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
In Australia, does the MS death spiral go counter-clockwise?
I don't know the tech details of ChromeOS yet, but I get the impression it's mostly if not entirely net-based. I think that's going to leave Microsoft with a fairly comfortable marketshare even if it takes off because, to some extent, many people want *their* files and *their* processing to be solely under *their* control. There's something to be said for having your own house with your own yard and fence versus living in an apartment building with millions of other people. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral
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.
... you've got a long way to go. You also need to consider that everyone is using something right now and you need to convince die hard Linux fans to leave their loyal distro of choice and follow you onward. That's just as important to success as targeting Windows, I would wager. Me, personally, would be impressed if you can get better hardware support and either work around Flash or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux. Those would be huge and I think would be highly decisive.
... nobody wants another Duke Nukem or Hurd where we're perpetually waiting and cracking jokes about it.
Luckily I know that there's a bit more to Chrome OS than Microsoft death threats. It's a nice thought but
Also, I'm glad they didn't break this news six years ago when they started thinking about it
My work here is dung.
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
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
apt-get search will have advertisement on the right side
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
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.
Microsoft has been in a death spiral for years.
Huh? They've increased revenues for 5 straight years now at around 10%. And they're last year net income grew 25% over 2007. Yeah, that's a real death spiral. Gee, I wish I could run a company in a "death spiral" that generates 60 billion in revenue and almost 18 billion in net income.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
Ok, I'll bite. Why would Chrome ever be "required to support IE"?
I assume Microsoft would be capable of writing IE for Chrome if they felt like doing so.
I'm sorry, but 2007? Really? I can't tell if it's just a typo or what, but either way, how about some up-to-date news on that? Is that too much to ask?
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
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.
Two things:
Yes, housing prices have corrected themselves. The fact that 50% of mortgages are upside down is irrelevant. Those mortgages were taken out then housing prices were seriously inflated, so when the price of the house goes down to a sane level, I'd expect the mortgages to be upside down.
When Bush threw money at the Fed, the Dems bitched. When Obama threw money at the Fed, the Repubs bitched. No one really cares about the country anymore. It's all about getting your guy on top and the other guy knocked down.
Screw that.
Actually a third: "Grow the economy" does not mean "buy more shit". Buying more shit is what put us in this mess. I fail to see how doing more of the same will get us out of it. We need to be focusing on paying down our debts and being fiscally responsible with the money that is coming in.
My twitter
This is what one of Microsoft's Open Source competitors had to say about SharePoint:
Microsoft has found a way to create ties between SharePoint and its more traditional products like Office and Exchange. Companies can tweak Office documents through SharePoint and receive information like whether a worker is online or not through tools in Exchange. These links have Microsoft carrying along its old-line software as it builds a more Internet-focused software line.
"SharePoint is saving Microsoft's Office business even as it paves the way for a new era of Microsoft lock-in," said Matt Asay, an executive at Alfresco, which makes an open-source content management system. "It is simultaneously the most interesting and dangerous Microsoft technology, and has largely caught its competitors napping."
Microsoft has managed to undercut even the open-source companies playing in the business software market by giving away a free basic license to SharePoint if they already have Windows Server. "It's a brilliant strategy that mimics open source in its viral, free distribution, but transcends open source in its ability to lock customers into a complete, not-free-at-all Microsoft stack - one for which they'll pay more and more the deeper they get into SharePoint," Mr. Asay said. Microsoft's SharePoint Thrives in the Recession [Aug 7]
SharePoint is the hottest selling server side product for Microsoft ever.
In its next iteration, SharePoint will have "stronger ties to the corporate search technology Microsoft acquired in the $1.2 billion purchase of Fast Search and Transfer. Best Buy uses the Fast technology today to provide on-the-fly pricing information to customers performing product searches on its Web site."
The Net Applications global market stats for July are out. The weakness of Linux and FOSS in these stats is startling - and if you were looking for evidence of a real "death spiral," this would be a good place to begin.
Operating System Market Share [Rounded]
XP 73%
Vista 18%
OSX 10.5 3%
Linux 1%
OSX 10.4 1%
W2K 1%
Win 7 1%
Browser Version Market Share
IE 6 27%
IE 7 23%
FFOX 3 16%
IE 8 12%
FFOX 3.5 5%
Chrome 2%
Safari 2%
Country Level Weighting