Slashdot Mirror
Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral
Al writes "Technology Review has a feature article that explores the business strategy underlying Google's decision to develop its Linux-based operating system, Chrome OS. Writer G. Pascal Zachary argues that Eric Schmidt has identified a sea-change in the software business, as signaled by Microsoft's recent problems and by the advancement of cloud computing. Zachary notes that Larry Page and Sergey Brin have pushed to develop a slick, open-source alternative to Windows for around six years (with the rationale that improving access to the Web would ultimately benefit Google), but that Schmidt has always refused. While developing Chrome OS is a significant gamble for Google, Zachary believe it will exploit Microsoft's historical weakness in terms of networking and internet functionality, forcing its rival to better serve Google's core business goals, whilst initiating its own steady, slow-motion decline."
Microsoft like SEGA will survive after it's core product ends. Microsoft makes a lot of tools, these will still be used and profitable once Windows is gone (the thought of now more windows makes me giddy though)
I will gladly bet that Microsoft will still be a highly profitable company in twenty years. The fallacy of this write as with many other prognosticators is that the game is zero-sum. This is false. IT is growing and will continue to grow as long as there is an economy to support.
Microsoft likely will need to reposition itself in the market as Google grows. However, Microsoft will be a big player for at least another generation and likely many more.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Not that I'm a Apple advocate, but Apple has had a far superior OS to Windows for the last 8 years, and they've barely dented the PC market. If OS X can't change the Windows mindset, Chrome sure as hell can't.
Chrome is just a shiny object in Sergei's eye. It won't have an impact outside the geek arena.
John
Have you not learned yet? You've been screaming doom and destruction at MS for years now and it still hasn't even made so much of a dent. I'm glad that Google is entering the OS market - having another competitor, and one with a history of excellence that google has is a good thing. However, this is not going to start the death spiral of any thing, just like the chrome browser isn't killing any of the major players off.
These sensationalist headlines do not belong here.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
It is geated for appliances, not general-purpose computers.
Now I will grant that most of what people do today would be easily fulfilled by an appliance. And we would all be far more secure with appliances that could not be subverted by botnets, viruses, trojans, etc. An email/web appliance would satisfy 99% of home users and probably could be slightly extended with web applications to work for 50-60% of business users as well.
So who is building the hot new appliance? Nobody. All previous email appliances have died, mostly from a lack of functionality. Today people see a very false progression from a full-function appliance to a "real ocmputer" as being a short leap, so why not take it? The reality is the appliance with limited (or zero) local storage and no ability to install software (or trojans, viruses, botnets, etc.) would be much, much better for everyone using the Internet.
Could you make an appliance immune to phishing? Probably.
OK, so Chrome OS would be great for an appliance... except nobody is even contemplating building an appliance today. With the thousands (millions?) of Windows-based x86 applications out there for our general-purpose computers, who is going to displace Microsoft? An OS with a rich API, multimedia capabilities and access to the full capabilities of a computer? Or an OS where the API is a browser and nothing else?
Sorry, but Chrome OS might be OK for a netbook. Maybe. It has no place on a desktop computer.
It's a good article, and well-worth reading. But it bears only a marginal resemblence to the teaser headline CmdrTaco has slapped on it...
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Apples and oranges. E-mail is an application that only makes sense if there's a network connection. Editing my home movies, not so much.
No, it's why not everyone uses g-mail (and similar), and why many companies ban its use.
What the GP tried to tell you, but I think you missed, is that there isn't an either/or situation, but room for many players with different types of solutions.
I can't count the number of companies that have made the same claims only to be crushed by the Microsoft Juggernaut by simply having better PR and marketing. In fact the Bing marketing blitz over the last month has been very visible and well put together. Google search is remarkable but some of its functionality is not at all intuitive for the lay-searcher. Microsoft is trying to take advantage of that and if there's one thing Microsoft IS good at it's marketing.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
If Google passes the line between privacy and convenience, we will read some horror stories about it and it can actually lead to some very interesting developments like FSF getting into the future drama as it will be based on Linux.
We may end up reading things like "World's first spyware OS" right here, on Slashdot. We may see FSF or Linus openly protest it.
Google thinks everyone buys their "not evil" kind of slogans and design software based on it. Someone should remind them that those times are over. Also, being open source won`t change a thing. If it gathers your location and posts it to Google servers, it won`t matter if it is open source or not. Even if they hire (!) rms to code it, it won`t matter.
I think you're right. People have touted the 'Net as the OS for years. The problem is you will have a hard time wrestling power from the user. Yes, novices will use whatever the masses are using. But geeks will want the computing power local and as users become more savvy they're not likely to be as turned on by the Net as the OS.
Do you really expect anyone to believe that the cost of the computer is the cost of your computing?
Intelligent people who also factor in other costs often end up choosing Macs as the TOTAL low-cost alternative.
I bought a Mac for my wife, it is by far the cheapest solution because I spend zero time fixing it for her.
That's actually a pretty good example. We wouldn't necessarily want to 1) have our home videos exposed to the web and 2) have to deal with the latency of a connection, or other technological limitations. As I do some audio creation on my computer (mostly bad music for fun, i admit), I can see no reason why a cloud style OS would improve my experience.
*GASP* Trashing Linux? I'm surprised you haven't been modded down as a troll!
Seriously though, you raise good points about linux. I'm a UNIX admin by trade and I'm fairly familiar with all flavours of unix/linux but I still use 75% windows at my house for those reasons. The thing with Linux is, even if you do know what you are doing, the fact of the matter is that there is often still a long process to go through to get something to work.
Sadly, most linux developers take the attitude of 'Fine we don't need you' instead of really hearing and trying to understand the problem.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Google observes that Windows is too complicated, slow and bloated. But another big bloated monolithic solution such as the Linux kernel doesn't seem an answer. Why don't they go with a microkernel architecture based on something such as Minix 3? We've known for years the potential advantages of microkernels: smaller, simpler, more robust.
You've just got yourself tied up here already. NT is probably the most popular microkernel architecture in the world. What makes it "hybrid" is pretty minimal... it's a lean mean high-performance microkernel. A lot of what still made it hybrid has gone away in NT 6.
I don't think Chrome OS has a shot in hell in outperforming Windows 7 or Mac OS X at any media application aside from the Chrome Browser itself. Google simply lacks the organization and expertise to create something like DirectX or CoreVideo, or any of the advanced mature media frameworks available in the big name desktops. If they really had that capability, it would have started peaking out in Android, which lacks all sorts of hardware acceleration features that Win CE and iPhone OS offered. It's very web-ish.
Let's be clear: we're talking about an in-development environment that will essentially be a web browser running on a framebuffer on a linux kernel with a lean non-gnu stack. It's not a general purpose OS. It's going to grab a small chunk of the super-casual market such as netbooks, probably defeat any desktop linux in existence by an order of magnitude, then fall flat on its face in front of anyone who needs to get serious work done or produce attractive documents or edit media, from housewives to students to professionals.
What we're looking at isn't a juggernaut but a curiosity. I anticipate it's going to kick ass for people who only use their web browser, though. It'll really simplify things for them and offer them an extremely fast boot-to-web experience. I think it will succeed in what it's trying to accomplish, but it's just far too small in scope.
And even the potential for formal verification to prove that it really is bug free, something that Windows and Linux are far too large to ever accomplish.
What sort of verification would you be talking about? We're talking about a desktop environment built out of WebKit, so I think their potential security will be lower than what Windows offers... I think they're banking on the fact that they likely won't offer a native execution environment outside of Native Client. Of course, this is assuming Native Client isn't just a modern ActiveX waiting to be exploited upon deployment.
The main disadvantage I've heard is a perception that a microkernel architecture by necessity imposes a performance penalty. The ability to survive buggy driver code has a flip side in the supposed overhead required to jump in and out of user space whenever the microkernel calls on these drivers.
There are modern pure microkernels out there which perform blazingly fast... Green Hills INTEGRITY is an example. They've gotten around a lot of these little problems in a brilliant way. The open source community is trapped within debates from the early 80's, it's really big world outside of UNIX. Microkernels beat Monoliths on every front aside from brute simplicity. Monoliths can be "elegant," but linux is anything but. Compared to the gnu/linux ecosystem, Windows is extremely well organized and clearly architected.
Google is not looking to innovate in the operating system market, clearly. They're simply doing what so many desktop linux distributions failed at when trying to make a casual OS. They're using Linux because it'll save them time writing difficult boot and driver code and ultimately save them money. They're not writing their own kernel because they're not really going to compete with Windows. I don't think Google really has what it takes to create a serious new kernel, anyway-- or even clean up Minix enough that it performs competitively.
My final
Remember that most of the people that hang here is not a good representation of the "common people". Common people don't know much about computers, internet or security. And they don't care. They use what's fun and easy, even if it's bug-ridden, insecure, unhealthy and radioactive. They are not computer geeks, they're just people.
And people, not geeks like you and me, is what drives the market. If Chrome OS is easier and funnier to use than Windows, many people will use it. Even if has a security hole so big that you coud fit a truck into it, even if it makes their pictures being naked and drunk available to anyone in the Internet. Because they, and most of their friends, won't care. They just want to play with the damn thing.
My weblog in spanish
The point of Chrome is not for people to switch to Chrome. Nor is it to write killer apps unique for Chrome. The point of Chrome is to make Microsoft start writing web apps, and moving away from desktop. It's like luring the shark out of water to compete in your territory on the land. Google lives on the Internet, and Chrome OS is the Internet OS, that will hopefully move Microsoft to the Internet even more than they have (Office online, Windows Live etc). And more of Microsoft services online, the better it is for Google. Since Google are the king of Internet and in effect are making Microsoft compete with them outside of their core competence (desktop). And having to compete with Google online, takes away resources from desktop.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.