Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Planning Web Browser?

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the reaching-out dept.

Kick the Donkey writes "John Dvorak has just posted a very interesting, albeit hypothetical, analysis of Google's future directions. Citing the 'unusual' hires of Rob Pike (from Bell labs), Ben Goodger, and Darin Fisher (both from Mozilla) and the acquisition of the gbrowser.com domain, Dvorak speculates that a Firefox based Google browser and Google-OS may soon be coming to a cluster near you."

27 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Why the jump to OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A browser is one thing and apparently the only thing the evidence supports. Why the jump to a Google OS?

    1. Re:Why the jump to OS? by Suburbanpride · · Score: 1, Insightful
      In a way, a browser is an OS, If google can create a portal that give basic functionality for what most people do in windows (web, email, digital photos, and downloads) within and opensource browser like firefox, it wouldn't be hard to move them to a open source OS that supports all their web-apps through the browser.

      I really don't see this happening, seeing the (lack of ) sucess of web-apliances that we hear so much about.

      --
      sorry 'bout the mess...
    2. Re:Why the jump to OS? by nofx_3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A browser is in no way an OS. An operation system by most accounts that I have heard is the program that handles devices, files & filesystem, processes(process manager), and I/O(input/output). What you are talking about is a thin-client system, where a client is connected to a remote server, but in this case there is still and need for I/O, so there at least must be some type of os locally in addition to the browser, which would be in the application layer.

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    3. Re:Why the jump to OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How bout this... google is pushing into linux territory. Sounds a litle diferent isnt it?

    4. Re:Why the jump to OS? by daviddennis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about the probability of success of such an idea, but otherwise, what was the point of Picasa, free photo library software provided by Google?

      I was completely baffled as to how such a thing would fit into Google's plans. This OS idea might be an answer ...

      I expect it to be a distribution of Linux, however, with some proprietary things overlaying it, perhaps a little like Darwin/Mac OS X.

      If it happens, that is. Google certainly has enough money to make it happen, and perhaps enough hubris for a "We'll take over the world!" sort of plan.

      D

    5. Re:Why the jump to OS? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not? You know, if Google could spend a few years in heavy development (perhaps they already are) to build a new OS from the ground up (instead of another Lindows - hey, let's make a quick buck off of a Linux distro) they could do well in the desktop market. So many people know the Google name that they would already feel "familiar" with the OS before they even use it. And if they built an OS somewhat similar to Windows (although a different OS in enough ways) to make porting a simpler task (simpler than to Linux or OSX, etc) then developers could make a smooth transition as well. Google could tap into a huge market (hey, MS has made billions over the years) and if it worked out right, it would be worth every bit of the investment.

    6. Re:Why the jump to OS? by HyperChicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. They hired Rob Pike and a few others from Bell Labs for their distributed computing knowledge, not because they want to create an OS.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    7. Re:Why the jump to OS? by burns210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is just silly. Google has no infrastructure for that, no support system, they have no vested interest in themselves supplying the OS, they would want to piggyback on Novell, Redhat or Apple's products and supply services/applications that compliment them.

      The Plan 9 guy is probably just an OS developer to improve their linux server's configuration and be a high level sys admin for the Google computer network.

    8. Re:Why the jump to OS? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A Google OS could be an internal project. A better system than Linux for running Google. Plan 9 has a LOT of really good ideas. Maybe they will create a better OS than Linux? Something new that was designed for networks and clusters from day one.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Why the jump to OS? by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A google linux distro might be good as far as getting a bigger install base for linux, but I don't really see how it would be in Google's best interest overall.

      Even with the star power of their name, they'd get only a very small percentage of Windows users to remove windows or repartition their hard drives.

      If google are going to make an OS it would be some sort of Litestep style explorer.exe / filemanager replacement for windows. Something that could be easily installed (and removed or turned off) over windows that would provide google functionality and branding, as well as advertising.

      Remember, first things first, Google is an advertising company, just like the major broadcast networks. Since they value their future and reputation, they are a pretty benevolent advertising company, but an advertising company nonetheless. A google browser makes a lot of sense in that context. A google linux doesn't.

      anyway, my 2 cents

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  2. Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Must have read slashdot about the same thing. Now he writes it up and people pay attention?

  3. Advertising Tool? by fembots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google, although well known for its search engine, is making money out of advertisement.

    The friendly article might have hinted a possible failure of such Googled-attempts - "Think of the potential advertising revenue you can generate when you own the entire desktop environment."

    The reason why I choose and stick to Firefox is its simplicity and nothingness.

    And even Microsoft dare not put a single advertisement in its desktop OS.

    Simply put, most people use a tool because it works, and it does only what it's meant to do. An ad-serving (albeit how intelligent it is) browser or desktop is definitely not my cup of cappuccino.

    --
    Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
  4. If they are planning a browser, by silic0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope they have something to add to browser use that isn't already covered by Firefox, and I'm not just talking about having the Google logo plastered all over it in an attempt at 'integration'. Otherwise it's going to be what is known as a pointless endeavour.

  5. With this guy's history... by de+Selby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this the John C. Dvorak that has worked in technology for several decades, making many predictions, talking of supposed trends... and being wrong on almost all of them?

    1. Re:With this guy's history... by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it is. Quite frankly he's the slowest and least insightful IT journalist there is. I think he's only where he is because his name sounds like he might once have invented a novel typewriter layout.

    2. Re:With this guy's history... by watanabe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ding Ding Ding!

      I clearly remember thinking he was a huge idiot when I was 13 years old, in 1988. To this day, I find him annoying. Dvorak is like Robert Cringeley but two standard deviations down the IQ scale.

      Of course, I also loved "Winger" when I was 13, so I probably shouldn't throw stones.

  6. What's with the stupid google predictions? by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    event: Google hired a dark fibre negotiator
    press conclusion: "They must be doing VOIP!"

    event: google hires clever browser developer
    Press conclusion: "They must be doing their own browser!"

    event:Google hired a plan 9 developers
    press conclusion: "They must be doing their own OS!!"

    What's next - google hires a plumber - the end of IT as we know it?

    --
    People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
  7. Duh! by nagora · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Dvorak must be the last person to work this out!

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  8. Valid or not, it makes sense by saddino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure it doesn't take a roomful of analysts at Google to realize that their greatest vulnerability is in web access. If MS were to embed their "next-generation" search so deeply into the UI experience of a future (Longhorn?) OS that the average consumer would become accustomed to simply using the, say, always visible MS search bar in the Sidebar for all web and desktop searches, Google would be toast. And you can bet Microsoft's roomful of analysts have come to exactly the same conclusion: the way to defeat Google is to make it hard to access Google.

    So, if you're Google, are you going to sit around with your hands in your ridiculously deep pockets and let Microsoft dictate the future growth of your business? Hell no. In fact, recent comments from MS make it clear that war has been declared.

    Defensive strategies are already in the works (e.g. using AdSense to "spread" their ad revenue generation so that it doesn't depend on hits to Google proper) so, how to counterattack?

    Well, Google hires smart engineers and likely equally smart business strategists who know that Firefox's success is a free trial balloon -- and it hasn't popped. Google's best move is to build a browser and challenge MS on its own turf. There's a reason Google is always in need of Windows developers and its not just to work on the Google Toolbar.

    Is Google building an OS? Who knows. But is Google building a browser? They better be.

  9. Re:How Microsoft got scared by op00to · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does Firefox assign and keep track of memory? Last I checked, it used system calls, which are part of the OS. Hardly something for MSFT to get worried about.

  10. Re:Once again... by pavera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google doesn't have to develop an OS, they already have a huge cluster running linux, they just have to give everyone a window into that massive beast of a system (their browser) and install some apps on it, and there ya go, thin client, web based, architecture agnostic computing just what Netscape tried to do before MS killed them dead.

  11. Re:How about browser-in-browser thin client servic by mcrbids · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've been saying for a while, an inexpensive device with a good display that can access the web, and nothing else, would be pretty compelling to a huge segment of the population.

    Lots of people have been saying stuff like this for years. The problem is: nobody's buying it.

    Any company willing to blow capital on yet another attempt at this deserves the painful financial death they'll suffer as a result.

    Remember WebTV? Neither does anybody else, except those unfortunate enough to have bought one. How many others can YOU name?

    Thin client sounds good, until you want to do XYZ and it's not supported. (or impossible)

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  12. Dvorak is a moron! by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has John Dvorak ever been right about anything, ever? Remember, this is the same guy that predicted OS/2 would triumph over Windows... I only wish I had his job, so that I could get paid for making assine predictions all the time! Right now I'm basically making assine predictions for free, but at least they turn out correct much more often than Dvorak's...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. Re:How Microsoft got scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    an OS abstracts the hardware away from the system, a browser knows fuck all about the hardware, a browser knows fuck all about the I/O mechanisms that are going on. That is how a browser is not an OS.

  14. Re:Forget about Google you guys. by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Face it, unless you seal yourself off, you have no privacy anywhere. How is gmail more invasive than any mailserver, except that it actually does something with the information that passes through its circuits?

    The real question is, who do you trust with that information? Google has worked hard to build trust.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  15. no...because he's rob pike. by Vengie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. They hired Rob Pike because he's Rob Fucking Pike. He's the Pike in Kernighan & Pike. K&P and K&R are just about as standard as you can get....who cares if they want to create an OS, a Browser, or just ask him "Bob, what do you think?" -- because quite frankly ANY of those are valid.

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  16. Re:How Microsoft got scared by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want to see the thin-client scanning program

    You mean like Trend Micro's HouseCall virus scanner?

    or the video editing

    Windows hasn't always had in-OS support for image acquisition or video manipulation either.

    or a *real* game that can run from a browser

    You haven't played Flash Flash Revolution, have you?