SuperSite Blog

What no Dell?

Free? Why not. It's not like that they have found a way to make money other than ensnaring our online data at every available opportunity and then serving up contextual ad's.

And the same points as the last two blog posts on this still apply (as does the pointer to the best industry analysis of the "story" from Dan "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons at fakesteve.blogspot.com/.../lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html )

@ mikegalos@msn.com

"Our guys on the Safari team even had special toilet paper made up with a Chrome logo on every sheet."

Thanks for the link it was hilarious.

I'd hope it would be free, since it's based on Linux...

Unless they'd like to violate the GNU or something?

Will be interesting to see if Google can make the leap that the other Linux distro's have not been able to make and get partners on board to develop better drivers and software.  Wine, IMO, is not an acceptable solution.

I wonder how long Mr. Shuttleworth will continue to dump money into Ubuntu once Chrome OS drops.

@irtehpasty

You can sell GPL'd software as long as you follow the GPL guidelines.  There a plenty of for pay Linux distributions.  Google could do the same.

Does this meant that Lauren the Laptop Hunter's laptop could drop to $600 or less?

Apple is so screwed.

Mike,

Thanks for the FSJ link. The funniest computer column I've read in a long time. Note especially,

"First of all, nobody seems to appreciate how goddamn hard it is to make an operating system. You don't just wake up one day and fall out of bed and make one. Not even the smarty pants kiddies at Google can do that. These things take years. Decades, even. Ours started out 20 years ago, at NeXT. You could say it goes back to 1977, with the BSD guys. Heck, you could even say it goes back to 1969 with Dennis Thompson and Lionel Ritchie. "

Funny, I thought it was UNC power forward -David- Thompson who worked with Lionel.

Seems like an evidence to me also ! Product from Google + based on Linux !!

Google sort of creeps me out and I am looking for alternatives.

But then I read a book by Greg Conti called:

Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know About You?

He raises a lot of issues about Google. Sure the name "Google" is cute 'n all, but behind the name is a mega-mega corp that is gathering everything it can on everyone, whether we actually choose to use Google and its softwares or not.

And it is amazing just what sort of info Google can get and how. And yes, Google is storing it all. Google's servers are so vast they have almost the entire World Wide Web running in RAM memory all the time. And they are storing every user click, visit, and comment they can get their hands on. And they are data mining and cross referencing it all like crazy and using cohorts of scientists and psychologists on the info.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it.

I hope it will be free ... Linux is Free and the Shell contain nothing!!

This is the best writeup about the new OS to date.  I dare you to find fault with the arguments set forth therein:

daringfireball.net/.../chrome_os_context

About that Linux thing.  The writeup mentioned above nails it.

Mike, where is he wrong?

"Linux is to Chrome OS what BSD is to Apple’s iPhone OS — which is to say something that users will never see, smell, or notice.

Everything from TiVo to Palm’s WebOS uses Linux as the kernel for their operating system — using the commodity underlying operating system (in the comp-sci sense of the term) and ignoring the commodity user interface systems."

Pingback from  Chrome OS to be free, Google says | The Software Nook

@Ocean,

By your logic, Microsoft should be able to write Windows 8 using the Linux kernel with a Windows 7+ skin and sell it for $300 without any legal issue at all. And why not? Linux is what everyone *really* wants anyway, right? It's vastly superior and more secure! *eyeroll*

Mike,

Loved the article from Daniel Lyons. Don't completely agree with all of it, however Google entering the field will improve the OS market. Just look at what Chrome did. Safari 4 and Internet Explorer 8 are much better because of Chrome's entry. It's debateable how good or bad Chrome is, but Chrome is definitely better than Opera. It might not play where Safari and IE 8 does, but its forcing them to up their game.

In the same way, Microsoft will have to address the upcoming Windows 8 and all of Windows 7 Service Pack's with Google Chrome OS in mind. That in itself is significant. If the Google Chrome OS gets any marketshare or shows a small but steady growth, Apple and the other Linux players will have to analyze and adapt. Especially, if Google is smart enough to test the Google Chrome OS on Mac hardware. Even if Mac users just play with it on their spare time, that's enough of a threat that Apple would have to take it seriously.

Granted, much of this is speculation. However, I just believe its foolish to underestimate Google. Lets see what these guys can do first. If its crap, its crap. No biggie. But if they can top what Cannonical does, Google might have something here.

Can you imagine the amount of private data Google will be able to gather on it's users?  

Even more than it can gather from bloggers and podcasters who make fun of people who don't use gmail for business.

And, I can't wait for the desktop ads that change with the webistes I'm surfing or what I'm writing in a business letter.

Judging by the UI design, usability and integration of Google Apps... I'm not sure Microsoft has anything to worry about for a while.

Intel and Google have been working together on the project: www.theregister.co.uk/.../intel_google_chrome_os

"Just look at what Chrome did. Safari 4 and Internet Explorer 8 are much better because of Chrome's entry. It's debatable how good or bad Chrome is, but Chrome is definitely better than Opera. It might not play where Safari and IE 8 does, but its forcing them to up their game."

I try not to write on here much, but I had to comment on this. The first betas of IE8 were out 6 months before the first post on Chrome appeared on Google's website. Development on those betas supposedly started a few years before they were even shown. What in world would make someone think that Chrome had a huge effect on its development?

In fact, what has Chrome even done thats pushed forward the web at all? Another Javascript engine? Everyone except MS was bragging about their JS engines speed for years before chrome came out. That's why SunSpider was written (and released to the public 1 whole year before Chrome was announced). I think we'd be in the exact same spot with or without V8.

I don't even have a problem with Chrome. It runs quickly. It shows web pages. I test mine in it and they usually run fine. I think Google gets a whole lot more credit than they deserve with it sometimes though. I've seen Opera, Mozilla and Apple put out some outstanding new ideas. Heck, I've seen MS put out some outstanding ideas for how to improve the web, most of which are resoundingly rejected because they came from MS and aren't in a "standard". The vast majority of what I've seen from Chrome is support for things that Apple implemented in WebKit. That and a new faster JS engine, but nothing I would say has really changed the trajectory the web was on before they arrived.

I have no idea what this OS will be. I have a feeling it will be simple and missing common features that people use every day, and the web will still be abuzz about how its revolutionized something or other.

This is interesting but its still not a game changer, Windows O\S on the desktop is safe for now but Microsoft will need to do some deep thinking about how they are going to integrate Windows together with cloud computing into the future.

@DigDug

"I think Google gets a whole lot more credit than they deserve with it sometimes though"

I could not agree more. Often on and offline pundits have gushed over every little thing Google has done.

Maximum PC ran an article a couple of years ago - something to the effect of: "Inside Google's Skunk Works" - attaching the very positive connotations once associated with the famous US defense contractor Lockheed Martin (specifically, their Advanced Development Projects group, which developed the U2, SR-71, F-117, F-22 and now the F-35), to Google's pretty common web mail and or online applications it had purchased, rather than developed (Picasa and YouTube come to mind).

The article and cover page title underscore how willing the industry has been to award Google opposite its online offerings, while panning or outright dumping on others that are as good, and better. And as the saying goes: "Google, I knew Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin is a friend of mine and you're no Lockheed Martin."

While we can hope for objectivity, that’s about as good as it is going to get.

Google chrome O.S free ?

No kidding.

The day Google will stop earning money from Ads and from the information they gather, in a very questionnable way, from consumers than this day i will believe that Google.

The more people are exposed to its ads and to its information gathering system, the more Google get money and power.

This is why Google can afford to give products for free as these products, which are all web based btw, will enable even more people to be exposed to the systems which bring them money.

Morever the fact that they leverage open source solution enable them to strongly reduce the cost of their products development. They could care less that their solutions are leveraged by other Open source actors as this will also contribute to expose more people to the systems which bring them money.

What's wrong with the current OSs?

Google created web based tools. Hardly anyone used them. So, Google released a browser to promote its web tools. That had some success. Now they're releasing an OS based on the browser. What next? A netbook based on that OS? And it's free? So, they won't use my personal information to try and sell ads (some questionable) to me?

"Granted, much of this is speculation. However, I just believe its foolish to underestimate Google. Lets see what these guys can do first. If its crap, its crap. No biggie. But if they can top what Cannonical does, Google might have something here."

It's foolish to overestimate the company as well. Hardly anyone has seen this thing, but we already have people writing Mirosoft's epitaph.

Chrome (the browser) is being credited for recent innovations in the browser field. What has Chrome contributed that wasn't already in a browser (or in the IE8 beta thatwent public before Chrome went into Beta?).

Similarly, the OSs have been evolving for a while now. Even on the Windows side, Windows Live is a recognition of the web. OS X and Windows were already trying to improve startup and shut down time before Chrome OS was announced. Yet, whether Chrome succeeds or not, Google will be credited for all of this.

I love the way Google announces their vaporware OS just a couple of months before Win 7 hits the street. Not to mention that it will probably be in beta form for about 5 years...

It looks to me like Google is just trying to take a bit of the steam out of the impending launch of 7 but I doubt that it will have any effect at all in the end.

I forgot to mention that seeing as the CEO of Google is on Apple's board of directors, I wonder if maybe Jobs had a litle talk with him about making this launch announcement. Anything that hurts MS tends to benefit Apple in the end. Looks suspicious to me. lol

lketchum

Comparing any of the little side projects the Googlers have thrown together to a brilliant engineer like Kelly Johnson is absolutely obscene.

"Microsoft will need to do some deep thinking about how they are going to integrate Windows together with cloud computing into the future. "

What makes you think they're not? Isn't that why Ray Ozzie is there? Whatever Microsoft does now, the tech media will say, was because of Google's OS.

Paul, once again, let me just say wow. Here is a guy who purports to be a pundit with *sanity*, yet is couching a useless and futile "Chrome OS" from Google as the "end of an era" of Microsoft dominance.

I mean, just wow. People are going to adopt Chrome on netbooks about as much as they adopted Linux - pretty much never. People like Windows because it's compatible, it works with everything, it's pretty stable and it's ubiquitous. If all they wanted to do on their netbooks is browse the web and read email, then Linux and Chrome would have been completely ideal. But the massive adoption of Windows in the netbook market shows that people want to do more than elementary browsing and email.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Windows is successful for a bloody good reason and it's certainly not because people were waiting around for Google to create a bare-bones browser-based alternative.

In any event, Google is just laughable most of the time. They are only good at search. They only make money from search. They should stick to search. They give away all their software for nothing because nobody is silly enough to pay for it.

Backup77

As lketchum has said many times, Microsoft has understood cloud computing for longer than any other company. The stuff that they have achieved with Exchange and Outlook is phenomenal and remains way ahead of the curve.

Windows is just a platform - it really is too simplistic to conclude that Microsoft needs to "integrate" Windows with "cloud computing" given that the answer to that question is really depedent on developers taking advantage of the thousands of APIs and creating great software. Windows is an enabler to many "clouds". For example, look at the great work the Live Mesh team is doing.

What advantage does Chrome OS bring to the table in this regard? Being based on a browser is hardly praiseworthy. Being free also means nothing. There is no real compelling reason to adopt Chrome OS in place of a fully-featured paid copy of Windows. In fact, even Windows 7 Starter/Home Basic are much more powerful out of the box. So what is the point? Why would a developer be attracted to Chrome OS over Windows, or even Mac?

A basic barometer for developers, in choosing their preferred platform, would surely include a) developer tools & b) market share. Windows easily murders it's competitors in both departments. So Chrome is seriously a bad joke and an egregious waste of resources.

Using the vague and, frankly, undefined term of "cloud computing" is not a sufficient answer. In fact most anti-Microsoft zealots would not be able to expound a credible argument beyond the nebulous "cloud computing" term. Chrome OS is a joke.

"Google is just laughable most of the time."

Agreed.

"They are only good at search."

Quantity != quality IMO

"They only make money from search."

Actually, it's advertising and selling your information that makes them money, but you are correct that search is one of the biggest vehicles for that.

"They give away all their software for nothing because nobody is silly enough to pay for it."

Hey, it worked for Linux!

[Quantity != quality IMO]

Regardless, the fact is that no-one could credibly argue against the fact that Google does search pretty well - it is, after all, their core competency.

What isn't their core competency is the development of operating systems.

I wonder if David Pogue, Goatberg, Lyons, etc. will give up their Macs and switch to Google's OS. I doubt it. Yet, I'm pretty sure they'll talk about how Google is the future and how Microsoft's OS is outdated, once Chrome OS comes out.

RobertC

"What isn't [Google's] core competency is the development of operating systems."

Which is why, despite the name, they're not bothering to actually develop an operating system.