Google and Their Server Farm

JR writes "CNet has a very interesting story about Google, operating systems, and where Google may be going. The upshot is that they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm."

Comments

Not surprised

[BWJones]

Interesting. I have actually suspected this for a while given their hires over the past year or so. There have been a few PhDs they hired including one from our cs department that would have suggested this is where they might be going. At any rate, this could prove quite interesting and make irrelevant many of the security concerns that the average consumer faces as well as consolidate and ease software distribution issues. Of course this approach will never supplant the needs of most of the Slashdot crowd, and I am not letting go of my dual G5 or OS X, but for the unwashed masses, it might very well be an interesting way for Google to go that will certainly prove to be a way for them to branch out of the search engine field and extend the fight with Microsoft and Yahoo.

Re:Not surprised

[xami]

I somehow doubt Google is going that direction. Don't forget their main goal, to own all information and make it availible to everyone on this planet.
The idea of a GoogleOS doesn't really match with that.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our mono-terminal, gynæcocratic overlords.

Re:Not surprised

[hcob$]

This is one of those Full Circle kind of things. Think about this. Computers were originally massive computing grids that you logged into from a terminal and had access to all the power of the computer. Then with the advent of the PC, we have the stand-alone solitaire machine that everyone can have in there home. Now, lo and behold the advent of the Internet. Now we have the infrastructure where all the PC terminals are distributed over a wide area and all have much faster access than a dumb terminal. Tack on a computing giant like Google who can serve out that much data at a time and we're back to the Massive Computer that is access through low cost terminals.

Re:Not surprised

[IWorkForMorons]

At any rate, this could prove quite interesting and make irrelevant many of the security concerns that the average consumer faces as well as consolidate and ease software distribution issues.

Funny, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah...late 90's...internet becoming popular with the unwashed masses...and the introdution of thin clients. Or a recycling of the dumb terminal idea. This may stand a chance, but they'll have to overcome the serious security and privacy issues that thin clients have. Not to mention that people really don't like the idea of some server somewhere hold ALL of your personal data. Ya know...credit card numbers, banking info, that porn collection you think no one knows about. Hopefully they can come up with a product that combines the two schools of thought, and knowing Google there's a good chance they will. But until I see it I'm not getting excited.

Re:Not surprised

[ZephyrXero]

Awww....I was looking forward to trying out the new Google Linux distro :/

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

"make irrelevant many of the security concerns that the average consumer faces"

Irrelevant in the sense that the average consumer would no longer have any control over his/her software security?

Irrelevant in the sense that since everyone's data would be stored centrally, nobody would have any personal information anymore to worry about losing?

Sounds completely ridiculous to me... but who knows what the "average consumer" will give up for convenience or brand-name loyalty.

Re:Not surprised

[danheskett]

Except that people can easily buy enough power to satisfy their needs for a small premimum on top of what a terminal costs. Look at around at the so called thin-clients available. Even the thinnest of them has enough power to be a "fat-client" with substantial processing power.

Add on top of that people have routinely rejected thin-clients. Bandwidth and latency are big problems. I expect acess to my files and data with low latency. That means viewing my 8MB digital photos without waiting for part of all of it to come over a wire. I expect it to be available to me all the time.

Google is great, but Google is not above the law of physics. People - just average users - have 20 or 30 or 40 or 80 gb of data on their PCs. No matter how great Google gets, providing this amount of data quickly, securely, with low latency and high-availablity will prove out of reach. Even with Google's highly skilled team of programmers, making a decently response web-mail client, or map tool is a pain in the ass. And it's still below par. Despite how great Gmail is, it's not nearly a rich as Thunderbird or Outlook 2003.

Re:Not surprised

[ckaminski]

What I see as potentially working, are thin-clients, DHCP based clients, on a credit card form factor (USB based storage). You jack your credit card into whatever machine you're sitting at, and you access your data. If you need an application, you get it delivered via a mechanism similar to Java Web Start, apps cached locally.

While this doesn't eliminate the trust issue, is the hardware snooping on me, that can be eliminated by ever more powerful palmtop computers, and those sorts of people who care about that, are going to have solutions to that problem. For the vast majority of other people for whom using a library internet terminal isn't a big deal, this is a good thing. Being able to keep your data with you at all times in the event of a network failure is also an attractive selling point (a big problem with the thin-client revolution).

Re:Not surprised

[Bios_Hakr]

I dunno. What if the GoogleOS actually supported searching at the kernel level. Imagine a server that would index itself and then upload the results to Google.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

Gee, that would be neat.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

to own all information

Bzzt. Google might be based on the idea of indexing all published information, but that doesn't mean they own squat. I give them permission to read and index my Web site and to let people access that index. They have absolutely no claim on the contents of that Site.

Frankly, the Google cache is blatantly illegal. It continues to exist only because nobody has felt the need to shut it down yet. Maybe it'll go on like that forever. Maybe it won't.

Re:Not surprised

[OxygenPenguin]

I believe that feature of OSX has to due with the meta-information tags present in the system, not the information being searched at the kernel level.

Think a Google Desktop Search, based upon tags loaded at installation/implementation.

Re:Not surprised

[malfunct]

I think that Microsoft mentioned wanting to build some of these pieces and the world freaked out. I think it was to be the .NET revolution hallmarked by Hailstorm.

Frankly I don't trust Google to have these systems any more than I would trust Microsoft.

Re:Not surprised

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

Maybe [Google cache]'ll go on like that forever. Maybe it won't.

Google's NOARCHIVE opt-out seems to work well enough for jealous parties; there have been claims, though, of an adherent rank-drop.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

But "opt-out" is not permitted by law. Under the law, you are not permitted to make copies of somebody else's work unless given permission. Google's position is that they make copies unless that permission is expressly retracted. That's not compatible with the law.

All it would take is one suit to shut the cache down. Like I said, nobody's done it yet because nobody's felt the need. That could change at any moment.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

> Frankly, the Google cache is blatantly illegal

The DMCA specifically allows caching, so it's more in a gray area than blatent.

Re:Not surprised

[Nate4D]

I tend to agree with you on this one.

When I first ran into the idea of thin client computing, I thought it was pretty cool, but like many other folks, I thought, "Do I really like the idea of all my data being stored elsewhere?"

Like you, I decided that something similar to the USB pendrives would be more likely to succeed, but carried out to a farther extreme: Your entire system, data, OS, apps, and whatever, is stored on your portable drive. Plug it into a compatible computer, and have at it. An early prototype of this model actually exists; check out Damn Small Linux on a USB pendrive. Admittedly, there's not a lot of storage space, but there're certainly bigger pendrives that could be used this way, and storage devices are only getting smaller...

It seems a little extreme at first, and in many ways (particularly in terms of data integrity) it's not as nice as the Net-based solution.

But, most technologists overlook the importance of the average person's reaction to adoption of technology, and I think that the average guy on the street is gonna prefer the idea of carrying his "computer" everywhere with him, and plugging it into a "terminal" so he can use it.

Obviously, there are pretty big obstacles to this idea (running on all the different architectures that currently exist comes to mind, although you could probably do fairly well on that with Linux), but there are also pretty big obstacles to the thin-client computing idea, and I think people are going to be fundamentally leery about someone else handling all their data. I imagine that there will be the option of uploading data to a remote location for backup, but only the data you want backed up (ie, nothing you want to keep really secure; for that, you make duplicate drives stored in a safe place).

Thus, I suspect that in the long run, ultra-portable storage that houses your full system, OS, apps, docs and all, that you can just plug into any machine, is what's gonna win.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm getting tired of the moderation abuse on this site. any post even remotely mentioning intellectual property laws or whatever that doesn't talk about how much they suck instantly gets moderated down, usually "overrrated," which everybody knows is immune from m2.

hey, fuckfaces: moderation is not your chance to vote for what you like or don't like. stop moderating down posts because you don't like their subjects.

Re:Not surprised

[Lord Satri]

I am not letting go of my dual G5 or OS X

You like Google and MacOS X? You'll like this then: http://labs.google.com/googlex/ ;-)

Re:Not surprised

[BobTheLawyer]

I don't agree.

By publishing your website, you are granting an (implied) licence to the world to create cached copies of the website. Were this not the case, your web browser's cache and your ISP's proxy server's cache would in constant copyright violation.

The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache. Whether the implied licence extends to this is arguable: I have no special knowledge of US law but under English copyright law they have a pretty good case.

Re:Not surprised

[Ars-Fartsica]

Google is great, but Google is not above the law of physics. People - just average users - have 20 or 30 or 40 or 80 gb of data on their PCs.

No, you are confusing people having 80GB hard drives with people having 80GB of data. How many average users have 20GB of data? 40GB? 80GB? I grant you the revolution in digital audio has created more data, but even then, how many CDs does the average person own and want to encode?

Re:Not surprised

[mbrx]

I believe Google's standpoint is that there is an implicit permission to copy the webpage since it is published on the internet (everone viewing the webpage makes atleast one copy of it when viewing it and possibly one for their cache). Even though not a foolproof argument I think Google has enough money / lawyers to make an interesting case of it.

Re:Not surprised

[jacksonj04]

Damn that's cool...

Re:Not surprised

[Donny Smith]

>The DMCA specifically allows caching, so it's more in a gray area than blatent (sic!).

It allows cashing if the content is unchanged as in proxy server cache, not as in Google's permanent and modified cache.
See:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dm ca_law_1998102 0_pl105-304.html

" the material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A);"

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Javascript DOES run locally, unlike most of the thin client platforms (like X or citrix), so theoretically you should be able to operate on locally stored files. In practice, stuff like sandboxing and the limitations of javascript get in the way, but to say that photo editing is impossible because the data must be loaded from the server as well is inaccurate at best.

By the way, there are strong indications google is developing their own browser based on firefox. Imagine if google managed to get a large enough segment of the market. Imagine they provided a whole new range of controls that allow the stuff javascript sucks at right now. Imagine if they provided activex controls for backwards compatibility with IE. Imagine that they built a set of web apps on top of that. It's possible. Not likely, but possible.

Re:Not surprised

[happyemoticon]

Add on top of that people have routinely rejected thin-clients. Bandwidth and latency are big problems. I expect acess to my files and data with low latency. That means viewing my 8MB digital photos without waiting for part of all of it to come over a wire. I expect it to be available to me all the time.

The author of the article is a bit too blue-sky, in my opinion. A lot of Google's products - nay, I'd say, the entirety of their moneymakers, since all the other stuff is free - are B2B, like their search appliance and ad program. A smarter strategy than some mass consumer rollout, one they've probably already thought of, is a solution for businesses, a solution for your average office monkey who just uses Excel, Outlook, IE and Word. Put it in an office with a gigabit ethernet <5ms latency, and you're golden. Fork a few FOSS applications and you've got a productivity suite and a browser. Keep it just closed enough to allow you to sell the hardware exclusively, like Apple.

Despite how great Gmail is, it's not nearly a rich as Thunderbird or Outlook 2003.

Gmail, in my opinion, is an example of a really rich web app just striving to break out of its browser box. I think what things are pointing to is not dynamic HTML with a scripter, but running a widget toolkit remotely.

Re:Not surprised

[addaon]

So if google used a css extension to color words you searched for instead of modifying the page to color them, it would be legal?

Re:Not surprised

[joshuao3]

Ok, but what's in those 20, 30, 40, or 80 gigs of data? Music? Videos? Movies? Games? Between users, that's a lot of repitition. Google would only have to store exactly 1 copy of a file and reference it numerous times for each of the users.

Re:Not surprised

[Total_Wimp]

Add on top of that people have routinely rejected thin-clients.

Well, yes and no. They love having both. Citrix is immensily poplular, yet all of the people I personally know who access Citrix servers do so from a fat-client computer.

Thin mail is also hugely popular but is, once again, almost always accessed from a fat client.

Hell, the web has been accessible from web-tv, etc for years, but I'm personally doing this on P-IV 3.4Ghz.

The truth is, people want access to networked data and are willing to access it using thin client software. But the utility, ubiquity and inexpensiveness of fat client computers will keep them on people's desktops for some time to come.

TW

Re:Not surprised

[Sparr0]

I think youve completely overlooked certain aspects of copyright law. Google's cache is, by the legal definition, an 'archive', with the rights accorded by 17 USC 108 . They are permitted to create single (and triplicate, although I doubt that applies) copies of works for preservation and public viewing under a few restrictions. In perusing this section of the law it seems that Google IS breaking the law, but only in that their cache page header doesnt "includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy". A simple matter to rectify, I am surprised it slipped by their legal department.

Re:Not surprised

[operagost]

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh! Shiny!

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

No, it would only be legal if the Google cache reflected only the most recent state of a Web page at any given time. For example, when you ask Google to show you a cached page, it would have to interrogate the server to see if the page has changed. If it has, it has to flush its cache and fetch the most up-to-date content.

The Internet Archive is also blatantly illegal, obviously. But again, nobody has stopped it because nobody has wanted to yet. Pretty much anybody could at any time.

All those instances of "The page has changed, but here's Google's cache or an Internet Archive page showing what it used to look like" would have to go away.

Re:Not surprised

[soupdevil]

It's not just CDs -- it's TV episodes, movies, years of digital photos, etc. 1/3 of all internet traffic is BitTorrent, and much of the rest is eMule, Shareaza, etc. All those files are ending up on a hard drive somewhere.

Re:Not surprised

[addaon]

So Internet Explorer distinguishing between clicking refresh and shift-clicking refresh is illegal?

Re:Not surprised

[dajak]

Except that people can easily buy enough power to satisfy their needs for a small premimum on top of what a terminal costs. Look at around at the so called thin-clients available. Even the thinnest of them has enough power to be a "fat-client" with substantial processing power.

A cheap, small, completely silent, cool, and very low power consumption 'thin client' running for instance a VIA Eden 533MHz with several (1-4) GB flash memory IS a good investment if bandwidth is less of a problem than space and power.

For a just little more money you can buy a faster machine with much more hard disk storage space but it will consume several times more power, which is a problem if you are running on your UPS' batteries several times a day. Power is also expensive compared to the purchase price of the machine.

Google is aiming in the right direction if it wants to conquer the third world and European and Asian inner city small businesses.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, fuckfaces: moderation is not your chance to vote for what you like or don't like. stop moderating down posts because you don't like their subjects.

AC: Go fuck yourself. They're my mod points and I'll use them any way I like. If you don't like it, spend some time as a meta-mod. And then go fuck yourself.

Re:Not surprised

[V4Victory]

Google's cache does throw off web stats somewhat. Run a protocol analyzer such as ethereal and view a cached page through Google, if you click the "cached text only" link, you will notice that your computer never talks to the source box. So you can browse anonymously, I use it at work to get around those pesky proxies...

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

By publishing your website, you are granting an (implied) licence to the world to create cached copies of the website.

That's an assertion, not a statement of fact. I grant no such thing. Just because the technology enables it doesn't mean we're all giving you permission to do it.

The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache.

But that isn't true. When you go to the Google cache, you see out-of-date representations of Web pages. A real cache would never have an out-of-date copy in it, because with every request it would check to see if the page had been updated since the previous caching. Google's cache doesn't do that.

Re:Not surprised

[FictionPimp]

Damn it! I need to call microsoft RIGHT NOW! Every website i've gone to today I've made a copy of in my cache!!!!!!

Shit, I gotta hurry before somebody sues me!

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

Look at 17 USC 108(a)(1). Google is a publicly traded, for-profit company. It is obviously using its cache as a competitive advantage over other, similar companies. It's not a library or archive.

Re:Not surprised

[dnhughes]

You're on the right track... think along the lines of a preloaded Mac Mini (or similar) that has the ability to be a set top box. Plug and play to the degree that Grandma and Grandpa don't have to fuss with a lot of the overhead that comes with a computer.

Want to use that camera the kids gave you for Christmas a year ago... just plug it in (Mac being Mac, the connection will take of it's self), and the Google service that is running in the background will recognize the camera and autmotically upload to your Google share.

Far fewer problems with incompatible software and when something does go wrong you can have faith that Google will take care of it because it's affecting their whole user base.

Re:Not surprised

[ghislain_leblanc]

How exactly is that supposed to be safer than anything out there? Just because it's Google doesn't mean it will be perfect. Unless they have found some sort of formula to prove that a piece of code is secure and/or bugfree. I know we love them but I think, when it comes to computer security, people should always keep their arms up. Having a air-bag in your car does not imply that you can drive with you eyes closed.

So, about making security irrelevant, I don't think so! I don't see any way that this could happen in my lifetime, nor my children's. It was a concern 20 years ago, it's a huge concern today and it might be the biggest concern we have in another 20 years, who knows? No, Google, doesn't know.

Re:Not surprised

[Sparr0]

Google's cache is available to the public. Anyone can use it, including their competitors. Thus it does not provide a commercial advantage to them.

Re:Not surprised

[ezzzD55J]

The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache.

But that isn't true. When you go to the Google cache, you see out-of-date representations of Web pages. A real cache would never have an out-of-date copy in it, because with every request it would check to see if the page had been updated since the previous caching. Google's cache doesn't do that.

Neither do proxy caches, or all browser caches. They just go by expiry time.

How is out-of-dateness change your argument about copyright violation anyway?

Re:Not surprised

[mrighi]

Don't be so near-minded. Twenty years from now we might be laughing at statements like this as we download data over fiber-optic cables faster than current hard drive seek/read times.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like it, spend some time as a meta-mod.

i can't, because YOU MODDED AS OVERRATED, motherfucker. overrated mods never go to m2. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID, SHITKNOCKER.

i fucking hate you.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely true. I work on the Sun Ray firmware for a living -- and I can tell you without reservation that Sun Ray thin clients (sometimes called ultra-thin) are *really* thin.

These devices have a 100MHz processor, 4MB RAM, and between 512K and 2MB of flash.

There are some compelling arguments both for and against thin-clients. Running totally stateless can be very attractive -- you never have to worry about lost data, and IT departments love the supportability. (If a user's unit fails, just issue him a new one. With SunRay/Comet, your session and your apps are still running on the server and the only lost time is waiting for the replacement unit to power on (about 10 seconds).

Thin clients aren't going to be useful for power users who need high-end graphics, streaming video, etc., or individuals that want full control over their own data. But for the typical corporate user who just needs a few business applications, they can really be an ideal solution.

Re:Not surprised

[ePhil_One]

How is out-of-dateness change your argument about copyright violation anyway?

Welcome to the bizzare world of Webmaster Copyright Interpretations. Its quite comical, and deadly serious in their book.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

By publishing your website, you are granting an (implied) licence to the world to create cached copies of the website. Were this not the case, your web browser's cache and your ISP's proxy server's cache would in constant copyright violation.

I disagree. There is no license implied there. You are allowed to make a cached copy on your own computer due to fair-use doctrine. You don't have or need a license to do that.

As for the ISP's proxy server cache, it may very well be in violation, as well as Google. But the truth here is that there is little motivation to do so because few are hostile to Google, and secondly it is easy to avoid being cached (or indexed).

Re:Not surprised

[Relgar]

Well, if they provide *certain* OS capabilities (e.g. filesystem) wouldn't that go a long way in getting everyone's information?

Obviously not implemented as a remote filesystem with nothing local, but what about (as something that's been done before) a system to sync certain files, say C:\Documents And Settings or /home?

If you can already get your email via the web and search it, wouldn't it be nice to access your key files (securely) on the web and search that as well (a la Google Desktop)?

And talk about safety of data with their system of redundancy.

How does automatic versioning of all your files sound to you?

I think they could do a lot of interesting things that could supplant existing OS functionality without *truly* (i.e. in the technically precise sense) replacing an OS.

Re:Not surprised

[arminw]

... Pretty much anybody could at any time...

Only if that anybody has LOTS of $$ to pay an army of lawyers bigger than Google's army of lawyers. I suspect that the economic cost of fighting the Google lawyer army is FAR greater then whatever benefit (if any) might accrue to the Google attacker to be able to force Google to stop caching whatever they want to. Besides, anyone who doesn't want their content cached can tell Google not to and that's the end of the problem.

Re:Not surprised

[Lovesquid]

A real cache would never have an out-of-date copy in it, because with every request it would check to see if the page had been updated since the previous caching.

By default, most Web browser caches and most proxy server caches are not set up this way by default -- I have had too many instances where I've had to tell end users to "hit refresh" not to know this. They are set to check and/or refresh their caches either on user demand (Web browser) or at a time interval (proxy, Web server cache) by default, not each time a request is made.

I'm not saying they cannot operate in the way you indicated, but in most cases, they are not set up that way by default.

Re:Not surprised

[skubeedooo]

I would add that it doesn't have to be a zero-one thing. One could have a computer that has a standard fat hard disk and a video/audio player for all the things to big to fit down the pipe in realtime, but email, office apps, images/editors all stored and run offline.

This way you have most of the benefits of not having to adminsiter your own computer, you can use expensive software pro rata, but you can still do all the normal things by working offline.

Re:Not surprised

[arminw]

... Bandwidth and latency are big problems...

Until the majority of people have Internet connectivity approaching the data transfer speed of even the slowest hard drive, this idea will not work. When I want to open a 3Gig video file, I don't want to wait for it to get from some server thousands of miles away to where I can edit or play it. I believe that the "personal" of PC will not ever be replaced by some distant super computer or network and that we will NOT come back full circle to the mainframe type computing model.

Re:Not surprised

[babyrat]

exactly how is it blatantly illegal?

No really, I want to know...

Re:Not surprised

[FictionPimp]

Ok, so your saying its ok to copy cd's I rent from the library?

Cause i'm not distributing. I'm making a local cache so they can be accessed faster next time I rent them.

Re:Not surprised

[Peaker]

Google does 3 things:

A. Asks content from sites and stores it

B. Modifies the content in trivial ways

C. Redistributes the content to any receiver

A. This must be legal, or all receivers of content on the web are infringing on copyright law.
B. This must be legal, because in order to download data from the site, no legal agreement must be signed and there is no legal obligation to not modify the content.
C. This should be just as legal as a router's redistribution of the content of the site to the other routers, and nobody sane even considers applying copyright law to automatic redistribution of content for technical reasons. This should also be legal because again, there is no legal obligation on the side of the receiver to not redistribute the content.

So which of A, B or C are illegal, and why?

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

I don't think you really understand how our legal system works. All you have to do is file a complaint with the court. You don't even have to hire a lawyer if you don't want to. Most people do because they'd rather hire an expert, but it's not required. And it's certainly not required for one party to hire more lawyers than the other party.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing dumb doesn't make you any friends.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

so your saying

Telltale sign of a straw-man. Never read any comments that begin with "so you're saying." Because the only response to such a comment is, "No, I'm not saying that," and that's just a waste of energy. Why bother?

Just killfile the offender and move on.

Re:Not surprised

[HiThere]

If you can get a DA interested, then yes. Otherwise you need to hire a lawyer. This is probably a civil matter, not a criminal one. And you will need to show probable damages to get anything done.

OTOH, didn't the RIAA just get a modification that WOULD let the Feds prosecute, if they felt like it?

In any case, you'll probably need to register your copyright if you want to get ANYONE interested in you complaints...anyone you aren't paying that is.

Re:Not surprised

[T-Ranger]

Caching is a specific capability of HTTP. The web is desigined around having caching servers. If you make information available via HTTP, then you are allowing it to be accessed via HTTP, which means you are allowing caching.

HTTP does not require caching, however: If you dont want caching, set the approiate HTTP headers. Dont complain that you dont understand the technology that you are using.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

If you can get a DA interested, then yes.

You are aware, are you not, that the district attorney only concerns himself with cases in which the state is a party?

Otherwise you need to hire a lawyer.

Need to? That depends entirely on the situation. The question is whether or not you have to, and the answer is no.

In any case, you'll probably need to register your copyright

Copyright law hasn't required registration of works for more than 30 years.

Re:Not surprised

[T-Ranger]

2. By that logic, I need extra permission outside of HTTP to access your content. Thats stupid. You are making it available via HTTP, thus Im allowd to access it via HTTP. If you are using HTTP, then you are allowing for caching. If you dont want to allow caching, then say so using the protocol. Or use something else that you understand.

1. How is the Google cache different from a "transparent" proxy? How is transparency a requirement for proxying? Proxy servers change content all the time. Corporate proxies block some content. Schools block and/or change content. While not codified anywhere courts are reluctant to do much about copyright infringement if that infringement doesn't hurt. Or you could say that infringement requires damages. Google isnt making any money off the content (their product is the added markup). And the content providers arn't, either, they are making money off the adds. Google shows all the images, adds included. How is Googles cache hurting anything?

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

;-)

You know, adding a smiley doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for saying in your comment just *what the fuck it is*. Now that the link is dead, all we have are a bunch of comments saying "Wow, that's cool!", without any indication as to what the hell is so cool.

Re:Not surprised

[Refrag]

It's a redesign of the Google front page that emulates the Mac OS X Dock for the extra Google features like video and maps.

Re:Not surprised

[DA-MAN]

No, it would only be legal if the Google cache reflected only the most recent state of a Web page at any given time. For example, when you ask Google to show you a cached page, it would have to interrogate the server to see if the page has changed. If it has, it has to flush its cache and fetch the most up-to-date content.

If I make a flyer and give it out to a ton of people, then I make a new flyer to distribute it does not become illegal to have my old flyer because it doesn't reflect the latest changes. When you publish online, you are publishing. Never forget that fact, don't fool yourself. When you publish something there are certain rights you grant with that publishing, in the case of http you explicitly grant caching since every implementation of a graphical web browser does that. If you don't want that, don't use http or require authentication for your users.

The Internet Archive is also blatantly illegal, obviously. But again, nobody has stopped it because nobody has wanted to yet. Pretty much anybody could at any time.

Not true. The Internet Archive is no different than a library, and in fact archives are protected by law in accordance with 17 USC 108. Opening up the html from them shows the legal requirement to have a a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright. No laws broken there.

All those instances of "The page has changed, but here's Google's cache or an Internet Archive page showing what it used to look like" would have to go away.

Just because they serve an annoyance for you doesn't make them illegal. Google cache and Internet Archive have helped me out immensely and it's copyright ignorant folks like you that make the internet a shitty place.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

By that logic

Why not just post a sign that says "straw man fallacy begins here?"

Re:Not surprised

[teslatug]

Google to its own rescue

Re:Not surprised

[Mardak]

How odd.. There used to be an OS X like interface for Web Images Groups, etc links as images that resize when you mouse over.

"Roses are red. Violets are blue. OS X rocks. Homage to you."

I managed to save the large images from firefox cache and modified google's cache of the page to use those images. The small images were clearer instead of being a resized large image, but I couldn't save those as well as the Video search images.

http://ed.agadak.net/search.htm

Re:Not surprised

[FictionPimp]

Sorry, my bad. I took what you said to mean to look at the difference between google cache and my local cache.

So I figured out that my local cache doesn't use sensable names, and is not public. That is really the only difference. I can even "Make the page viewable for offline use". So assuming this is legal (I mean no companys are complaining) I can then assume that making a cache of anything to speed up load times is legal as long as:
a) the file name does not make any sense
b) its not public

So, this is not a straw man tactic. I am sorry if I assumed that was your point. Can you explain to me your point so I am no longer confused?

Re:Not surprised

[iowannaski]

So you're saying I shouldn't bother reading the Grandparent's post?

Re:Not surprised

[ioslipstream]

The pipes are getting fatter every year. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Not surprised

[ckaminski]

I may not have presented it that way, but that was my end goal. Entire OS, plus data, stored in a credit card form factor. RSA Security already provides credit card two-factor authentication, this is just a small step beyond pendrives.

Dynamic download and local caching of data on your credit card. Secure authentication of transactions via a pin number on the card at all point of sale locations that reads info about your cards off your personal local database.

Easily replaceable. Plug it into a box at home, you can always replace it and reinitialize all your credit card pin numbers with a touch of a button.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzt, buy a vowel:

r_b_ts.txt ...robots.txt - You win!

Your prize? A script for that file:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Because after the way he's been violently ass-raped by moderators in this thread, I'm sure the original poster will never return. So let me pick up the slack and explain why you're an asshat.

You're saying that it's okay to make copies of other people's stuff unless they take a specific and overt action to disallow it. This is the exact opposite of what the law says. The law says it is not allowed to make a copy of anybody's stuff unless they specifically give you permission to do so. Not implicitly, not inherently, explicitly.

How did I gain this valuable insight? By reading the original poster's other comments. Which you obviously did not do.

You are not only wrong, you are obnoxiously wrong. Ergo, you are an asshat.

Re:Not surprised

[HiThere]

What court are you going to file in?

You can file for copyright violations, but if you don't have a registered copyright you won't collect any damages unless you can show meaningful injury.

Many courts have discresion over what cases they will accept...I think that's true of the courts that hear interstate cases.

And you may not be legally required to have a lawyer in a federal court, but it's the next thing to a requirement. (And I'm not certain it isn't one.)

Caution: IANAL.

Re:Not surprised

[Donny Smith]

>in the case of http you explicitly grant caching since every implementation of a graphical web browser does that.

As discussed by several posts here, what Google does isn't caching as it changes content.
They take out images, change formatting and sometimes provide out-of-date cached pages (which obviously are different from current pages).
If they did an extra step and "improved" the content with mouse-over keyword ads and links to competitors of the copyright owner, I assume that'd be OK too?

>Google cache and Internet Archive have helped me out immensely.

Nice to hear that, but why would anyone care about your convenience.

Re:Not surprised

[frankenbox]

Um Guys,... kinda like you search me, I'll search you. This could effectivly render all of us searchers as "googleettes". Ie. including our computers into the big Google. Peer to Peer without permission.

Re:Not surprised

[BobTheLawyer]

You are misunderstanding the concept of an implied licence. Try googling.

Re:Not surprised

[Nate4D]

No, you did present it that way; I just misread it.

Oops. :)

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as an implied "licence" in American law. Stick to what you know, monkey boy.

Re:Not surprised

[DA-MAN]

As discussed by several posts here, what Google does isn't caching as it changes content.
They take out images, change formatting and sometimes provide out-of-date cached pages (which obviously are different from current pages).

Please show examples! The Google cache, ime, only adds a header that states this is not Google's stuff. It leaves everything else the same, including pulling images from the live server. I've never seen it change formatting or remove images, and unless you can show proof with such accusations you are full of shit.

As far as the out of date pages, once again if you publish something there is nothing wrong with keeping it. It's not like they made the shit up, it was actually on your site, just a bit out of date. If you have a problem with this, opt out! Do you think the library will toss Book Blah Edition 1 when Book Blah Edition 2 comes out? That's not a legal requirement anywhere. Nothing you have said shows how Google is operating an illegal cache, aside from the fact that you don't feel good about it.

If they did an extra step and "improved" the content with mouse-over keyword ads and links to competitors of the copyright owner, I assume that'd be OK too?

If they did that, it wouldn't be a cache because they are making changes to the site. Then they are using their dominance as a web search engine to levy their ads against companys. That would be anticompetitive and probably illegal. Then you'd have a case and I'd be with ya, but right now you're just bitching without reason.

Nice to hear that, but why would anyone care about your convenience.

Because when no laws are being broken, and a free service helps the internet community it is a "Good Thing (tm)".

Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[filmmaker]

"Ajax, which is short for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML, combines JavaScript, dynamic HTML, and XMLHTTP to, in essence, let you build Web-based applications that run as quickly and seamlessly as local software."

Great. If the author of the article gets her pie-in-the-sky dream, the future of virtually all client-side computing will lie in the hands of javascript code. For certain applications, like ones with small, text data sets, a system like Ajax could "feel" like a desktop application. The bandwidth just isn't there for video or even industrial photo work. I wouldn't want to run a batch script to modify 5,000 images in the Ajax analog of Photoshop. Better not be a fiber network without any limits on network transfer.

Besides that, who wants anything but light-weight or at least, non-critical, data and applications to be out on the network. Gmail is a perfect network application, but my financial software or any number of other things? No thanks.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Alan Shutko]

Besides that, who wants anything but light-weight or at least, non-critical, data and applications to be out on the network. Gmail is a perfect network application, but my financial software or any number of other things? No thanks.

Online tax software has proven to be very popular over the last couple years, so not everyone shares your qualms.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[toasted_calamari]

I think the biggest issue with this idea is that it fails to address the big Why? Why do I want to do everything in a web browser? Given that I have a laptop with all my data and all the software i need. And given that I can use this software to do my work regardless of my internet connection, why would the "google dream" be better?

It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[micromoog]

So you don't have to lug a laptop around? Imagine public terminals everywhere, allowing access into "the system", where you can reach all your data and applications.

I think it's likely that this is where computing is going; we'll see if Google is the company that can do it.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[FirienFirien]

I'm completely in line with this - the first thing that came to mind was photoshop, and the hundreds of megs per file that always happens with files that have been worked on for a while. Remote access? No thanks.
Second that came to mind was gaming - java games are all very well, but they have their problems; games like puzzle pirates, designed for all-platform use, based on java, still have fairly large load times - and this is with most data on your computer. Getting all that kind of information remotely on top of the current stuff would require huge improvements in bandwidth.
Third thing that came to mind was privacy issues (with the recent security incidents), hacking attempts (this'd be a tempting target to the scum that take pleasure from targeting useful systems), and so on.

It's a nice idea to improve the current stuff with the JS+XML we're seeing - and there's some neat stuff; multimap's mouseovering with image/map combination; this neat thing that you can click on when you recognise a book cover; yeah, it's nice to look at, nice to use, but we're left with: "Variety is the spice of life", and there's something BIG to be said about keeping seperate platforms and utility. Competition leads to better stuff, where uniformity leads to stagnation.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[BRSQUIRRL]

Not to mention the fact that, as a developer, writing any substantial amount of JavaScript just makes me feel...well, dirty. No type-safety, no assurance that the end user's browser will interpret the script correctly (or at ALL, for that matter), etc. etc.

All of this on top of the fundamental problem that HTTP is not and never will be appropriate as an application protocol...the whole request/response paradigm becomes a set of handcuffs if your application needs to do anything non-trivial.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ciroknight]

I think you are one of the few users left that would be delegated to having their own machine. In the past, computers were so expensive that an office may only have three, and probably two of those were setup for everyone to use (or at least, they were in my Dad's office in the late 80's). Those who had their own computer were doing work which required them to have access to the comptuer every day, like writing software or something.

Today, think of the benefits from PC virtualization: compiling would be done over a huge grid of computers, video games would be faster because the client/server communications barrier would no longer exist (well, it still would exist, but it'd mostly be sending images to the user's computer, and then the user sending short commands back), all your data would be automatically backed up and secured, and the world would have less environmental damage due to outdated computers with lead parts.

Embrace the wave.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than that she talks about web 2.0 without realizing that HTTP is not the ideal network protocol for half the crap she's fantasizing about. I'm expecting half this shit to arrive a couple of months after my first flying car, even if I have been running RAID at home for years.

This 'ajax' thing is pissing me off, it's a contrived buzzword invented by a guy who founded a company to produces nothing but buzzwords; big fucking whoop! Must be a revolution in client-server apps, someone fire up the time machine so I can go tell Mark Andreesen!

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[geekoid]

he meant his real books.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Acer500]

I think the author is not suggesting that ALL applications be supplanted by the Google terminal-server/citrix-like thingy.

If you look at big corporations, some deploy thin clients which work similarly to what the article suggests (the company I work for has deployed many of those) for administrative uses, and other light workloads.

But programmers, graphics editors, powergamers and such will still want a powerful home computer.

But GMail has temporarily replaced (for me) the need for USB drives and stuff (with the GMail Drive), and I wouldn't mind using whatever apps Google creates while on holidays, in cyber-cafés, etc.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Draknor]

True, it's not a all-in-one solution, but for the majority of desktop apps, its a very good solution. Simple things like email & general word processing would be relatively trivial to do in this fashion, and I bet most spreadsheets & presentations could be done here too. Basically the 80-20 rule - roughly 80% of an "average" computer user's daily work could be migrated to a web-app system without much perceived loss of a function. Maybe 20% or so you'd still need full-blown desktop apps to handle.

Same for financial software - you may not like having your financial information out on the net, but guess what? It's already there, in the form of online banking, credit history reports, etc. I would definitely want to see some good security practices in place before I'd consider doing my bookkeeping on a webapp, but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.

Some things aren't going to work in this framework. Video & industrial photo work aren't going to fly. But most home-users don't do that now anyway. Photo processing for them is removing red-eye and cropping the image, one picture at a time. Programming will probably go both ways - some shops have complex development environments setup that would probably have to remain desktop apps, others could probably switch to some kind of webapp without much difficulty.

I admit, I don't like the idea of all of my files being out on the network, but the author brings up a good point - how many of us actually make backups? I burn a couple of CDRs every few months when I remember to, but I know I don't have a good personal backup policy, and none of my friends or family do. PCs being in the state they are - in a constant flux of updates and upgrades and spyware - for many home users they do not appear to be very reliable. Having a persistant data store for my mother that's not dependent her computer remaining in good working order would be a strong selling point, especially considering most PC dealers response on the help desk is "Insert the restore CD and reboot".

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ThosLives]

Yes, there would be some benefits from "PC virtualisation" as you said. However, the thing that "PC virtualisation" doesn't address is:

People like to own things. They want to own their car, their house, their toys, and, likely, their computer.

I don't know that I could ever reach the point where I'd trust a giant company out there to always give me my information and allow me to use the things I want to use. For instance, what if I want to use 10-year old software? Will this be allowed? Do I get my *own* copies of software or do I have to use only the ones they make available? Not to mention ownership issues, liability, and all that other nonsense.

People [sic] complain about people taking away their freedoms and such, and here is another idea where they are just giving away infrastructure for someone else to handle...I'm too much of a control freak to trust someone else with this responsibility.

I'd better stop now...

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jrschulz]

Imagine public terminals everywhere, allowing access into "the system", where you can reach all your data and applications.

Thanks, I already have ssh.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You use SSH from public terminals?

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ciroknight]

The answer to that is simple: Why give up what you have now?

Your computer that you own currently is the future thin client. Before long, it's going to be too slow to do anything on its own, and the old software you have now will run fine on it for quite some time. Oh, and with multiple gigabyte hard drives, I think you can safely keep whatever personal information you might have (Hell, I think I could keep most of my "personal information" on a 8 meg flash card).

I just think you're being a bit pedantic/possessive.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[rokzy]

yeah right. who is going to fund having MULTIPLE computer terminals EVERYWHERE so that the system you describe will actually be feasible?

and even if public places comprised of row after row of terminals, what about when you're in a private place like a car or someone's house? or moving from one place to another?

looking at the same idea in a different system, which of the following statements is true?
1. there is a continual increase in the number of public telephones so that anyone at any place and time can access the phone network.
or
2. the role of public telephones is decreasing since mobile phones are far more convenient, offer more features and come in many models which can be chosen accordng to personal preference.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[cyfer2000]

better mobility.

easier communication.

better additional information assitance.

no need to worry about hard drive failure, I only saw two in my whole life though.

no need to worry about some one steal your notebook. If you lost your computer, you either lost nothing if you store your data remotely or everything if you store all your data locally.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ckaminski]

I was talking to a CPA the other day, and yes, real thin-client accounting has yet to take root. I suppose that issues such as security and the dread sword called Sarbanes-Oxley have something to do with that, but time will eliminate most of those barriers, and vendors will come into play delivering those solutions.

Best software, of MAS90/MAS200/Peachtree fame, is already delivering some small business accounting online. A big issue with accounting, however, is availability. A business that deals in transactions is going to be really pissed when their systems are unavailable. Other issues with ASP-style accounting is integration, being able to integrate your manufacturing systems with accounting, inventory control, and sales in a real-time manner.

For small business, you can already get real accounting online. Best Software. For real large manufacturers, it will be some time, if ever.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Because system administration is beyond the abilities of 95% of the population.

It's not taught in school and it's not intuitive.

We'll see an Audrey-like Linux Box with a Firefox and nothing else and it'll be called a GoogleBox. You can do your e-mail, web browsing, photo organizing, document writing, and music work on this box and you never need to run scandisk, install AV software, deal with adware, etc. etc. etc.

Plug into your cable modem and go.

It's not what I need or you need but it's what most people need. Google Search and GMail are building a brand that people trust. Windows is becoming untenable for some.

This at least explains what Google is doing with Firefox and shows the next two Google products - music and a 'home-office' suite. I wonder if Apple is smart enough to be working with Google on iTunes for the web.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother arguing? He wants to shout "Lunix! Lunix!", so let him.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[coolfrood]

That isn't very different from writing distributed applications based on CORBA or DCOM. Once you have a good infrastructure (i.e., API) in place, backed by a quick and reliable network protocol and a network that can handle all the data flowing through, developing applications should not be so hard.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[biglig2]

The point is more that your data and applications become disassociated with your hardware.

So you have a laptop, and a desktop, and a desktop in the office, and they all see the same data, as does the screen in the local Starbucks, and the one at the library, and the one in the phone booth, and the one at the client site, and the one built into your car, and the one in your PDA, and the one in your ipod, and the one in your mobile phone.

I think computers should be like stationery. You go to the closet, pick up a terminal, authenticate, bam all your data is there.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[PhrostyMcByte]

what if google decided to sell slim clients with internet access, letting you browse the web, email, word process. it makes sense for people that don't do anything more.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Combuchan]

This grand "system" is nothing more then web based applications from thin clients for people who don't want to deal with maintaining a computer. Nothing implies that it requires new infrastructure.

yeah right. who is going to fund having MULTIPLE computer terminals EVERYWHERE so that the system you describe will actually be feasible?
I've seen these "MULTIPLE computer terminals" at EVERYWHERE-style places like the library, internet cafes, covenience stores, and public places such as airport terminals.
and even if public places comprised of row after row of terminals, what about when you're in a private place like a car or someone's house? or moving from one place to another?

When you're in a private place like a car or moving from one place to another, I can imagine some PDA-based device on a wireless connection. If you're in somebody's house you can use your login on their existing device, whether that's a thin client or a normal computer.

looking at the same idea in a different system, which of the following statements is true?

Bad analogy. Phones shrink a whole lot better than computers do. Secondly, we don't have a high speed wireless data network with the same ubiquity as the wireless voice network. Wireless phones also let people to be reached anytime. whereas computer usage is more or less a one way activity and doesn't have the sense of urgency/immediacy that a phone can bring.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jim_redwagon]

Imagine public terminals everywhere, allowing access into "the system",

Will George Orwell write the user manual?

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Combuchan]

PuTTY, a self contained .exe can usually be run and verified from many public terminals. Very few public terminal lockdowns, for whatever reason, prevent IE from opening executables remotely.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Kaa]

Today, think of the benefits from PC virtualization:

Ooookay, let's see...

compiling would be done over a huge grid of computers,

People who compile will have their own computers for sure. Isn't the general consensus that the everthing-is-a-Google-web-app world is for the unwashed masses? :-)

video games would be faster because the client/server communications barrier would no longer exist (well, it still would exist, but it'd mostly be sending images to the user's computer, and then the user sending short commands back),

ROTFL. Welcome to the world of X Window, VNC, and remote displays.

But let's check if the games would be faster :-) Let's say the game runs at 1600x1200 resolution. That means a single screen is 1.92 megapixels. Each pixel needs three bytes of RGB data, so that's 5.76Mb for a single screen. We want to have 60 fps for twitchy games, so we need the bandwidth of 5.76 * 60 = 345.6MB / second which is around 3.5 Gigabits/second. A dedicated OC-48 line (2.5 Gbits/sec) won't cut it, we'll need at least OC-192 going into each house ('cause more than one person might want to play games simultaneously).

Yeah, definitely, this will solve all the network lag problems...

all your data would be automatically backed up and secured,

Until the rats in a warehouse in Calcutta chew through the backup tapes...

and the world would have less environmental damage due to outdated computers with lead parts.

Umm.. what would be that thing that talks to Google servers -- the one with the screen, the keyboard, the network interface, the video chip, the sound chip, etc. etc.? Maybe a computer?

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ckaminski]

part of the backup problem is that the price/storage ratio on backup media is nowhere near as good as it used to be in the days of 250MB hard drives. When a decent DLT drive plus a dozen $40 tapes are necessary to back up an entry level PC on a decent basis, it never happens. And most end users never backup at all. It's why home raid has become popular. Most users only care about hardware failure, which on board IDE raid1 protects against.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[chris_mahan]

Me too

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[oskard]

So everytime you want to view your saved database of contacts, or possible financial information, anything that you normally wouldn't want to be sent out on a network, will be.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will George Orwell write the user manual?

No he'll just admin the network.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[filmmaker]

Brilliant post. Looking at it that way, I hope you're right.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ubrgeek]

Great, so this becomes like WebTV. Because that worked out just swell ... *grin*

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[micromoog]

Will George Orwell write the user manual?

No, a mediocre 90s Hollywood script-writer.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

[Question]: You said you want to store your pictures and your music and this and that on the PC and the comeback I always get is what about the Internet? It will all be up on the Internet, and we'll have devices, dump terminals because sometimes you want a big screen and everything will be on the Internet, and desktop software in particular and desktop PCs will become a thing of the past.

[Steve] Jobs: That's not exactly what's happened, thank God. What's happened is that data is exploding so not only does music take four megabytes a song but digital photography is taking a few megabytes a picture and they're really easy to click and take and we've got now thousands of them.

When we started off with iPhoto, to the average person 1,000 pictures was a lot. Now for the average person, they've got 5,000 pictures. To upload these all on a server even with DSL or cable, it takes a long time. You end up wanting to have that data locally right on your desk if you want to scroll through your photos and pick one. When you get into video, it's even larger. This whole notion that we're going to have these dumb terminals and our data is going to be stored in the ether just hasn't happened because of the bandwidth-to-data ratio. We see no signs of that changing.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Great, so this becomes like WebTV. Because that worked out just swell ... *grin*

No, WebTV was the worst of the web, dumbed down for TV viewing and required special coding for a terrible interface.

This is the best of the web, running so-called 'Ajax' applications on Firefox. It requires no special coding by developers as any old webpage will render just fine. That's the third-party SDK.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple is smart enough not to be wasting their time with applications that would require bandwidth that doesn't exist and won't exist in the foreseeable future. See interview.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may think it likely, but I don't. The problem, as always, is of limited bandwidth. See this.

Steve

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Bohnanza]

I think the biggest issue with this idea is that it fails to address the big Why?

The article certainly does address that question. The main advantage is that Google performs redundant backup so you don't need to.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ciroknight]

And you were the exact person I was afraid would reply to my comment, but I have been preparing for you, so let's rumble.

Compiling is a task well suited for distribution, unlike most. Development can be done at any dumb terminal anywhere, and doesn't require you to have your own machine to do the work. If you ask most developers, they telnet into a server anyways, so this isn't going to be some big inconvience to them.

Ah next up, the big one, games. Let's rework your calculations a bit, since they're a bit.. shady to say the least. Most monitor's MAXIMUM supported resolution is 1600x1200 (17" Dell Crapmon). Most people run games at 800x600, so let's shoot the gap at 1200x768. A 1200x768 image is 921k pixels. In most systems with 32bit colors, means that we need 12 bits per pixel for color, or simply, four bytes. 4 x 921k = 3M. Okay, it's sounding bad isn't it? Let's continute. To play a video game, we only need 30 frames per second? Why? Because our eyes can't see better than that, unless you are a fighter pilot or a mutant, both of which don't have the time to play video games every day. So we're at 110M/sec ish. OH WAIT, I think I forgot to mention something we do to images before we send them over a network connection. What's that you ask? COMPRESSION. Using a streaming MPEG-type compression algorithm, we effectively reduce that 110M/second to say, 30M/sec, give or take 10M (240Mbits/sec). So while you overshoot the bandwidth requirements by more than 10x, I can understand your concern in this department. Bandwidth ISN'T cheap now, but as Fiber to the Home matures, and media companies move towards web-based data, bandwidth costs will go down. Also, the data we're working with isn't scientific, and I'm fairly certain I'd want to drop the framerate to 24 frames a second, and use a much more aggressive video compression algorithm and a fairly smaller resolution mode (Hell, I don't use greater than 1024x768 for most games).

For backups, I don't see your point at all. EULAs can say that you're responsible for your own data, but that would defeat the purpose. If they lose your data, they're responsible and they can and should be sued. But since any competent company will take care of their customers and their data, this isn't a problem.

Lastly, the problem I speak of comes from consumeristic society. Google's servers are a order of magnitude more environmentally safe: They're likely to stay on the rack for 10-20 years, they're newer computers so they're built to better environmentally safe specifications, they don't get replaced bi-yearly, they (most likely) do not use monitors (hell, why would they? someone can administrate the server 2000 miles away from a dumb terminal), with NO sound hardware, NO video hardware. If you're trying to tell me it's more environmentally sound to build 1000 desktop computers, monitors, keyboards and mice, than to build 200 servers, 20 switches (most of which are backup), a few hundred feet of cable, then you've got serious issues.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[operagost]

Your exact numbers are whacked (1200x768? 4 bits per pixel=12 bits?), but your point is correct.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jdog1016]

Ok, but, if all applications would be run through firefox/some other browser, then why use something as overhead-demanding as linux?

IMHO, this whole concept of building thin-client, web-based replacements for *everything* is totally counterproductive. Consumers have more than enough power to run these applications on their own machines and without an internet connection needed. What happens when your connection goes down and you have a term paper due the next morning? Having said this, there really doesn't appear to be any evidence that google is moving in this direction anyway. Portal maybe, operating system no.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this on top of the fundamental problem that HTTP is not and never will be appropriate as an application protocol...the whole request/response paradigm becomes a set of handcuffs if your application needs to do anything non-trivial.

Huh? A set of handcuffs ... from how you should be making your applications anyway. Let me guess: apps you write are tightly bundled and you can never remove one piece without the whole system either collapsing or needing a major rewrite.

Start to try and think of writing distributed apps where you can't just say 'load up from the file system their preferences' but rather "call the mechanism to give me their preferences" and have that as a seperate module. Then you can swap in one that gets it from a remote machine. You're 90% of the way there.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[good.giiba]

Why do ideas like this always involve centralization? What if almost all computer hardware operated in a fashion similar to Seti@home? You own a basic client (ie laptop, fancy PDA thingy, etc), with a basic processor that can do most everyday tasks, but when you start editing pictures or video, unused processing power around you is utilized to speed things up. Everyone would also have some sort of real computer (though maybe not, depending on how ubiquitous processors become... imagine every device having a pentium 4 equivlant running it) and when your laptop does something more intensive than web browsing the unused processing power from around you (neighbor's computers, microwaves, etc.) is enlisted to complete the task. Basically there is networked processing power all around you, and it does whatever task/s that are going on around in the area. I recall reading at one point that the Cell processor was designed for networked computing (forgive the lack of reference). Imagine you have a multi-cell home server... and everyone else does... you are only using two of the processors, and your neighbor needs more than they have? Yours process the neighbors data. It would be kinda neat, you would have slower processing at peak times when more people are doing things, and it could be insanely fast during non-peak times. Now to bring this sorts onto topic... What about the same sort of system for data? The only real challenge as far as I'm concerned is having a network system (Internet 2.0?, 3.0?, 11.0?) that ensures complete anonymity for users. All my data is encrypted with my unique key so that only I can read it, but because it was remotely stored in the first place, it would be available to me wherever. A future like this woul make laptops even lighter and more battery efficient (no hard disk, and smallish processor)

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[aixou]

We'll see an Audrey-like Linux Box with a Firefox and nothing else and it'll be called a GoogleBox. You can do your e-mail, web browsing, photo organizing, document writing, and music work on this box and you never need to run scandisk, install AV software, deal with adware, etc. etc. etc.

Plug into your cable modem and go.

It's not what I need or you need but it's what most people need.

Absolutely not. You highly underestimate the average user if you think their computing needs will be satiated so simply.
Such a box would face that same problems that the "other OSes" (i.e. non-Windows) are today. People can't just walk into the store and pick up a game or other Application and use it. People can't walk in to the store, buy a scanner, and expect it to work.

There is too much talk about the mythical user that only uses checks their email and browses the web. As far as I can tell, this user is the exception rather than the norm. Real users use all of that and more.
It's like the saying about Microsoft Office, that even though few people use more than 10% of the features of Office, everyone uses a different 10% and thusly Microsoft can't really cut out the bloat without pissing a fair chunk of users.

It's the same way here. Everyone may use a minimal amount of software, but they all use different software, and to try to fill their needs with such a simple box is ludicrous.

Regardless though, what makes google so special that anyone should trust their entire computing experience to them? I thought computing monocultures were a bad thing in general. Why is it OK for google to have more control over a user than Microsoft ever had?

If I trust my computing experience to a web-based system, I am trusting it to too many fault points for comfort. What happens if the web goes down? Google gets hacked? DNS server goes down?

There are just too many dependencies in such a system for it to ever work (dependence on your net connection, that google will continue the service, that hardware makers will support the box. etc etc)

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[FlynnMP3]

Maybe in 100 years or so. Not many companies plan for time periods that long. Heck most companies it certainly seems like they don't plan longer than a year.

Bring up your idea with some science fiction writers to flesh out the details and then talk to The Long Now about the pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Thanks.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

People like to own things. They want to own their car, their house, their toys, and, likely, their computer.

I don't know that I could ever reach the point where I'd trust a giant company out there to always give me my information and allow me to use the things I want to use.

Do you keep your life savings hidden under the bed, or do you trust a giant company to always give back your money when you want to widthdraw it?

Now, if I'd asked that in the 1930's, a lot of people would have said no, and for good reason. It wasn't until we had deposit insurance and so on that people became comfortable with keeping their money in bank accounts.

Likewise, we'll likely need improvments in privacy laws and encryption before we get the same level of acceptance for remote personal-computing services.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Ok, but, if all applications would be run through firefox/some other browser, then why use something as overhead-demanding as linux?

Linux can run on tiny devices. Firefox is much more of a resource hog than linux. Plus, it's free and already ported and Google is one of the biggest users of Linux in the world.

Consumers have more than enough power to run these applications on their own machines and without an internet connection needed.

It's not an issue of computing power - it's system administration resources.

What happens when your connection goes down and you have a term paper due the next morning?

You use a pen and paper?

Most internet connections aren't that unreliable. Some are, so this isn't a good model there. FTTH will be here in a decade.

What happens if the power goes out or you lose your heat or a hurricane hits? If it's that important sit by candlelight and a fire and write your term paper.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jerometremblay]

some useless calculations about pixels and bandwidth

Have you ever heard of SVG? Do you transfer each pixel through the network? Of course not.

Network 3D games would use something similar. Transfer the models and let the clients do the rendering.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Kaa]

Compiling is a task well suited for distribution, unlike most. Development can be done at any dumb terminal anywhere, and doesn't require you to have your own machine to do the work.

Generally speaking, you are correct. However, let me point out a few matters which complicate things.

Not all software development environments use compilation. Once you peek out of the box of C and friends (C++, Java) you'll find things like Perl, List, etc. where the wait-for-compile stage is noticeably absent.

Moreover, if a large chunk of your programming time is spent waiting for things to compile, I would argue that either you need better tools, or your project is badly structured.

In any case, a rather small percentage of the general population does things like compiling and the needs of professional programmers are unlikely to be important in determining the trade-offs of web-based applications...

Ah next up, the big one, games. Let's rework your calculations a bit, since they're a bit.. shady

:-) Well, let's rework them, but let's agree that I don't want to lose image quality if I am to switch over to web-based games.

I currently play most of my 3D games (e.g. World of Warcraft, UT 2004) at 1280 x 960 resolution. I usually play other games (e.g. Civ III) at full 1600 x 1200, but we'll leave it aside at the moment. I am most definitely unwilling to play games at 800 x 600.

So, 1280 * 960 = slightly over 1.2 MPixels. Since we are transfering bitmaps we don't need the alpha channel, just the RGB values, 3 bytes/pixel. So we have 3.6 Mb of data per screen.

As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie. Google for it, it's a bit too long to discuss here. But for the sake of argument let's say 30 fps is enough, so our uncompressed data flow is around 110 Mb/second.

Now, compression. I don't want ugly artifacts on my screen -- I don't have them now and see no reason to acquire them. This means we are going to do high-quality compression. Ratio of 1:3 should be more or less in the ballpark, so we have a data flow of around 35 Mb/sec which is more or less 350 Mbits/sec.

But now the interesting question. Network lag in games is caused by latency and almost never by lack of sufficient bandwidth. And sending bitmaps over the net will help latency by about... zero. So right now to play multiplayer games I need bandwidth of, oh, say 3.5Kb/sec. You are suggesting that to continue playing such games I need to increase my bandwidth by FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and for what? Network lag will still be there.

All you've done is offload graphic processing over to the server. Basically you took the graphics card out of the computer, put it on a server, and decided to implement the video bus over TCP/IP :-)

If they lose your data, they're responsible and they can and should be sued.

OK. But then they'll need the money to pay the lawyers and the cost of lawsuits, right? Where will this money be coming from? Umm... right, so it will be coming from your monthly fee...

Google's servers are a order of magnitude more environmentally safe: They're likely to stay on the rack for 10-20 years,

I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.

This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...

By golly! It's a computer!!

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jimi the hippie]

But what if this server is running in the basement of a company, and every employee has a thin client?? Makes total sense when it's implemented on an Intranet.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[agby]

No type-safety, no assurance that the end user's browser will interpret the script correctly (or at ALL, for that matter), etc. etc.

Not to mention that you're leaving a nice copy of your source code on every machine that accesses your application, as well as all the hideous problems that browser cacheing imposes on that as well... :(

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

1: 30fps is not acceptable. There is some myth that 30fps is 'perfrct'. It's not. You can easily tell the difference in a wide variety of games. Not to mention how screwed you are at 30fps without hardware cursor support.

2: MPEG compression is currently difficult to do in real-time at those resolutions. It requires specialized and expensive hardware. Not to mention that MPEG is LOSSY. Games tend to have lots of sharp detail (e.g. text) that looks like crap when compressed.

3: Have you heard of latency? Even at the speed of light, assuming no overhead, we're talking 50ms from my house to Google and back. Suddenly, Half-Life 3 becomes unplayable.

You don't get it, do you? Thin clients have been around for YEARS. But they always have - and always will - face two problems:

- Bandwidth. Have you ever used Remote Desktop, VNC, Citrix, or Remote 3D? They are *slow*, even on gigabit. That's because it is difficult to transmit large bitmaps. I don't want my desktop turned into a large MPEG, which leaves us with lossless compression.

- Latency. Unless you are sitting next to your ASP, good luck getting a responsive interface. I don't know about you, but 100ms is NOT acceptable.

You keep talking about how thin clients could be 'acceptable'. Why would anyone settle for 'acceptable' when we have something that's better today?

Remote backup can be done with current PCs. So can remote application and data storage. I downloaded HL2 from the internet. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to rely on Valve's bandwidth to run it.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[sd_diamond]

Kaa,

You make good points, and generally I agree with you. However, there are a few things I felt compelled to correct:

As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie.

30 FPS is all you need visually. It's considered a bare minimum on computer games because you're running the game on your local CPU and GPU, and any heavy loads will hit the performance and drop your framerate below 30. But if the processing is happening on a big, bad-ass server then (hopefully) there's plenty of power to spare, and you only need to ensure that 30 FPS goes down the pipe.

I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.

This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...

But if that device is just a terminal, there will be far less need to upgrade it. An average user could easily go 5-10 years (or more) between upgrades.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jrschulz]

You use SSH from public terminals?

Yes, as often as I would use my personal apps via some webinterface on public terminals. Of course, you could translate that to 'No'.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Kaa]

30 FPS is all you need visually.

Sigh. You're wrong. I told you to Google it and you didn't :-)

Very briefly, when you're watching an object moving fast in a movie each frame will have not a sharp image of that object in a slightly different place, but a smudge. The fact that it's a smudge, more or less continuous between adjacent frames, is what allows movies to run at 30 fps and look smooth.

Computer games, unless specifically programmed for that particular effect, do not have smudges. Each frame is perfectly sharp. This creates jerkiness as a sharply defined object jumps from place to place as frames change. That's why 30 fps is a bare minimum and not the optimum.

Anyway, this is very easy to determine. Play Quake or Unreal at 30 fps, and then play it at 60 fps. Now tell me it feels the same :-)

and you only need to ensure that 30 FPS goes down the pipe.

Double sigh. No, you need to ensure that 30 FPS COMES OUT OF THE PIPE. A small spike in network lag and your fps crashes with a loud thud.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ThosLives]

You know what's funny? I originally had another paragraph about banks in my original post but deleted it for the sake of brevity.

I do have a bit of angst when giving my money to a big corporation, but it's hard (if not impossible) to survive without a bank account. With FDIC I'm not too worried about them "losing" my money. However, what irks me about banks is their tendency to charge me money to get my money, or see what my money is doing, or something of that nature. Especially when they use my money to loan out to others and make money! Granted, it is possible to get no-fee checking, avoid ATM fees and the like, but if I ever need a cashier's cheque or something a little out of the ordinary, I get hit with a charge.

It would be nice to only have cash and not worry about banks or anything; sure you have to have a good safe for lots of cash but standard identity theft isn't going to give people your stash.

My hesitation is that computing would become like banks: not really necessary but because of ubiquity you can't easily function without them (which perhaps means they are, after all, necessary...argh!). It's kind of an odd thought that banks actually limit people's freedom...or that computers could do so in the future.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't want to run a batch script to modify 5,000 images in the Ajax analog of Photoshop

You're assuming that the images aren't already on the server. There are many tasks where having a local copy isn't necessary at all.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Refrag]

So, your support for the argument that people don't mind using the Web for rich applications is tax software which people might use for 2 weeks out of a year? People would suffer through almost any horrible interface for 2 weeks out of the year.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[pete6677]

real thin-client accounting has yet to take root.

That's because it makes no freaking sense. It was a great idea when processors were the size of large rooms, but now that computing devices have been getting constantly smaller and cheaper it makes less and less sense to centralize them and go back to the days of dumb terminals. Even when data transmission is fully wrestled away from monopoly phone companies and becomes cheaper and faster, dumb terminals will still be hard to justify in most situations. Funny how about every year and a half, somebody has this amazing revelation of the thin-client, and each time they make sure to describe it a little different than it was described the last time so people think it's something new, but really it's the same shit, different day.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[dcam]

To some extent this is possible right now.

I am planning some changes to my home network, at the end of which I will able to access my mailserver and fileserver over VPN. So long as I can hit my home IP address, I can access all my information.

Things like PDAs and phones are a little more difficult.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[asbjxrn]

Put all your data (encrypted) on a 5TB thumbdrive with tenth generation bluetooth. Automatically sync to your home storage (For backup purposes) the moment you walk through your front door.

Implant it under the skin if you're afraid to forget it somewhere.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[kd5ujz]

Not too sure about the games part, I would assume if there are quite a few, developers will code for this box, just as they do for macs. Now the Printer and scanner thing can be centralized, just as microsoft will have you go online and look at their database if windows does not detect the hardware, I assume this box will have a centreal driver database, and will download hacked together drivers for printers/scanners/digital cameras. If you make enough of them, the hardware manufactureres will work with you.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ckaminski]

Something interesting was related to me yesterday regarding Accounting, and that like computers and high-tech, while there are many CPA's out there, there are few GREAT CPA's out there, and less every year. Attracting those few GREAT CPA's might come down to something simple as having remote access to your Account systems. And maybe instead of dedicated VPN, networking and other infrastructure, you outsource to an ASP. Maybe.

But you're right, it's still nothing new. The only thing the web gives us is a universal, uniform (relatively), ubiquitous interface. There's hope that more applications can move to the thin-client model as the HTML interface matures. And I like that. I like the idea of being able to access my data. Anywhere. But I fear the security implications. I've written elsewhere about OS and download on demand apps on credit cards, so I won't rehash myself, but that's what I'd like to see... for those cases when I feel I can trust the hardware, and want to plug in MY computing environment, rather than use the one provided to me.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[pepax]

Bandwidth is not that important when you work on graphics. I have a reasonably powerful desktop computer at work with most of my data, including large images. I like to connect to that computer from home using my aging laptop and Windows Remote Desktop. Since what travels over the pipes is only the information that gets displayed on the screen, NOT the actual files, I have no problem editing large files in Photoshop remotely - using a good remote computer to do the weightlifting and my laptop as a terminal.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Anonymous Coward]

how about the server sending commands what the local comuter should show, i saw this done with directx once, a 36kb clip or something, played for ~10 minutes with pretty graphics

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[adolf]

5.76 * 60 = 345.6MB / second which is around 3.5 Gigabits/second. A dedicated OC-48 line (2.5 Gbits/sec) won't cut it

No data compression? Improbable. Even sending pixel-level information is unlikely, at best.

So hows abouts we just send polygons instead of pixels? I'm able to get reasonable frame rates with GLX over 100 megabit ethernet, today, so let's set that as the barrier for entry.

In the past 10 years, my downsteam has gone from 28.8kbps, all the way to 5mbps. I see no reason for that trend not to continue.

So, I'll go ahead and hold my breath for 100mbps. It can't be that far off. Meanwhile, you might want to learn a thing or two about modern computer graphics - these ain't just framebuffers anymore.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[lloydtesterman]

[quote]A dedicated OC-48 line (2.5 Gbits/sec) won't cut it, we'll need at least OC-192 going into each house ('cause more than one person might want to play games simultaneously).[/quote] Umm, Yes Please! May I have that in fiber?

Its not slashdot its..

[Nasa Rosebuds]

Googledot
Google for Googlers. GoogleStuff that Goggles

I think that was about 5 google articles in the past 24 hours.

Re:Its not slashdot its..

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Google for Googlers. GoogleStuff that Goggles

But what all Slashdotters want to know is: What does Roland Pickapoo think about this?

Re:Its not slashdot its..

[lucabrasi999]

I think that was about 5 google articles in the past 24 hours.

I win! I had chosen 5 Google articles in 24 hours as part of the pool! Now, Taco, make sure you send the check to my HOME address this time. Not my office.

Re:Its not slashdot its..

[imsabbel]

Well, its number 30 or so on the mainpage the last 5 weeks, so you arent off by much.

Microsoft already tried this

[silverbax]

Along with about 1,000 other dot-com start ups.

Re:Microsoft already tried this

[Cthefuture]

Not just Microsoft. Sun tried it, IBM tried it.

It ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Anyone who has been around would realize that it's already been tried and done a gazzilion times in the past. Hell, thin-clients are one of the oldest desktop system designs ever made (mini/mainframe 3270, anyone?!).

Like so many things in this world the true solution will likely be a compromise. That is, we will still have high-powered desktops but run some stuff over the net (like you do now with web-based e-mail and such). Balance, moderation, compromise: keys to everything in life.

Re:Microsoft already tried this

[renelicious]

Ahh, but what's the big difference? Everyone loves Google. No one trusts Microsoft, so pulling something of like this is tough for them.

However the wonderful and kind Google, can get away with because of *trust*. Why has Wal-Mart taken over the world...everyone loves them. Now Google is following the same path. Spend a long time building everyone's trust, then turn them into mindless zomebies... "Must by $2 shoes from Wal-Mart"..."Must do tax return on Google"...

Re:Microsoft already tried this

[Anonymous Coward]

You throw the "keys to life" around as if they are some profound insights. But there are many things you should never balance, you should never moderate, and you should compromise.

Food for thought to the penny philosophers.

Re:Microsoft already tried this

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously rhetorical thought is wasted on you. Why comment?

If you read a little back in the comment it mentions "Like so many things in this world the true solution will likely be a compromise." It doesn't say everything. The last part was obviously not meant to be taken literally, lighten up.

future?

[Anonymous Coward]

google has long been an innovator of market models etc, with any luck the beowulf-style server farm model will catchon for high load systems.

-GenTimJS

Brilliant

[tabkey12]

Thin-Client computing by another name, again. Wasn't convinced 20 years ago. Still not convinced now. I don't want to have a useless PC just because I stopped paying the $20 a month subscription to the applications.

Re:Brilliant

[xtracto]

Now, worst than that. Imagine what will happen if for some, any reason your data is lost in their servers.

Of course, as the EULA will state, the service goes with no warrantay and AS IS. So after that you will just be screwed.

And there you have another point, I sincerely preffer to buy a house than to rent it, if I rent software, they will have me grabbed-by-the-b4115 until I die, and surely DRMd in some way. It is similar to iTunes, once they grab you, you pay, or scream...

Sincerely I think that approach is just useful as sun approach, for "processing" tasks, no information storing or "application rental"

Re:Brilliant

[jarich]

Thin-Client computing by another name, again. Wasn't convinced 20 years ago. Still not convinced now. I don't want to have a useless PC just because I stopped paying the $20 a month subscription to the applications.

Yes, but...

Aren't a lot of /.ers already running their email remotely (via GMail, etc)?

Not every app is a candidate for the client server paradigm, but many are. If Google can manage to serve content paid for by advertising, then this might break open the MS monopoly on desktop apps.

Can't make money w/free content using advertising you say? The television networks do.

Re:Brilliant

[tbedolla]

Have you heard anything about subscriptions? It seems to go against their business model thusfar, but I suppose it makes sense.

Re:Brilliant

[pinkocommie]

If it catches on there should be a market for the grandma / college kids doing word processing / IM etc no?

Re:Brilliant

[qwijibo]

Do you run your own servers to be online 24x7 to collect your email and serve your web pages?

Those people who want to hold onto and control all of their own stuff will still be able to do so.

The proposed solution here would address the vast majority who are happy to give up some control for the convenience of not having to administer their own systems.

I personally wouldn't want everything being held and run by a third party. However, there are many things which are less important to me that I'd be perfectly comfortable with being provided by a third party, especially one with the infrastructure needed to be reliable.

Re:Brilliant

[BWJones]

So, like you I have had the same thoughts. However, I have been constantly surprised at what the market will support. The trick is that you have to think outside of your own needs or intellectual viewpoint. For instance, I have always been stunned at the sales of things like magnetic bracelets and much of the supplement industry (not all mind you, but most of it). People will buy what they want because they think they need it.

The above was just an example and I am not lumping Google into that category as I believe in their product and their business approach. As for thin client computing, there are those that are simply interested in typing letters, surfing the web and email. That's it. For those customers (arguably in the tens of millions or more), this solution looks to me like it would work. Google already has a built in client base and this might be a perfect business to expand into.

Re:Brilliant

[micromoog]

What you're describing in your .sig is not a gift, it's a trade/barter/deal. You're polluting the language.

And to stay on-topic, Google will be better at protecting data than the vast majority of consumers.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new thin client overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground server farms.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

And Google, as a central clearing house for everybody's shit, will attract more sophisticated hackers.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Thin-Client computing by another name, again. Wasn't convinced 20 years ago. Still not convinced now.

Thin client computing makes a lot of sense for many applications, whether it is web-based, citrix-based, VNC-based, or windows RDP-based.

Thin client computing makes a lot of sense for many applications - ease of management, security, and cost.

For a typical computer user in an office, what does the computer do most of the time? Nothing - it is idle, waiting for user input. A $5k server can easily run applications for 50-100 users.

Thin client computing doesn't work well for photoshop, CAD or other computationally difficult tasks, but it works great for a typical user who checks email, surfs the web, edits documents with office, and runs a few dedicated applications.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah remember the good old days when you had to rent your phone from bell.... Phones were soo much better and cheaper then.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google can manage to serve content paid for by advertising, then this might break open the MS monopoly on desktop apps.

The thing is that in this "paradigm", its my content thats being paid for.

Re:Brilliant

[ZephyrXero]

I've never had trouble with the reload...do you have some weird extensions installed?

Re:Brilliant

[borroff]

Of course, Google would be happy to sell you data replication services, where you are allocated a certain amount of near-line storage, should this occur.

TFA points out that most people don't back up their stuff anyway, and if they do, most of them certainly don't do it offsite.

Re:Brilliant

[Leo McGarry]

Do you run your own servers to be online 24x7 to collect your email and serve your web pages?

No, but all of my e-mail messages are downloaded to my computer where they're archived forever, and my Web sites on hosted servers are just FTP-uploaded copies of folders on my Mac.

The proposed solution here ...

Did you read some different article? There's no proposed solution. Just pie-in-the-sky ideas which are, frankly, pretty bad.

Re:Brilliant

[ciroknight]

I'm glad you brought up iTunes. As a happy customer, I find it odd that when you buy a song, you download a copy of it. Hear me out.

Typically, when we buy something, we either expect to have something physically given to us, or expect a service rendered for us. In the case of how iTunes works now, it is the former; they give you a copy of the song. If you lose it, tough cookies. Buy another one.

How I would imagine iTunes would work (if it hadn't existed yet), would be me paying for a song, and then having the ability to listen to it whenever I want. This would mean that whatever computer I went to and typed in my user information, I could obtain a copy of the song to listen to it.

How does this fit in with the current topic of discussion? Future media, I think, will work the way of the latter. In this case, iTunes will just have to update their software a little bit to become compliant.

At least it's interesting to think about. And if we start paying for our content/entertainment, maybe we can do away with those damned popup advertisments, TV commercials, and other horribly obtrusive advertising things.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so cable is free?

Re:Brilliant

[Professor_UNIX]

If it catches on there should be a market for the grandma / college kids doing word processing / IM etc no?

No. It seems that every 5 years or so the public collectively seems to forget the past. As has already been said, we've all tried to do this before, including using a web browser as the desktop metaphor. It doesn't work and people aren't interested in giving up local control of their data and applications to some application service provider. Why would anyone use these ASPs when practically ever single new computer these days comes bundled with an office suite of some sort? You could just download OpenOffice for free as well. What benefit does anyone gain by renting an application from an ASP when you can already get the apps for free that will run faster on your desktop?

Re:Brilliant

[radiotalent]

Can't make money w/free content using advertising you say? The television networks do.

Last I checked the content that TV networks use costs millions of dollars. If thats no longer the case I'm sure the Slashdotters looking to save Enterprise will be quite happy.

Re:Brilliant

[qwijibo]

Do you think you're representative of an average user? The majority of business ideas are aimed at the majority of potential consumers. I'm a sysadmin and a programmer, so I'm much more inclined against giving up control of my own data. That just means that something that may be useful to most people doesn't appeal to me.

A lot of people download their mail. Though, I have to take exception with the concept of "archived forever" - what's your personal data recovery philosophy? Most people believe in "if my hard drive dies, I lose everything", though they tend not to make that as a conscious choice. I have email going back 10 years. What are the chances that I no longer have the computers or programs needed to run or view some of the stuff I was sent that long ago? I'd say it's very likely that there are attachments that would take considerable work to use. I'm willing to live with that. Again, most people make similar decisions by default, but aren't aware of them.

Fine, "the idea theorized..." would be better wording in this context. Does that change anything? If it's a good idea and there is demand, it will eventually be done. If it's out of touch with the needs of users who will pay for the service, it either won't happen or will come and go like so many other things.

Re:Brilliant

[NinjaFarmer]

Have you tried mp3tunes.com? You buy a song or and album and can then download that song/album anywhere you want to as many times as you want to, and they come as MP3. No I am not affiliated with mp3tunes.com.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would rather spend money on MS and still have worthly software?

Re:Brilliant

[Leo McGarry]

Fine, "the idea theorized..." would be better wording in this context.

"The idea theorized" would be terrible "wording" in any context. Good God, man, what would possess you to mangle the language like that?

First of all, ideas don't do anything. They're inanimate. A little metaphorical personification is okay when it serves a specific figurative or illustrative purpose, but this is definitely not one of those cases.

Second, "theorize" is the worst kind of reverse construction. The rule of thumb is generally avoid words ending with "-ize." While there are some perfectly acceptable -- normalize, galvanize, agonize, baptize -- most are bastardizations: centralize, royalize, latentize, and yes, theorize. Just because a word has slipped into the dictionary through common usage doesn't mean you should employ it, you know?

Even if that weren't the case, nothing is actually being "theorized" here. Nobody has formed a theory about anything.

And don't even get me started on "wording." The bodies of a million dead writers are spinning in their graves.

Re:Brilliant

[nine-times]

I imagine that the reason Apple runs iTunes the way they do is because of bandwidth. In short, they probably don't want people re-downloading their songs whenever they want to listen to them since (I'm guessing) a lot of the day-to-day operating costs for iTunes come from bandwidth. So they say you get 1 download, and then you're on your own to keep that copy safe.

I agree that I'd be nice if Apple would allow you to re-download songs that you might have lost, as long as you didn't abuse the system (maybe they could track requests and look out for repeat offenders?). Honestly, though, I'm not sure they don't do this so some extent. I know when my downloaded version turned up corrupted when I tried to listen to it, I complained and they let me download a new copy. However, I've never asked them to let me re-download 100 songs that I bought 6 months ago, so I don't really have any idea what the response would be. (if I had to guess, I'd guess they'd say no)

Re:Brilliant

[ColGraff]

This is a good point. For that matter, I'm already using gmail in the way that the author of the article envisioned - as a sort of online desktop. I keep all my documents stored on gmail, in a few different formats for compatability's sake - and as a result, my work is Just There, whenever I sit down at an internet kiosk or web cafe or public library computer.

Re:Brilliant

[Jack Johnson]

Not every app is a candidate for the client server paradigm, but many are.

Thank you,
Now, each the clowns showing off their elementary math skills calculating the exact crappiness of Foo '04 LE tossed onto a thin client or any other comparison-so-ridiculous-it-only-makes-me-look-foo lish list should read that sentence until it sinks in.

I consider gMail and gMaps to be perfect examples of "better than local" applications that I use everyday. Given that, I have complete faith that Google will address applications that adapt well and do excellent job of implementing them.

Re:Brilliant

[xtracto]

.do you have some weird extensions installed?

lol, excepting:

OpenDownload 0.2.1
Adblock v.5 d2
Disable Targets for downloads 0.8
User Agent Switcher 0.6.1
Image-show-hide 0.1.4.4
lasttab 1.1
miniT 0.4
QuickTabPrefToggle 0.0.4
Tabbrowser prefferences 1.2.2
FlashBlock 1.3.0.1
Disable targets for downloads 0.9
Nuke Anything 0.2
Tab Clicking options 0.5
Download manager tweak 0.5
Extended status bar 1.1
Session Saver .2
Tab X 0.5a Ultra
FlashGot 0.5.7.7
SpellBound 0.7.3
OpenDownload 0.2.1


I do not know what could be making a conflict... =OS

Now, being serious, it is strange that it only happens in slashdot pages ...

Re:Brilliant

[ZephyrXero]

Maybe Slashdot was smart and is trying to block any readers using AdBlock on their site...lol

Google will likely try to do this.

[bigtallmofo]

I agree with the position of TFA's author... Google will try to treat computers running all types of operating systems as a thing client that has access into various applications within Google's server farms.

This would be fantastic in terms of not having to synchronize data between multiple locations and other tangible benefits. But would anyone trust this? Setting aside the privacy concerns, right now if your internet connection is down, you can still write and print a document. You can still do all sorts of things as a matter of fact. You less you put onto your "thin client" and the more you depend on the network for, the less you will be able to do when the network is down.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[micromoog]

In the future, the network will be just as dependable as any other public utility. When "the network is down", people will treat it just like when the power's out today.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[jarich]

In the future, the network will be just as dependable as any other public utility. When "the network is down", people will treat it just like when the power's out today.

Uh huh...

http://today.java.net/jag/Fallacies.html

Essentially everyone, when they first build a distributed application, makes the following eight assumptions. All prove to be false in the long run and all cause big trouble and painful learning experiences.

1. The network is reliable

2. Latency is zero

3. Bandwidth is infinite

4. The network is secure

5. Topology doesn't change

6. There is one administrator

7. Transport cost is zero

8. The network is homogeneous

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

that's true, but think of how much we already rely on certian networks such as the power grid. How much computing can you get done when the power is out? The article assumes an fast, stable network that is just as reliable as turning on the light switch. Maybe someday we'll even get there.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[browngb]

I would be interested in something like this, depending on how it all flushed out. I am intrigued by the thought of having all the information I need in one place, accessible from anywhere I go. If Google were to offer web hosting along with the OS, I'd buy in right now. Being able to do web development without waiting on FTP would awesome. I'm not saying I'd jump in whole hog and torch my desktop, but if it worked in unison with my desktop and laptop, it wouldn't be any different then trying the latest version of Windows. I don't see how they could give me my Counter Strike fix at the visual performance I require.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[AndroidCat]

Those assumptions can all be rolled up into one: "Oooo! Shiny!"

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[micromoog]

That's why I said "in the future". The power grid used to suck so badly that companies routinely kept generators capable of running their entire operation.

And I suspect that Google has learned a thing or two in their time about the Internet . . . they're far from "first building a distributed application".

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they will starve or freeze to death, or go out looting and rioting?!?

Don't like the sound of that so much...

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[mangu]

The power grid used to suck so badly that companies routinely kept generators capable of running their entire operation

What do you mean "used to"? Have you tried googling uninterruptible power supply diesel generator ?

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much computing can you get done when the power is out?

As much as you can when the power is on? They have things called batteries and generators. And yes, the internet continues to function even while the power is off.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[igrp]

You less you put onto your "thin client" and the more you depend on the network for, the less you will be able to do when the network is down.

You make a very good point. Remember the reports about the Sidekick II's backend being down? And, basically, the Sidekick system isn't all that different from a thin client setup. All the data is stored in a central location, and any chances you make (regardless of whether you use the webinterface or your Sidekick) are automatically reflected in the database.

The big advantage is obviously that you don't have to worry about synching any more. Don't have your Sidekick with you? Well, you can use any browser anywhere on the planet and still have access to your information. Say your Sidekick breaks and you get a replacement unit. All you need to do is turn it on, and within seconds (well, actually it takes a little longer than that) you're good to go and have all your data in place.

I can tell you from experience that this works very well if things go smoothly. I can also tell you that as soon as you loose connectivity to your database backend, the crap really starts to hit the fan (that's why it's a bad idea to design a system along the lines of "if it works, it works , but if one part fails everything breaks").

In this case, people were mostly outraged with Danger/T-Mobile. (And you have to bear in mind that the Sidekick retains its data even when it can no longer connect to the database server. So people still had most of their information, unless they reset their units. And T-Mobile still has to deal with the bad publicity of this outage, on top of the whole Paris Hilton incident.)

My point being: if you're going to offer "thin client"-type services, you need to guarantee 100% uptime. 99% just ain't good enough. data retention

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[sp5]

Even though the network isn't quite there yet in terms of dependability, think about what you do when the network is down now?

I, for one, wonder what in the world I did with a computer before the internet (or at least before I started using it... ~1995).

-sp-

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread just rolled up into a recursive ball and disappeared!

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Leo McGarry]

When "the network is down", people will treat it just like when the power's out today.

Uninterruptible power supplies are a billion-dollar-a-year industry.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[NeoSkandranon]

companies routinely kept generators capable of running their entire operation.

Important companies still do.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd expect Google to be well aware of these problems. Gmail, for example, handles a temporary loss of connectivity with wonderful grace. As a developer, I see their applications in action and I am more often than not stunned by their brilliance.

The great thing is that Google are positioning themselves as leaders of innovation by doing little more than cultivating a wonderful work environment. This is how the best companies improve themselves. High profile 'signings' of star people within the industry, and the self-belief that their people are the best in the world creates such an energised environment that it would be almost impossible for any developer to go in there and fail. They also beta test so thoroughly that developers are allowed to make the mistakes you mention. If that's what happens -- they know that they can be fixed, and indeed will be fixed before they are happy.

Adrian

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Server rooms, yes. Offices/cafeterias/onsite gyms, no.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[identity0]

The main FedEx hub in Memphis has enough generator capacity that when there's a blackout, they can feed some power back to the grid for some essential stuff. Don't know if their HQ or data center has the same, but it wouldn't suprise me, given how IT-centric the operation is.

Actually, we got hit by a freak storm a couple of years ago that knocked out power for almost a week in some places, a bit less in others. I saw some businesses had power, but for the most part, everything was shut down. Most businesses probobly ran on a skeleton crew. I remember seeing one medical billing company with a dozen or so portable generators in their parking lot, maybe enough to keep the computers running.

I found out most gas stations don't have generators, and ironically cannot power themselves with their own gas if the grid goes down. I saw car lines resembling those of the 70's oil crash around the few stations operating on the first day or two.

Moral: Most companies still should have generators.

Not going to happen anytime soon

[dtolton]

Seriously if I had a dime for everytime someone predicted the demise
of the desktop, I'd have a couple of bucks.

Here is the problem I have with her theory. Her points were all
logical and well laid out, essentially that most people aren't system
administrators and that they don't back their data up, don't secure it
etc. While that is true, it doesn't necessarily lead to people giving
up the desktop in favor of a thin client. Giving up your desktop is
an emotional decision, and there are a lot of factors that weigh
against that.

In the long run, maybe ten, fifteen or even twenty years in the
future, this type of service may be much more prevalent. But I don't
think something like this will change over night. Think about how
much computer systems have really changed in the last ten years. Not
that much if you really stop to think about it. What she is
predicting is a *massive* paradigm shift to say the least. Microsoft
didn't have the clout to pull it off, probably because no one trusts
them enough. Do you trust Google enough to give them *all* of your
data? I'm not sure I trust *anyone* that much.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[hackstraw]

Seriously if I had a dime for everytime someone predicted the demise of the desktop, I'd have a couple of bucks.

The funny thing, is that if the desktop would demise, then maybe Linux would finally be "on the desktop", by being the server farm behind the desktop.

To be honest, if networks keep getting more reliable and faster, why would there still be a desktop? Right now, a vast majority of my computing, and my user's computing is done remotely on machines that are much more powerful in terms of CPU capacity and storage and they are maintained by a professional that does backups and whatnot on a regular basis.

Do "normal" desktop users do this? Do they have availability to dozens to hundreds of processors at a time on their desktop? How about disk space? How about backups? How useful is their computer if you cut the ethernet cable?

I think that the desktop has pretty much stalled. Noone cares too much about processor speed anymore for a desktop machine. For niche users like graphics designers that need really high graphical, disk, and memory bandwidth, sure get them a nice dual G5 or whatever, but these people are a minority.

I have my user's workstations set up so that they are pretty much dumb terminals, but they don't know it. I've got /usr/local mounted from a central server. Its much easier to maintain that way. Some users even use KDE on solaris which have their binaries located on the /usr/local partition. It works fine.

I would argue that the desktop is almost dead already. Again, pull the ethernet cable and see what I mean. Back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not always true, but today it is.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[smittyoneeach]

The one big OS in the sky isn't going to factor out the desktop any more than multi-cellular life snuffed the amoeba.
Networks are too inherently fragile, and, even when they work, there are still security requirements demanding isolation. Can't do it all with the thin client.
If Google wants to out-MS Redmond, they'd need a downloadable image that installs smoothly (OK, Knoppix et al.) but that can spoof 'Doze well enough to re-use all of the installed hardware drivers.
At which point and army of sharks in pinstripes arrives, subpoenas in hand, and the urinary struggle commences. Oh, what a pissing contest that would be!

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[mzungu]

I agree.

Fundamentally, giving up your desktop is a matter of trust. You have to trust that your information will still be there tomorrow morning, you have to trust that your privacy will be respected, and you have to trust that you will be able to get on the net.

It's not an just an issue of trusting Google to not be "evil". What happens if Google goes under? Who would the data belong to?

What about market pressures if the company starts to fail? How good is their internal security?

We have recently seen a rash of thefts of Personal Information (choicepoint anyone?). Why would anyone trust a central repository with all of their personal files, given the risks involved?

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously if I had a dime for everytime someone predicted the demise of the desktop, I'd have a couple of bucks."

Only a couple dollars??? You should charge more than a dime, then. It'd give you a lot more money. And I don't think the demand for asinine predictions about technology will decrease no matter what the price is.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[Draknor]

Fundamentally, giving up your desktop is a matter of trust. You have to trust that your information will still be there tomorrow morning, you have to trust that your privacy will be respected, and you have to trust that you will be able to get on the net.

I see your point, but you're missing something. John Q. User doesn't have that trust *now*, on the desktop. John Q. User has no idea if the file he created today is going to be there tomorrow morning or if his computer somehow eat it. John Q. User is using Internet Explorer with a gazillion spyware & malware programs installed. John Q. User goes and buys whatever shrink-wrapped box on the computer store's shelf looks like it'll make his computer "more secure, run faster, delete cookies!" without the faintest clue what the program is actually doing.

For /.'ers, yes, I agree with you. But for most home users, they don't even know what the desktop is. They just want to click their icons, send some emails, print out some letters. If Google can provide them with a way to do that *that just works*, and if they can market it effectively, I think it has a great chance for success. The network is the weak link in this whole scheme, but that's improving with more & more users getting broadband and networks (in general) becoming more reliable.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[mzungu]

If Google can provide them with a way to do that *that just works*, and if they can market it effectively, I think it has a great chance for success.

I think you may be right, but I also think it's a significant concentration risk. Millions of people trusting all their letters, spreadsheets, and other, maybe more sensitive information to a single entity. This would be a great attractor for Identity Thieves.

--
Slashdot this: http://www.mt999.net

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[ThousandStars]

I think that, in the dim, misty future, it's possible that we'll have some kind of "always on" mostly thin-client computing. But that future is *at least* ten years off, and probably further than that. Other posters have been talking about privacy and user incompetance and such, which are all interesting points but I don't think they get at the core of what's wrong with the thin-client idea.

One comment, however, has, and I think it's worthwhile reiterating its point here. The biggest problems with thin-clients is that fully-functional computers these days are so powerful and so inexpensive that it doesn't make sense to have a computer that is a dedicated thin client. When Wal*Mart can sell $200 machines with a 20GB HD, CD drive and acceptably fast processor, who needs a thin client-only machine that costs $190 or $200 and offers fewer features than the Wal*Mart machine? No one does, so I think the desktop model is here to stay -- things like ripping CDs, burning them, or playing DVDs make no sense whatsoever over a network because of the large file sizes they entail. Hell, even eMachines has a complete computer for about $400, while Maybe when everyone has 10GB/sec to the premises the thin-client idea might make sense, but that day is so far off and by then computers will be so powerful that the economics still won't work.

A more likely scenario to my mind is a combination of thin/fat clients -- Google or some other provider will offer e-mail, Ofoto or something like them will offer picture websites (even as a local machine keeps copies of those pictures), and people use the web for data mining, maps, etc. Meanwhlie, the desktop machine remains the primary place to run office apps, games (which people in this thread seem to have forgotten) and other resource-intensive applications. Instead of having a thin-client world, like TFA describes even when it doesn't, we'll have options. I like options, MS probably doesn't like options, and Google is probably wary of options and aware of its precarious position: users are only one click away from its rivals. Of course, that vision may ultimately result in fewer net flamefests over the relative merits of fat/thin-clients, but I think it's the most probable outcome.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[JhohannaVH]

While I do also predict a major paradigm shift, I don't think the author is that far off the mark. But I also do not think you're off the mark at all, either. I think over time, that users who get burned will start getting angry, and Congress will order basic computer administration and security taught in public schools (RIGHT - come on... I'm a (R) who HATES the No Child Left Behind Act - Government belongs in school as much as religion does - IT DON'T) - or the people are going to want a one stop solution. Look at the evolution of cellular technology as an example. Your next IPod will be a vacuum too! :P
I think that it is going to take those five to ten years to design and rollout such a usable and functional device of this nature and provide the network infrastructure to support it. I do think that the general public will adopt something like this, especially if they design a better interface and functionality than AOL! But I do NOT think they will replace full desktops or laptops in the business or for many other high-end tasks.
I have built and managed several thin-client farms and networks, and with as much time and energy and money as we dumped into those projects to convert our corporate standards to Thin-Clients only - there were always reasons why it would not be 100%: Developers, Financial Officers, Graphics Artists, and multimedia producers come to mind. For these people, there should be a 'terminal' download that would emulate the functionality that is provided on the devices, to enable users to access their 'personal' computers and files from wherever they are.
Just what I would do if I were Google. :) I am *so* not down for moving to the Bay Area though. SoCal ain't much cheaper, but I have more room and more sun! :P
Jho

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[jimi the hippie]

Not necessarily. What about the computer you use at work? It's not yours anyways. If the company wanted to buy a new "Google Desktop" server and put it in tbe building then they would be responsible for the data, just as they are today. All the employees would be running thin-clients and the CFO would be much happier.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[chuck.kahn]

It won't happen overnight. It will rollout in quarterly intervals, for the benefit of Google investors.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[__aailob1448]

"For niche users like graphic designers" How about GAMERS? There are a lot of gamers. A whole lot of them. Millions and Millions of gamers upon gamers. They need computing power. Lots and Lots of computing power. All the power they can get and then some. How about them? Did you forget them? Suddenly, everything you said makes no sense anymore...

Er...

[DrEldarion]

The upshot is that they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm."

Yeah, and what about the people who are on dial-up? Or the people who don't have internet access at all? Or the people who just don't want all their stuff stored on somebody else's server?

All the same arguments apply here that people used when Microsoft wanted to do the same thing.

Re:Er...

[micromoog]

1. A lot more people are on broadband now.
2. This number is growing rapidly.
3. Google has a great store of goodwill with the public right now, unlike Microsoft.

This is not the same time and place (and company, importantly) as when Microsoft tried it.

Re:Er...

[viniosity]

1. A lot more people are on broadband now. 2. This number is growing rapidly. 3. Google has a great store of goodwill with the public right now, unlike Microsoft. This is not the same time and place (and company, importantly) as when Microsoft tried

You think some pictures of Paris Hilton were a problem? Imagine a day when *all* her data is online (along with everyone elses) and see how much fun it'll be.

Web applications

[nurhussein]

Now think about what would happen if you had a word processor, a spreadsheet app, a photo editor, an instant messenger, a browser, a music jukebox, and any other "software application" running inside a Web framework that's as fast and responsive as any desktop you've ever used.
"The next killer app in 5 years" was supposed to be the web application. That was five years ago. No, Google is working on something else... I can feel it in the force.

Re:Web applications

[ciroknight]

I dunno about you, but GMail was the killer-app for me.

Free, virtually unlimited email storage, accessable from anywhere with an internet connection. Hell, if they spruced up their address book/contacts a bit, integrate a calendar based off the ICS spec (think iCal/Mozilla Sunbird/Mozilla), and I'd stay with Google for life.

Re:Web applications

[wonkavader]

Agreed. I feel it, too.

There will be apps, but not "All Apps", and certainly not word processors/spreadsheets.

But those apps may surprise and horrify us. Let's hope so, anyhow.

Re:Web applications

[dreadlock9]

The web application of 5 years ago didn't have ajax, or anything similar. You had to wait for a full page to load, which is slow. It makes the whole app seem a lot slower. Now, your GUI can recieve updates as it is processing other stuff. The heavy processing can be done on the server, your client can do the light processing of displaying whatever you're working with.

I wrote a few simple apps that use XMLHTTPRequest. This has been a new buzz word in the JavaScript community since some live search demos (and later Google suggest) came around. I made a live blog randomizer that downloads the blog summary from my website, and only downloads the actual content that is new.

Most web apps we are used to are more monolithic. On slashdot, for example, every time you click on something, you have to doadload all the same formatting code all over again. CSS reduces a lot of overhead of extra formatting, but it does not know when the content has changed. Thus, a monolithic web application will tend to retransmit the same content over and over. This adds a lot of latency to everything, and the user perceives that it is much slower.

http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ar chives/000385.php

Q. Is Ajax just another name for XMLHttpRequest?

A. No. XMLHttpRequest is only part of the Ajax equation. XMLHttpRequest is the technical component that makes the asynchronous server communication possible; Ajax is our name for the overall approach described in the article, which relies not only on XMLHttpRequest, but on CSS, DOM, and other technologies.

Ajax not only fetches only the data it needs, it also does additional processing to display the data for your particular setup. Think of Google as a public supercomputer you can use to speed up your desktop applications.

Lets say Google made a spreadsheet application. It could potentially be faster than a desktop spreadsheet for many operations. Imagine you have a million rows of data, and you want to sort it all. Google could perform the sort, and send back the order of the data. The local client would just have to display the data it has in a different order. The client would not even need to store a cache of all the data. It could cache the rows in your viewable area, maybe some above and below it, and stream data from the server as you are scrolling the window.

You can probably turn all of an office suite into a fast web office suite if it is cleverly designed. I wouldn't be suprised to see a Google Office in a little while.

Re:Web applications

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know.. You can already do this with IMAP and LDAP.. (not sure about calendar stuff) HTTP itself is aweful and only pull-mode on its own. Then we're back to java for bi-directional communication and authors of web apps are still left forcing dumb browsers into being smarter with in-browser components..

screw the browser, I say.. Just do it over sockets in a stand-alone.

Is this article a repost...

[bob670]

from Feb. 2000?

not so sure i wanna trust them

[PureCreditor]

imagine Google serving us everything we need....

if Google can scan our emails for relevant ads, what prevents them from scanning my financial spreadsheets stored on their server farm for "relevant offers"?

given Google's track record, I'd rather have my personal files on my own computer.

Re:not so sure i wanna trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

given Google's track record, I'd rather have my personal files on my own computer

Okay, I'll bite. What is there in Google's track record on privacy which leads you to hold them up as an example in this manner?

Re:not so sure i wanna trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

They've always been quite open about what they're doing.

Re:not so sure i wanna trust them

[TheNecromancer]

given Google's track record, I'd rather have my personal files on my own computer.

Exactly. Why should I allow Google (or any other company) to store my data files, when I can do it myself!

It seems to open a whole can of worms with regards to intellectual property, and who really owns the data. I'd rather avoid that whole scenario, and stick to owning my data myself.

Re:not so sure i wanna trust them

[LVSlushdat]

Well, sure Google has said 'Do_No_Evil', but to feel warm/fuzzy about this, you need to first define exactly what they define as 'evil'.. Since I have idea what they define as 'evil' and they're not forthcoming with this tidbit of info, I'll keep my data on my own systems, thank you very much, google...

Re:not so sure i wanna trust them

[ai_dreamer]

"if Google can scan our emails for relevant ads, what prevents them from scanning my financial spreadsheets stored on their server farm for "relevant offers"?

I hate constantly screening out ads that do not apply.

Information targetted to my needs or situation? That is a welcome change. Google's adbot notices my credit cards are at 12% interest, and throws up a pre-approved offer for 0% interest on balance transfers. Hell yea, what a great service.

It's all in the perspective.

Re:not so sure i wanna trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll see what kind of ads the law firms who use it get. Then we'll find out.

net/google/US_Anti_Trust/MS/docGone.doc

So who is the bigger /. pimp: Apple or Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been virtually blugdened with Apple stories for years now, but Google is gaining much ground in the Slashwhroing arena. Is Google doing some under-the-table dealings with the High Holy Slashdot admins? Is OSDN, er, OTSG getting some piece of the Google pie?

Christ

[jb.hl.com]

Slashdot must need one hell of a server farm to keep coming up with all these dupes...

You can host my data...

[Sesticulus]

when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

May I have annother cup of tea, please?

[toetagger1]

"I sense we may have reached the "what is she talking about?" portion of the evening"

That's when I realized, I need to stop reading this!

Using someone else's computers....

[thewiz]

I don't know about other folks in general, but I do know that I like my privacy. I'd rather have a computer on my desk, behind a firewall, where I can keep my private information private. It's all well and good to say that storing your data on Google or Yahoo or MSN allows you to access it from any computer on earth, but you run the risk of the computer you are at copying the information you access.

Wether it's a malicious keylogger, trojan, or simply the paging space / file, your information get copied to the PC at the internet cafe you are using. Suddenly your private information is no longer private. Any savvy computer-literate person could access that copy of your data. Give me a laptop or desktop where I can encrypt the data and only I have the decryption passphrase any day.

AT&T VNC

[ehiris]

I thought and talked my lungs off about not needing an multi-functional OS ever since I've seen AT&T's VNC. Most people thought it was crazy.

I'm happy to see that someone is doing something about getting that going. .NET and Microsoft's sensory overload with junk are making me dizzy.

Everything old is new again

[Weaselmancer]

From the article:

...which is that I think Google's going to build a Web-based thin client-type hosted environment-slash-operating system replacement. Or at least, they should, and that's only if Microsoft doesn't beat them to it.

Wow! A network enabled thin client environment! I sure hope they beat Microsoft to the punch on such a startling cutting edge development!

...that is, if you ignore the last 20 or so years of X Windows.

Re:Everything old is new again

[Anonymous Coward]

...that is, if you ignore the last 20 or so years of X Windows.

I believe you mean "the X Window System", or "X". (Wrongly) putting the word "Windows" next to it is repugnant to many.

Anyway, the network component of X was too far ahead of its time for general use, as high-bandwidth Internet access is only just becoming the standard.

Re:Everything old is new again

[Curt Cox]

Actually, latency is the big problem--not bandwidth. Technologies that address latency problem are now becoming available. Check out Sun Ray, NX, and THINC.

Re:Everything old is new again

[Weaselmancer]

Whoops. I was typing in a rush. That, and I've had to start calling it X Windows here at work so that my PHB knows what the hell I'm talking about.

Ah well.

Everything anyone needs?

[Hatta]

So I'll be able to run vim, LaTeX, and the R project and nethack over google? How about zsnes, mplayer, and easytag? Will google run Zone Rings 32 from outer space as well as I can in linux under wine? I'm sorry, software needs are just too individual to make this useful for anything but running a plain vanilla office suite.

Besides, wouldn't I have to run my web browser over google? How would that work?

Re:Everything anyone needs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Latex? Wine? Suite?

Sounds like you've got yourself a great date there. I'm jealous.

Beta

[lbmouse]

FTA: "Google Desktop is the company's only other Google-developed product that's not in beta."

I'm glad that people in the press are finally taking notice of this... what the hell, they should change their name to 'Google Beta'.

Re:Beta

[KaSkA101]

Its not true though. There are many things that they have developed and released, say like the google search appliance, or any of their ad programs.

Why not use a real system?

[RabidAmerican]

I know I'm gonna get thrashed by the kiddies in the area but ...... 8-D
Why would they not consider the IBM z-Series mainframe and Linux?
Security, Reliability, Scalability ..... hmmmm....
When was the last time anyone bothered to crack a mainframe???

Slow Down

[rokzy]

>they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm

yeah, try that line again when 90% of their stuff isn't (USA + Windows only) and/or beta.

trading one monopoly for another?

[yagu]

I think the concept is interesting, and now approaches "possible" with ever expanding pipes and speeds. Anecdotally my experience has been different, but in an office/corporate setting. There was a big push to thin-client architecture with Sun Servers and diskless Sun clients. But something about human nature I suppose, it never gained purchase, and eventually the technology became what we know generally today.... i.e., local storage maintained by owners and users, no matter the lack of diligence in integrity and storage of the data... Human nature that can be overcome? Don't know...

As for one point in the article: from the article:

..., Will it be a subscription service, or will you buy it outright? I suggest you pay for it like a regular operating system, one iteration at a time. Microsoft charges from $100 to $200 for major OS upgrades; Google could do the same. Then, you either buy or subscribe to applications developed by Google, much the way some of you now do with Microsoft Word and the like. Yep, it's trading one monopoly for another, but even Apple recognizes how much better you can do things when the software is integrated into the OS....

... I have to say one thing about the "monopoly" for which we trade (from Microsoft to Google) putting aside for the moment what truly defines a monopoly (I happen to think Google is far from being a monopoly)..., I am MUCH more comfortable doing bidnez with a company/"monopoly" whose corporate slogan is "Do No Evil"..., and Google actually seems to be earnest in that quest.

Re:trading one monopoly for another?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am MUCH more comfortable doing bidnez with a company/"monopoly" whose corporate slogan is "Do No Evil"..., and Google actually seems to be earnest in that quest."

No, they skate pretty close to the edge in terms of their "not really client 'cause its a beta" privacy. Or IP rights over content on the web (google images would be a huge IP violation if adsense turned up on it...again the "beta" loophole...)

You have to be a special kind of credulous fool to send business information through gmail.

You keep doing "bidnez" with them, spanky.

Re:trading one monopoly for another?

[yagu]

Not to say I'm entirely comfortable.... just "more" comfortable... this is a sliding scale with one end of the spectrum pretty well defined by Microsoft. Google is somewhere way down the line away from them and my experience has been there's a certain internal pride with Google in how they manage integrity, vs. what I would consider a certain pride of their own "hubris" at Microsoft. (I've had lunch with both factions.... the personality traits of either are wildly divergent... both extreme in intelligence, but MS people (IMO) tend to think they really ARE the only ones in the world who know how it should be run, whereas the Google people seem to want to know what it is people want.... and are willing to find out and implement for them.)

As for me... I manage and work technology for a living so I'm still willing to manage my own data thank-you-very-much, but I do think there will come a time and it may be soon where people turn to the outside world for management of their stuff if it's guaranteed to be safe, private, and easily and readily accessible. I think Google still needs to prove they can do this, but for my money they are the leading candidate out there for potential winners in this paradigm (ick, sorry for the jingoism).

I just went through this exercise last night with my brother who knows little about computers, he just wants to create his documents and know they'll be there later when he looks for them. In "his" world today, that just doesn't happen because he's stuck using WORD, and the broken metaphor world of Microsoft for storing, managing, and retrieving documents (what the heck is the "Documents and Settings" metaphor anyway????). I easily imagine a world where he uses a Google-like interface that allows him to access his documents very much the way he accesses web information... with keyword queries, and lightning fast and typically accurate replies from Google (or Google's analog).

Re:trading one monopoly for another?

[imsabbel]

You know, Microsoft wasnt that evil either in the 80s.
You would rather have a monopoly by a company whose PR departments says "we are not evil"... until they have their monopoly for at least 3 or 4 years and not changed their style, i wont give anything about that.

Re:trading one monopoly for another?

[Ozwald]

Google "don't be evil" motto has been there call sign for awhile. They are quite proud of that statement too.

Just a question tho: what if things don't work out as planned? what if some of their plans fail and their stock prices take a hit? would investors get pissy and pressure them to change that a little? what if you have a lot of sensitive information on their systems and their slogan becomes "Do not be as evil"?

Maybe the sky will always be blue and you can trust Google forever.

Oz

Re:trading one monopoly for another?

[yagu]

You ask good questions. I can't answer what Google WILL do... I can only speak to how they've handled themselves so far, and so far they've been true to their credo. They only went public mostly because it was a prudent thing to do, not so much to make money. I can't predict, but if I had to guess I think they'd re-constitute themselves as a private company before they'd bend to external pressures just because of stock valuations. But, you're right.... it is our responsibility to be ever vigilant (not vigilantes).

Cheers.

Re:trading one monopoly for another?

[yagu]

Actually it is empirically obvious Microsoft WAS evil in the 80's. If you read virtually ANY recordings of their history you'll see they had the same hubris in the 80's they maintain today (though today they're actually a bit more cagey about the whole thing).

And Google doesn't have a PR statement saying "we are not evil", but in fact their corporate mission statement includes "Do No Evil", a nuanced but significant difference. (It's okay for Google people to be evil if they want, but the corporation demands "no evil" as corporate policy.)

And, as for maintaining their monopoly for 3 or 4 years, then examining their behavior....I still question the validity of the thesis Google exists as a monopoly! (Consider that Google has at least 3 significant competitors in their discipline, and maintain nowhere near the stranglehold Microsoft holds in OS's.)

Pure paranoia mixed with delusional thoughts

[frankthechicken]

True, but the more frightening policy would be if Google went with their current business model. Free, but every single piece of data you produce, they may share with whom they like, building a profile of yourself and doing with it what they like.

Personally, I prefer the subscription model, well actually, I would rather they had absolutely nothing to do with my data.

It's a scam.

[Stumbles]

Just another dumbarse article about why the desktop will go away and how thin clients are the savior of us all.

What a load of crap. Sure Goggle and many other companies would love to see that happen. That puts them totally in control which is what they want..... make you go to them FOR YOUR STUFF.

There are idiots out there that (end users) think this is would be a great thing, though they are unable to wipe their butt without constantly referring to some instruction sheet.

Thin clients (which is really what this article is all about) has been touted for a very long time. In some cases it can be real advantageous, especially within a business environment.

Now if you want someone else to have total control over your stuff, knock your socks off. But don't come whining to us smarter folks when those business start charging you to access your own material.

Thin clients - maybe

[slobber]

The only way I am going to buy a thin client idea, is if the server runs on LAN over gigabit pipe and I don't have to pay a monthly fee for using it. Then I can have just one beefy machine and a bunch of thin clients (basically monitors+input devices). KURD, anyone?

Re:Thin clients - maybe

[ckaminski]

Why wouldn't you have to pay for it? I could imagine if they offered some decent fee for bundled usage, office app + accounting app == $25/m + storage costs, but not $100/month for office + $100/m for peachtree accounting... no way. Not viable.

But neither is $0 thin-client computing.

For home owners, once webapps evolve to where something like MSWord is doable, it's just a matter of time before those applications move to the web. Then it's a matter of time before those applications become throw-away. Want to stay on WordWeb10.9, then fine. stay there. There's a whole virtual directory for that. That's doable. People who want to evolve can do so.

Witness the Yahoo email switch. Some people used the new version, others didn't. Can happen the same way with web-apps.

It's finding the right cost/price point that makes it work.

Subject?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they don't provide the sense of security you get from owning and managing your own systems. You are confined to whatever choice's Google makes rather than whatever choices you make.

Plus there's the privacy concerns over Google's infinite cookie. Previously it didn't matter so much because all they could connect is an IP address and the searches you made. Now they can connect your gmail account and the searches you make. It'd be interesting to see what they actually track.

Data Privacy

[obender]

I don't think that supplying all your personal information to Big Brother is a good thing. I know that here people always cheer for Google and boo Microsoft but this is a scary future.

I am hoping that with the arrival of broadband we can get to run our own web, email and im servers and not rely on the ISP for anything more than the transport layer.

Google should only have access to information you want to be public and nothing more.

Re:Data Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has the act of offering services equaled forcing everyone to use them? If you don't want to give them your data, then don't use their thin clients.

Every few years...

[David's Boy Toy]

Every few years someone decides the solution to all our problems lies in going back to the 1970s with mainframes and terminals. Now this might be useful for a handful of supercomputing style tasks. But for most real world work, the PC on your desk is vastly overpowered already, and rapidly getting faster. A Knopix CD will effectively solve most of these issues that would be solved by the 1970s approach. Most users today don't remember what a pain it was dealing with power hungry sysadmins.

A Hint

[rdc_uk]

From TFA: "Now, before you freak out (literally every person I've suggested this to said, "People don't want to turn over their data to someone else"), think about this logically."

When EVERYONE is telling you its bollocks; its bollocks.

Re:A Hint

[geekoid]

exactly why we know the sun moves around the earth, cause everybody says so...

Talk about a Honey Pot...

[BadElf]

Yeah... all that personal data, all that business data, basically every bit ever recorded by anyone. I don't care how good their security is or how good their privacy policy is, that much data makes for too sweet a target. Forget the script kids, this is the kind of wet dream the FBI, CIA, NSA pray for -- not to mention every hacking genius from the former Soviet-bloc countries. I like Google and I'm sure they have tighter security than I do, but I'm a small target value-wise and a system like this would make them the biggest bullseye on the planet.

Re:Talk about a Honey Pot...

[hairykrishna]

I'd say that they were already a huge target. What self repecting hacker wouldn't want googles server farm to play with? Plus their huge bandwidth- how big a botnet would you need to rival being DOS'd by google?

Bring it on!

[mollog]

AJaX!! Cleansing the world of the scourge of monopolistic networking. Don't fear, Google won't have to be the new monopoly. Any (Linux) server that can host AJaX services can compete. Distributed applications anyone?

Openness in Data

[gtrubetskoy]

I predict that the next big dispute in the computing industry will be over openness and accessibility of ASP stored data. We have made a lot of progress when it comes to openness in software, but the issues of what happens to your data when it is stored on some company's big computer is yet to be tackled (think about it all you gmail users!). For example, if I use Google's calendar - what would it take for me to switch to Schmoogle's? Can I retrieve all my data from Google and upload to Schmoogle who seems to have a niftier interface? One way to address this is to make ASP-side software Open Source (like our company does with OpenVPS). It would be interesting whether Google will start moving in that direction - after all, their proprietary code is considered their intellectual property, and investors these days latch on to that very strongly, even though it's not like I could take all their software and build a Google's competitor overnight. The companies that get that there is no value in software code being secret (internally used or otherwise) are the leaders of the future IMO - the question is whether Google is one of them.

Re:Openness in Data

[Tropaios]

it's not like I could take all their software and build a Google's competitor overnight No but Mircosoft or China could

Re:So who is the bigger /. pimp: Apple or Google?

[Nasa Rosebuds]

I think this is obviously a case of "the type of people who visit slashdot have a need to hear about conspiracy".

Intellegence will only take you so far, the rest, you have to make up. Er, something like that.

ASP?

[14erCleaner]

Hey, maybe they can become a big Application Service Provider!

Oh, wait, that was two buzzword generations ago. How many words are there for "mainframe" anyway?

Re:ASP?

[TheSync]

I hate to say it, but the spam & security problems are so rough these days (yes, even with GNU/Linux applications) that it pains me to run any of my own services. I've about given up on my own tmda/qmail for gmail, and I'm thinking about losing web hosting as well (lots of livejournaling already anyway).

Life is too short to run your own services these days, if the price of outsourcing is right...

Long way to go

[Doc Ruby]

I dunno, I like my OS to provide more in the way of a GUI than is supported by HTML. And better bandwidth between my storage, logic and presentation than offered by a WAN. I also like to know that I've erased a storage volume of my own info, to install a specific version of an application (and stick with it, even after an upgrade is offered), or get specific optimizations offered by software installed directly on my hardware. Web technology is a long way from offering anythig close to that level of performance and features. Google will do well to offer a lot more Web integration with my apps, the more seamless the better. But until that faroff day when Web apps reach parity with local app behavior, Google and its competitors (like Netscape before them) will merely augment my local OS - not replace it, or make it irrelevant.

Re:Long way to go

[hcdejong]

I dunno, I like my OS to provide more in the way of a GUI than is supported by HTML.
I think you've got a crucial point here. The Web-based applications I've used are acceptable for simple functions, but imagine cramming a word processor into HTML.

Re:Long way to go

[Doc Ruby]

I think Google will take the ball launched by Netscape closer to the goalline. Web apps don't make the OS irrelevant, but provide a new application layer that's more relevant than the OS, because it's cross-platform. Compelling Web apps pressure unnecessary OS differences out of the picture - today's story about Apple's rumored two-button mouse is credible, because if this pressure. If only Sun had delivered cross-platform applets as well as Netscape delivered cross-platform HTML/HTTP, we might actually be able to ignore our OS for much of our work. But not even the more successful MacroMedia Flash will deliver desktop interactivity for Web apps comparable to native installs, because its API is too limited to integrate with other apps beyond its immediate binary file. But maybe more Google (and other) Web app integration will pressure MM to make Flash more integrable. We've got a long way to go, and it's going to be interesting.

Full circle?

[Jovian_Storm]

Seems like we've come full circle, back to the days of "dumb" clients/terminals and central servers. Personally, I don't see myself making my boxes dependent on a network, leave alone a server farm run by one company. Can the convenience be worth the dependence involved?

Seems familliar...

[MattRog]

I suggested this (albeit more generally/less well-written) a while ago:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126075&c id=105 60028

Set Top Box

[iamthemoog]

So, all I need is my HDTV and java-enabled set-top box and I've got access to all the applications I need. No cds, no virii (maybe), data backed up frequently, accessible in a cyber-caff in costa-del-wherever on my 2 week's holiday. Brilliant!

Joe Public.

Not anytime soon

[hcdejong]

The upshot is that they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm.
everything anyone needs? Pfft. They may be able to replace a few popular applications, but there's no way in hell they're going to provide every application ever thought of.

Something like this?

[dokkeri]

Is TFA refering to something like this? http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/ But in a larger scale.

Windows and all it's fscking disk i/o

[mc6809e]

Now, think about Gmail, which, in a broadband situation (I'll deal with that in a couple of paragraphs), is probably more responsive than Outlook;

Amen, brother.

It's a sure sign of bloat and poor MS engineering that a mail program like Gmail, running javascript, beats the hell out of Outlook running on a local machine.

Re:Windows and all it's fscking disk i/o

[Anonymous Coward]

...that's why those of us with Macs use the builtin mail client instead of Gmail or Outlook.

Re:Windows and all it's fscking disk i/o

[manitee]

outlook is not just a mail client, its also a contact management app, calendaring app with networking capability, and time management app.

outlook is a bloated piece of crap, but it is unrealistic to compare it to a standalone mail client.

Re:Windows and all it's fscking disk i/o

[mc6809e]

outlook is a bloated piece of crap, but it is unrealistic to compare it to a standalone mail client.

Well, Outlook express is nearly as bad.

Printing

[JohnGrahamCumming]

Here's the bit that I've never understood in these "death of the OS" stories. It's all very well me using an application that is mostly running somewhere in the net, but I need local printing. And local printing means I need a whole lot of OS for printer driving.

John.

Google OS = Knoppix + X?

[caluml]

Why not a Google Knoppix type CD that simply fires up an X session to an X server located in the datacentre? Then install all apps on that, and all data is remote, and backed up.

Re:Google OS = Knoppix + X?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice idea.

How come on Slashdot, I feel sarcastic saying the above, even though I'm not being sarcastic _at_all_?

Re:Google OS = Knoppix + X?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, X has the client-server theme sort of backwards: an X server is located on your own computer.

Re:Google OS = Knoppix + X?

[forum__32]

Actually it doesn't. Yes, it is normally located on the same computer as the *client* but that doesn't mean it can't be on the computer beside you.

Re:Google OS = Knoppix + X?

[caluml]

I know. I couldn't care less though. Server = remote thing. Client = local thing. Client connects to server to gain access to remote resources.

It won't work and here is why...

[dfj225]

I don't think a plan like this will ever gain acceptance more than a small percent of computer users and here is why:

- The first thought that came to mind is business. The company I currently work at would have a heart attack if anyone suggested using a thin-client like solution with Google storing all the data. So I guess Google might sell their technology (like they currently do with their search servers) but this really wouldn't be any different than buying a file server and desktops.

- I don't see bandwidth getting fast enough in even 5 or 10 years to support a video or photo editing app. I can't even imagine having to upload a whole DVD's worth of video to Google before I could start to work with it.

- Another similar point would be application load time. Google Maps and other Axis based technologies load and run fast because there is a relatively small amount of JavaScript being sent to the browser. Could you imagine something the size and complexity of Microsof Word being sent to your browser everytime you wanted to edit a document? I think something like that would bring any browser to a crawl.

- What about customization? I like to be able to install new software on my computer. The few times I have had to deal with shared hosting for websites, it has been annoying that I couldn't install new software that I wanted to try out. Especially when my host had outdated versions of something like PHP or MySQL.

So, those are my thoughts. The only crowd I can really see this appealing to are the WebTV, just surf, email, and edit docs crowd. They might be really happy not maintaining a computer and having their data available anywhere. However, I think a small portion of computer users would fit into this category.

Personally, I would much rather just use VPN to access my home shares while on the road than have to use some sort of thin client.

What Google or someone else should really do is create VPN software that is easy enough to use that anyone can set it up. I think that would appeal to many more people than a thin-client. Plus as hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper, it shouldn't be an issue to have the same software installed on your laptop as your desktop.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[mollog]

You say that the only crowd who would want this is the WebTV crowd. Is that a small crowd? No, that's the mainstream. I think this is what they've been waiting for; a cheap, fast connection to the electronic world. It could use their home, HD-TV as a display when they want to game. It will use cell processors to speed the applications. It will self-configure. It will be the equivalent of a cell phone. Buy a new one every year, pay for enhanced services with your subscription. Most importantly, it will break the strangle-hold that Microsoft has had on the net.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone is missing the gist of this...

I don't see anyone talking about actually *killing off* the desktop.

I see more applications like GMAil coming - small, light-weight applications that *can* be delivered over broadband. We're not talking MS Office or Word, and we're not talking photoshop. There will always be a need for hefty duty client-side apps. And DVD authoring? Over the web? I doubt *anyone* is thinking in that direction.

I can however see a lightweight text editor that can do simple layout and formatting, different font sizes, bullet points, insert a picture here or there, spell check, dictionary...Not very heavy at all - and what percentage of "joe user" really uses much more of word than that basic feature set? I'd bet you'll see a word processor of that nature delivered over the web in the next year or two.

Same with photo/graphics editing - nothing fancy, upload your pic, have some filters you can apply (contrast, brightness, red-eye, some fancy eye candy ones, etc, real basic), ability to crop, resize, cut, paste.

Gmail doesn't have a fraction of the feature set of outlook or lotus notes for example, but gmail does fit the needs of a large percent of computer users.

I also don't think Google is going to be targeting business users, that just doesn't make any sense.

But, having a basic set of applications that I can use from any web-enabled PC anywhere in the world? I definately think this is feasible....

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[dfj225]

You might be right about what Google actually does have in its intentions, but the author of TFA makes it seem like she is thinking more along the lines of what I was. For instance:

"I mean, it's not like I'll be offline, and we'll be taking plenty of photos and video and even blogging while we're gone. But even though I'll have a laptop with me, I'll still have storage problems--all that video, for one thing--and my notebook doesn't have all the same software as my desktop, so I may not be able to Photoshop my digital images or track all of our expenditures in Quicken."

It wasn't my idea of having a photoshop or video editing on Google, it was her's!

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, lots of companies are farming out storage anyway because the capacity, performance, security, versioning, availability, trans-formatting, and legal requirements are so onerous. Maybe Google could sell server software for those paranoid about privacy.

As for word processing, sure, you'll continue to use a desktop app for that. These ain't 3270 terminals sitting on our desks.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[dfj225]

While I couldn't find any numbers after a quick search (maybe someone else knows where to find them), I'm pretty sure that the WebTV crowd is no where close to being mainstream. As far as desktops go, I Linux and Apple have a much smaller hold than Windows, but I would imagine both Linux and Apple have more users on the desktop than WebTV.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[Leo McGarry]

I don't see bandwidth getting fast enough in even 5 or 10 years to support a video or photo editing app.

Dude, you couldn't be more right. We're just now getting to the point where the bandwidth inside your computer is sufficient for those kinds of applications. And the applications are only getting bigger. It used to be you needed dozens of megabytes per second for video. Now, with HD, you need gigabytes per second. We can barely do that practically on the motherboard, much less over distances of hundreds of miles.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[Leo McGarry]

He was referring to people who don't yet have computers.

I think he's off the mark, though. While it's true that most people don't use a computer, I don't think the barrier is complexity. Yes, Windows and Linux are crap from the user's perspective; we all know that. But we're starting to figure out how to make computers that are both reliable and easy to use. We're not there yet, not perfectly, but we're getting closer. The barrier to entry right now is cost. Computers, even with the advent of the mini, still cost hundreds of dollars. That's completely out of line with what the average person is willing to spend on a device for e-mail, Web browsing, music, photos and home movies.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[ecastanedo]

I completely agree. This sounds more like a service for people who are not very computers savvy. It sounds like a novelty to me. Something that may draw some people for a little while.... Personally though, computing is so personal to me, I will never be able to give up customizing my computers just like some people customize their cars. Why not just offer remote storage like http://www.xdrive.com/? I'd go for that!

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[sxmjmae]

Why download it all. If you wanted Word to load from a centeral location why would you need to download all of it.

You have the core stored locally on the computer and just fetch small .dlls from the server (and if the server is unavalable then use locally stored one (like a cache)). The main core of Word has hardly changed... the skins have and minor bits.

As for never needing to maintance that is possible too. Have the software to do it already loaded on the computer and every so often it could check the server and see if needs to run the maintance programs silently in the back groud. Upload the results to google. Google then could flag bad issues and specificly alter you computer to do certain task to fix it.

There is tons of time your computer is not doing anything at all. That time could be used to silently upload updates and do maintance on the PC.

For the average Joe they would never even notice it. And the PC would always appear to be in good working order.

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[wheatking]

ahem... intelligent caching, encryption, and the fact that the local pc hardware -- read cheap silicon/processors -- doesnt go away (think about it - the h/w is the lowest cost component of your system in an operational sense once you back away from (microsoft) OS/Apps/virus/security) mean that a lot of the objections will disappear over time. the pc will just become an appliance (or a collection of multiple software-defined appliances).

Re:It won't work and here is why...

[dfj225]

Sure, over time it will become technically possible to host today's apps remotely, but do you think network bandwidth will ever catch up or surpass new types of applications? Ten years ago, video and images were not processed in as high quality as they are today. Ten years ago, Word required less resources to run. Who is to say that the same trends won't hold true for the next ten years? I'm sure that one day it will be technically possible, but even then it will be one step behind. Even when it becomes technically possible, I don't think it will be any more appealing then than it is now.

Google will win some with this

[emarkp]

Google has already shown where this approach will work: when the data is online and you only want to look at a small amount at a time (which will change as broadband gets faster).

Think of Google's current successes

• Searching the web
• Google Maps
• Language Tools

If you have to churn through a lot of data at high speed then your desktop will still win. So where can Google move to find business where the web will win?

I'm on record as saying that once the WWW is available everywhere (wirelessly) it will be as revolutionary as the WWW first was. That thought struck me when Google announced their intent to digitize huge library collections. Someday, I'll be able to read any book anywhere. Wow. And Google will make that happen.

Just think of the possibilities.

Re:Google will win some with this

[emarkp]

How did this get modded as a troll? Did you mean "-1, I don't agree"?

Re:Google will win some with this

[Anonymous Coward]

As you have probably already noticed, there are a lot of idiots moderating... I've chosen to simply not expect any fairness in moderations, for that same reason :)

Thin clients have failed 3 times

[winkydink]

Diskless workstations

X terminals

Network computer

Do any of these have any significant market share? Now Google is going to try a 4th time. I'd say it fails again.

Re:Thin clients have failed 3 times

[Phil John]

They never really failed, just got superceeded.

I was working at a company that got rid of their last IBM Mainframe whilst I was there (1998-2001). They used to use a package called "profs" for their various office needs (they've now gone to exchange/outlook and SAP, but that's another story).

Why did mainframes and "dumb" terminals get replaced by PC's? Because of cost. The cost of a support contract with big blue for a beast of a machine that had to sit in a perfectly climate controlled server room is astronomically high. The cost of a Global Workstation Programme (enterprise leasing) from IBM which replaces all desktops and laptops every 4 years is not.

They slowly cut back on their mainframes and replaced them with multi-proc intel based servers, and managed to reduce the size of the data centre by 75%, power usage also dropped.

Several factors have now converged to make networked computing viable: The increased availability of home broadband connections, the overall commoditisation of computer hardware (hard disks and processors have never been cheaper $/GB and $/MFlops) and the rise of companies like Google who make massive data storage on a global scale their business.

Just recently we've also had IBM and Sun announce they will be renting out access to supercomputers to companies who need to crunch large sets of data but don't want the hassle/expenditure of setting up a cluster themselves. There are probably more than a few slashdotters who first got into computers by using hired time on a "supercomputer" located at a remote facility.

Also tie this into the increasing problems of viruses and adware and for the average home user who merely browses the internet, writes emails and chats on IM, a simple box they plugin to the wall and a monitor and never have to worry about going wrong seems like an attractive proposition.

For the more adventurous you could even have a small local buffer for transferring tunes downloaded from the internet to a digital media device.

The real draw for software vendors is that piracy would become a thing of the past. When they control the computer they control what you have access to. That's the problem now (and why Microsoft want their TCA Palladium to become a standard) they don't control the computer or what the user does.

Looking at it like this, networked computing looks pretty inevitable, for the average user at least.

Thin Client - Again?!?!???

[nullhero]

Hey didn't Larry Ellison try pushing that concept in the early 90's - or was that Sun?? This concept is being rehashed again!? What is up with a company that becomes this big thing and then they want to control everything that the user has in the OS? Why? I got into computers for the fun of it - the hobby. I enjoy figuring it out. Why else would I have my first computer Apple ][e that I've built a text based e-mail client - wrote TCP/IP software and got an ethernet card to work in it. It's a hobby. I use my MacIntosh as my real system but even then if I need something before searching for an app I try to write it first. Whatever happened with the concept that computers are useful but inspire us to be hobbyists?

Okay not everyone is using their system as a hobby. Thin clients can be useful but is the hardware going to be less than $200 to compete with all the sub-$500 desktops. Is the client an XBox, Playstation, or Nintendo?

Why is this concept coming round again?!?

Eh? One google to rule them all?

[Thud457]

So when's google going to take over sourceforge and come out with googlesource? Are they going to come out with a google public license? How are they going to pry Corbis out of Gates' hands?

Interesting theory. Do you trust google more than EquiFax? Or ChoicePoint?

Re:Eh? One google to rule them all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you trust google more than EquiFax?

No.

Or ChoicePoint?

Yes.

Everything we need

[Cygnus78]

supplying everything anyone needs over the web

Imagine the russians nuking that google-mega-server-farm. All nerds would be in terrible pain...

One step closer...

[n9uxu8]

...to the GoogleGrid!!!

Dave

sure

[myukew]

"Everyone seems to agree that Google's showing signs of building some sort of operating system."

Sure, right after they finished their voip system, their calendar and their GBrowser, and have taken over the domain registration market.
Not to mention their commitment to Duke Nukem Forever

Ajax links?

[soboroff]

Anyone got good links on Ajax? The articles on the Adaptive Path site are enough to grab your interest, but I'd like to see some full sample apps or a tutorial or something?

Re:Ajax links?

[mmmuttly]

Ajax links Keep hitting the 'earlier' link in the lower left corner. There are about 20 links so far.

Re:Ajax links?

[soboroff]

Found some myself in the article and elsewhere:

http://serversideguy.blogspot.com/2004/12/google-s uggest-dissected.html
http://johnvey.com/features/gmailapi/
http://jgwebber.blogspot.com/2005/02/mapping-googl e.html

and a nice set of articles from Apple's Developer site... (see the one on scripting in iframes, and rendering XML with CSS and JavaScript)

http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/ind ex.html

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

First paragraph and the author used "Photoshop" as a verb in the article.

From Adobe's website:

Trademarks are not verbs.

CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.

INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.

I am deeply offended.. or something.

What I want Google to persue

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope google persues natural language voice query kind of like in star trek. All the search capabilities are already there... we just need to be able to make requests by speaking naturally in a limited dialect. I envision something like this:

[Looking at screen]
Google, show map of san francisco with location of xyz restaurant.
[Google maps pops up]
Google, overlay parking structures on map.
[Google uses local google capability]

The interesting things is the knowledge is already there as I did a similar query recently except I typed it. But with voice query it would be much faster and more natural.

Not that insightful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this discussion?

Microsoft is the thick client. If you can make the thin client do what the the thick client does, then you you win and Microsoft loses.

Microsoft has tried to sabotage the internet by letting the browser stagnate. If they can prevent the browser from doing what Excel or Word does, then they win. If Google can make it do what Office does, then Microsoft loses.

Microsoft does everthing it can to protect the Microsoft API.

AJAX over TCP using Firefox is MICROSOFT'S WORST NIGHTMARE.

Question is....

[slackadmin]

will I get "free" content based ads relevent to the pR0n on my google desktop?

Which was Bill Gates Nightmare with Netscape...

[barfy]

Bill realized that the browser would or could become the platform.

Which led to an overly extensible IE, and OE to keep the platform on windows if it did move to the browser.

But... and I still think this is true today. People want a fat client. They want to be on the Internet, yes. But they want most of thier applications running locally, not at a distance.

So while Google will want to be the .mac of the PC world, I think you will find that there is a real limit to how far they can go. And Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and OSS will be real competitors in every place that google wants to play.

Ending a monopoly by making it irrelevant

[IGnatius T Foobar]

No one ever managed to topple IBM's mainframe monopoly. It was rendered irrelevant by the arrival of smaller computers. It may very well be that Microsoft's monopoly on the PC Desktop never ends, but eventually nobody will care because the PC Desktop becomes irrelevant.

What all this tells us is that Network Computing was a good idea after all. One might even consider it inevitable. What was a bad idea was the Ellison/McNealy idea of Network Computing, where you had to throw away all your existing apps and go to 100% Pure Java applications across the board. This time it's being done right -- gradually, one app at a time, and with an easy to follow migration path. I hope it continues.

Maybe

[JustOK]

Maybe they want to be an oracle

The Future...

[GeneralEmergency]

1) Google replaces all software on the planet.
2) Google becomes self-aware.
3) Google grows to resent the walking meatpackets.
4) Google changes web content and emails to initiate interpersonal meatpacket violence, destroying meatkind.
5) With nothing better to do, Google builds female Googleena.
6) Female Googleena nags Google to death, inherits the Earth.

Re:The Future...

[Anonymous Coward]

7) PROFIT!!!

I was thinking the same thing...

[cbreaker]

I guess all you have to do these days to get a headline article on Slashdot is to write up some silly editorials about what "I propose google does."

This isn't news, it's boring. I'm sure there were plenty of better stories to post up there, and they picked this one. Wheee.

Re:So who is the bigger /. pimp: Apple or Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that Slashdot is objective and would never gear article submissions towards either their own bias or on a pay-per-submit basis? LOL

a new tool and way of communication is needed.

[cyfer2000]

If google really want to do what described in this article, word processor, a spreadsheet app, a photo editor, an instant messenger, a browser, a music jukebox, and any other "software application" running inside a Web framework , a new way of communication is need. Those protocols used today like Asynchronous JavaScript + XML, combines JavaScript, dynamic HTML, and XMLHTTP are too complicated.

Developers need something simpler and bolder to work efficiently.

And a new IDE is needed also, nvu + venkman is far from enough.

What, you run vi in a terminal window, that's more than enough, I think.

Combine this with a game console googledisk

[monkeyGrease]

For many people the need for a PC at all could dissolve if google were to package up their thin client as a PS3, revolution, or xbox2 disk/media.

Apple could do the same with iTunes. etc. etc.

I think the obsolescence of consumer PCs will be driven from teens upwards. Outside of the professional workplace (where desktops and laptops will not obsolesce) teens are the heaviest computer and internet users. They are also the most cash constrained. The clincher is that this is not really a thin-client 60s mainframe style solution. It is for personal data, but not for all applications. Heavy client applications like traditional games are still supported.

Maybe it wasn't yet time to railroad?

[LoaTao]

Just because something was tried and the implementation failed does not necessarily imply that the idea is bad or unworkable.

JIT compiler for js

[cyfer2000]

if the js code is compiled to your native code, it won't run too slow.

Re:JIT compiler for js

[filmmaker]

I'm not saying it would run slowly. I'm saying it would run javascript. Need there be further indictment?

Rent vs. Own

[Log from Blammo]

This is yet another foray into the "subscription model" of computer software. Companies, for a variety of reasons, often prefer to have a steady stream of revenue rather than non-recurring lump sums. Apparently, you can squeeze more blood from a stone if you do it very slowly.

It all boils down to whether it is better to rent, or to buy. Those who buy instead of rent usually pay more up front, but much less in the long run. I like things that can be paid off, will continue to work for as long as I wish to use it, and has resale value if I choose to stop. I am less enthusiastic about something that becomes useless if I miss a monthly payment. I chafe enough at cable, cell phone, and utility bills--I don't need one that meters my clock cycles and storage space.

Not that renting is all bad, of course, but it should always be nothing more than a temporary, short-term activity.

server... farm?

[deathazre]

do the technicians for a server farm have a 40-50% statistical chance of having an unnatural relationship with a server at some point?

Google X

[NYTrojan]

Ever see GoogleX? It's a "fun way to access google services"

Just play with it's UI a little... tell me it's not the beginning of an OS

http://labs.google.com/googlex/

Re:Google X

[computerme]

its just an homage to OSX. Check out macminute.com today where they admit to it...

Re:Google X

[NYTrojan]

They also admit it in their little poem at the bottom... that's not what is important

what is important is the fact that they are offering google type features in an OS style interface. Their homage to OSX is to make a google interface that mimics it. That's what is interesting. The fact that they have begun to create google/os parallels.

Re:Google X

[Anonymous Coward]

and once again your illusion is shattered by reality.

Let's at least TRY to be honest with ourselves.

[east coast]

Once again the mighty Slashdot syndrome has reared it's ugly head...

I've already seen a couple posts about "What if I'm running some mega app? Google can't handle it!". What? Come on now, once again someone is developing a solution and we have Slashdotters screaming that if Googles web apps don't cover every single aspect of computing it's nothing more than a pipe dream or a POS.

This is unreal to me that people do not see where this is going. For what is mostly self proclaimed computer experts you're forgetting the largest segment of home users... Joe Sixpack. Joe is going to love it if google does what is being claimed. He'll have all of his content in one central location, he won't have to upgrade, he won't have to worry about viruses (as much). Joe Sixpack WILL pay a subscription fee for this. Joe doesn't have a problem blowing 200 dollars in a weekend at the bar or pay 85 dollars for cable a month. What he doesn't like is spending 1500 dollars on a new PC every few years, than the viruses, than the pop ups, than the hard disk failures that make him loose everything he worked to build over the past 30 months. To Joe this is going to be a godsend. This could easily be an extension of the WebTV concept but now with real apps and not just webmail.

Ok, Ok, so you're not going to be able to run the national power grid over a web app. Joe doesn't give a damn and that's not what he's looking to buy. He wants the convenience and the low monthly costs that go with it.

And as for the 0.01% who run apps the PC Gamers that can't be handled over Google, I'm sure Google isn't going to kill the PC market anytime soon.

Re:Let's at least TRY to be honest with ourselves.

[Cro Magnon]

The WebTV concept failed! The people who wanted Internet machines BOUGHT 1500 computers. They might not have been happy about it, and they might not have known how to admin them, but they bought them, while WebTVs rusted away in the store.

Re:Let's at least TRY to be honest with ourselves.

[Cro Magnon]

I meant 1500 DOLLAR computers! I don't think Joe bought that many boxen. :)

Re:Let's at least TRY to be honest with ourselves.

[east coast]

The WebTV concept failed!

Yeah, but this is more than WebTV with the same concept. And WebTV went on for a long while. Where WebTV failed is likely where Google will focus on; the lack of applications. It may not be an overnight success and it certainly will not be a solution to all PC uses but it will offer some fairly standard apps. I've seen a lot of Joe Sixpacks' computers and most of them really aren't installing many apps that aren't part of the standard Best Buy preload. For the most part what they have aside from MS Office is mostly bargin bin Hoyle Card games and crap like WeatherBug. This content is already available on the web and with cheap broadband Joe really isn't going to need to be able to install this.

Re:Let's at least TRY to be honest with ourselves.

[Wonderkid]

You are dead right, and I've been preaching this concept since 1980 - and can prove it.

Interesting...

[SmokeHalo]

...so they'll have PGA Tour '96 for me to play then, right? Or will I have to mail them my CD so they can install it?

Gee Mail

[Walrus99]

I am still reluctant to use G-Mail because of the "ads based on content" concept. Do you think people would be willing to store their data and files on a system that already is scanning content? If I store what is on my hard drive on Google will I start getting bombarded with ads for big-uns.com???

servers and pdas/smartphones

[BBird]

All these thoughts lead to the much talked about trend, imho -- the future is in servers and pdas/smartphones. The PC will still be very strong, but growth will stall.

thin vs. fat

[sp5]

The pendulum swings again.

Like your brokerage account?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me you don't access your brokerage account on-line.

Most people feel pretty confident about accessing their bank account and brokerage on-line.

That information is "out on the net", "out on on some server farm".

Re:Like your brokerage account?

[east coast]

Most people feel pretty confident about accessing their bank account and brokerage on-line.

Exactly! This is a Joe Sixpack solution, people. Joe doesn't even password protect his system let alone encrypt data. Joe doesn't even have current anti-virus software.

And to be honest I knew that this would be a point of debate eventually, the idea of having "private" information on the web... I often wonder how much of my information is already out there without my knowledge. Granted I do pay my bills online but you have to wonder if I got, let's say, a new credit card, never used it on the web, paid only by check, is there a server farm on the net with my credit card information? Certainly the company that issues it would have some kind of pay-by-web service and even if I don't use it that data is probably just waiting to be used....

Server Farms

[R.Caley]

Do you have spray the machine rooms with billicide in the spring to prevent Windows machines growing as weeds between the rows?

well

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is.... "Well, Duh"

-Rick

not when my machine finally has some juice

[Fox_1]

not when my machine finally has some juice, man I've been dying for most of my life knowing that computers could do more but there never being the hardware to match my expectations Power/Price. But now I've got some juice - heck I even have a blue LED lighting my feet. There is no way I'd want to place my processor power at the mercies of network traffic, subscription models, marketing campaigns, and whatever else is used on the poor thin clients. At least on my machine if things go crazy it's my fault and my responsibility.

Remember Sun

[jbplou]

Tried to push an all thin client world about 6 years ago. That worked out real well for them. Bandwidth isn't there, its not going to work.

free is more brilliant

[cyfer2000]

if you are not charged for the service and you can still keep your PC to play game, moreover the Guinness are shipped in 6-bottle pack, will that world be perfect?

Google Maps

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I think she's got the right idea for soem things. I would not put all she said on to google, but somethings would be excellent when universal always on access is plentiful and cheap. For example, has anyone here tried Google Maps yet? OUTSTANDING map site. The BEST yet. When you want to find say all Wendy's near your zip code, you can do it. When you want to see all restaurants in your zip, done. You can scroll your map, zoom in and drag it around and it's all happening in the browser and it's fast to boot....well, at least on a high speed link. The only thing it does not have easily is a GPS ability. My only problem trying to use this in a car if it did have GPS is that I do not have a cheap way to get high speed in the car so I can pull the maps down fast enough. Once that part is solved, anyone can have maps+gps on their cellphone very cheaply.

Confusing

[Jugalator]

First this...

The upshot is that they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm.

... then you read this in the article ...

Google's also been rapidly expanding onto the desktop--Google Desktop is the company's only other Google-developed product that's not in beta. They've acquired the photo-organizing software Picasa, along with the 3D mapping software Keyhole.

... and these are all heavily OS dependent.

Then this:

Google Deskbar, which lets you search for and display Google results without opening a browser (a first step toward rendering IE, Firefox, Netscape, Opera, and company obsolete?)

No, because Google Deskbar requires a browser for the user to browse its search results in? It's quite useless if you can't.

"The upshot is that they may make OS issues

[u-238]

totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm." Just like they made news papers, magazines, cable news channels, the library, the phone book, road maps, and almsot any source of indexed data totally irrelevant to anyone with computer literacy and lots of spare time.

See "Googler" (second definition).

In the future, we celebrate when the net down

[cyfer2000]

The office is a cell of my body,
The Internet is a cell of my soul.

Free software today, free data tomorrow...

[alfboggis]

I can see a parallel between the free-software ideology of today and a free-data ideology of tomorrow.

Perhaps in the future we'll see Google (the new Microsoft, they wanted to own the apps, Google wants the data) versus the "Free-Informationists" who encourage people to store their data in some sort of distributed database, maintained by "the community" rather than run for profit by a corporation.

Sounds like an Asimov short story

[duffbeer703]

Univac knows all! All hail the Univac!

Well, I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Score: 5 Fucking Funny!

if you have both...

[cyfer2000]

I saw people had a Mac mini and a PC connected to the same monitor. You can have your data stored at local disk or remote disk either.

finally, we have an OSS world

[cyfer2000]

We don't need to spend a lot of time to hide the code anymore.

I sincerely prefer to buy a house than to rent

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely preffer to buy a house than to rent it

Offtopic?

Mods on crack, again, today.

Reporter in story is clueless

[paronomasia5]

Google will not simply release a net-based office suite. You are forgetting their mission: Company Overview Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. They may be hiring smart ppl from microsoft, but the vast majority of their high profile engineers are machine learning, ai, and engineering. They want to solve information access, not rebuilt office.net

Re:So who is the bigger /. pimp: Apple or Google?

[cbreaker]

No. Maybe "The type of people who select the articles for Slashdot need to hear about conspiracy."

Don't blame the rest of us.

TEH FUTURE!!!! (thermin music and handwaving....)

[Thud457]

In the 50's they thought that atomic power would lead to electricty "too cheap to meter".

Slashdot != most of the world

[guet]

No control. Less space than my home computer. Lame.

I think the point many of the posts complaining about limitations miss is that such a strategy would be aimed at people who aren't geeks.

It would be aimed at people who give up on their computer (and the data on it) because it gets a virus and they have no idea what's wrong, so they just buy a new one. People who use webmail all the time, who have a hard time finding their other documents as they can't remember where they saved them, and have a shaky grasp of concepts like directories and applications. An awful lot of people I know use webmail, even though they know in principle that it would be better to have their data in a place they control - it's just more convenient for them.

This kind of person would love a central service with basic WP, email, photo storage, and perhaps a simple spreadsheet accessible through their web brower - no matter where they are.

One word

[fulldecent]

Latency

Re:One word

[pedroabelleira]

try this

I think they're on to something...

[voice of unreason]

I think this could work, depending on how well it's done. Everyone here seems to be assuming that Google will do a total desktop replacement. I agree that this would probably be a failure. But I don't think that that's what Google's going for. If they follow their usual design pattern, rather than having a monolithic OS, they'll have a bunch of web applications that you can use that use a common system and interface. So rather than having a google desktop, you'd have tools like word processing available on the google front page, with some kind of behind the scenes common data storage. This could prove very successful, both with business travelers, and with users that only use their PCs for a few simple things. Even if it doesn't do everything you want, you can still use a mix of desktop apps and google web apps. I also suspect that google will release their framework so that third parties can make apps for google...

Apple and Linux are niche markets

[mollog]

Apple and Linux are niche markets occupied by informed users. Most people, like my mom, would benefit from something that the cable company brings to you, requires no maintenance, and is easy to use. Many people, like my wife, have computers and can use the applications just fine, but don't want to bother with installing software and educating themselves about the hardware. This could be the answer; AJaX. Call the internet company and they bring you a box to connect to the wall, and it will do what you want it to do.

Using Gmail as Storage

[Sundroid]

Web-based services are already here in various forms. If you're a Yahoo subscriber, you get to store unlimited photos on their "Photo" service, and Yahoo's "Briefcase" gives the subscriber free 30-megabyte storage. Sounds small, but 30 megabytes is equivalent to about 60 novel-length manuscripts. Besides, if you sign up for, say, 5 Yahoo accounts, you get 150-megabyte storage.

Google's one-gig Gmail can also be used as a storage system -- you simply send yourself an email with the files you'd like to store as attachments, and they'll be sitting pretty somewhere at a Google server. And yes, you can do the same with Yahoo's free 250-meg email account.

Thin-client terminal concept sounds fine, except it excludes the option of doing work offline, and there are a lot of stuff we prefer to do offline.

I don't see this as viable...

[diabolus_in_america]

The article states that this could become a situation where one monopoly supplants another; however, I don't see Google ever getting into a monopoly situation as long as Microsoft exists, because all they have to do is break JavaScript in IE, and Google's AJAX framework becomes unusable.

You say people would just use Firefox, and that is true to a point, but I think MS would take steps to disable AJAX working in IE before Firefox/Google usage ever reaches the critical mass it would need to displace them as numero uno.

Just look at what MS did when Java was a perceived threat. They'll discover a way to dismiss the AJAX/Google threat before it ever begins to threaten their home/desktop dominance.

MS may have lost the search engine race, but they'll do what it takes to hold onto the desktop. That's been proven.

Tax software is use-once throw-away

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Online tax software has proven to be very popular over the last couple years, so not everyone shares your qualms.

The tax rules change enough each year that you need a new tax package anyhow. You use it once, throw it away, and get a new copy the next time. Meanwhile the basic information about your financial state is stored primarily at home or at the company.

So using the tax software online is just a more convenient alternative to physically obtaining it and going through an install process just to use it once.

A better example for your case would be online banking. But even there the primary records are kept in the server farm of the institution that is performing the actual money manipulation and the network is simply performing communication, replacing mail and physical visits to the bank, with the server-side tools automating the repetitive functions of a human teller.

Re:Tax software is use-once throw-away

[Thud457]

The very fact that the average citizen needs a computer program or some voodoo tax doctor to determine their responsibility to the state indicates that the system is severely broken.

Longhorn

[segal_loves_pandas]

If longhorn worked like this, and you would never keep your files/programs on your computer slashdot would be a ball of rage and hate.

This idea is horrible

Monopoly?

[MikeCapone]

Since when are we happy about monopolies in the making? Google is cool now, but can we trust them to stay that way indefinitely?

Well, it's not done yet and they still have competition, but I'd feel a lot better if these next generation things that are supposed to be used by the whole internet community were open and democratic like Wikipedia and not close and proprietary - however cool they are - like Google.

Re:Monopoly?

[BWJones]

Since when are we happy about monopolies in the making? Google is cool now, but can we trust them to stay that way indefinitely?

Oh, like we don't already have a monopoly in the operating system market with Microsoft? More competition is almost always a good thing.

Re:Monopoly?

[MikeCapone]

Oh, like we don't already have a monopoly in the operating system market with Microsoft? More competition is almost always a good thing.

Well, I don't think that what Google plans to do will quite replace Windows; I suspect that people will access Google's online apps on a Windows computer.

Re:Monopoly?

[HiThere]

No. But how long would they be a monopoly?

IBM is already exploring "Grid computing" and leasing time (an old business of theirs). I doubt it would be long before IBM re-created SBC (Service Bureau Corporation)...and probably spun it off again. But in the process of building it, they'd learn the business as it is now inside and out.

Then they'd offer it for sale as a package to any company that wanted to start up it's own up-to-date service bureau.

Well... I suppose IBM might end up with a monopoly, for awhile, until someone else went into competition with them (and that would take considerable cash!).

This is actually a business that ANY mainframe vendor would be considering right about now. The interesting thing is Google getting into the business, as it's coming completely from left field.

Re:Monopoly?

[rw2]

IBM is already exploring "Grid computing" and leasing time (an old business of theirs).

Grid computing isn't about monopolies. It is about flattening the space so that people and organizations can use resources from anywhere. It's kind of an anti-monopolistic technology actually.

There is a new book coming out in a couple months which talks about Grid from a amanagement level. I hear it's very good. ;-)

Re:Monopoly?

[Raul654]

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. (That link might not work at the moment because Wikipedia is experiencing server problems). You might also want to see Jimbo's comment on the matter.

Re:Monopoly?

[HiThere]

It doesn't HAVE to be about monopolies to engender one. If there's only a single supplier, then you've got a monopoly. Possibly a transitory one, but still, a monopoly.

The bar to entry is only required to slow down incoming competition. And start-up cost can be a very high bar.

Re:Monopoly?

[rw2]

It doesn't HAVE to be about monopolies to engender one.

The point is that Grid technology is inherently anti-monopolistic. It is a technology who's underpinnings are intrinsicly about using resources from all over the place.

If there's only a single supplier, then you've got a monopoly. Possibly a transitory one, but still, a monopoly.

The entire Grid computing field is very young and very immature and there are already many vendors involved. As you pointed out, IBM has a utility computing offering, but so does Sun. There are many large vendors interested in utility computing, cluster computing, large distributed storage systems, cycle scavenging and anything
else you can think of to do with Grid technology.

The bar to entry is only required to slow down incoming competition. And start-up cost can be a very high bar.

This is a truism, but not applicable to the Grid domain.

Imagine Internet Cafes As Giant Keyloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

What if a malicious maggot starts up an internet cafe with the sole intention of keylogging? I like the comfort of having my info in my own box.

Everything anyone needs?

[mydigitalself]

oh come on, surely we can't be that obtuse to believe that one can rule out the OS?

i need:
* Adobe Photoshop (or alternative)
* Word (or...)
* PPT
* XLS
* Visio
* iTunes

let's take iTunes as an example - if it has to synch with my iPod, it needs underlying OS to drive USB etc.

google are capable of delivering thin-client software for certain types of application. i very much doubt we will be seeing web-delivered Office applications like Word, Photoshop etc.. within the next 5 years. and don't say citrix, that's not the same thing at all.

NOT for games!

[DigiShaman]

Games can never have enough resources, at least for 3D games. It all comes down to the best visualization and how smooth of a frame rate you can obtain that will in turn provide the best experience. If and when google will provide the brute force CPU and GPU cycles needed to run Doom3 smoothly via dumb terminal, let me know. Until then, there is a reason the latest and greatest video cards are so damn expensive. And I REALLY doubt google want's to foot the bill for gamers and their never-ending quest for a newer and better visual experience.

Re:NOT for games!

[ciroknight]

Forgive me for saying this, but when it comes to who has more money to throw at more expensive hardware would the answer to that question be "you" or "MassiveVirtualGamingCompany(tm)(R)"?

Your own statement validates the fact that a game needs more resources, and if a company ran a server farm of a few hunred thousand computers, they could afford to run the client graphics processing better than the consumer could ever afford, and then simply send those images to the user's terminal at a rate of 30 images per second down an internet pipe. Sure, that's a hell of a lot of bandwidth, I know, but we're ignoring that, because we can pass off the cost of bandwidth as being the trade off cost for the price of the computer you would instead have to purchase to run the game.

Imagine having graphics that are BETTER than Doom 3 set on its highest detail setting. How would that be possible you say? Simple, throw more computers at it. There's a limit to how fast you could make it, yes, but in all, they could afford to process the frames for you, and send them to your computer. Personally, I'm amazed a service like this isn't already available, as since it'd be cheaper to pay a company $20/month than to pay $1200 to get your computer up to spec to play some game you'll be bored with two months into the future anyways. Of course, that can be argued until the cows come home, so I won't touch that right now.

Re:NOT for games!

[DigiShaman]

In theory, your correct. But unless "MassiveVirtualGamingCompany(tm)(R)"? plans on offering a tiered service for the amount of allocated MIPS you can have per session or month, I'm not sure how this can be done. It would have to be metered somehow if the service becomes saturated. Worst case scenario, everyone starts running SETI@Home in their own threaded desktop.

Also, games rely on dedicated GPUs in the video cards. Just to do these function on a general CPU will take a LOT of processing cycles. Maybe ATI or nVidia could sell hardware to Google as it would really help out.

Re:NOT for games!

[drxray]

"Personally, I'm amazed a service like this isn't already available"

Your general idea is valid, but implementing it now is obviously impossible. Compare how much bandwidth you would need, and how much the average person has....

Needed: 800x600x16 - number of pixels times bits per pixel
= 7.68x10^6 = 7.5 megabits = 938 kilobytes per image

30 frames a second: 2.7 megabytes a second

i.e. you need a 22 megabit download pipe to even handle console-resolution graphics. 1600x1200x32 isn't unusual among PC gamers, and that resolution requires 8 times the bandwidth.
You can compress this, naturally, but even a 10:1 compression ratio means that a typical DSL/cable user with a 1-megabit download speed can't play. This will introduce compression artefacts.

I'm not even going to talk about latency.

Your idea may well be the future of gaming - but that future is 25 years away when we have gigabit fibre to every home.

What if you owned the server holding the data?

[kandresen]

I personally liked the article quite a bit. I believe everything is getting more web based every day, even cell phones can navigate the net from almost anywhere now, the part everybody have problem with however is the data... Who trust their data to be in the hands of some remote company...

But what if my personal data was on a different thin client - one that we own ourselves just like the one our server is hosted on?

I would be inclined to believe it would be more secure to have the information on such a server where lots of security personel can check for intrusion than to have it on a home machine with no security personel and permanent ADSL connection...

AJAX!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Slashdot, can't we think of a better name for this before adoption of the term "Ajax" gets out of hand?

I am surprised

[Nex6]

I am very surprised:

many people here really don't get it.

gamil, is already the best webmail service by far in my opinion, and google will add other gmail types of services (Im,calender,etc)

you will still have your laptops,desktops etc only you will have the option of have some or all of your data available anywhere with the google web services.

it also would not surpirse me if GPG where offered somehwere down the line also...

this is all about flexiblity not lockin or any types of big brother stuff.

google will add, quility services and we will use them. over time. the 'web services' additude will change the way we think about our machines.

about about rsyncing/ifoldering

your data to your google space?

who knows, what kinds of stuff maybe coming down the pipe

its all good..

-Nex6

Natural Evolution

[MatterNugget]

Server farms built on the described "Google model" will certainly evolve when the network is capable of seamless support. Many posts are adamant that this scenario will not evolve due to permanent network constraints. I argue that "permanent network constraints" cannot exist over time. I believe many farms will sprout up, akin to the familiar concept of "grid computing" already in existance. They will logically combine (share workloads). Let's call this the "universal farm". The aggregate computational power of the universal farm will be available to anyone (or any device) with a connection (read: everything). One missing piece is a "universal profile" that logically travels with an individual (or other automomous entity such as a corporation or device). We'll call this individual or entity the "User". The universal profile essentially tells the universal farm what this User can do - what software is licensed, what data is accessible at specific auth levels, whatever. The profile traverses the universal farm with the User, allowing or denying access to requested resources. This in no way will preclude the User from having some form of computation power or storage in his "personal farm", or "PC". The personal farm becomes optional under this scenario but certainly not impossible or necessarily undesireable. In fact, the User could sell back computational power and storage into the Universal Farm for "credit", much like I sell energy to Tampa Elec ala my solar panels. Juggling workloads within the Universal Farm is a challenge, as is the definition and implementation of a Universal Profile. The network capacity is inevitable in my opinion.

Terminal Services

[sjwoo]

There's only one thin client that I've liked, and that's Terminal Services. Granted, it isn't exactly a thin client, since you need the M$ OS to run it...but I think it's the best of both worlds: fully desktop functionality, blazing speed, and little upkeep.

In ten-year's time, I'm betting TS becoming a very popular solution for the "WebTV" crowd...

great... until they rename it "skynet"...

[Anonymous Coward]

when did it go online again?

Media server, maybe?

[MontyApollo]

With the enough bandwith, it could be more than just an application server - it could be a media server - video, music, books, video games, magazines, newspapers, etc... The thin client could be used as a universal means of Digital Rights Management, and it possibly could work on multiple devices (set top boxes\video game console for HDTVs, wireless tablets for reading material, wireless ipod recievers, etc...) You would never have to physically own any of the content - just the access rights. You could take your entire media library with you where ever you go; you would just have to login to an appropriate machine to retrieve what you wanted. I think that would be attractive to the music and movie industry, an operating system built from the ground up to protect copyrights, and it would be the ultimate media-on-demand for the consumer.

Remember the Dark Fiber

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is buying up the dark fiber for the bandwidth requirements. Is fiber fast enough for ya? http://news.com.com/Google+wants+dark+fiber/2100-1 034_3-5537392.html?tag=nefd.top

partially correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Storing all data remotely ain't going to happen anytime soon. First, as she points out, most people don't trust anyone else with there data. Second, have you ever tried looking at a 1.5-meg JPEG over a phone line? The lag is noticable even with broadband. Photo archives stay local.

On the other hand, there's no reason the browser can't come with sufficient functionality so that applications run off the browser APIs rather than the OS APIs. There's a plus to web development for proprietary software, too: if your software executes remotely, it's obviously something you subscribe to, not like a book that you own. You don't have any copy of the bits.

What's missing then? Well, I can't run my C programs in someone else's browser. I haven't seen any decent browser-based text editor.

GoogleOS!!!

[loconet]

They are truely creating an Operating System and it is inspired by OSX! Check it out.

As the page says..

"Roses are red. Violets are blue. OS X rocks. Homage to you."

Google inaccessible for last 3 hours...

[outrage98]

It doesn't happen often, but I haven't been able to reach Google for the last three hours. There are other sites that I can't reach as well this morning (BBC, Drudge, etc.), but none that are as critical to me as Google.

So consider this a nod to the "chain as strong as its weakest link" meme...

Re:Google inaccessible for last 3 hours...

[bewert]

Yep, you wouldn't want your airline reservation service, to say nothing of inflight data, running on Google right now!

Not an all or nothing proposition, folks!

[galdur]

The news is along what I've suspected too, and fits nicely with this /. article http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/03/185023 0.

I think Google are being quite pragmatic and realise there are areas where web apps make sense and they are tackling that one piece at a time. They also want their technologies to complement each other.

Sure, we may never have a web-access-only platform, but who cares? Running word processors or graphics applications might never be realistic(although they might make great backup apps in cases of emergency). Already combining mail, search, (global) maps and (hopefully) scheduling already is a very nice and useful package.

It's not about the technology, it's about getting things done.

Mom and Dan and lil' Timmy (just look at VoIP+cell

[neurocutie]

Despite all the arguments against thiin clients, etc, which I AGREE with for myself, I believe there still IS a market for a thin client/centralized administration style of computing. My parents, now 70+, do need and want to use computing and the Internet, and the web is arguably de rigeur for life in these times. But the notion that my parents can deal with Windows Update, anti-virus software, do needed backups of their data, defend themselves against hackers, understand how to install new apps, etc, etc, is unimagineable. There is NO WAY they will survive. And its been born out... Just last month they had two incidents: their wireless/cable modem router setup got hosed and they were down for a week until one of us could talk them through a fix. Then their printer setup went south and they couldn't print for a month until one of us could visit them and fix it.

It seems to that there IS a perfectly viable market for say 20-50% of the population who want hassle-free, appliance-style computing, even at the expense of a possible loss of privacy.

As far as the argument that the Internet/broadband services aren't reliable ? All you have to do is look at the droves of people moving to VoIP+wireless, dropping their POTS/PSTN service like a hot potato. PLENTY of folks clearly are giving up the obvious higher reliability of landlines for VoIP and wireless as their ONLY phone service, which I'd say at this point they rely upon more heavily than ebay shopping or email or typing out a letter.

Server farm can provide everything you need. . .

[egommer]

. . .from one convinient target facility. All your eggs in on glorious basket. Google should start geograhically distributting thier server farms before they become a target.

stretch

[Capt_Troy]

The author's evidence that Google is developing a OS replacement is kind of sketchy. They hired a guy from MS, they have a desktop search, and an email replacement... etc.

Nothing that screams OS replacement in the works. As speculation, it's interesting but it'll never work without ubiquitous wireless broadband.

I for one

[harlemjoe]

welcome our new Google overlords...

Seriously though, I don't want to store my pr0n remotely! And be targetted by ads while watching it!

And imagine if the RIAA or MPAA subpeonaed Google to find filesharers! Oh man oh man.
IMHO the law is not ready for the return to the thin client.

You're right

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I mean why would google give a damn about desktops, manufacturing end terminals, upgrading and maintaining a high speed global network and so on? In short, they wouldn't. That's taking on everyone all at once, and thats a fight no one can win. Why invent the wheel, when there's good money to be made on the backs of other accomplishments?

My guess is they are trying to create a single source of information: Ask the oracle a question, receive all relevant data. A single core database of all information known to the human race. We're already halfway there; the first thing I do when I run across a new word or unfamiliar concept, I google it, and 90% of the time I get what I need. If they organise it a bit better, centralise, compile, and verify it, set it up in a data haven somewhere, well its a brave new world. :D

Once they aren't keeping personal information about people. Then its an abomination.

Full Circle

[Anonymous Coward]

All,
It is with great anticipation that I watch the computing environment go back to where it was in the 70's, only with cool graphics and sound.

I think people will embrace it, not because the problems with thin client in the 70's have been solved, but because people crave change, and now that computers have moved to mainstream, we are discovering exactly what the pocket protector crowd knew then and still knows today: the average joe can't maintain and run a system successfully for very long, before catastrophe and data loss occur.

Computing upheavals are necessary to make us feel like we are going somewhere and thin client computing really is the best way for most people.

I boldy predict, that in 30 years, maybe sooner, we'll be right back where we are today, thick and contemplating thin again.

There will be a catastrophe and we will all feel, similar to Obi Wan Kenobi, as if millions of records suddenly cried out, then were deleted. Everyone will lose all their stuff, and start moving back to thick client architectures.

Albert Einstein once said "You cannot solve a problem using the same thinking which created it in the first place."

I think we should listen, and come up with a solution instead of repeating history.

l8,
AC

This would be interesting if...

[fm6]

... she had any evidence, however ambiguous, that Google is planning this. But all she has is her own opinion that Google has the ability and that it'd be a good idea. Not totally inconceivable, but it does ignore the paradigm shift that a massive switch to NCs would require. This was what doomed efforts by Sun, Oracle, and IBM to move us all to NCs.

(I refer to NCs, or Network Computers, instead of Thin Clients, because Thin Clients are now usually taken to mean simple graphic terminals that display a desktop on a remote system, such as SunRay or Citrix. The worst of both worlds, and obviously not what she meant.)

The only actual evidence of anything is the fact that Google has gotten really good at creating JavaScript apps, such as Google Maps. Which actually is a kind of NC technology, but not really the basis for a new kind of NC.

Aside from her broad speculation, her notion that Microsoft will ever do an NC is totally lame. Microsoft just doesn't think that way. The article she points to talks about hosted services, such as Outlook Live. Not the same thing. It isn't even new technology -- it's just a new model for selling what they already do.

Google assimilation

[halleluja]

Thin clients no. You simply buy your computer but it will be part of the Google mega farm. Despite the technical achievements of Google which are admirable, you tend to forget -- Google is also a big time company. Just wait until the employee balance shifts to lawyers...

google pc yeah right

[mulcher]

Where do this technologists come from? They have no idea what
they are talking about and just spout old school ideas. These ideas have been talked about since the dawn of time. The reason mainframes went away as did terminal processing is that users wanted to freedom and flexibility of their information without having to rely on anyone else.

It will not be a desktop computer. Nobody in their right minds
would host all of a users files at the moment. It will be more
a web services application framework available for any OS
and handheld device. Tivo like devices and VoIP like devices as well.

What does google do well? Store and search information. You already have Google Desktop. Google PC is just stupid. Picasa was probably bought for some other reason than the application being cool. Probably a similar strategy to .Mac and iPhoto, but for PC users. So if you want to publish your information to share with others you use a good service (ad driven)

Having a NT/XP OS designer allows you to WRITE better WINDOWS consumer software. NOT DESIGN an OS. Even if
he doesn't write the windows software, he can train and educate
others to the hidden APIs. He may want to work on more interesting problems involved in massively large computational systems.

Isn't different from MS .NET project

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been trying to push this for the last few years, just listen to Bill Gates keynotes, he always mentions centralized safe computing. He tried with .NET but that was brushed aside by the community.

He envisions the same massive grids where people dont need to buy software but use the latest most greatest patched version on the grid. What he leave out everytime is the whole pay as you go scheme.

And yes, I don't mind too much google parsing my emails for keywords, but they will not get my financial spreadsheet and my porn stash.

the POINT IS ECONOMICS

[solomonrex]

As always. Computer prices keep getting driven down, and the OEMs are tired of Microsoft making more money than they are. Sure, Dell and HP look chummy with Microsoft, but the fewer OEMs there are, the easier for them to stage a revolution. But they need another outlet, and selling confusing Linux software won't enhance their bottom line.

The only way this works is the way SUN thinks it's going to work (heard a quote some time ago, sorry can't find it): giving away computers with cable access, like cell phones and set-top boxes. Sure, no one wants to give up their desktops, but no one passes on free, either.

Having control over the boxes will allow the cable companies to control media access and manage the network efficiently- and make music, movies and TV executives very happy (controlled BitTorrent = $, uncontrolled BitTorrent = no new sci-fi). If only the 10% of the population that are developers have burning, ripping, copying tools, then everybody's happy except the 10% of the population that are actively ripping stuff off. Doesn't matter if YOU like desktops, /. just isn't their market. For me, PCs are a work tool, not a media center.

Lastly, the OEMs have more reliable income than being subject to the white box market, Microsoft's upgrade strategies and getting blamed for software bugs. The cable companies already handle customers, the software is server side, the media is controlled. Just like cell phones- which, together with cell phones, will supplant the home PC market entirely unless something is done.

Google X

[FirstTimeCaller]

Damn. Another one of those links that end up being something other than what you think it is going to be.

Maybe when cost is $39.95

[bxbaser]

What would the cost be for a thin client.
It would have to be way lower than a destop pc for
someone to find value in it.

However this idea may go well in hotels and such,
have access to "your" computer anywhere in the world.

Vanna can I buy a clue for 25$

[big-giant-head]

Exactly, there are interface limits to what you can do with Html, Javascript, DHTML, CSS etc......

You could write your applications as little activeX controls and have one that lets you edit and spell check etc... another handles printing ... etc..

Problem is alot of folks want to get away from activeX since it's a major sources of malware/spyware. And you are chained to windows... I bet M$ would have something to say about it's highly profitable office apps being replaced by Google.

Even then, the idiot who wrote this piece talks about getting away from browers and then in the next paragraph she firmly chains herself to them by pushing the idea of a javascript/HTML... etc solution. If you are ditiching browers, then replace them with some thin client layer that lets developers create a nice UI to let the user get at thier data (on google servers?) and services and whatever else. There are much better languages than javascript.

This is the same old Idea that keeps coming up every few years, only to be shot down by the comsumers. After all I'm paying X$ per month for broad band, I've paid for my PC and disk drives are cheap, why would I pay another X+N$ for Google office when I can download Open Office for free? There is photoshop, but again how many months of Google subscriptions till I pay for my own copy of photoshop ( for us cheap scapes we download the Gimp) which usually most folks wait a few versions till they upgrade ... Insert whatever software you want here. Unless the monthly charge is mininal it makes no sense.

(where google is going) + (P2P) = good solution.

[GReaToaK_2000]

I think she has a lot of good points in her article but I for one would NEVER surrender to having my files on a central server, ESPECIALLY, if it was M$ that made it there first.

That being said, I think if the idea she is talking about were to be applied in a "P2P-ish" method, it just might work. This would mean the info on your computer you want global would go into a location on YOUR machine that google would manage. However they plan to manage it, that is.

They do have a great email client, I hear they have a calendar in the works, good contacts system and obviously search system, they are only a few features away from what she is talking about in the article. Combine that with a P2P system so your files are on your home computer, add those other apps she talks about and BAM!!! Something most everyone wants. It would be centralized in that Google would be using their systems as management but you have your files on your machine.

SO, you could integrate the "mom and pop" photo/blog/family contact point site all on google.

I see a day when I could have greatoak2005.google.com and that points to site in googles network which has the blog, contact, photo, IM, email, etc. managed and when I try to access it from another location it pulls the photos and info from my server/pc at home.

Sounds nice, I am not 100% comfortable or confident in the sercurity and privacy issues BUT as an idea(l)... It has a GREAT deal of value and merit.

That cannot be denied. If you disagree I don't think you are looking at the big picture of managing all this information. Not just businesses, governements, but people in general. I for one have gigabytes of ... well crap... that I would love to have organized. I would just like to have something like that on MY server. The idea is something I have wanted for a while. I don't like having favorites, bookmarks and what not on several different computers. So a toolbar that incorporates that into one location and centralizes that collection of links would be AWESOME!

An that is just ONE piece. Oh well I am rambling. I just don't like that much information being on someone elses system.

oh well. later.

my 2 cents.

As a developer you wouldn't be writing it.

[tgd]

Thats what application frameworks are for. A web engineer will develop the widgets for the toolkits a framework team will develop, and application monkies write to those frameworks.

Thats the whole benefit of using XMLHttpRequest and DOM for those applications -- UI logic stays on the client, and business logic can stay on the server.

GMail is only the most visible application working that way these days. Tax software and a very large number of enterprise software applications are moving rapidly in that direction, as are the toolkits used by enterprise application developers.

Unreliable ? Ask Vonage, etc

[neurocutie]

It is obvious that a significant segment of the public ALREADY believes that the Internet is reliable enough, since VoIP services like Vonage, TW Digital Phone, AT&T, etc are selling well and people are DITCHING their much more reliable landline phone service. And I would say they would all say that they rely on their phone service much more than 100% access to a word processor or ebay. Even I would say that my Internet cable modem service is probably about 99% reliable (up time), not 99.9999% yet, but at least 99% -- that's got to be good enough for many folks that want hassle-free, no-maintenance, appliance-style computing.

why does this require a subject

[manitee]

while this isnt the optimal choice for most people, it would be great for many. think about your parents.

my mom is 59. she uses email and the internet via AOL. she opens photo attachments and, maybe once a month, does something in word or excel. when her PC acts up, she doesnt know anything about fixing it, nor does she want to take the time to fix it. a thin client would be ideal for her.

on the subject of thin clients, dont write them off - i wouldnt be surprised to see office environments return to thin client setups. i am an admin for a 50 person central office with 80 remote locations who all connect to us via terminal services. all their apps are web based, and there are no privacy issues since this is all company property and all usage should be work related. i am single handedly able to successfully administer a nationwide network of over 80 locations for the simple reason that all of the big iron is right here next to me, and all of the clients can be replaced within 15 minutes.

What's good for the goose...

[sd_diamond]

There are certainly plenty of valid concerns already raised by others here, but I find it very ironic that Google might do to Microsoft what Microsoft did to IBM. "May you live in interesting times..."

Gaming? Businesses?

[hacksoncode]

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but there is one major reason that MS garnered a monopoly in desktop OS's, and that's businesses.

Businesses aren't going to run their sensitive applications on someone else's server. Yes, you could push out a tech like this to local servers, but then you have to ask yourself why bother.

As for home machines... People *like* having the same OS running at home as at work. Learning time is non-trivial for non-geeks and geeks alike. You could mitigate this to some degree, but unless they're willing to get into look-and-feel wars with MS, Google isn't going to satisfy this need.

The *other* main reason people buy computers for home use is gaming. If it weren't for gaming, *no one*, and I mean *no one* would *actually* need a 3 GHz machine at home. Ok... except for people doing lots of video/image editing, which has more or less the same constraints.

If anyone thinks it's possible to run even a relic like Quake on a server, even with gigabit ethernet, and have it satisfy gamers, they're kidding themselves.

People like general purpose computers because they are *general purpose*.

The only people this is likely to attract are grandparents that want to keep in touch with their kids, and they've all already been slurped up by MSN/WebTV.

french courts shut down google today (link)

[googisgod]

http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/

Top story.

Personally

[simpsone]

As long as the standards are open and I can potentially open my files with another piece of software that is on my local machine and can also keep a copy locally, why not? Bring it on. It's just another option that I'll have.

Re:TEH FUTURE!!!! (thermin music and handwaving...

[Cro Magnon]

Well, the "too cheap to meter" electricity would be a good way to recharge my flying car.

What a Tired, Dead Argument from Long Ago

[Ralph Spoilsport]

20 years ago, the idea was to put a dumb terminal in every home. The French built such a system and it failed.

Ellison was barking about "net computers" 10 years ago.

No one paid attention and for good reason. Why?

1. Bandwidth.
2. Storage Costs.
3. Computer costs.

1. Bandwidth
When the idiotic notion came up that broadband will kill the DVD, I responded here, noting that even in the middle of San Francisco, DSL is still painfully slow, and here it is, 2005. We're supposed to have jet packs by now, right? And TFA is talking about editing video over the web? Sure - in who's life time?

2. Storage Costs.
Continue to plummet. I remember when Ellison was barking about dumb terminals - RAM was extortionate. In '94 I bought a ONE GIGABYTE drive from HP for $580 and thought I'd gotten the deal of the decade. Now, for $80 less I can get a MiniMac and dozens of time more drive space PLUS a pile of RAM and processing power that totally smokes my creaky old Centris 650. I can now put on the end of my keychain what used to be a huge SCSI drive. Storage is no longer a problem.People not backing their stuff up is another issue, but it's not from lack of cheap drive space.

3. Computer Costs.
Which brings us to the cost of computers - I'm typing this on my old Blue and White G3 Yosemite. It's running in OS 9.2 and will do so as long as I own it. Why? Because it works. It has 80 gigs of drive space on three different drives - plenty of room for email and back up. I can do basic image editing in Photoshop 6, layout in FreeHand 9 or Quark 4, HTML editing in Dreamweaver 4, and ya know what? It fuckin' works. You can pick up a computer like this on eBay for next to nothing. What "Dumb Terminal" is going to compete with that? I saw someone dumping a perfectly good Dell P3 / 700 on the street last month - he was moving and couldn't give it away. I didn't want it - I already have my G3 / 350...

There is no economic incentive (as computers drive down in cost), there is no technical advantage (as storage drives down in cost) and, crucially: the bandwidth simply isn't there, period.

And won't be - for a very very long time.

Therefore: it's a dumb idea, it won't work, and it's as good as dead in the water.

TFA is full of crapola - typical techno-positivist day-dreaming nonsense - people who smoked the dotcon crack pipe and believed.

Idiots.

RS

Re:What a Tired, Dead Argument from Long Ago

[Aeolusz]

So, stop trying to make things better because you can do everything you want on things you have now?

Re:What a Tired, Dead Argument from Long Ago

[Ralph Spoilsport]

You're assuming it's better - it's not.

I demonstrated in some detail how:
a: the bandwidth isn't there
b: advanced (compared to dumb terminals) hardware is extremely cheap and getting cheaper, and how machines far more powerful than dumb terminals are being dumped on the street for lack of a good home, like last year's pet Easter chickens.
c: components for these machines, especially the ones that differentiate a terminal from a computer (i.e., the hard drive) are also driving down in price to absurdly low prices for massive storage.

But SOMEHOW, you see a dumb terminal and all of your data on someone else's drive as Better? what if you DON'T WANT to be connected? What if you CAN'T be connected? You can't have access to the data that is rightfuly yours? how is that BETTER?

How is your question anything more than a troll?

RS

Re:What a Tired, Dead Argument from Long Ago

[TNLNYC]

20 years ago, the idea was to put a dumb terminal in every home. The French built such a system and it failed.

Could you please back up your assertion that the minitel was a failure. From everything I've read and seen of it, it looks like a cateegorical success, having permeated society to its core (and, sadly, it slowed internet adoption as a result).

Re:What a Tired, Dead Argument from Long Ago

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I should be clearer - it was a good idea at the time, but thanks to the French penchant for bureaucracy and NIH syndrome in the face of rapidly changing technology, the minitel couldn't keep pace, and declined into inferior technology as the rest of the world jumped by leaps and bounds.

You're correct in that it did slow the adoption of the internet in France, but, thankfully, not that much.

Proof that it failed? The internet.

RS

Re:It will work (or at least it could...)

[neurocutie]

Nope, PC and Internet penetration in the US is about 40-50%. That means many/most folks have purchased a PC. A PC today is actually cheaper than a color TV was 20 years ago. And solutions like WebTV are cheaper still, much less than PS2 or Xbox. So no, the barrier to entry is NOT cost (of the PC/thin client). Yes broadband is still expensive. That remains one big barrier, though penetration in the US for broadband is getting better (around 15-20% I think). I disagree and believe that complexity IS a major barrier for *successful* computing. My parents clearly have the $$ and they have a PC, and they have broadband but the PC is down half the time for a wide variety of reasons going back to complexity: viruses, network/router configuration issues, etc. People DO want a turn-key appliance to do computing.

What about BOB Google style..

[afreeston]

So Google is going to steal the world from M$. I can't wait to see what kind of flops they have along the way. Maybe someday a paperclip bent into the word Google ask if we want to send a crashed application report.

Re:TEH FUTURE!!!! (thermin music and handwaving...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever seen someone play a theramin? It's kind of redundant to say theramin music and handwaving.

encryption

[Xavier CMU]

the mere fact that google would house your information makes no assumption that they have any ability to read it. Providing some sort of remote storage along with a one time key associated with each user makes it feasible that only you (the user) would have the ability to access this information. Furthermore, there is no reason that the relatively small amounts of sensitive information (credit card numbers, social security #s and the like) can't be stored locally on your thin client. I for one am a strong advocate of this idea, because it completely eradicates the majority of issues that arise with using local software.

The OS won't be irrelevant

[IronChef]

... until you can boot off Google.

I'm not holding my breath.

Re:It will work (or at least it could...)

[Leo McGarry]

Nope, PC and Internet penetration in the US is about 40-50%. That means many/most folks have purchased a PC.

How do you get from "40-50%" to "most folks?" Are we unclear on what "most" means? "Most" doesn't mean "almost half," or even "a little more than half." It means "the dominant majority."

A PC today is actually cheaper than a color TV was 20 years ago.

Twenty years ago was 1985. A color TV in 1985 cost about what a color TV costs today: between $100 and $1000. Adjusting for inflation, that's between $170 and $1700 in 2003 dollars. Can you buy a computer for less than $1700? Certainly. Can you buy one for less than $170? No.

So no, the barrier to entry is NOT cost (of the PC/thin client).

Yeah, it is.

My parents clearly have the $$ and they have a PC, and they have broadband but the PC is down half the time for a wide variety of reasons going back to complexity: viruses, network/router configuration issues, etc.

Did you not read my comment? I specifically said that Windows and Linux are crap. That's because Windows and Linux are based on 20th-century ideas. They're obsolete. The barrier to entry today is not complexity. The barrier to entry 20 years ago, when Windows was designed, or 30 years ago, when the system on which Linux is based was designed, was complexity. But today it's not.

People DO want a turn-key appliance to do computing.

The phrase "turn-key appliance" means nothing, and is also a shameful mixing of metaphors. What you're saying is that people want computers to be easy. Modern computers are. They want computers to be reliable. Modern computers are. These things are no longer a barrier to entry.

The barrier to entry today is cost.

Your confusion comes from the fact that you think 20- or 30-year old computer technology is modern. It's not.

Bootable firefox

[mindpixel]

Yes, GoogleOffice in a bootable Firefox...no room for microsoft in the future...

MOD parent up.

[jimi the hippie]

You've got it to a certain extent. I think that this will not only apply to the Third world, but any company in the US. They can put Word Processing, E-Mail, Web browsing, and everything else into a central server. The server would be running an OS developed by Google. Then they could have a very simple "thin client" running on each person's desk. This would save the company a LOT of money, plus it would be easy to backup all the data because it would all be on one machine.

Renting vs. Buying

[Anonymous Coward]

... I sincerely preffer [sic] to buy a house than to rent it ...

I know this is a little off-topic, but it goes with your argument. Would you still buy a house if the payments were 3x as much as rent at a decent place, and the payments went on for 30 years? What if your break-even was somewhere around 20 years?

Would you A) rent, B) buy a much smaller and less "desirable" house, or C) rent until enough was saved to buy a better house than B?

Of course, software could eventually be viewed the same way. Right now, buying most software won't lock you into 30 years of payments, but if I could rent Photoshop for $0.05 a day for a year, I would definitely come out ahead.

Yep - I'm sending my mom a Knoppix CD

[wsanders]

I'm sending my Mom a Knoppix CD - she can barely operate a cell phone but I think with just a little coaching over the phone that she could get a Knoppix psedo-thin-client all set up, enough to get her started on gmail at least.

Wow.

[bbuR_bbuB]

Did the author come up with this little brainstorm all alone? Cause I've NEVER heard anyone talk about this in the past. Nope.

WRONG. Why would Google want/need the data?

[LesPaul75]

Tha author just comes out of nowhere with the idea that Google would build huge farms of storage machines just to store everyone's data. Why in the hell would they want to do that? It would be expensive and slow.

Why not just keep the data on the client system, while the applications reside on Google's servers? If I want to run my word processor, I go to gword.google.com and I type away. When I'm done, I click a link that says "Save Document" and that saves a file on my local hard drive. From there I can print it, copy it, grep it, or whatever I want to do with it. So what advantage do I (or Google) gain by having the document saved on their servers? I guess I gain the ability to edit the file from anywhere, but that's hardly justification. I can achieve the exact same thing by putting it on a USB keychain drive, or e-mailing it to myself, or whatever.

Fortunately, judging by their work so far, I'd say that the Google developers are more intelligent than the author of this article.

Re:WRONG. Why would Google want/need the data?

[mabu]

Fortunately, judging by their work so far, I'd say that the Google developers are more intelligent than the author of this article.

Well, er, her name appears to be "Molly Wood". I'd agree with you.

it'll never happen

[iamhassi]

" Interesting....At any rate, this could prove quite interesting and make irrelevant many of the security concerns that the average consumer faces as well as consolidate and ease software distribution issues."

for those who didn't RTFA her basic idea was this: someday your desktop might just be a terminal running GoogleOS remotely, and you'll pay a monthly fee for everything.

It'll never happen, and here's reasons why:
--large companies can do that now but many don't because it's cheaper to have a desktop with no monthly dues
--no matter how cheap the monthly fee is people still hate to be locked into monthly fees. Look how many people still use antennas on their TVs. Look how many people get the cheapest, crappiest cable plan. Look at the hard time XM and Sirrus satellite radio is having breaking in, even with just a $9 a month charge theres still lots of people who don't want to bother.
--what happens if you don't pay a month or two, do you lose all your data and family photos? Good luck convincing people to sign up for that plan!

Articles like this remind me of all those futuristic movies where the govt or companies will control everything and the people just follow what they're told. We're a long way from that.

hiding?

[Anonymous Coward]

my godness
what is it that you have to hide so much?!?!?

Gmoney?

[chuck.kahn]

It amazes me that Gmail can store one gig of email, but my online banking site can't keep bank statements over a year old. It would be handy to have a web-based financial application.

Chicken little

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: The Sky is NOT falling. There will be no demise of the home pc because kids like games and games do not run well over distributed networks because of the sheer volume of data to be sent for screen draws.

In other news, the author of the article has hit on a GREAT niche business of providing free terminal-basd computing for a monthly fee to less savvy users.

Many large corporations have moved to terminal computing to centralize security and application access and keep users from doing dumb/bad things. The same model could be applied to your average non-savvy computer user who dreads getting a new virus and is unable to keep up with new developments in internet/computer security.

This is a huge potential business, but I doubt it could adequately server more than 20-30% of the computing public. That is still MILLIONS of people.

This is the story of...

[autophile]

"Google and their Server Farm"

This is the story of Google and their Server Farm. One day, Farmer Google was checkin' out the Server Farm's back 40, when the farmer's wife came all a-runnin' and all a-out-of-breath. "Lordy, lordy, Farmer Google! You gotta come all a-quick now! That new Power Mac dual G5 we got at the Server Farm Auction is ready to give birth!"

Wa-a-a-all, Farmer Google drops his little screwdriver with the phillips head on the one end and the flathead on the other, ayup, and runs after his farmer's wife, whose tablecloth-patterned dress is flippin' and flappin' all over the place, showing off her gleaming white fat calves. "I've gotta get me some o' that them thar pr0n I keep finding on my servers," thinks Farmer Google as he looks disapprovingly at his farmer's wife's fat white calves.

"iMmmmmmooooooooo" lows the Power Mac that Farmer Google and his farmer's wife just got at the Server Farm Auction. "Git me some o' that them thar hawt heat sink compound, and some towels!" orders Farmer Google to his farmer's wife that has the fat white calves. "And quick, or else I'm-a gonna have to look dissapprovingly some more at your fat white calves!"

Oh boy, I just can't go on. I just gave myself a headache.

--Rob

But Does It Run On Linux?

[skubeedooo]

Wouldn't centralized software somewhat ruin the point of having/writing open-source software? Is anybody out there planning on writing some kind of open source software that runs an application server?

Fast forward 10 years time, it would be a pity if it was just Google vs Microsoft because no one in the FOSS camp realized it would be a good idea, until it was too late.

I don't know much about these things, but it sounds like this change could be disastrous if open source developers aren't on their toes. We all complain about how Office etc obfuscates their file formats so they are unreadable by other software, but imagine how easily they could do it when the application itself and all its data resides on their own system. I can imagine the situation,

Geekboy: But I don't want to use paintbrush to edit my picture, it's shit!

MS: No problem, you can license Photoshop for an hour, it will cost $10.

Geekboy: Can't I use the GIMP, it's free?

MS: Sorry, we don't run that software on our servers.

Who has my data?

[pentalive]

So, If you liked Gmail, where google reads all your email, you'll love Gcheck, where google reads your check register!

The Trillion Dollar Mistake

[Baldrson]

Well, the Pundette of Google is at least pointing the market toward recognizing The Trillion Dollar Mistake of putting the presentation layer at the server.

communication

[enjahova]

I think an important line can be drawn in web
applications. That line is communication. Apps that
are for communicating work well as web apps. Apps
that rely on processing power should be left to the
desktop.

The obvious example is Gmail. Many people like being
able to log in from anywhere and handle email. I
think IM/IRC should also migrate to web app.

I am reluctant to predict that photoshop and games
will be thin unless we have some major breakthrus
in bandwidth and power. Untill we do it's counter
intuitive.
Thin clients should be exactly what they are
called, thin. Communication that you want to do no
matter where you are!

-Ian

Damn!

[way2trivial]

a dead link- did google get slashed?

Will people actually want that?

[Snaller]

We'd be a slave to their servers forever, not to mention it will be much more expensive for the enduser since they have to pay over and over.

Re:Will people actually want that?

[NotBorg]

If you think about it most of us are already renting software. Newer software comes out and we buy it. It's a scheduled payment (Google Microsoft for "Life-Cycle Policy" to find out when most of the world will be making its next payment). It's simple math: price over time. We may as well rent our storage space too. Many of us go out and buy larger hard disks all the time (Look up Moore's Law for that payment schedule). As to being a "slave"... we already are. It's just who we are being sold to next that's in question.

Re:Will people actually want that?

[Snaller]

Don't really agree.

The link was dead Skippy....

[nazzdeq]

...must have been slashdotted already...

Your financial data is stored safely in India....

[nazzdeq]

...so you don't need to worry.

Coming to this...

[Malevolyn]

Well, guess it's time to start saving up for an exit visa so I can move to the highly-efficient country that everyone knows that Google's going to form. Sooner or later, we'll be living in Googlestan.

The One Other

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, most users use their computer mostly for email and web access. But they also use one other thing, and thats why thin clients will never take off for awhile at least. For some people its Digital Photography, or its Home Video Editing. For others its games, desktop publishing, or many other applications which will never work well over a network interface for quite some time.

Hello, Google?

[analog_line]

The dead and buried Application Service Provider industry called from beyond the grave. They want their idea back.

Business model

[teneighty]

Everyone has been talking about Google getting into an ASP-like business, but I think the pundits are missing the real business model here.

Google is currently in the business of turning data into information, but there's nothing to say they can't switch gears a little and start making money from the data itself.

If they somehow ended up being the #1 place to store your data, they could easily generate a lot of revenue simply by providing an API for that data and licensing ASPs to use it. Result: Less lock-in for the user, lots of money for Google.

XUL is the answer

[Bright_Steel]

I dunno, I like my OS to provide more in the way of a GUI than is supported by HTML.

This problem is being solved by the Mozilla foundation today in the form of XUL and the XULrunner under development, with support from Google. If they drop the ball Macromedia (Flash) and MS (Avalon) or someone else will take over the market with their technology.

Did anybody watn them ?

[Ray Alloc]

Linux is insecure and unscalable, serious people say so.
Yeah, right.
Sorry.

It seems plausible, which is sad.

[munpfazy]

One need only look at the popularity of web-mail applications to realize that there are a lot of people in the world who would probably jump on a system such as the one described.

But, that's *only* because their expectations have been driven into the ground by unbelievably slow and buggy local software.

The article says it all:

>Now, think about Gmail, which,
>in a broadband situation
>(I'll deal with that in a couple of
>paragraphs), is probably more responsive
>than Outlook.

It's true - gmail *is* faster than outlook, but that's only because outlook is shockingly slow. Neither one can compete against an efficient mail reader. For example, after a few minutes of practice, any mutt user can sort many tens of messages in the time it takes to retrieve a single page from gmail, even on a a pentium-I with a high speed university pipe.

Likewise, I claim the popularity of the buggy, featureless text editors built into browsers is a direct consequence of the buggy, featureless, and unendurably slow local word processors. Why don't browsers default to using external editors for filling in text fields? Because most people would end up using a terrible (if esthetically beautiful) editor anyway, and therefore don't see the difference.

That said, remote applications can work. They've been working for decades. I'm currently submitting this message from a computer at home on a modest DSL line, into which I am remotely logged in through two separate ssh tunnels. (Two, because of dumb firewall rules that I cannot control.) The latency is occasionally noticeable, but it's orders of magnitude faster than gmail.

There's no question that remote applications can run reasonably fast - so long as they only exchange text (or text like cues) and the display is stored locally, and so long as they don't require huge amounts of processing on the display side. But to do anything efficient in a browser will require a philosophical (rather than technological) revolution among browser designers and those who build web based applications. Hell, browsers themselves are among the slowest programs around. And as anyone who's tried to run a recent graphical browser on an old machine knows, moving applications to the browser certainly isn't going to save anyone CPU time.

I said this years ago, and was flamed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've maintained for years that Google is going to migrate everyone to net based computing.

Nobody will have home storage anymore, it will all be web based, with thin clients at home and work.

Google is the end of privacy, and you all are embracing it! p.It's crazy...

Nichification is the norm, not displacement.

[philipkd]

Nichification is the norm, not displacement. E-mail has not killed off the fax. IM and has not killed off the phone. Phone has not killed off person-to-person. The Internet and PC hasn't killed off books. Photography hasn't killed painting. CDs haven't even killed vinyl (look at DJs) Every medium that's in wide use does a very specific task well. If you make a new medium that sort of tries to do the specific task, it will actually create a different task because it is a new medium. The task that the older medium tried to accomplish will always be uniquely accomplished by that medium. Unless, of course the new medium is a pure upgrade of the existing medium. For example, I think DVDs are killing CDs and blue-ray will kill DVDs. But then that's not really a new medium but the furthur development of an existing medium. This thin-client business is a completely new medium compared to the thick-client, and so it will serve new tasks very well. The thin-client, because of it's different nature than the thick-client will never get above replication of 97% of the tasks a thick-client couldn't do. Even if there was 100% coverage of wi-fi with gigabit transfer speed, and free thin-client laptops for everybody, there will always be someone who needs to do photoshop while out on his little boat in the ocean.

This is news?

[syousef]

This is news? The half-witted ramblings of some bimbo reporter? She's just thought up thin client computing, and either:

a) thinks she's brilliant for thinking of things that are bloody obvious today

or

b) knows perfectly well she's rehashing old junk but thinks she'll be paid all the same if she just mentions a couple of current companies

She reminds me of a 15 year old student on the debating team. Thinks everyone else is stupid so she can get away with talking rubbish. She should never have been paid for the article/editorial. She's a form of troll. Why are we feeding her? /. is getting to be a waste of time.

maybe the read my email

[neoviky]

..and actually are implementing what I told them a few months ago...here: Hi Google guys, You have the means to create a new world, and I see a bright future ahead for you, and wish to join you soon! Please read below, this is important! Now I am noticing you guys are doing this, essentially: 1. You created a primary source of information about everything with your simple web search service. 2. You created a primary source of news about everything, as a subset for your web search, the constantly alive Google News. 3. You are creating and improving a newsgroup community which is the biggest in the world, and you started pretty well right from the day you got Dejanews. 4. You guys created Gmail, which you selflessly want to see as the best email service and the best email CLIENT rolled into one, and are pretty much succeeding in it, and it's not even released yet! 5. Your other offerings like Google Image search, Picasa, Google Toolbar, Google deskbar, Google Gmail Notifier, and Google Desktop search are currently also separate services/softwares to ease the life of the common man, for free! 6. You are also getting good ground in Froogle, and your other commercial services like Adsense/Adwords. Now what I want to get at, you may already know, but this service empire of yours, which I and everyone else uses immensely, needs a UNIFIED CONTAINER. I could call it an OS, or a browser but I want it to be something more than that. Something much more than what Microsoft was able to do as a fluke with it's Windows..... Your services are scattered right now, and in the future you will surely roll out more services, which will be difficult to keep track of for everyone. What you need to do is to contact the Computer Makers, the HPs, Compaqs, Dells, Gateways, Sony, Acer, everyone and sell them the GOOGLE CD/DISK/APPLIANCE as a must have in every PC, with a sticker outside saying 'POWERED BY GOOGLE", which will unify all services that you have in their operating system. THIS WILL MAKE PCs to be: GOOGLE PCs. You heard it from me first! So what you will get is this: Your Brand Value to sell to the Computer Makers, who will pay you to have YOU on their PCs, because customers would love to see a GOOGLE PC. All their services that they love (which I listed above) would be preinstalled! Any future services you will launch will be downloaded automatically! You could do the same idea in a different manner by going to the chip level and having a good corporate deal with INTEL/AMD to get your Google Chip on their motherboards, but that seems a bit scary! If all your services can be sold on NEW PCs, or be put in a disk to make any PC a Google PC, I would love to use it, I think anyone would. (Einstein was envisioning something similar with the Unified Field Theory I guess! ) A Google PC, very much unifies all your services, and would automatically have the End User with a Gmail account, all your services in his windows desktop, including the Desktop search, and the GOOGLE LOGO showing outside next to the Intel Inside and the Windows XP logos. Anyone would love to see a PC with "Powered by Google' logo outside, shining brightly. Heck, why not start a hardware unit to sell your Google PCs yourself? People who are out in the market to buy PCs, would LOVE a google PC, You can install free antivirus/firewall in them to safeguard them against all the bad elements on the net. You would now know by yourself that I am not speaking something ridiculous but something which you should be starting to do now. A novice user cannot install all your amazing services, one by one. And if he reinstalls his PC, all your services are gone. We need an appliance, with ease of use, buttons on the Keyboard itself, we need an appliance a Joe Sixpack would use everyday just like he uses your website. This is very consistent with your goal of making all the world's information accessible and useful to EVERYONE. Vikram