Slashdot Mirror
Google PC to Hit Walmart?
Fahrvergnuugen writes "According to latimes.com Google is set to launch the Google PC which will run Google's own operating system. From the article: 'Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap -- perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars.'"
Google just needs to tweak a common free OS to be friendly to all their little sub-projects, in a manner similar to but more extensive than how Opera (the browser) now defaults to Google search. Even that will panic the drones at Microsoft, who are paranoid about Google anyway.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
It is a rumor on the LA Times site, which I think is less 'rumor' than most tech sites...
===
I expect this Google OS and PC both will be released in permanent beta, like the rest of their products.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
This is perfectly okay, because Google is not Evil... yet. Once google turn evil, then we'll turn on Google just like we've turned on Microsoft.
Really, I don't mind big companies, as long as they Do The Right Thing, which is what Google seem to be doing right now.
Google and Apple are going to put their heads together.
Apple are also rumoured to be doing some sort of PVR - and Apple, as we've seen in recent months, don't seem to be so afraid of working with other companies. With Mac World due on the 9th of Jan, it'd be quite a big / heavy duty step to announce something around then and those two companies working together would be quite something... surely they are desperate to give Microsoft a good thrashing between them!
Just random speculation - i'm probably quite, quite wrong!
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Maps integrated with yellow pages and craiglist, with pretty pictures and IM....ect..
I might pay a nice price for a google handheld.
Call up the telco's, "This is Google. We are going to start a blackberry startup.
Give our customers access where ever they are, and we will reward you with lots of cash."
"The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap -- perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars."
. aspx/featured_basdt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
You mean like one of these:
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features
Something tells me, between tech support and corporate infrastructure, very little of that cost is the "microsoft tax".
It would be nice if someone could give Microsoft a real run for the money and break up that unnecessary and damaging monopoly. However, I don't think this is the time, and Google isn't strong enough to do it, either. Therefore, they'd be foolish to attack without the ability to win.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It is an interesting question. If the alternative is Google coming up with a competitive OS, Google might be offered a very sweet deal.
Those thinking an alternative OS from Google is impracticable because of the current MS dominance are, I think, misunderstanding what Google is likely to offer. The target (at least initially) is not going to be businesses with a huge prior investment in applications needing 100% MS compatibility. I believe they will target the consumer, with a PC that ties the Internet cleanly with other consumer devices (TV, stereo, MP3 player). They could do this with a device that was difficult to hack because the PC itself was deliberately limited. Files and applications would reside on Google's servers as far as possible, with a browser type interface. I think this is a logical move for Google, to beat Apple to the punch.
I think the whole deal the made few months ago was just about this. Google will rebrand Solaris 10 as their OS and will bundle Staroffice with it!
Google is going after the only two Microsoft cash cows: Windows and MS Office...
The only problem I foresee is that Google does not have any capabilities on handling customer support...
well neither has Microsoft...I guess they are even!
Assuming this is true (keeping in mind the article is based on predictions and intuition) why would a tech savvy company partner with Walmart? I would have thought that if google decide to sell desktops they would follow the Dell model of selling their own customisable machines through their own website.
Imagine the sales they could generate if the first paid text link that appeared whenever you googled something like "new pc" or "pc prices" was for google's own offering? I accept that Walmart have an incredible distribution system, but since Google's business model is already so profitable, why hand margin over to old fashioned bricks and mortar retailers.
My two cents.
I, personally doubt it.
Would they buy a GoogleBox, that allows them to access their web mail, google office (assuming its not a myth) and various web sites "without a computer", and all they have to do is hook it up to a DSL/Cable line and a power line? I think they would.
My sister is terrified of computers. Her husband finally bought one and within a day they were swamped with the usual microsoft web experience (malware and viruses). All they want their computer for is email, online banking, storing digital photos and getting cheap flights. They don't word process, because neither of them do any work at home (nurse/buyer). Now they have a 64bit Athalon gathering dust in the corner of their office (i didn't recommend it... i know its a waste).
A GoogleBox could really solve their problems, and $200 is a good price point. To really take off it needs to:
Basically, think PDA but without PIM, and make it abundantly clear that this thing lives on the coffee table/kitchen sideboard, not in the brief case, on the train/plane or in the office so that the dim witts at PC World don't start comparing it PDAs/Laptops. If its going to be compared to anything it should be web service built into some cable set-top boxes and look terrible at NTSC resolutions. There could really be a market.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
First off, when the L.A. Times says "sources tell us", it's a little more reliable than your typical rumour site or ZDnet blogger.
Secondly, look at Google's efforts to port stuff like the Google toolbar to Firefox.
Thirdly, look at some of their applications, like Picasa. It uses a completely custom look and widget set, right down to unusual (but quite functional) scrollbars. Presumably, they've built a whole application API that draws and uses these widgets. That's a nice big building block of a custom OS, I think.
If there really is a GoogleOS, it'll offer customers:
1. A spyware and virus-free platform.
2. A cheap Internet/media appliance that very likely Just Works.
3. Worry-free online storage and backup of all documents, email, etc.
4. Seamless desktop-Internet application, where most applications either are already web applications or hook into web applications.
5. A stream of new applications and regular upgrades that are all performed by Google, with no hassle to the user.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Myself I think 2006 WILL see a new entry into the computer in the living room market. It is called the PS3 and rumors about that are nowadays so solid it we even have some idea about how it will be done. The PS3 will have an optional addon in the form of a HD wich will contain a version of the linux kernel (no not GNU/Linux, I said kernel) and presumably some kind of userspace software to use it. Cool as booting linux is the usual purpose is to then get a working enviroment.
Note that is NOT clear yet that this addon will turn your PC into a desktop. Merely that it can boot the kernel. Logic would dictate that Sony wouldn't do this without a very good reason, like trying to get a shot at putting the desktop in the living room, but who knows.
It is however an optional extra and this makes it clear that Sony is not exactly making a major push out of it. Unless of course all the really good games require the add-on.
So how does this relate to a Google PC? Well Sony can do this attempt on the back of its regular launch of a new console. The console, sony hopes, will be attractive enough on its own to get into millions of homes. To then add a tiny amount of extra effort and be able to stealthly introduce their own PC like solution into those exact same homes must be nice bonus. It is well known that the asian tech giants are not at all happy with MS dominance on the PC market and would love to get their teeth into it.
So a linux desktop to attack MS where have you heard that before eh? Well don't forget that Sony (if it will truly do this) has two gigantic advantages over such efforts as Lindows. 100% Hardware support. No problem with getting companies to create proper drivers for a tiny marketshare. The team behind the PS3 knows what hardware is inside and could easily write the drivers. One often mentioned problem of Linux swept away in an instant. Oh and I bet it also makes the whole "configuration" a lot easier. There is after all only going to be one.
Second Linux problem? No games. Well for some reason I do not think that buying the Linux addon is going to brick your PS3 and make it impossible to game with it. Another problem of Linux instantly swept away.
Now Google doesn't have anything like that. While its software is "installed" on every pc (A common browser) it is almost impossible for them to PUSH their technology. They certainly can't piggy back it onto anything. The recent deal with opera on the mobile market is perhaps the only way Google can "force" its way onto a computer.
Or put another way, PS3 would be bought for games and the desktop is an extra. GooglePC would be bought for .... Well it would be the same as the Lindows PC. An computer that could be quite good but would never be the real thing. Even such simple things as getting Flash to work would be a killer for a browser PC. So why should a person buy a crippled PC when for a few bucks more they can get one that is a proper windows machine (Security? Yeah like walmart buyers know about that).
There might be another possible avenue of approach and that is to pull an iPod with the GooglePC. Part of Apples success is that it was rich and powerfull enough to make a bet and order the parts for the iPod in such numbers that it could get huge discounts. It is not that the iPod is better then say iRiver or even Creatives offerings. But as shown painfully clear with the iPod Nano, Apple could simply offer more for less. its competitors simply can't put the same hardware inside for the same price.
Apple when it entered the MP3 player market was an accidental giant (Sony/Philips/etc were all asleep at the wheel) who could simply squish all competitors.
Is the PC market similary open? Can a company with enough muzzle simply order a milli
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Solaris 10 or Linux with a Gnome front-end (custom theme) and a document/data centric file browser and application suite. Of course the GTK load/save dialogs would also be replaced with document/data centric interfaces rather than the traditional file system view. Office tasks would be handled via StarOffice or OpenOffice. The browser would be Firefox. Again, the theme would be consistent for these applications as well. I'd expect a certain amount of lock-down and customisability restrictions.
The computer would also act as a home search box, it'd index all accessible data sources - network drives, etc. The file browser would give you a simple interface to all of these, again in a document centric manner.
Thing is, whilst possible, and indeed I wouldn't mind having the OS manage my files for me if it did it well and the files were properly indexed, I don't think Google could have arranged this in even 3 years of development - it is a lot of work. Then again, they are a very motivated company.
Ther aren't, but that wasn't the question - legality and morality are different things. They are legally "utilizing their dominance in search to extend into other areas" which could be just as evil.
Since the leaked version of MacOSX for x86 processors seems to run well on non-Intel hardware, what if Google uses Darwin (maintained by Apple) with a non-aqua GUI (KDE/Gnome/GNUstep... whatever)?
Why Darwin? Well... that way they get Apple maintaining the OS for them. If they install the KDE (v4) and GNUstep libraries, they get even more of OSXs featureset. And, without Aqua, they are not an Apple competitor since they could not run OSX apps.
The hacked OSX86 seems to run well on AMD chips even though Apple has an "Intel at the Core" mindset. So, a Google Cube could be a set-top MacMini with Firefox or Konqueror accessing data stored at GoogleBase.
That's still not expensive. Hell, if a Windows box cost $300 more than a box with some kind of Linux on it, personally, I'd still go with Windows. A few hundred bucks isn't worth the headache for me, at least. Maybe $100/box makes a big difference to people in 3rd world countries, but in the US/East Asia/Canada/Europe, most people would (and do now) gladly pay a few hundred bucks extra NOT to have to deal with a Linux box. That's why people don't generally build their own cars: sure, they'd save money, but only a fool doesn't weigh cost against their own time.
I don't respond to AC's.
Holy Crap. And I thought compiling a new kernel was too much of a hassle.
Honestly, I just bought my parents a new PC with windows XP. I could not believe how utterly confused they were with it. Within hours of using it popped up a message about a vulnaribility and when they clicked on it the browser opened up a MS site explaining the JPEG security hole. Now both of my parents are over 65 and they had no fucking idea what any of this gibberish on the computer was so they called me. I walked them through the process and they called me a hour later because the anti virus popped up while they were cruising the web and told them they were infected. So of course they called me again.
I should have bought them a freaking piano or something, buying new users a windows machine is the biggest mistake anybody can ever make. Next time a Mac, for the next few years though I can expect a tech support call every fucking day.
evil is as evil does
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8EJ
Rule 2: Writing a spec is like writing code for a brain to execute.
There is an exception to Rule #1. The original Xbox was nearly universally praised here, if only for its hackability.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
I believe what we will see are computers which just have a bootloader and rom chip with a very simple custom OS on it for fetching GUI components from google's web servers. The interface the user will see will be completely virtual, meaning their machine is just a dumb client running google OS remotely. There is no need for a hard drive, as all user data will be stored on google servers. No need to upgrade any software, as the software is kept up-to-date on the google servers. Virtual dumb terminals or thin-clients or whatever you want to call it, is what Google is planning... and I think they may be able to pull it off.
Meh.
I mean, we are in serious need of a NEW OS, something not derived from 20+ year old technology.
.jpg to know its a jpeg file! META DATA PEOPLE!
Both NT and Linux and OSX streams are all based on last century technology using ancient file systems and trying to do modern techniquies like Database driven file systems and online Internet access.
For a Modern OS, I propose that Google start fresh, from the ground up, using these concepts:
1) TRUE meta driven DB file system. Append to the front or back of every file meta data and index meta data in a true DB file system. Tiger isn't there yet, Tiger simply endlessly indexes files in a half assed attempt to seem like a modern OS. WinFS might be closer, whenever MS figures out how to do it.
2) Flat file system, throw out folders and directories structures. There is no need to atrificailly distribute files across archaic tree structures if your using a true DB file system. All files could be accessed using database views (i.e. show me all pictures taken in 2005, or show me all letters written to Jane, or all music by Ween). You can actually imitate folder trees by putting a path meta tag in the file header, but there is no need to physically address files in tree structures. Instead, worry about putting frequently accessed files in faster parts of the hard drive.
3) Make a distinction between USER data and SYSTEM data. Who needs to be aware of 100,000+ files on your OS? 99% of all the files on your Windows or *nix OS are completely meaningless to you. A Modern OS should make a distinction between System data and User data. System data is ALL files that YOU didn't create, save to, or distribute from your computer, and these system files should not be indexed or maintained by a DB file system. System files can remain in a protected bubble on your hard drive and accessed by developer tools. Instead, index only those image, video, music and document files the user actually cares about and hide the rest. I don't want to see 100,000+ files on my computer anymore. Kind of like what Google Destop does, but being more aware of the difference between System and User files.
4) END FILE EXTENSIONS. REAL OSES don't need a
5) Wrap Applications in ONE OBJECT. Apple had it, but lost it moving to OSX. The idea that ALL files associated with an Application remain in ONE OBJECT. Do not allow Applications to spread themselves across a hard drive, installing parts to a variety of locations and modifying other files (sorry, OSX does this, putting files and configuration settings in multiple locations, and then FORGETTING about them). A Modern OS will figure out how to protect an Application as an Object without allowing it to be distributed illegally, something Apple never figured out how to do. To install an Application, drag it to the partition, to uninstall it, delete it, period. Once an Application is uninstalled, the OS and computer should look like the Application never existed, period. NO ORPHANED APPLICATION DATA.
6) Make internet connectivity a requirement. A modern OS shouldn't operate without internet connectivity. By constantly keeping up-to-date on security issues, and also allowing for proper online authentification of applications and media, a modern OS would allow for a new generation of online media distribution that isn't prone to piracy (i.e. the music and movie industries actually embracing online distribution). Building an OS around the internet should also make is the most secure and safe environment. Rather then the constant forcing of old, pre-internet operating systems to modern day online needs and introducing security flaws, start fresh.
If anyone has the resources to actually make a successful new OS, it would be Google. By taking their web indexing techniques and creating a new File system with these concepts in mind, a Google OS will make accessing data effortless and fast.
Just, please don't get into that trend and habit of using Linux as a base. NO LINUX
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I bought a Celeron PC, 128 MB Ram, 40GB HD at Fry's Electronics last June with WinXP for $250. Fourth of July sale had it for $199; and Fry's gave me a refund for the difference since I purchased less than 30 days earlier.
I also spent $30 for a 2-year Fry's extended warranty, figuring that the cheaper the computer the more likely I was to need it. Sure enough, it's at Fry's right now for replacement. Fortunately Fry's agreed to transfer the hard drive from the original computer so I don't have to reinstall programs and reload data from backups. They are also tranferring the RAM I added.
Moral: you get what you pay for.