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.'"

Comments

Probably Tweaked Linux or FreeBSD

[resistant]

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.

Google this, Google that!

[mister_llah]

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.

I might be more interested in a portable device.

[mpemba]

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."

Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

[shanen]

While I certainly want to believe that there is room for other operating systems, and I'm even certain that Microsoft's Windows is NOT the ultimate and perfect answer to how computers should be used, this article doesn't deserve to be on the /. front page. Actually, the detail about Walmart is the kind of thing that is often added to a bogosity to make it seem more plausible.

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.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

[senatorpjt]

Actually, as poor a description as "moving videos between a PC and a TV set" is, it is actually a great idea for something like this. Nobody is ever going to be able to market a PC with a non-windows OS for the reason you mentioned - (almost) everything on the market requires Windows. However, by offering what is essentially a fully-functioning PC with say, Linux, but not positioning it as a PC, it would better have the ability to get into people's homes.

By not positioning it as a replacement for a Windows PC, but as an additional accessory, it doesn't have to replace every esoteric piece of software available for Windows. However, if these devices become popular for their own specific "purpose", and have the ability to duplicate at least a large portion of the functionality of a Windows PC, the apps will fall into place as people demand them.

I think an important part of this equation is HDTV. The display's ability to offer a reasonably useful "computer" interface simply wasn't available with NTSC. Now, a box connected to an HDTV display, with a one piece wireless keyboard/trackball interface, could be a lot more palatable to people, than say the old WebTV.

Hopefully they won't screw it up like everyone else has.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

[hal2814]

I like the additional accessory angle. That could acutally work if a Google PC can target and overcome the weaknesses in the current iterations of Windows. XP Media Center is nice, but it's only been around for a year or two. People are holding onto machines a lot longer than they used to. Also, Media Center is usually only available on upper tier units. If Google can put a $200 PC out there that's good at DVR functions, can play videos from different sources, and can do some general PC functions, it could be a viable system. Especially if it played nice with the other computer at home by way of file sharing.

Re:Low cost?

[Mostly a lurker]

I doubt google is going to get the same deal from MS are they?

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.

Sun Microsystem will deliver the OS for them.

[tommyleebyron]

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!

Why go with Walmart?

[Snamh Da Ean]

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.

Speculation, but an interesting thought

[el_womble]

Would people buy a $200 computer that doesn't run Windows, if it carried the Google Brand?

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:

• Not look like a computer - think Mac Mini (for use with a TV) or tablet
• Be nothing else than a reasonable harddisk (for local caching of photos and email) and a fanless processor with 256MB RAM
• be built into a 15" touchscreen LCD. If my sister can connect her Nintedo DS to my network using nothing but a touchscreen, we're getting somewhere.
• Include solitare or another equally time wasting mini-game
• Not use the words: computer, network, PC, homework anywhere near it. Instead say: web point, research, email and internet.

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.

Re:Speculation, but an interesting thought

[16K Ram Pack]

I've met plenty of people like this.

Us technical guys can manage, but I did a little work for a tradesman I know, and basically, cleaned up his PC. They don't know they have to defrag, don't run anti-spyware. They don't want to play 3d games or compile code.

They want a machine with a browser, word processing, spreadsheet and photo-editing.

The rise of laptops is significant, and shows the way. A lot of home users I know are going laptop because of space and usage concerns. They like to be able to sit at the kitchen table or on the sofa while they look for flights/order DVDs.

It could also be much more "service" orientated. Give people automated internet backups. When you are online, it backups files in the background for you in a seemless manner.

Just boot loader and extra rom chip for googleOS

[ylikone]

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.

Google OS, please not Linux!

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I mean, we are in serious need of a NEW OS, something not derived from 20+ year old technology.

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 .jpg to know its a jpeg file! META DATA PEOPLE!

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

Re:The article is misleading

[harl]

That's all well and good except for one small problem. The keyboard. There is no interface that can come close to the functionality of a keyboard. Most consoles are used from the sofa or arm chair. Where do you put the keyboard?

Without a replacement for the keyboard it will forever be a nitch item. Any sort of desktop they provide will simply be a novelty.