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.'"
This is a piece of speculation that's inside a piece of gossip that's inside a bloody "Predictions for 2006" article.
Which isn't to say that it can't be true. But it feels like someone heard the phrase "Google OS" and made up a rumor without knowing what the phrase meant.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Really, a Windows licence isn't the major part of the cost of a new PC. So just using their own OS (with all the development costs) isn't going to save a huge amount of money per unit sold.
This Slashdot summery makes it sound like this is a sure thing. It is only a rumor at this point. Here is a quote from the article
"Here are some predictions for the media industry for 2006, based on interviews with industry analysts, executives and investors, along with a little intuition."
In other news, the Google PC will replace all of Wal Mart's PC's that ship with Microsoft BOB...
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!!"
I'm not so sure about the name 'GooOS' that people are chosing to use. The domain GOOOS.COM is registerd to whoisprivacyprotect.com (a subsidiary of Enom), but the CC domains like gooos.co.uk are not yet registered (which seems like a bit of a mistake if thats the name google intend (read:speculation) to use.)
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
Or so goes the "logic."
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."
What OS will it run? GNU of course! - Google's Not Unix.
Do no evil one day, in league with the devil the next.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
"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".
why would they choose it over any other *nix you say?
the average user has never even heard of unix. however you would be hard pressed to find an internet user not familiar with google. branding goes a long way...and microsoft is know to be a security risk round the internet.....google has a good internet rep.
so they would choose it over any other *nix because they wouldn't know that they were choosing over anything. if this came out more people will hear of it than linux could hope to dream of
Microsoft is so evil for branching into pretty much everything, yet Google appears to be following suit.
Can't help but feed the trolls this morning!
Microsoft are not considedered evil for branching into other areas of business. They're evil because they illegally utilized their dominance in one area to extend their business into other areas, stifling competition and therefore harming consumers.
Tell me how Google are illegally utilizing their dominance in search to extend into other areas? Tell me how Google have stifled competition.
Until them I don't see them 'following' MS at all.
My pics.
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.'"
Um, has anybody else ever seen a PC? They already sell for as little as a couple of hundred dollars.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
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.
I thought their motto was "Do no evil"?
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
You must be new. Here are the basic rules of Slashdot.
1. We hate Microsoft. Anything they do is wrong. Bill Gates is stupid. Anything they do is evil.
2. We like Apple. Steve Jobs walks on water. Even when they do the same thing as Microsoft, its okay because its Apple.
3. We like Google. We think they're cool. Even when they do the same thing as Microsoft, its okay because they run Linux on most of their machines.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Steve Ballmer is going to be throwing chairs again...
There are so few companies out there that could even dream of competing with Microsoft in the OS area... but, in my mind, Google is one of them. Note how I have absolutely no evidence to back up this opinion... Google doesn't sell gadgets, and they don't really even sell software... but the one thing they do seem to do is succeed. I have a sort of blind faith in Google at this point.
Of course, trying their own OS might be Google's Russia... Napolean and Hitler both were doing pretty well until they went for Moscow... and going head to head with MS might just be the one thing Google can't do.
All rumors, agreed. But it makes me feel all funny, like when we used to climb the rope in gym class.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
Wal-Mart Bad, Google Good... oh dear, isn't it getting complicated!
Apart from that, I think Google would be mad to go the PC route. For a start, the money was never in the hardware. Also, I can't think of a better way to lose goodwill than to start selling budget PCs to the least technically literate segment of the PC-buying population and then failing to provide premium support.
Yes yes, there's Apple, but Apple don't generally do bargain basement prices. If you make an enormous margin on the hardware, you may be able to afford to keep your customers happy, even when they are clueless idiots. No-one, not even Google, will be able to do that on a $200 sale price.
Virtually serving coffee
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!
Margins on hardware are *thin*. There is no reason why Google would want to enter that market. OS maybe, turn-key systems? Nah.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
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!
If it WAS true (and not a rumor) it would have also been the "first ever" software package ever to be put to market without ANY of the development staff OR beta testers leaking a copy.
Has much as I love my geek brethren... I was in disbelief before I even clicked the article.
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.
They won't make a clippy. We've already got slashdot members providing questions nobody wants answered, then answering them incorrectly.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
Well, so much for "Don't be evil".
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
What happened to the old mantra of 'Legality doesn't equal moralily' that's always wheeled out during the piracy articles?
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.
Google have a trusted brand, and they do already sell server appliances. The business model is unlikely to be based on selling the boxes per se, but more likely on renting software and/or ad-sponsored applications. I think as long as they don't sell it as a computer but rather a web browser/email/a few bundled apps in a box machine, then it could work. If they stick to that, they don't need any removable media drive, just a HD and broadband net connection.
All pure speculation of course!!
I just have to wonder, if this does pan out to be true, will WalMart insist on some type of "Net Nanny" be installed? We are talking about the same retail chain that sells toned down (i.e. no more explicative lyrics, nude scenes, etc.) versions of CDs and Movies. It would only make sense that they'd want to filter out the smut side of the Internet too.
If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
The machine would run an operating system created by Google
Google has neither the skills nor the team to create an operating system in 2006. If they distribute anything called Google OS, it will be a derivative work of an already existing OS. Maybe from a proprietary one but more probably from a Free one. The question remains: Linux, Darwin, Solaris or OpenBSD.
Million Dollar Screenshot
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!
People who pay for ads bitch all the time about google.
Let's see.. Google already runs tens of thousands of servers. They have stated they need more bandwidth and more power.
Wouldn't it be great if they have a computing box in *every* home, just to extend their computing power? No power bills, no need to buy more hardware?
Give the owners some of the benefits (cached searches, gmail, maybe use it as a PC in some ways, and otherwise use the box for your own purposes.). Interesting thought.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Those little appliancs all looked bad, and didn't have any brand identification behind them.
Put them in a pretty white box with a bright GoOgLe logo, and you have the makings of something very powerful.
People aren't buying a web terminal or an interface, they're buying a gateway to use Google.
If it turns out to be true, it's a potentially brilliant move for Google. How does Google make all those megabucks? Advertising. They made it work, bigtime. What's advertising about? Eyeballs. Google is brilliant for putting the -right- eyeballs with the -right- ads.
This could be the first thing with the -opportunity- to seriously hurt Microsoft since Navagator and Java.
..don't panic
Will my Google PC be compatible with my CueCat?
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.
It hasn't been discussed for a reason - its dumb as shit. Walmart already sells winblows. Why let google subsidize it when they can subsidize it themselves and have themselves as the home page, etc., if its such a money-maker?
Most people know how to change their home page nowadays, or if they're running Win$hit, some drive-by malware will already have changed it for them.
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.
Why would Microsoft want to dilute their brand recognition? Why would they want to help a competitor?
Too bad the idiots didn't bother to check the facts: Windows OEM license is actually in the $50-$90 range. That's exactly the savings you get for not preinstalling Windows on a PC. The rest is hardware.
There is another somewhat plausible explanation of low cost however: having an Operating System so lightweight, it doesn't requires too much hardware. For a common e-mail-browser-wordprocessor-spreadsheet use case one doesn't need 1Gb or RAM. Building an OS that is oriented toward that use case should result in much lower resource requirements, making hardware cheaper.
This does make sense, in a sort of nonintuitive way. All of those that are saying Google would have to be on crack to challenge Microsoft at this point are correct, if you assume they are looking at simply doing what Microsoft already does. However, that also assumes that a "PC" would be what they are selling. Apple, with the iPod, has already proven that new markets can be created by simply challenging old ideas.
And just as Apple has been able, to some degree, increase awareness and movement to their platform with the iPod, others can do the same. Imagine if you will a low-cost device (explicitly NOT called a PC) that hooked up to your HDTV monitor and allowed you to browse [open source browser] and search the web [Google Search], get e-mail [GMail], browse and organize photos [Picasa], chat via text or voice[Google Talk], shop online [Froogle], and play DVDs and act as the tuner for your HDTV monitor. Hell, add in a little AJAX, and you can do simple word processing and other PC-like actions. Yes, those are all the things that a PC can do now, but by calling it something else, people's expectations would be different. Sell it for something like $299 MSRP or less, and all of those folks who've spent $999 to $2,999 and up on large HDTVs will be thinking it's the ultimate accessory. Add in the ability to organize and play music [think something like Picasa for audio files]and play games, and you've got something that could generate huge revenues for Google.
I'm not saying this is something Google is actually going to do, but while 95% of computer users have Windows, it also a well known fact that most only use about 5% of the features their PCs are capable of providing. The field is wide open to have someone address that need by providing a less complicated and thus more reliable device. Based on Linux and with many net-hosted applications, these devices would also be less vulnerable to viruses and spyware, increasing the reliability even more.
Gee, where have you been? "Win$hit" is perfectly acceptable - google says so. 48,100,000 hits for "Win$hit".
Or you can http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=win%24hit&word2=winblows googlefight
That's several hundred to 1 in favour of Win$hit.
It's not a bug - its a feature :-)
You might want to learn how Google works. Punctuation and most non-text characters are discarded. That means your "win$hit" query is actually two words, "win" + "hit". Nothing to do with windows at all.
God - that is really a stupid comment.
1) Slashdot is a collection of individuals - not a hive mind, no matter what you'd like to think.
2) I don't think I've ever commented upon a
3) I consider Microsoft to be immoral in every way that I said they were illegal in my previous quote - here you go: (spelling mistakes and all)For the record - I do think Google are acting immorally in China - but that has nothing to do with what I or the person I was replying to were talking about.
My pics.