Switched On: With Google, this is not your father's OS war
By Ross Rubin 
posted July 8th 2009 1:22PM
posted July 8th 2009 1:22PM
Ross Rubin (@rossrubin) contributes Switched On, a column about consumer technology.
Google's incursions into software -- particularly in strategic markets for Microsoft, are like an Earth-bound asteroid. Observers see it coming for a long time, and fear its impact will be devastating when it finally arrives. So far, though, Google's major software forays have been anything but cataclysmic, and Microsoft hasn't even had to send Bruce Willis into space to stop them.
On one hand -- as I discussed in a recent Switched On column that argued why Android was not the right choice for netbooks -- the mobile operating system continues to have a lot of potential to reshape the smartphone OS competitive landscape. On the other hand, while Chrome is a fine browser, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla all have their counterparts, and certainly Firefox and Safari at least give Google's browser a run for its money in terms of speed, privacy and user interface. Chrome's impact has been blunted because the PC is already an open platform.
Enter Chrome OS, which will be available on ARM and Intel processors. For the high-volume Intel PC market, Chrome OS will have to take on Windows, but Chrome OS is very different than other Windows competitors such as the Mac OS, Ubuntu or the OS/2 of yore, in that Google does not seem focused on creating platform-exclusive applications. In some ways, Chrome is more of a competitor to Silverlight than to Windows, as Silverlight is Microsoft's cross-platform application foundation. Of course, Windows is Microsoft's home field, and Chrome OS will be Google's.
And since Chrome is the key to cross-platform compatibility of Web apps, will one be able to run other browsers (notably Firefox) on Chrome? Google's official blog notes that "apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux." Note that Google reserves "standards-based browser(s)" for other operating systems. How ironic it would be if Google's OS were less "open" to browser competition than Apple's or Microsoft's?
Google offers the promise of similar architectural improvements it made with Chrome, but also tantalizes with the notion of universal remote access and backup to the cloud a la Apple's MobileMe, Palm's webOS and Microsoft's MyPhone service. Chrome OS could mark the debut of Google's long-rumored GDrive competitor to Apple's iDisk and Microsoft's SkyDrive. And perhaps Google Chrome OS will support universal remote wipe.
But none of this may be enough to make Chrome OS more successful than any of the other lightweight "Web-centric" and security-conscious Linux variants that have been offered by major netbook manufacturers. Sure, Google can build something on top of Linux, lend it a halo and buy it some wings. But despite a fair amount of media attention, something that sounds conceptually very similar to Chrome OS has already been tried and has failed to catch on.
And Chrome OS won't escape Windows competition running on ARM. It's just that the competition with Windows will be less direct as ARM-based netbooks or smartbooks (clamshells with a 7-inch or greater screen) will have to compete against Intel-based ones. With smaller screens, there's a larger question about the viability of any device to differentiate from ever-more sophisticated smartphones while still being pocketable.
What's in a name? Chrome OS will have different value to Google than operating systems have for Apple and Microsoft. For Google, Chrome OS is merely an extension of the browser. It is even less important strategically than Android, which seeks to ensure open access to the Net on a device that is often beholden to carrier in addition to manufacturer demands. Sure, Chrome OS theoretically marginalizes Windows and OS X APIs, eroding their value. But it is needed where only where OS X and Windows are not. Unlike in the fast-evolving market of smartphones, though, there aren't many of those holes to fill in the PC market.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
On one hand -- as I discussed in a recent Switched On column that argued why Android was not the right choice for netbooks -- the mobile operating system continues to have a lot of potential to reshape the smartphone OS competitive landscape. On the other hand, while Chrome is a fine browser, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla all have their counterparts, and certainly Firefox and Safari at least give Google's browser a run for its money in terms of speed, privacy and user interface. Chrome's impact has been blunted because the PC is already an open platform.
Enter Chrome OS, which will be available on ARM and Intel processors. For the high-volume Intel PC market, Chrome OS will have to take on Windows, but Chrome OS is very different than other Windows competitors such as the Mac OS, Ubuntu or the OS/2 of yore, in that Google does not seem focused on creating platform-exclusive applications. In some ways, Chrome is more of a competitor to Silverlight than to Windows, as Silverlight is Microsoft's cross-platform application foundation. Of course, Windows is Microsoft's home field, and Chrome OS will be Google's.
And since Chrome is the key to cross-platform compatibility of Web apps, will one be able to run other browsers (notably Firefox) on Chrome? Google's official blog notes that "apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux." Note that Google reserves "standards-based browser(s)" for other operating systems. How ironic it would be if Google's OS were less "open" to browser competition than Apple's or Microsoft's?
Google offers the promise of similar architectural improvements it made with Chrome, but also tantalizes with the notion of universal remote access and backup to the cloud a la Apple's MobileMe, Palm's webOS and Microsoft's MyPhone service. Chrome OS could mark the debut of Google's long-rumored GDrive competitor to Apple's iDisk and Microsoft's SkyDrive. And perhaps Google Chrome OS will support universal remote wipe.
But none of this may be enough to make Chrome OS more successful than any of the other lightweight "Web-centric" and security-conscious Linux variants that have been offered by major netbook manufacturers. Sure, Google can build something on top of Linux, lend it a halo and buy it some wings. But despite a fair amount of media attention, something that sounds conceptually very similar to Chrome OS has already been tried and has failed to catch on.
And Chrome OS won't escape Windows competition running on ARM. It's just that the competition with Windows will be less direct as ARM-based netbooks or smartbooks (clamshells with a 7-inch or greater screen) will have to compete against Intel-based ones. With smaller screens, there's a larger question about the viability of any device to differentiate from ever-more sophisticated smartphones while still being pocketable.
What's in a name? Chrome OS will have different value to Google than operating systems have for Apple and Microsoft. For Google, Chrome OS is merely an extension of the browser. It is even less important strategically than Android, which seeks to ensure open access to the Net on a device that is often beholden to carrier in addition to manufacturer demands. Sure, Chrome OS theoretically marginalizes Windows and OS X APIs, eroding their value. But it is needed where only where OS X and Windows are not. Unlike in the fast-evolving market of smartphones, though, there aren't many of those holes to fill in the PC market.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
Even though this Google OS may not compete with Windows OS in the exact same market it is a critically smart move. Google hit the nail on the head because the market is looking favorable toward net books and web based apps.
Silverlight? Really?
I would think this is more competitive to MSRs Gazelle as a Browser OS and the Azure platform (pricing announced next week) which MSFT is gearing to compete with Amazon's S3.
I realize Microsoft marketing and evangelism is major suck (and some of their bureaucracy) but for a balanced article it would have been better to look beyond windows and silverlight. (I know I know.. it's easier to go with the obvious)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3231
More competition is good for all. But I don't think it's just a netbook centric OS that's the big news about Google. I think it's important to look a couple steps ahead.
A linux OS that is focued on browsing. Truely, no one has ever ever done that before - surely it will over turn the entire market and sweep competitors like Microsoft aside.
Or maybe not. Maybe it's been done to death, maybe those same customers are now returning their useless boxes by the thousands and asking for useful windows based machines in their place.
Ya know, just maybe.
Interesting how a company can be so consistantly late to the party, huh?
I know... right?
They are so consistently wrong or late.
It is no wonder they are one of the least successful companies ever to put up a web site.
- mike
Thanks Google, you just destroyed Android...
/sarcasm
Yep I agree with you 100% It just goes to show you how people are afraid of something new even if its better. Being loyal to Windows is the equivalent of getting a kick on the testicles and spit on the face every morning. You might hate it in the beginning but with time, everyone gets used to it. So now we have this great initiative that could potentially be something great, but you hear people whining and bitching about how MS is so great. In essence all they are saying is this, "what no kick on the groin and no spit on the face? NO thank you". Who understands these people? You just can't win either way. For my part, I'm glad someone has the muscle and the balls to challenge MS' ancient NT kernel and since Apple does not want to share their OS (fantastic BSD OS btw) with the rest of the world, I wish Google all the success in the world. I hope Chrome OS succeeds, because booting for 20 secs, poor memory management( windows use of memory is the equivalent of a GM gas guzzler) and getting patches are certainly not the way to go forward.
Knowing Google's core business of "harvesting personal information and selling it to advertisers" I wonder how this new OS would phone home, and what kind of info is gathering. The way things are moving, Google knows more about us than the government. Google may turn into the new Gestapo.
I think this whole Chrome OS will not be able to compete in the desktop OS industry. I just think it wont make it. It wont be compatible with anything, and I doubt companys will ever make their games and devices compatible with Chrome OS, do to the already huge user base of OS X and Windows.
However, I DO believe that chrome OS will compete fairly well in the Netbook OS industry. It sounds like alot of this will be web and cloud based, which would be perfect for Netbook users. So Google, take a look into that.
It will be interesting. Potentially great for consumers--- at least another option. Probably just a big money-hole for Google though. Besides a couple programs (SketchUp, etc.), Google programs have been pretty bad. Their search engine is great. They have a lot of smart people. But they are making a classic error--- thinking that "smarts" and "money" = future success. Main problems:
1. No experience in OS development
2. Where are the revenues coming from? (If goal is to keep people searching at google.com or using gmail, then it's a lot of work for very little returns) Somewhere, the project has to pay for itself.
3. Are hardware manufacturers going to support it? Look at Linux distro's which are pretty good. Drivers continue to be an issue as manufacturers only make drivers for Windows.
I want someone to create a faster, better, cheaper opearating system. Is it likely that Google will bring a more desirable OS than Windows/OSX? Nope. Probably highly unlikely. There are already a 3 OS's in the main categories:
OS X (expensive-- probably $400 or so, but very good)
Windows 7 (from cheap flavors to Ultimate)-- good, reliable. Known to most people. If you're paying for an OS, then Windows makes sense--- just choose the right flavor.
Linux (many distros--- cheap)--- the no-cost angle and low hardware requirements appeal to this group. More difficult to work in but the inexpensiveness and customability appeal to those who don't mind "learning" a new OS.
Google is trying to have an OS X/Windows Ultimate experience at the Linux cost. If they can do it, that's perfect. But Google is a for-profit company; costs associated with OS development will have to be shown to be worthwhile. Probably 1-2 years of development before it is cut off (see graveyard of other companies looking to do same thing Lindows/Winspire, etc.).
OS WARS -- A New Hope... But I'll always love VAX/VMS.
Although a new OS from google is very interesting, i am really dissapointed. It seems it will be even more limited than android itself. Only web based apps? Maybe it would be cool on a 7" internet tablet but on a desktop? Excuse me, but the main reason i love my desktop pc with windows is that i can do almost anything and not just surf the web or write emails. I do want to be able to run a normal and not a web based version of photoshop, i do want to run a normal full fledged game and not a flash one. And although i also think that cloud computing IS the future i am just not ready for it. Not now, not even in 2 or 3 years. I was hoping for a more real OS, more something like android for desktops instead of a web browser OS. A normal, fast and stable OS that i can run normal applications and web browser just be one of them, not the whole OS! Anyway, let's wait and see...
So they annouced this today...
Hmmmm..... why so soon?
Did they feel pressure to annouce it now because MS has been showing something similar to its partners for a while now?
Chrome OS has too many competitors to be any real threat to overall marketshare
I think most of these comments are missing the most important part of the Chrome OS idea: booted and usable in 5-10 seconds. That's their goal, anyway.
My Eee 901 came with Xandros and I put XP on the second drive. The linux install boots in about 30 seconds, the XP install boots in about 70 seconds. So I use XP and get the applications I want, the look & feel, etc. That savings at bootup, to get to Xandros, isn't enough for me to justify losing my Windows apps--I still have to sit and entertain myself while I wait for my PC to be ready.
If you get my Eee booting in 10 seconds, though... There's a lot I'd put up with, to be up and running in 10 seconds or less. Including Google Apps instead of Office.
Isn't Intel's Moblin 2 also said to boot in a few seconds? Or quite a few other existing stripped-down Linux distribuitions (can't think of any names right now, though)?
Either way, I don't think that's much of a stand-out feature of ChromeOS. How many people really fully shut down/restart their netbooks all the time? Standby and hibernate also mean that the netbook is ready to go within seconds, and doing a proper restart cycle once every fortnight or so is absolutely enough, especially for a lightly used secondary or even tertiary computer like a netbook. Hardly a big deal imho.
While competition is always good, at some point you need to pick your battles and consolidate your efforts. Too much fracturing of Linux is what caused it to lose in the desktop OS market IMO, as now even Windows netbooks are greatly outselling Linux offerings (the one place you'd expect them to be strong)... and in fact its not even close. The fact that these google apps will run fine in Widows, and that Windows 7 is pretty and familiar and efficient on netbooks, it seems like an answer to a question that nobody asked.
"Sure, Google can build something on top of Linux, lend it a halo and buy it some wings. But despite a fair amount of media attention, something that sounds conceptually very similar to Chrome OS has already been tried and has failed to catch on."
Was Cloud OS ever actually released? No... so it's hard to "catch on" with a product never available to the public. I was waiting on it and I'm waiting on Chrome OS. Maybe try the product before applying the FAIL label...
this will be at most as successful as android and/or chrome.
I'm sure Google will have the same restrictions as MS in the EU. No Chrome browser on your OS!!
Whenever I see the Google Chrome logo it reminds me of a game called Electronic Simon.
Google is going to have to be far-sighted to pull this off. Sure, they may be able to have this "war" on the netbook front _maybe_ in 2010 (doubtful though). The desktop world is a completely different story. Call me back in 2020. taking on Apple and Microsoft seems a daunting task, and doing so from the "cloud" (a term a LOT of people barely understand, much less trust handing over their data to) even more so. And that's just mindshare. What about infrastructure? Running apps through old DSL/cable connections, then add monthly usage caps, can in no way compete with running apps straight from your hardware.
I wish them luck; sometimes it takes a third candidate to get the other two to do something worthwhile.
Google is actively working on native ARM and x64 ports of the v8 javascript engine, which is the engine of the chrome browser. Not so ironically as well, they've also waited until they could verify that x64 and ARM versions of Flash would come out. More importantly, the time frame of this announcement is of no coincidence; coinciding well with the semi-official announcement that google apps are ready for the masses. Most importantly, it's important to understand that v8 compiles Javascript (ideally optimized javascript from something like gwt) into native machine code. With a little more work, it will come close to being as good as compiling c code with gcc -O2, ultimately aiming to render distributed binaries worthless. For Google, the universal programming language will be Google's bastardization of Java (like in gwt), the new "source package" will be javascript, and the browser will be the new desktop/app manager. I have a feeling they'll include gtk/qt support in the OS too, despite claiming a new WM.
For 70% of the world, this should be plenty adequate.
Google's pull to get things done shouldn't be underestimated. Don't forget they are almost more of a software engineering institution than a company. They also recently updated google docs with support for all Office 2007(8) formats.
you got it.. and then Gears to run those webapp offline.. hence, the bridge between webapp and desktop app is finally not needed anymore.
I'm not really familiar with the author of the article.
But so far... I'm going to have to go with my gut not to under-estimate google rather than sign on to yet another e-profit and all his reasons why something will or won't happen.
Not that such speculation isn't fun...
It's just that when you look back historically at it... it is almost always wrong.
Of course... somebody will have it right... as everything will be said by somebody.
My guess is that google ends up having an impact.
- mike
Does this mean that Google Broadband is around the corner?
I just dont want another cloud desktop solution. I want to see some innovation and the writing is on the wall that google could pull out some sweet looking and working software for this.
SCREENSHOTS DAMMIT! SHOW ME SCREENSHOTS!
arggg... why? obviously just because they can. this will fail just like the java desktop did. sure, people love google and will give them a chance, but the backlash will be swift and deadly.
Is it just me, or do I feel a shift of consumer sentiment toward google products? If I see the same news a few months ago I think the comments all be something along the line of "hail google and death of microsoft!"... but now, there are a lot of google doubters...
I like the Chrome browser (I use it a lot), and used to use Firefox. However, Internet Explorer, which is often shunned, is probably my favorite overall browser.
As for the Google OS, I really like Google products, but all I can say for now is that I'll keep an eye on it. It doesn't quite sound like it's for me, just yet.
You are all forgetting about Gears. Gears will enable applications to be written for the web but to run on the computer itself w/o the internet connection. This is the ultimate aim of Google here in my opinion, that the web application replaces the desktop app completely, with this bridge between the two called Gears. It is, if it works well, a smart move; write once & run on any platform including their own completely lightweight thin client.
Sorry, but I just read throug three pages of comments and I don't think one person truely get where Google is trying to head. Everyone is way too short sighted. This is not about netbooks - Google even states on their bog post that Google Chrome OS... is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems.
Chrome OS is going to rely hevily on two other VERY CRITICAL pieces to this puzzle. These will shape what web based applications will become (at least if Google gets is way).
1. Native Client - Gives web based applications access to the full computational power ofthe underlying CPU. It effectively allows you to thread, accelerate, and tap the underlying CPU instruction set (i.e. x86) as a native OS would. Basically it allows you to run C and C++ apps for instance natively in a browser.
2. O3D - What Natve Client is to CPU O3D is to the GPU. Effectively allows the browser to have full access to the GPU.
So this etire article and comments up to now miss the bigger vision of Google. The key messae is this: web apps in Google's future will be indistinguishable from todays desktop apps. Crysis in browser anyone???
This is why Google is actually several years away from where they ae trying to go. They won't even have Chrome OS out for another year. You think it would take Google a year to through Chrome on Linux? Of course not. They are tring to build a new Web OS that will have the full capabilites of todays native OSes. Computational power, graphics power, device support and all.
Personally I do not think they will ultimately succeed. Basically Microsoft is building up (they have the foundationand arenow moving very, very fast to the cloud - Azure, Mesh, Live, etc.) Google is trying to build down. They are trying to put new plumbing in to allow web apps to compete / rival desktop apps.
So, this has nothing to do with putting a netbook OS in the market when the Netbook category will already be blurred out by the time Chrome OS comes to market. This truely is Google's play in a new OS War. I think their vision is great, but they have too far to go and while people always like to think MS moves slowly, in reality they always move fast enough.
+1 to Corrie Mayo. Every time I look at it, I can almost hear the words: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." Plus, it looks like it can fly, and maybe also cut or shoot you with something under the yellow hatch.
... And Gears in addition to Native Client and O3D for offline usage of course.
If they make a chrome OS then of course everything on it will be 'platform exclusive', it'll be for the chrome platform, the OS = the platform.
I guess Google wants to be investigated as a monopoly.... Should be funny to watch them complain.
This will not be a competitor to Silverlight or Windows but rather Gazelle:
Gazelle Browser Takes a Radical Path
CNET - July 07, 2009
Microsoft researcher Helen Wang discusses Gazelle, a project to develop a browser that works more like an operating system.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10280270-56.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
It's a battle of thievery in the tech industry now, soon nobody will know if they themselves thought up something because they assume they stole it again themselves and they'll all be wearing dark glasses and trenchcoats at coder conferences.
P.S. I think MS stole that from google.
I just don't see the point of this Chrome OS if it runs cloud computing.
Perhaps the cloud computing is secondary to undercutting M$ to grab quick market share in the netbook OS arena.
But as M$ already pointed out, there are many things that netbooks can not do, and one wonders if Chrome OS will be able to run specialized grahpics software, and PC games. If not, then it is not a true OS.
Hell, Windows Mobile 6.5 should be able to be juiced up to compete with Chrome OS in that regard.
Also, Chrome OS is a fail, unless it is free like Ubuntu.
I have been running a dual boot of XP and Ubuntu side by side. When I turn on the PC, the big OS decision boils down to whether I will play COD2. If not then I use Ubuntu.
I tried ubuntu, I'd not call it that perfect as so many people claim, the UI is a bit clunky
And it ignores standard config files sometimes and for some reason sometimes uses some propriety setup which they don't properly document leaving the user in frustration.
I would not mind if it worked as it suppose to, but if they make thing uselessly annoying then I might as well use windows..
i noticed some facts that were... well off in the article above, (mostly about Chrome web browser but i think it might put a little more faith in Chrome OS)
"while Chrome is a fine browser, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla all have their counterparts, and certainly Firefox and Safari at least give Google's browser a run for its money in terms of speed, privacy and user interface"
Google Chrome has been said (and tested) to be more secure the IE, and firefox, (especially against safari).
check Pwn2Own contest here: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/03/chrome-is-the-only-browser-left-standing-in-pwn2own-contest.ars
Just some things that I saw I wanted to point out, and as far as the OS goes I'm really looking forward to what Google is going to do with this.
I only like it because it'll make MS and even linux try harder, but I would not use a google OS or browser, their business is ads and gathering data on people for ad purposes, my passion is trying to stop such things from happening to me, so we are incompatible in many ways.
Personal Opinion:
1. Do you play alot of games? Windows. With DX11 allowing more immersion and making it easier for developers to code games we'll get better games faster that run better.
2. Do you do alot of CAD, etc? Some say OSX, others Windows. The argument that Windows is a virus haven does not hold water anymore. With proper knowledge of how to setup your computer for the work you do the only thing left is if you prefer the way OSX does things or Windows.
4. Are you a Linux believer? Don't downplay the knowledge of other cause they use OSX/Windows. I have used Redhat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc. Sure you can get the system running the way you want if you keep a few things in mind. You will never have the game library that Windows has. You better be sure that the Vid Card you own has proper drivers for the Distribution you want to use or be prepared to hunt down ones coded by another person or create the drivers yourself. There are definite advantages but in the same right definite disadvantages to using a Linux Distro for an all around Desktop/Laptop.
5. Are you a Fanboy? Get over yourself. I have played with my friends Apple and like it but it's not for me. He's an Audio Engineer and likes the stability of the system. He doesn't want to take the extra time to research any issues a Windows driver may present. Yes Windows still has driver issues from time to time wether the Windows fanboy wants to admit but not as often as the OSX fanboy wants to rant about. I like to upgrade my computer hardware to my choosing so it's Windows for me(really like Win 7 right now) and the freedom to choose whatever company and model hardware I want.
6. Are you a Tech fanatic? Enjoy the new, maybe not so original, hardware/software that comes along that might be the new thing or just the new fail that pushed the established entities to advance the Tech world we love so much.
7. Are you Critical or just Narrow Minded and Opinionated? Criticism is constructive and insightful. The other is just ignorance. I have read some posts here that just blew my mind with statements of "fact" that just were completely wrong and blatantly showed me that they were ranting about something that they may be passionate about but have no real knowledge about.
8. Can you accept others preferences? I have tried to show my friend how to build a computer with more power than his Apple at the same or lower cost but accept that he prefers the stability of his system for the work he does. Can the Windows system be just as stable? Sure but it may take a little more time setting up to be so and he doesn't want the "hassle" of it.
9. Can you accept a competing software/hardware to be better? This leads to better systems for us all at an eventual lower price point than was avialable to use in previous years. Competition betters the available product wether it's your prefered manufacturer or the "enemy". I used to love AMD and it's capability in years past to compete with Intel in the consumer market and eventually being the CPU of choice for a while in the Server market. Things have changed and Intel is top dog performance per dollar wise in the consumer market. I use Intel CPUs now as a preference. I purchase the better product at the time and don't worry about petty affiliations.
10. Can you Debate or just be Childish? There are some people in posts that are able to maintain thier composure and Debate the subject at hand while others simply want to prove the other person wrong/stupid at any cost even if they are wrong in the matter. A Debate allows people to possibly find things out they did not know if not necessarily prove thier argument wrong.
Knowledge gained from your "enemy" is still priceless no matter how tainted you may believe it is.