Google Drops a Nuclear Bomb on Microsoft. And It's Made of Chrome. 47 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By MG Siegler
Wow. So remember all those whispers about a Google desktop operating system that never seem to go away? You thought they might with the launch of Android, its mobile OS, but they persisted. And for good reason, because it’s real.
In the second half of 2010, Google plans to launch the Google Chrome OS, an operating system designed from the ground up to run the Chrome web browser on netbooks. “It’s our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be,” Google writes tonight on its blog.
But let’s be clear on what this really is. This is Google dropping the mother of bombs on its chief rival, Microsoft. It even says as much in the first paragraph of its post, “However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web.” Yeah, who do you think they mean by that?
And it’s a genius play. So many people are buying netbooks right now, but are running WIndows XP on them. Windows XP is 8 years old. It was built to run on Pentium IIIs and Pentium 4s. Google Chrome OS is built to run on both x86 architecture chips and ARM chips, like the ones increasingly found in netbooks. It is also working with multiple OEMs to get the new OS up and running next year.
Obviously, this Chrome OS will be lightweight and fast just like the browser itself. But also just like the browser, it will be open-sourced. Think Microsoft will be open-sourcing Windows anytime soon?
As Google writes, “We have a lot of work to do, and we’re definitely going to need a lot of help from the open source community to accomplish this vision.” They might as well set up enlistment booths on college campuses for their war against Microsoft.
Google says the software architecture will basically be the current Chrome browser running inside “a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.” So in other words, it basically is the web as an OS. And applications developers will develop for it just as they would on the web. This is similar to the approach Palm has taken with its new webOS for the Palm Pre, but Google notes that any app developed for Google Chrome OS will work in any standards-compliant browser on any OS.
What Google is doing is not recreating a new kind of OS, they’re creating the best way to not need one at all.
So why release this new OS instead of using Android? After all, it has already been successfully ported to netbooks. Google admits that there is some overlap there. But a key difference they don’t mention is the ability to run on the x86 architecture. Android cannot do that, Chrome OS can and will. But more, Google wants to emphasize that Chrome OS is all about the web, whereas Android is about a lot of different things. Including apps that are not standard browser web apps.
But there is a wild card in all of this still for Microsoft: Windows 7. While Windows XP is 8 years old, and Windows Vista is just generally considered to be a bad OS for netbooks, Windows 7 could offer a good netbook experience. And Microsoft had better hope so, or its claim that 96% of netbooks run Windows is going to be very different in a year.
Google plans to release the open source code for Chrome OS later this year ahead of the launch next year. Don’t be surprised if this code drops around the same time as Windows 7. Can’t wait to hear what Microsoft will have to say about all of this.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 47 comments:
the quality of open source software rivals what most of us are used to. last week, i went back to my old XP and felt the quality of the graphics actually declined - and the OS was less stable.
the problem with non-windows based OS is the drivers. most of your plug-and-play usb crap will not work. without support from your existing hardware manufacturers, you will have to purchase a new computer to take advantage of chrome (or even linux).
I don't think very many people who buy Macs can replace what they do on a Mac with a netbook type computer. Some maybe, but a lot? If all you want to do is use the browser, and maybe some do documents in Word, you can just get a cheap PC, or a netbook.
Something that Apple has always understood is that it's not about the OS, it's about the software that runs on that OS. It remains to be seen if Google understands that. And I'm still a bit skeptical of how much can be done with "cloud computing".
Storing data yes, but how long do you think it will be before I can create a simple animation (Flash) and sophisticated composite graphics (After Effects) and then edit these into HDV video (Final Cut) and render that into a Quicktime movie using software that is running from a remote computer connected via the Internet? For this stuff, my Mac Quad Core isn't as fast as I would like.
A netbook might actually compete more with the iPhone, or Apple's coming tablet (for lack of a better description).
On Jul 08 02:14 AM Mick Weinstein wrote:
> Seems like a threat to Apple as well. One of the reasons people prefer
> Apples is the lameness of Windows. Most are unaware of or unable
> to install Linux, but put a Google marketing machine behind a much
> better Chrome OS and that will surely take share from the more expensive
> option, Apple.
Google Chrome browser has shown to be more of a draw for Firefox users than Internet Explorer users.
In any event, the real winner here is consumers, since there will be more competition in the playing field, resulting in better innovation from all parties.
Me too. I believe Microsoft should respond (or at least seriously consider responding) to the threat of cheap or free cloud applications from Google, and a cheap OS, by offering a software metering option. IOW, users would get Office or Windows free, and then pay-as-they-go, based on their usage rate. If average users paid $1 per week for each of those products, or $8 per month on their credit card bill, they'd hardly notice it, and wouldn't be tempted by "free."
There'd be some leakage from piracy, but those users couldn't be sure of getting their software updates from MS if MS detected possible funny business, so not too many would try it.
Businesses buy Windows for the office applications, not for anything else. Without them Microsoft can kiss its market goodbye. No one really is endeared to its products whatsoever. We use them because businesses use them. That's all.
It's surprising that Google is branding Linux + a window manager as an operating system. And of course, it's a downgrade for people that already have a PC or laptop. (Gotta play my games...)
Does Google really think they can make money this way, or is this just to spoil Microsoft's revenue from Netbooks?
Result: MS loses billions in netbook and related licensing finally moving towards the oblivion of the dodo.
Don't get too excited. It will take a decade and MS might come up with a clever back to the wall response.
I wonder if MS has a black flag secret project to develop a brand new Unix based variant and introduce it as a Chrome/Mac/iPhone OS competitor. (That would make computer OS's interesting!)
It is great news for geeks but the average user doesn't care . It is not like the geeks pay for their OS anyway.
Google is attempting to revive the VAPOR WARE game of the 1980's and 90's!
Google hasn't earned a single penny of profit on ANYTHING other than paid search, period!
Given Google's dismal track record in business applications, why would anyone believe that Google will displace MSFT in business applications.
Operating systems are a business application, btw!
Just look what Google did with Postini. Google gutted the revenue, goodwill, and people that made Postini famous within the entire IT population.
Wake me up when Chrome ships, if ever!
The Google OS will sell better with the geeks and specialized professionals that require flexibility and starting out.
For the doubters out there - I'm not sure how many ordinary users wil pay $100 - $200 for Microsoft Office + $50-100 for Windows XP on a netbook that costs $300.
For the Microsoft boosters (e.g., LA Tech), (1) MSFT made its money by reselling DOS, a free OS, with an MS wrapper, (2) MSFT only became a juggernaut by profiting from missteps at Apple and IBM, and (3) Windows itself existed primarily as vaporware for close to 5 years (if ever had the "pleasure" of using Windows 2.0 or 3.0, you'd know what I'm talking about) - not one user ever preferred Windows to Apple OS even then, but all liked the fact that the total cost (for OS plus basic office applications) was about half as much.
That said: netbooks are selling to the "non-tech savvy" crowd. The notebook makers mocked them as "little toys" that could never cannibalize sales, and the software makers mock open source alternatives as "little toys." Once upon a time, the steam engine and gunpowder were also little toys (and Microsoft itself was merely peddling a "toy OS" for the fringe niche of "geeks who bought computers for use at home").
On Jul 08 09:24 AM User 443002 wrote:
> Good point. As fast a robust these new system may be the
> average consumer will not have time to adapt to new protocol...
> Google OS will sell better with the geeks and specialized
> professionals that require flexibility and starting out.
> Storing data yes, but how long do you think it will be before I can
> create a simple animation (Flash) and sophisticated composite >graphics (After Effects) and then edit these into HDV video (Final >Cut) and > render that into a Quicktime movie using software >that is running from a remote computer connected via the >Internet? For this stuff, my Mac Quad Core isn't as fast as I >would like.
It's all about targeting your audience. Google isn't designing this OS for video editing enthusiasts or those of us who enjoy rendering 3d scenes. Google is targeting this OS for 95% of the computer users out there who only check their E-mail, view photos, videos and do some light word processing.
That's where Google Chrome and Google Docs come into play. Google was smart enough to develop their "killer apps" before releasing their OS.
It's all very interesting - back in the 70's and 80's computing resources were expensive. Expert users were given cheap dummy terminals (thin clients) which only served as an interface to the incredibly expensive mainframe in the server room.
In the 90's computing became incredibly cheap. Every user was given more resources then they ever needed.
In the 2000's computing again shifted - now we're seeing more and more people using laptops where size and power are key attributes.
This is where the Google OS fits. A customized OS which supports the core functions needed by the average laptop user.
For all the hate against MSFT, Google isn't any better, quite the opposite. Their privacy protection is nonexistant. they are the biggest data collectors and spys on the internet. No rules, no regulations. I will never ever install any google software on any of my PCs, notebooks or handys. They offer a terrific search engine and Google earth is a nice application, fine - but that's about it. I will not work on office documents via the web - how could I be sure that the data and information will not end up at places where i don't want them to be?
All the people who - often correctly - criticise Mr Softie today should learn to look at Google not as a smart innovator but as a company that increasingly tries to establish a giant hegemony over all that is web/handy and communications-related. Windows might be annoying at times. Google surely could become a real threat to freedom and privacy much sooner than most people think.
All the google admirers are now free to downthumb my post.
Right now I'm looking at a problem that could be easily solved if the corporate sticks in the mud would allow our users to use something like Google Docs or Zoho. Yes, there is the Office Live add-in which conveniently will not upload an Excel document. Not to mention this is yet another ActiveX piece of garbage that will likely be exploited like anything else involving Internet Explorer. Anyone thinking ActiveX is the pinnacle of Internet development needs to log off their AOL dial-up and go wait on the front porch for the Web Van to show up.
Now, they want an OS. When Microsoft cannot be touched...
My guess is that Google is going to offer a product that in five years will be the norm. You are looking at the new Microsoft and the new, greatest American company.
David Ristau
President, The Oxen Group
theoxengroup.com
Privacy and security are always concerns when you consider any type of networking. Of even greater concern than privacy in web-centric computing is durability and availability. Despite its robust and redundant structure, the internet links can fail at many places between an individual station and the destination software application sites. Will it be available when you must do something?
Intentional attack is one of multiple vulnerabilities:
This today: "The powerful attack that overwhelmed computers at U.S. and South Korean government agencies for days was even broader than initially realized, also targeting the White House, the Pentagon and the New York Stock Exchange. Other targets of the attack included the National Security Agency, Homeland Security Department, State Department, the Nasdaq stock market ...".
--R
And if they are going for open source like it seems to imply, I can see it being a major targer for exploits.
Some people hate computers generally, preferring typewriters.
"Cloud computing" is hardly about making life easier for the average worker (although in some contexts it can). As managers adopt it, they discover that they can monitor actual employee performance in real time - and what's more, assess quality of contributions (rather than reviewing a flurry of email attachments separately).
Microsoft's competing solution involves taking an architecture designed to personalize and decentralize information, then adding more software to "un-decentralize" it (Windows + Office + Sharepoint + Office Server + security apps +...), then paying to do that on each workstation separately (and then paying when the laptop that holds the data gets stolen or the central server gets hacked).
Businesses don't care about the cost of such inherent inefficiency during booms...
On Jul 08 09:24 AM donzelion wrote:
>Apple's OS is a thoroughly redesigned
> Linux-based system; and then there are a host of other Linux-kernels
OSX is based on BSD not Linux. BSD is/was good too.
This is right on target. Why else would they pre-announce over a year early (it is due sometime in 2010)?
Respirate said: "On one hand, I've found Chrome, the browser, to be not only fast, but also rock solid stable -- most surprising given that it's new. It's also a feat never achieved by Microsoft in anything. "
Hmm, you didn't mention what OS you are running that "rock-solid" Chrome on. If it's Windows, then by implication Windows must also be rock-solid (as it would then be the underpinnings and foundation of Chrome). This, therefore would refute your second sentence. In fact, Microsoft gets bashed repeatedly for the failures and lapses of 3rd party application developers. Every once in a while someone does an uptown job on a Windows application, which should demonstrate how stable Windows actually is, but it never gets noticed or mentioned.
All of that said, I look forward to the competition. As is usually the case when two great companies duke it out, the consumer wins.
Some random thoughts on this announcement, and possibilities for Google, from the perspective of a Software Dev:
- Supporting ARM processors as the blog post states could make Google OS a very compelling choice for netbook manufacturers. Expect INTC (which essentially has a monopoly right now on netbook processors by virtue of the Atom) and MSFT (which only has the craptastic Win CE running on ARM right now) to both be *very* unhappy about this development.
- The Chrome browser needs better Linux support RFN, if they plan on putting this OS together anytime soon, since Google OS will presumably be heavily based on Linux (it should essentially just be a highly customized Linux distro, unless Google feels like re-inventing *a lot* of OS wheels). Google claims "Google Chrome for Linux is in development* and a team of engineers is working hard to bring it to you as soon as possible.". I can only hope they have some decent builds running internally, or this entire Chrome-based OS is in jeopardy!
- Interesting possibilities for user tracking and data mining based on desktop usage habits will exist. Google will have to tread carefully to alleviate privacy concerns here, but an opt-in system with rewards should work beautifully. Google's bread and butter is advertising dollars, after all.
- The possibilities for application development for Google OS are both intriguing and very much up in the air at this point. Google simply claims "the web is the platform" in their post, but this is terribly incomplete -- there have to be *some* apps (the web browser being one, of course) running locally on the user's machine. Google does a decent job managing their developer APIs for the web, at least (e.g. Google Maps is nicely done), but getting developers on board takes time and "carrots" (e.g. lucrative app store for Apple devs). It'll be interesting to see what kind of carrots Google dangles in front of devs to get apps ported to this device -- or perhaps they'll simply rely on the free software already in the Linux ecosystem without worrying about specifically attracting further tailored applications, or handle everything in-house?
- "Instant On" operating system booting from BIOS ROM, able to browse the web. The Google Blog mentions "start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds" though it's unclear whether they've simply drastically sped up the traditional *nix boot process, or are actually booting from ROM.
- Web browser security is becoming more and more important as average users wake up to the threats online. Google could have a very elegant and secure set-up for Chrome if they're customizing the entire OS around the browser: Chrome could be running under an entire Virtual Machine in non-persistent mode, or something similar to a chroot jail (maybe the newest IE does something vaguely similar.. not sure, haven't used IE in ages).
- Universal logins to any computer running GoogOS, using Google network storage for any needed persistent storage. Presumably Google will offer tight integration of the computer's storage with Google's network storage, which would be very sweet if done properly.
- Desktop widgets like a calendar directly using Google Calendar as the backend would be elegant, lightweight, and network-transparent.
On the bright side, this new industry will subsequently pull California out of its economic turmoil into a new age of post-apocalypse.
Linux is going mainstream, if this catches on. With desktops and netbooks at prices under $400, everyone everywhere will take a hard look at how to better use them. That could spawn a new 'productivity revolution.' And that is a GOOD THING.
1) MSFT makes far more money selling Office than the Windows O/S.
2) Nothing is free.
On Jul 08 06:44 PM manuel wrote:
> sorry can anyone ansewer me: i read on googles announcement that
> they are building the system also to make automatic sync, (back up)
> so that you can accsess your data anywhere, you think this could
> hurt the memory industry(flash sticks etc.) ?
As more and more functionality has shifted to the web, this is much less important than it used to be. I used to have 50+ programs installed on my PC. Now I have maybe 10. Everything else is web based. And Google has the market power to get those other 10 publishers on board.
I imagine the biggest issue will be compatible external devices like printers, hard drives, cameras, etc. If Chrome OS gets a good response, this will change in the long term, but could cause uptake problems up front.
These are interesting times indeed.
The average computer user, like me and I am not alone, will not be amused by the above. My computer is a tool not a laboratory for experiments.
Hackers go after IE because of the huge user base. If Chrome replaced IE today the hackers would be all over Chrome. So what would really change? MS is still the big dog and this will force them to innovate...and they will.
Both are huge companies attempting to take market share from each other. Same pie, different slices. BTW, I don't love either company. Google is a huge data miner. That worries me.
A major reasons why Linux can never become a mainstream OS is not because of the technicality involved in its installation (well we do have some very convenient commercial Linux based products, such as Redhat), but because most hardware manufacturers are unwilling to write the drivers for their hardwares on any OS other than Windows. I once saw from some discussion forums that MS has been using some threats as it tactics to "force" manufacturers to always follow its standards and not to write drivers for other OS systems.
Let's face this. If you buy a netbook with Google Chrome OS installed and you want to buy a new model of printer to print out the photos you download from the internet, you will most likely have a serious problem! Your Chrome OS does not allow you to print using your new printer cause it does not include a printer driver that works with Chrome! Well, remember you also have a new scanner, a new webcam, a new PC game, ...
Plus, you can't run your old MS-based programs on your new Chrome-based netbook....
Well, I hate MS all of my life. I even tried to install Linux several times. However, I am not going to support a new OS that does not promise compatibility with all the new hardwares and softwares. Unless Google has a team of people writing drivers and stuff for all new hardwares, I will stick with Windows XP for my netbook. BTW, I am on Windows Vista, a super junk OS, while typing this comment! It sucks, but do I have a choice?
My only choice is to use as many free- and share-wares as possible. I won't spend a buck on any MS trash programs.
Google's Chrome OS fits in perfectly with this trend - its architecture is based entirely around efficiently and securely delivering web applications to users, and its file system appears it will be woven into the cloud.
I am platform agnostic (I don't get involved in the Windows v. Mac v. Linux debate - I just use whatever tool is best for the job), so I can objectively state that I foresee the Chrome OS being a very potent business workstation OS. Microsoft will either have to greatly innovate to compete with the Chrome OS, or perish.
On Jul 09 06:50 AM FloridaBoy2 wrote:
> Hackers go after IE because of the huge user base. If Chrome replaced
> IE today the hackers would be all over Chrome. So what would really
> change?
we have entire governamental intitutions adopting it as a standard.
OS ? no.. people will stick to windows.
I do remember having peripheral compatibility issues with older versions of Windows but that seems to have been resolved.
Most of us just want an OS that is plug 'n play and secure. It seems that that is asking a lot. :- )
Chrome may be very good but Googles data mining, in principle, pisses me off.
On Jul 09 12:43 PM whpinvest.com wrote:
> @FloridaBoy2 - have you taken a look at Chrome's security architecture?
> Processes are sandboxed. It would be very difficult to hack the system,
> and even if someone did figure out a way in - they wouldn't be able
> to go anywhere. ... It would be kind of like if a burglar broke into
> your house only to find themselves stuck in a closet with no doors
> or windows.
>
> On Jul 09 06:50 AM FloridaBoy2 wrote: