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 has been in a death spiral for years. It is the corporate equivalent of the undead :)
But seriously, Google are too big. Real paradigm shifts are brought about by small, agile organisations with a massive idea. Like mammals taking on the dinosaurs.
Microsoft makes a lot of tools, these will still be used and profitable once Windows is gone
There's no need to offend Microsoft users like that. They would do better if they knew better.
"Hopefully that's not their primary goal. Remember, if your primary goal isn't to do something positive for the customer then it ain't gonna work."
What planet did you crawl down here from?
Does one need a visa to get there?
Ever seen the Windows OS?
NO SIG
ChomeOS is WebTV all over again. Google cannot make a vietually 100% secure OS like Apple, nor will their OS support any real gaming other than Flash junk on websites.
About the only things I've read is that ChromeOS will be based on the Linux kernel and will be especially apt for cloud computing and networking.
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. 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. 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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
haha, that fucking nigger.
I used Netscape instead of IE, and it was pretty damn bloated. The feature-set was just barely worth dealing with the sluggish performance. Especially since IE wasn't exactly a lean mean browsing machine at the time. If it had been, the would not have needed to abuse their position.
I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?
One step at the time. Still better then watching and do nothing.
As for why this is a good move, it has already been discussed several times. You either understand what monopoly is or you don't.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I believe Obama and company are already working on that.