Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Needs To Pull the Plug On Chrome OS
judeancodersfront writes "It's time for Google to realize that it is way too early to be pushing an OS that only provides a browser. If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows. Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform and provide a system that offers local applications."
And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?
The most frustrating part about Linux to end users is installing it and making sure everything works and that the hardware is supported and configured properly. Computer manufacturers are more than capable of doing that for the end user, and let the end user just boot up the computer. Linux even allows you to customize it perfectly and there are already various distros designed just to be simple and provide browser and such. This also has the advantage of having even some local file storage and not being tied to any single company like Google. You can also customize the OS to receive automatic updates just like Chrome OS and make it so that the casual user doesn't need to do or worry about anything.
That is meant strictly for people who might enjoy the simplicity of Chrome OS and just having a browser. Personally I want my desktop apps and games to work.
-sopssa
According to the apple section, "Netbooks are irrelevant because they are dead!!!111"
I personally thought netbooks would have hit the mark better than they did. I should have stocked up on them whilst they were dirt cheap, low powered, and came with linux.
Google has built an empire on having the balls to do stuff that the industry thinks it's "way too early" to do.
Google already provides web versions of office apps, RSS readers/players, photo management, email (naturally), and a ton of other things. From my understanding, online MP3 and eBook repositories are in the works that would allow you to stream that content from centralized storage.
Search and webmail are making Google money, and they entered those markets long after other companies had mature products already serving those needs. It looks to me like Google's success is about improving on mature markets. None of its brand new ideas has been a business success. I'm not asserting that ChromeOS won't be successful, but I think that your particular argument is almost the exact opposite of the truth.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
> Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform
> and provide a system that offers local applications.
Google doesn't want anyone to run local applications.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It's *failure* has significance for general acceptance of Google's model.
It's *existence* does a lot for the notion that Windows is not the only choice out there.
Open Source does well in a marketplace where there is the perception of choice.
I would argue that Google takes risks on innovation not because they "have the balls," but because they MUST do so to survive.
Right now advertising makes up over 90 percent of all their profit. Being an innovative tech company, they understand that someone will eventually find a way to beat Google in the advertising business..or at least strongly compete. They need to take huge risks in order to find their next profit stream. If they cannot do this soon they will be taken dismantled by their competitors.
Besides which, Google's main source of revenue is advertisement. These are all side projects. They're meant to cause a stir in the relevant software industry, drum up some good PR, but the truth is, Google can sit on them for years and wait for them to mature into competitive products.
I suspect some of these projects are there just provide incentive for the competition to continue to advance and progress. If Google's version catches on, it's great, but it doesn't have to. And sometime, somewhere down the line, somebody is going to find a use for it beyond its original scope, and that's when it'll make money. It's like how they're slowly positioning Gmail (or at least its internals) to become Google's competitor to Outlook.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Except for the complete impossibility of having to deal with viruses. Ever. There literally can be no native stored code, and if somehow the running code does get infected, it's wiped on each reboot. For the user that wants those increase of ease over Android (which are significant when comparing mouse, flash, keyboard, etc) and over Desktops/Laptops (Chrome OS can boot by the time you open your laptop, meaning MUCH longer battery life by just keeping it off), not having to deal with virus's (at least, not without a major paradigm shift in the attackers methods which will happen eventually, but for now it poses a significant difficulty) capitalizes on the same market that Mac went after, but more effectively, as it really IS more difficult to write virus's for the ChromeOS than for a Mac (rather than just being unrealistic due to market share).
I work for a large ( 5000 emp + ) Hospital with multiple associated schools of medicine.
Have you heard of EMR -> Electronic Medical Records ?
A Browser only type of device would be a godsend. Keep a couple spare at a unit charge nurse office for break / fix and wow ....
Put the OS in flash
Let Cerner, EPIC or EDS supply these to their customers and they would sell every one they could put their hands on.
Yup.
Seems right. :)
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."