world thinks
about them, they always hope their mother doesn't find out.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Funny)
You know why the Energizer Bunny takes so long in the bathroom?
He keeps going...and going....
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget they are also willing to purchase any small companies that threaten comptition.
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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]
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Hogwash (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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...
Parent
Entirely Net-Based? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Entirely Net-Based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
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
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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'.
Parent
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.
Parent
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...).
Parent
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
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?
Parent
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.
Cloud Computing (Score:5, Interesting)
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 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.
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.
Parent