Google's Schmidt initially opposed to Chrome, says Microsoft is welcome to port Internet Explorer on over

While Chrome OS is still a pretty rough sketch in our mind's eye, the Google boys have hosted a press conference to answer a few burning questions. Among the myriad revelations, it turns out Eric Schmidt wasn't stoked on building a browser when Sergey Brin and Larry Page brought it up about six years ago, given the fact that Google was still relatively small, and the browser wars were still fresh in everyone's minds. After he saw an early build of Chrome, however, he changed his tune. He says Chrome and Chrome OS are "game-changers," and Larry describes Chrome OS as the "anti-operating system" and indistinguishable from a browser.

Luckily, they also hinted at some native development possibility (hopefully) outside of the browser, stating that Microsoft is free to build a version of Internet Explorer for Chrome OS if they'd like, and that it's an open source project. According to Eric: "Even if we had an evil moment, we would be unsuccessful." He also mentioned there were plenty of "commonalities" between Chrome OS and Android, and that the two might grow even closer over time. Interesting. As for his role on Apple board, Eric will be working out with those folks as to when he needs to recuse himself from OS talk like he already does with iPhone talk. Most of the rest of the talk was spent making old person digs at Schmidt, Mr. BlackBerry himself.

[B3astofthe3ast @ Jul 10th 2009 9:51AM]

Can Google do no evil? I hope not, as they have all our data...I do enjoy using Chrome alot though.

[ben @ Jul 10th 2009 10:44AM]

It's hard to tell Google's motives in this. I think in the long run what they're trying to do is push people away from computer run applications and towards Google's cloud services. In the end I think they're really just looking out for their own good. They already control much of how information on the internet is accessed and they want to start pushing further into providing and controlling the means by which people are productive on a computer, which is basically Microsoft's game.

In the 1980s Microsoft was to IBM what Google is to Microsoft now. Google may seem like they're being nice because they're using FOSS, but really it's never been Google's game to sell software--they sell services and advertising leveraged off their control of people's access to finding information. So Google will give away software if it pushes people into using their services instead of built-in applications.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:44AM]

So what!

Do you vehemently oppose commercial television? They collect information about you based on what you watch to provide income. Google uses information about what you browse to provide relevant advertisement to pay for their services.

I use Gmail and now Google voice (awesome btw) because they provide a great service that nobody else has touched. As a consumer, I'm provided better service and don't have to listen to disposable douche ads because my search history has no relevance to that particular product.

If you don't like that Google is doing or if they start using your data for "evil" purposes, you can always go to Yahoo, Microsoft or some other service to get your search/email/advertisement on. Google just does it better. They don't even sell what you (as a person, not an anonymous being) is doing.

PS. Every company is looking out for their own good. That's capitalism. When they start abusing their share of the market to lock others out.. then it gets bad. I don't see Google changing email protocols and other open standards to push their motives like a certain other company. To me, Google has done well at "doing no evil" so far.

[Wwhat @ Jul 10th 2009 2:05PM]

I stopped watching TV thanks to commercial television, just saying.

[something clever @ Jul 10th 2009 5:19PM]

Once again Andir makes a ridiculous post passing it off as fact.

I'd like to know how this works: "Do you vehemently oppose commercial television? They collect information about you based on what you watch to provide income. "

Just how do they do that, Andir? They monitor our brainwaves? Have listening devices in all our homes?

I'd love to see the tortured logic linking television ratings (which is a very small sampling of the entire audience) to all the information google is able to collect about their users.

[OneLove @ Jul 10th 2009 9:53AM]

Please don't invite internet explorer to the party. WTF?

[hypergo @ Jul 10th 2009 10:05AM]

and you call yourself OneLove... ha bob marley? :D

[dsteve303 @ Jul 10th 2009 9:53AM]

google is such a sweetie

[seanlindo06 @ Jul 10th 2009 9:54AM]

Open party means open party. Can't stand at the door and just let the hot chicks in.

[telepheedian @ Jul 10th 2009 11:42AM]

That's what Apple does.

[Ellianth @ Jul 10th 2009 2:34PM]

That's actually the opposite of what apple does, you're just too drunk to notice. :P

[ProfessorKaos @ Jul 10th 2009 9:57AM]

I was wondering how google was going to differentiate Chrome OS from Android, good point Paul, should be interesting as thing matter develops.

[leland @ Jul 10th 2009 9:58AM]

Can't wait to see what happens when someone tries to plug in their ipod. Don't see Apple making a Linux iTunes anytime soon.

[ProfessorKaos @ Jul 10th 2009 10:00AM]

There is an equivalent more or less with Songbird on linux, that has iPOD support, only thing missing from it is the apple store. And I stress more or less, I realise it is not the same obviously

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:47AM]

... which you can only blame Apple for... (re: iTunes Linux)

[hulse_kevin @ Jul 10th 2009 12:26PM]

That does present an interesting situation...

Ubuntu + Chrome/Android runtime + iTunes

At that point AnyDVD would be the only thing keeping Windows in my house.

[ProfessorKaos @ Jul 10th 2009 9:59AM]

as this* matter develops...

[Tristan King @ Jul 10th 2009 9:59AM]

I hope you were being sarcastic

[ShaunneyCakes @ Jul 10th 2009 10:01AM]

If I was Microsoft, I would not even waste my time. Best case scenario, Chrome OS will have a 8-10% market share. Not worth the headaches of hiring a group of programmers to support it when your software already has a HUGE lead. This is one of the reasons a lot of game studios do not develop for Mac, not enough potential for a return. If they got up to 20% I would possibly consider it though.

I am an Apple Guy for the record, but I do not think Google has the ability to replace Microsoft. Most companies will stick with windows and IE regardless of what Google offers.

[Templarian @ Jul 10th 2009 10:06AM]

And because X360 games port directly to PC relatively seamlessly.

Also I do not see Google even getting its foot in the door. It will probably be severed off by a lot of the large computer manufactures. Look how long it took to get people to accept Linux distros. The only user base your going to see from this are from dual boots for a long time.

[Gabe @ Jul 10th 2009 10:07AM]

Yeah, but it's an open-source operating system. Google, being far more innovative than Microsoft, could have a good chance to take a large chunk out of the market share.

[Look_Around_You @ Jul 10th 2009 10:39AM]

"Yeah, but it's an open-source operating system."

So?

Hate to break it to you, but there is no army of programmers that's going to work for free on the behalf of Google. Ubuntu, and the 10000 other Linux distros are open source, and where are they?

"Google, being far more innovative than Microsoft, could have a good chance to take a large chunk out of the market share."

That is just a mindless internet cliche. And a real stretch seeing that no one has even see a real screenshot of this thing yet.

[Kelmon @ Jul 10th 2009 11:12AM]

I see this as having a shot assuming that the software and security is up to snuff. The good thing is that they aren't simply making another Linux distribution in the mould of Ubuntu and the like that has rather failed to penetrate the market. Rather, they are going to take the core Linux kernel and built an entirely new interface on top (no more X Windows, KDE or Gnome) which allows them to be different to Windows. Ultimately, Google has so far proven themselves pretty well so their products certainly stand a chance of being accepted by a mainstream audience.

Games aren't important so I don't see them being a factor in overall acceptance of the platform.

Time will tell but I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that Windows is the only platform we will use between now and Armageddon, although it clearly won't change overnight.

[dan2600 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:12AM]

"Yeah, but it's an open-source operating system"

i hate having to quote the same thing as look around you but,

how long has unix/linux been around?

how long have they had the SAME MARKET SHARE?

it all comes down to who provides end-user technical support. How is google going to pay to have tech support for a "free" OS? They won't, just like Linux and Unix never have. Grandma and Grandpa don't want to goto tech support fourms when they have a problem, nor does a small bussiness. They want to call a help desk, and have their problem fixed NOW.

When you buy windows or OSX, or even a Solaris server, your not just buying the OS your buying the companies backing and support for it as well. When you have a problem, you call and they help you fix it (well they are supposed to). If you are a small company, you don't want to hire an IT if you don't have to. When you buy Windows Server 2008, you also buy years of "free" (well its included in the price of the software) tech support with it. There are more laymen computer users in the world then techies (while this blog might make you think otherwise) and people who don't know about computers want support for their software.

The market share of these open source OSes will never get above 2-5% for this reason alone. Unless google has some amazing tech support strategy up their sleeves (which based on the rest of the cloud apps right now, even though they are simple, the amount of support is not much).

[Ethos @ Jul 10th 2009 10:06AM]

"Apple is uncorruptible"

charging $15 for a update on iPod touches seems very evil to me.

[Saad Rabia @ Jul 10th 2009 10:06AM]

I love the new Paul. Same stupidity, less talk and no extra bits wasted. :)

[Aguiluz @ Jul 10th 2009 10:06AM]

@AnnoyingPoster: +1000000

[Tristan King @ Jul 10th 2009 10:08AM]

I dont quite understand how people are comparing Google to Microsoft.

Microsoft has software that has become the de-facto standard in many establishments, locking users into their practices wherever they happen to go.

Google technology is until recently been almost 100% web based where everyone has a lot more freedom and choice for which email/search/document system they want to use. People chose google because they give us what we want and their os's are just an extension of their web based services.

I love google and their openness, not trying to force their technology down your throat. I use google products because I WANT to, and I am fully aware of the alternatives available.

[KIFF @ Jul 10th 2009 10:16AM]

Google and openess in the same sentense? Really?

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:51AM]

Yes. Can provide evidence to the contrary?

[Tristan King @ Jul 10th 2009 12:28PM]

I said openness not open source

[Ethos @ Jul 10th 2009 10:09AM]

Google will most likely make a great OS but it doesn't really matter until it gets adopted by major manufactures because most people and by most I mean the general consumer(same people who think mp3 player is different to iPod?) wouldn't bother uninstalling there current OS.

But then again it could surge through on Netbooks?

[dg @ Jul 10th 2009 10:13AM]

That guy should just step down from the Apple board. Seriously. He can't talk about iPhone, he shouldn't be able to talk about Mobile Me and other web services, and now he won't be able to talk about the god damn operating system itself. Just step down already. You guys compete a lot these days!

[Septimus @ Jul 10th 2009 10:19AM]

Well, you could be called a bit of a dick as well.

None are more or less evil, they are all going to make money in any way they can. Apple is certainly no better than either of them.

[MattyG @ Jul 10th 2009 10:20AM]

they stopped making the Mac version of IE ages ago, what makes you think they are going to port it to Linux?

more importantly would anyone actually use it?

[Ethos @ Jul 10th 2009 10:25AM]

I don't mind IE8 the Win7 version. I like when you highlight stuff a little icon pops up to do quick searchs. But I guess everyone uses there own I actually use chrome but I jump to IE once in a while.Not a fan of FF as I don't need those plugins but I know ALOT of people use them so more power to you.

[Kelmon @ Jul 10th 2009 11:17AM]

They wouldn't make a version of IE for Chrome unless Microsoft effectively changed its business model to web applications rather than the usual cash cows of Windows and Office. With IE only available for Windows it effectively provides a barrier to change from Windows to another platform if the web sites/applications you use only work for IE. Making IE for Chrome would mean that you no longer needed Windows itself and therefore Microsoft wouldn't receive your license fee.

Still, things can change and I've seen the occasional flying pig over the years.

[badbob001 @ Jul 10th 2009 10:21AM]

Chrome OS is such a confusing name. Is it an OS with the Chrome browser as it shell, or something completely unrelated to the Chrome browser? Calling it Google OS would probably limit its openness. I bet they wished they had taken WebOS before Palm did.

They should just have the OS be Android and create a Webkit-based shell for it, similar to Palm's WebOS. This way, some of that Chrome OS goodness can leak down to the android crowd.

[Greg @ Jul 10th 2009 10:22AM]

Hey, at least we didn't have to pay $15 for Paul 2.0.

[Ethos @ Jul 10th 2009 10:27AM]

@greg

Hahaha he's only worth about $2.0 kronor.

[giuliop @ Jul 10th 2009 10:33AM]

If Microsoft were interested in porting IE do Linux, they would have already done it. Porting it to Chrome OS would strengthen Google's position, if anything. I very much doubt they will ever do that - but with Ballmer as head of MS, you never know.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:54AM]

I think it was stated as more of a "calling out" than anything else. They know MS won't do it, but if they call them out on it they can show how they are more willing to accept MS than MS is willing to accept of them.

[drumdbeat @ Jul 10th 2009 10:33AM]

But, why the b. ? Has Paul a. Chapel changed his name?

[Stu @ Jul 10th 2009 11:26AM]

This will get the feds to start the anti-trust case... Own the internet and try for the desktop... Isn't this the same, but in reverse complaint about Microsoft? And thinking a company that is trying to maximize profits as "not evil" is stupid. All companies have a tendency to do what is in their interest.

I am a capitalist and I am not stupid enough to think any company has anything but their own interests at heart.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:57AM]

Anti-trust isn't about owning a certain share of the market. It's about the acts you do when you get there.

As long as Google continues using open standards and allows competition, they are free and clear. Microsoft was doing everything in it's power to prevent competition.

[art vandelay @ Jul 10th 2009 10:57AM]

never gonna happen. microsoft has made themselves synonomous with "PC" and 90% of the consumers are going to view a netbook running chrome os as an entirely different piece of technology than one running windows 7. chrome os has to take on a lot more than just the windows os.

look at apple; take off the pretty cover and it's practically identical to any dell, lenovo, sony, ..., but somehow microsoft has kept us from calling it a PC and people run away in fear.

[mason @ Jul 10th 2009 11:43AM]

Apple is the one who act like it's a completely different piece of technology. Not Microsoft.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 11:56AM]

Well, to be fair... Microsoft HAS adopted PC. It doesn't matter who started it.

[Mark @ Jul 10th 2009 7:22PM]

Isn't making the browser indistinguishable from the OS what Microsoft got sued for and essentially forced to remove from Windows? Why is nobody talking about this statement from Google?

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 10th 2009 12:01PM]

No, Microsoft was sued for disallowing competitors to replace the browser. MS tried to claim it was an integral part of the OS until someone came along and proved them wrong by removing it.