Switched On: With Google, this is not your father's OS war
By Ross Rubin 
posted Jul 8th 2009 1:22PM
posted Jul 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.
More choices is always great. Competition among the titans is beneficial for us consumers!
Ahem! I think everyone won't mind saving a dollar or two.
Google totally ripped off "The Guyver" when creating the Chrome logo. Even the name Chrome sounds similar to the evil corp from the guyver series called "Chronos".
Just an observation!
Do you think they will charge for it?
@Phineas J. Whoopie
"What do people do with netbooks? Surf the web, send email, take notes, do some light word processing work? This is the perfect market for a lightweight, fast, instant-on OS. That's what they're after."
Just wait till somebody tries to sync an iPod with ChromeOS netbook...
- "More choices is always great. Competition among the titans is beneficial for us consumers!"
Quite so. I do so hope that the big G puts out a very nice product, if not because I just like free things that are nice, then only to serve the purpose of providing an operating system with enough traction to spur innovation from the incumbents (I'm focusing in windows, here, but the *nix based systems as well.) While I disagree with Ross Rubin's assertion that there's no room for google to fit in, I think the plethora of (what they're now calling) ~$200 smartbooks (the pricerange I expected from netbooks until someone decided they were too inexpensive) will attest to. If google avoids the pitfalls that have hindered the mainstream linux-based free operating systems before them -- like inefficiency, with the outdated X windowing system and developer fragmentation with incompatible desktop environments and toolkits, to name a few -- I think google stands a shot at making a splash. (They've got most of that covered already, by the way.) Oh yea, not to mention the astronomical level of publicity and hardware/manufacturer/OEM/ODM (...) support google is bound to get, I'm sufficiently satisfied with this turn of events to consider myself, "F*CKING STOKED!"
A different point of view. While I agree competition is generally good for the consumers, it doesn't always work this way.
You see, when you have a uniform, homogenic, environment for developers, the benefits to the end users (not just consumers, but also businesses) are by far much greater than if you have tons of OS options since the development of applications (and let's face it, we use Windows not because of Windows, but because of all the programs we want/need/crave/must have) will be spread across those platforms and those few cross platform ones will be much more expensive due to several development versions for each OS.
So, while AMD vs. Intel is great to the consumers, because they're essentially the same chips with different logos, if IBM came into play and suddenly ate 30% of the marketshare and consumers bought these chips for much less than Intel or AMD, they'd be stuck with a very few OS options and ultimately their experience would be much worse than if they spent a few bucks more on an Intel chip which'd ultimately have given them a complete freedom of choice for their OS and programs.
Same here, if we start to have, say, 25 OS manufacturers each with significant portions of the marketshare, the software developers would be living in hell! They'd have much tougher decision choices and if they chose to develop for all or at least many of the platforms, the software would be buggy, slow, or extremely expensive due to this issue.
Look not too distant in the past for programs like Maya (Power Animator at that time) or Softimage 3D on SGI. These programs costed hundreds of thousands of dollars and only engineers and scientists had the privilege to touch these. Nowdays? Every single artist-wannabe has an installation of Maya or Softimage XSI on their system and can toy with them at any time on an average consumer PC! Also the quality of these programs increased proportionally due to hosting environment homogenity! Even though Maya and XSI run both on Windows and Linux, the Linux versions are terrible in comparison, since Linux, yet again, offers too many choices and they ultimately chose the worst one (not at the time of the decision making) for these programs and therefore Maya and XSI suffer on Linux, while on Windows, it's flawless, at least in regards to the user interface etc... Another factor, due to many choices, Linux versions are MUCH more expensive than Windows versions.
So, in the end, keep your mind open and don't tend to have skewed view of the development and OS environment. Even though Windows aren't the perfect OS on the market, Microsoft must have done something really good that they're the best and most used overall OS on the market which provides a great, homogenous, evnrionment for software developers which, in the end, ultimately means the best software for the users!
You can't blame Linux for not running Windows apps... and I know a lot of people who enjoy programming on Linux more than Windows.
Microsoft patented/bought their way into a dominant position and they are abusing patents and their market share to keep people developing for their platform. Not because it's easier, but because they have the market share...
Maybe you can convince Microsoft to use open standards so your Intel/AMD comparison actually would work in the Operating system environment. I'm pretty sure (98.5673%) that Apple/Linux can't even license DirectX specifications so they might have a shot in hell at running games stable. I'm also pretty sure that you can't license Win32 API technology so they can run pretty much any application on their platform as well.
So really, there's only one company you can blame for the lack of competition...
@ Andir3.0
Yeah, and what the outcome of this is? The end users don't give a shit, because, again, if you run OS for the sake of running an OS, then there's something wrong with you. I run OS to host applications I use daily, I need, I work with, I must have. Which means, if the devs have much easier and faster development cycles due to a uniform dev. environment, then in the end I get better software for less bucks!
I honestly don't give a shit about Windows, Linux (any distro for that matter) or OSX. If it runs my apps for a reasonable price, what's the problem? I really don't have problems with Microsoft dominating 99% of the market or more, as long as it means better and more quality software for less money.
Btw: if you own 95% of the market you are de-facto the standard. So nonsense like "Maybe you can convince Microsoft to use open standards..." doesn't make any sense as in fact it's the "open standards" that should conform to Microsoft, if you think about it.
loocas, couldn't agree more with you man
@loocas
I have to say, while your explanation is valid for the most part, the problem here is that Windows got its dominance not by being a better dev environment (per se), but through smart business deals at critical times. In a less money-driven world, the dominant OS would be the one that was the easiest to develop for. And in that case, yes, homogeneity is good because the majority OS is also the best OS.
Thus, in the case of Windows, dominating 99% of the market is a concern because it hasn't led to better and more quality software; you just have to look at how many issues there are with Windows to see that. If Microsoft was on the ball and fixed problems earlier, as they came, that would've been good. It's a pity that they have only recently decided to take a serious look at the security aspect of their OS.
Not being familiar with the Windows 7 architecture (nor Linux), I have to say that OS X has quite a good foundation, from a programmer's point of view, with many simple APIs that can be used easily to achieve slick results, and a core philosophy that makes sense (ie. no registry, no folders upon folders of support files for every program installed, etc). From what I do know, Windows 7 seems to have improved quite a lot in these respects, and it's great to see Microsoft finally taking steps to rewrite their OS for more modern times.
Now if only Microsoft will stop taking industry-defined standards, changing them, then forcing them to be de facto standards through the OS monopoly. I think a consortium of companies will be able to define standards to a much higher quality than any single company (two head better than one, etc). So no, I'd rather Microsoft conform to 'open standards', not the other way around.
Sirius, I'm not familiar with OS X or Linux, but to be hones dotNET is the sweetest shit! I'm not even a programmer, but putting pieces of "puzzle" from .NET together in my scripts (Python, MAXScript) and leverageing on top of that has been an absolutely amazing experience for me and my VFX collegues. I can develop tools and plugins so much faster with so much more functionality than ever before (ActiveX etc...) and those tools merge beautifully together from program to program (Max Maya) etc...
I really don't see anything wrong with Windows and the way the market adopts it. Even with its own mistakes and bad decisions, Microsoft still must have done something really well to be the top player, otherwise... well, the market would have mercylessly rejected them.
But I agree, a consortium of some sort for standard definition, including TOP players in the field (Microsoft, Apple, Intel etc...) would be great, but, on the other hand, who'd benefit most? Well, I dare to say Linux. So, does Microsoft really want that? They don't have too much to gain right now.
I think google would be hard pressed to produce an A-quality operating system that rivals Windows in thoroughness. I also think it's unrealistic of people to go around screaming "google wants to kill Microsoft" or whatever. The reality is more likely to be that Google is spinning propaganda to pressure the already-extant market-holders to improve their products in a hurry. It's what they used Chrome (the browser) to do and, as anyone could state, it won't take Google long to push other OS builders to really innovate, but it might take them a long time to turn an actual profit on any operating system (considering Microsoft's stranglehold).
Even so, it's also unreasonable to claim there is no 'real' competition when systems like Ubuntu have been friendly to the typical home user for years.
Meh. More the more I think about it, the more Chrome OS becomes pointless. Since it's driven by the Chrome browser on top of Linux, Google's focus is probably going to be its cloud based apps.
The thing is, these will run under Windows, Mac and Linux with a compatible browser, making the OS secondary to the web experience.
You are so true.
Yup. This has FAIL written all over it.
If you are running web based apps, you don't need Windows. I think that's Google's point.
What do people do with netbooks? Surf the web, send email, take notes, do some light word processing work? This is the perfect market for a lightweight, fast, instant-on OS. That's what they're after.
It's a new version of Simon® with the fourth color in the middle for some type of king of the mountain variation.
You miss one big point.... this is going to be free and unlike other distros of Linux, anyone including my mom and grandmother will probably be able to use it without a hitch.
And what about Moblin? Has everyone forgotten about moblin??!?!?!
I definitely anticipated this when Android and Chrome were first rolled out of the stables -- it seemed like the next logical place to go. Google's business is ad revenue, and the more people using their services, the more of this they generate. Connecting people -- gratis! -- to these services in increasingly more, easier, and cheaper ways is in their interest. This was the philosophy underwriting Android and the Open Handset Alliance: Google is the internet, so it's in their interest to bring that to people.
This is the first editorial I've read about the OS announcement that seems to get that: Chrome OS is not meant to BE OS X, Windows 7, or any other desktop Linux distro. It does closer match the goals of gOS, though. With more and more applications moving to the cloud, the emphasis on connectivity, portability, and battery longevity are dimensions to the OS equation that aren't properly addressed under the old operating system paradigms. No, it doesn't make a competitive desktop OS, but Google is anticipating the evolution of how we use our computers, and positioning themselves much more appropriately than the competitors.
it's going to be an interesting transition, but I think hard to accept, especially to americans.
Americans love to have a physical product (even if it was a box with air in it) I think the prospect of using "web apps" as a primary productivity source will be hard to grasp. I think younger generations are going to be more willing to accept it (this being the under 25 crowd who got there first major taste of Digital Distribution via Video Game DLC). If you have a choice between boxed and digital software, the majorty of the time people will go with the boxed software with the (probably unfounded) fear that the digital version might someday become no longer available and i will need it.
It will be interesting to say the least, and while I'm not interested in becoming an early adopter (I'm happy with windows 7 and have never had a need for a netbook) I am always open for new innovation in the market.
@Dan2600 - you're not interested in being an early adopter but are using windows 7 beta? i call you on your shenanigans, sir!
:)
"The thing is, these will run under Windows, Mac and Linux with a compatible browser"
And pray tell, how do you know that?
"making the OS secondary to the web experience."
So, in your opinion, the not-so-bright guys at Google (because we know, Google is famous for hiring these kind of people) will wake up in 2010 and realise, "OMG, we have build an OS for nothing! People are using apps we mindlessly made available for other OSs with other OSs! Shouldn't we have developed them exclusively for our OS?". Likely, eh?
When is the OS ever the primary experience of the normal casual user?
Does a normal user doesn't fire up their computer and think "I can't wait for the direct experience shared memory segments and Berkeley sockets and non-blockable select() calls."
Prose you don't notice is good prose. Unless you're a developer, I would think the same of an OS too (disparaging remarks about Windows being unstable, aside)
@dan2600:
It's not the young that are more willing to accept web apps, it's the mobile users and mobile-OS users that are. I'm over 25 and I was attracted to and use google docs because, as a developer, I find myself switching from mac os, to linux, to windows, to my pda and needing to access my notes. Plus, I often write code or prose on the go. There's plenty of people in America having my profile, regardless of age.
On top of that, there are plenty of companies with very mobile employees (Consulting companies mostly), where the line between personal use and business use of a digital toy is a blur. In these cases, many people want to use their own digital toy of personal choice; a mac, a pc, an iPhone, a blackberry. They would be attracted to web apps for their platform neutral stance and flexible access.
Finally, plenty of vital businesses of fortune 500 companies go through web apps already. Think CRMs like Salesforce.
The thing is, building a Linux based OS probably doesn't cost all that much, and Google has cash to burn. For them, this OS doesn't have to be a replacement for Windows or anything like that - it's prod, hoping that more people will be inspired to use web services and giving them a say in the gradual move towards where cloud becomes important.
web-apps? clouds? ok.. remember when apple used that "theory" for their "web-apps" on their "phone" and EVERYONE complained that they want it as what we see in their "apps store". THEY wanted stand alone software.Basically people want their apps not too "web/net dependent". Not everyone on this planet has 1Mbit and above internet connection. Where i live we have 512kbps minimum connection and ONLY up to 1Mbit. Making it cloud and internet dependent is a joke. Rather concentrate on games and games company or developers to work on their OS since it's not easy to develop for open standards due to market share. Google has money.. nuff said. Like they say "Money walks".
Google guys would have thought about this right? It's quite possible they use Android apps architecture here too, without the Google's under lying APIs it may not be possible to run web apps on all OSes. Having said that, will the EU sit idle and watch browser monopoly?
Also, will the corporates bite the bullet? even MS found it tough to sell Vista to businesses...
The question is will consumers find the proposition compelling enough to make the switch.
Nerds and tech freaks will love this, but Joe and Jane consumer will want their existing world to be fully replicated with little or no grief for them.
That, I think, is still a loooooooong way off.
Hey, but all competition is good. Who are you going to put money on? Windows, Cat OS or GOS
Joe and Jane consumer's existing world is a browser. Now, instead of letting windows boot and then clicking on IE, they'll just go straight to what they want.
Is it just me or does the chrome symbol look like a poke ball?
Always has, always will
I always thought it looked like one of those old school games called "Simon".
It's a cross between the Windows Logo, Googles colours, Hal, Spherical shape of FF, a Pokeball and Simon.
http://www.labnol.org/internet/google-chrome-logo-design-inspiration/4414/
Then again it may not be.
I see a morph ball.
thought the same thing... "Go! Chrome! ARM Attack!"
More like a "PesterBall" from Pokemon Snap!
It's Hal-9000 in disguise. A.I. Overlords 1, Humans 0 :)
gold and silver remake for the win, bitches!!
I've always thought it looks like Guilty Spark. :-)
http://guiltyspark.com/Guilty%20Spark.jpg
I just hope they name the first major upgrade "Second Edition" so i can pretend it's the late 1990's when everything was still right with the world...and software.
I think that once people realize these two things, they will stop being so rabidly excited about Chrome OS:
1) Without native x86 code support, what happens with devices? Outside of generic access drivers Google can build themselves, there's no way you'll be syncing devices that require custom drivers with web applications - especially when it comes to the hundreds of millions of iPods and iPhones out there.
2) When it all comes down to it, what are the true benefits this will bring on top of Windows 7? What good is additional speed if there's not much to do on the system with the speed with custom native applications? How big of a problem will malware really be on Windows 7? How do you get faster boot times when Sleep mode already works perfectly fine?
It will be the same way Zunes cant be used with Macs.
It just won't happen.
This is why drag and drop is best, any software that can connect and view a device as storage will be able to sync files.
Doesn't matter this will horribly fail, no regular user will choose this over Windows 7 (and by then windows 7 will have it's marketing and support in place). Personally I hope this fails, it can only cut into linux users (which are going to slowly dwindle if dell and others phase out the linux option for Windows 7 home as the lowest option).
someone has to phase out...could you imagine HP/Dell/Whoeverelse having to pay for 3 OEM OS support teams? Plus Microsoft has a standardized training regimen for getting OEM tech supporters up to snuff (not that they are that good, but enough for geema and peepaw's needs). Who are going to train the OEM staff for Chrome? Someone has to pay for it
The amount of money HP/Dell could save by selling "free" software with their units suddenly gets circumvented with the need for additional phone support staff.
It will be running linux underneath. There is no need for Google to write drivers.
You don't need to train separate teams to support multiple OSs as an OEM. Just train the same people, throw them into multiple phone queues, and increase the support staff if call volume rises. Back when I was a call center slave for servers, I supported tons of OSs.
My father's OS war was fought with DOS :\
Oh the great command line battles, many were ran, and some were deleted forever, most blame it on low resources. Mice weren't around so one could focus on the tapping sound during the long nights. When commands were incorrectly entered we could hear beeping all around as one fumbled to find a solution.
Good memories.