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."
Google: Buy our OS, it'll run on any computer and you can buy the speed you need.
It seems likely that this will be Google's new market once Chrome and the cloud are developed further. Microsoft and Apple will most likely follow suit.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Microsoft has nearly missed the boat before. During Chicago's development, Microsoft all but dropped the ball on that whole Internet thing, at the last moment pasting in Windows for Workgroup's networking engine to support TCP/IP. The initial version of IE sucked, but, in the end, they beat the snot out of Netscape. They even retroactively threw in the Shiva PPP dialer and their own Winsock stack for Windows 3.1, thus pretty much killing Trumpet Winsock.
I won't believe Microsoft's going down the tubes until I actually see Microsoft down the tubes. They're the Energizer Bunny of the computer world, even if they have to steal or assassinate their competition to keep going.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yeah, I doubt tools like Visual Studio will go down easy. I do some of my work in Eclipse, but when I'm working with C++ on Win32, I want my VC++. As for Office... sorry MS, I switch to google docs a few weeks ago.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Is ultimately a fad. I do not see any real utility in giving control of my software and security to a third party company. In fact, just the opposite. Given Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo's dubious record for security, I and many other savvy computer users will not be welcoming our Cirrus overlords any time soon. It definitely holds little value to business and industry because they like to retain control over there information and rightly so. The disadvantage of going back to centralized computing is placing all your eggs in one basket: one intruder comprises a system and has gained, quite literally, the keys to the castle. It often shocks me to see how many people use twitter, facebook, and their ilk - just blindly eschewing their own privacy because something looks cool. This follow the crowd mentality, "sheeple," if you will is not a good a thing. It is amazing what information one can glean from these sites and if any become compromised, we open ourselves to identity theft on a scale unimagined.
True, then they started buying any company that had anything related to the Internet. Remember Vermeer Technologies Inc.? They created FrontPage and MS snatched them up to compete with other editors out there like HotDog. There was another company I saw at Internet World at the same time. They had some easy-to-use, drag-and-drop Java applet creator. Was interesting. Two days after their press conference MS grabbed them, too.
Bark less. Wag more.
Well I wouldn't write Chrome off so simply as that. First, for every bit that Apple is cool and stylish, there's also a tremendous backlash against it. There are people who absolutely hate Apple for its trendiness alone.
Second, OSX is good, and you can even argue that it's "the best desktop OS available", but that doesn't mean that it's "the best desktop OS for meeting every single person's needs". It's not perfect, and in fact often aims for the lowest common denominator. I don't mean that to be insulting (I use OSX), but if there's a feature that Apple thinks will make things more complicated and won't be used by 90% of users, they'll drop that feature. That may even be the right choice when you get down to it, but it means that they're not addressing the needs of that 10%.
Third, Apple doesn't have an extremely varied hardware line, and OSX is (theoretically/legally) bound to Apple's hardware. That means that even if OSX meets your needs, if Apple's hardware doesn't also meet your needs, then you can't use it.
And fourth, Apple *has* made a dent in the PC market. How much depends on who you ask and how you measure it. Is it market share? OSX sales? Dollars spent on Apple/OSX products vs. Windows products? You'd probably need a lot of data and experts to hash it all out, and those are things I don't have. But you know who does have them? Microsoft. And why do you think they've focused most of their recent advertising in attaching good feelings to the phrase "I'm a PC," while claiming that Macs are too expensive? If Apple weren't a genuine threat, they wouldn't bother.
Of course, none of this is to say that Chrome is going to kill Windows.