Comments on: Why Does Chrome OS Make Sense? http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287 Thoughts on programming Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:19:43 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: KentBeck http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-1039 KentBeck Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:50:52 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-1039 Put yourself in the place of a Microsoft executive. First, netbooks is a tiny market and about the least profitable part of the OS business. How much effort do you want to put into defending it? Second, all of your suppliers and customers are comfortable with the current model. Manufacturers are used to giving Microsoft a royalty per computer. Moving to a model where perhaps they got a percentage of ad royalties would mess up their business planning. Defending against Chrome OS in any substantial way just doesn't make sense. It's more trouble than it's worth. So theoretically there's nothing keeping Microsoft from a robust response, but practically there is tons of organizational inertia working for the status quo. Put yourself in the place of a Microsoft executive. First, netbooks is a tiny market and about the least profitable part of the OS business. How much effort do you want to put into defending it? Second, all of your suppliers and customers are comfortable with the current model. Manufacturers are used to giving Microsoft a royalty per computer. Moving to a model where perhaps they got a percentage of ad royalties would mess up their business planning. Defending against Chrome OS in any substantial way just doesn’t make sense. It’s more trouble than it’s worth. So theoretically there’s nothing keeping Microsoft from a robust response, but practically there is tons of organizational inertia working for the status quo.

]]> By: Darren http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-1038 Darren Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:13:40 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-1038 Why doesn't Microsoft fight back with a free version of Windows that's funded by advertisements? Fight Google on it's own turf by offering a product that's free, defaults to Internet Explorer and the search provider and homepage default to Bing (and can't be changed). Perhaps with unobtrusive but frequently visible advertising. When I think about it, I'd probably tolerate some unintrusive advertising if Windows were free. Why doesn’t Microsoft fight back with a free version of Windows that’s funded by advertisements? Fight Google on it’s own turf by offering a product that’s free, defaults to Internet Explorer and the search provider and homepage default to Bing (and can’t be changed). Perhaps with unobtrusive but frequently visible advertising.

When I think about it, I’d probably tolerate some unintrusive advertising if Windows were free.

]]> By: Al Tenhundfeld http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-894 Al Tenhundfeld Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:00:53 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-894 Widespread Internet access is already changing how we use our computers. Once we have ubiquitous high-speed Internet access*, our desktop experience with fundamentally change, in ways we can't really predict. Google is simply taking steps to be prepared for this new world. Most of the arguments for enterprise utility (on-demand, in-the-cloud) computing can also be made for individual utility computing, once the availability and affordability are improved. Why should I (or my grandfather) have to worry about backups, software updates, processor speed, etc.? *Ubiquitous means a wireless solution that's affordable for nearly everyone and has coverage nearly everywhere, like basic mobile phones now. High-speed means around 50/20Mb (I guess), at least being able to stream an HD video feed in real time, work on a remote document, have a few chats open, etc. Widespread Internet access is already changing how we use our computers. Once we have ubiquitous high-speed Internet access*, our desktop experience with fundamentally change, in ways we can’t really predict. Google is simply taking steps to be prepared for this new world.

Most of the arguments for enterprise utility (on-demand, in-the-cloud) computing can also be made for individual utility computing, once the availability and affordability are improved. Why should I (or my grandfather) have to worry about backups, software updates, processor speed, etc.?

*Ubiquitous means a wireless solution that’s affordable for nearly everyone and has coverage nearly everywhere, like basic mobile phones now. High-speed means around 50/20Mb (I guess), at least being able to stream an HD video feed in real time, work on a remote document, have a few chats open, etc.

]]> By: Sebastian Kübeck http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-893 Sebastian Kübeck Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:28:40 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-893 Oleg, you are perfectly right with your security concerns. I hope there will be a way to store data locally or encrypt it. See Bruce Schneier on cloud security issues: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/video/0,297151,sid14_gci1355568,00.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/cloud_computing.html Oleg, you are perfectly right with your security concerns. I hope there will be a way to store data locally or encrypt it. See Bruce Schneier on cloud security issues:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/video/0,297151,sid14_gci1355568,00.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/cloud_computing.html

]]> By: Oleg http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-890 Oleg Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:48:48 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-890 The idea of "lightweight OS" is not new. I've read some vision of "portable Windows" from Microsoft some year or two ago - you have all your applications on your USB with the data, come to the PC and boot your own environment there. Chrome OS seems the same to me, but your applications and data are stored on the net and will download to OS (aka Google Gears + GMail offline feature). I'm afraid the idea will actually work, which is kind of stupid - we'll give up even more control over our information, data and life to someone out there. What will happen if vendor ceases to exist? Or if someone decides to deny access to your data? The idea of “lightweight OS” is not new. I’ve read some vision of “portable Windows” from Microsoft some year or two ago – you have all your applications on your USB with the data, come to the PC and boot your own environment there. Chrome OS seems the same to me, but your applications and data are stored on the net and will download to OS (aka Google Gears + GMail offline feature).
I’m afraid the idea will actually work, which is kind of stupid – we’ll give up even more control over our information, data and life to someone out there. What will happen if vendor ceases to exist? Or if someone decides to deny access to your data?

]]> By: PEZ http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-889 PEZ Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:24:03 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-889 I think an interesting aspect of Chrome OS is that, unlike when other new OS:s are introduced, it won't diversify the development resources for content providers. As Google says themselves, any application that runs on Chrome OS will also run on any modern and standard compliant browser. Especially for SaaS vendors this will be a blessing. If you can mash and integrate with others well enough on Chrome OS, you'll have that effort pay back also when users are running a web browser on a traditional OS. I think an interesting aspect of Chrome OS is that, unlike when other new OS:s are introduced, it won’t diversify the development resources for content providers. As Google says themselves, any application that runs on Chrome OS will also run on any modern and standard compliant browser. Especially for SaaS vendors this will be a blessing. If you can mash and integrate with others well enough on Chrome OS, you’ll have that effort pay back also when users are running a web browser on a traditional OS.

]]> By: Nils Chr. Haugen http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-888 Nils Chr. Haugen Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:15:22 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-888 Kent, I think you are right on this one. However there is a key aspect to disruptive technologies that I think you are not stressing enough. Disruptive technologies are disruptive not only because they make existing uses more convenient, but because they have properties that enable the technology to be used in radical different ways. To keep to Christensen's example of storage technology, the 3.5" HD not only made smaller, more convenient "pizza-box" desktops possible, but also laptops. SSD technology will not only enable devices that were already using small HDs to be smaller and rougher, but will also make new types of intelligent devices possible. So to extend the airline/casino metaphor, not only can Google give away the tickets free of charge, but their planes are smaller and don't need much of an airstrip. Combined this means that they can set up flights from every little town. Microsoft on the other hand can only fly from cities with big enough population to sustain their pricier flights and with an airstrip long enough for their larger, more powerful planes. Kent,

I think you are right on this one. However there is a key aspect to disruptive technologies that I think you are not stressing enough. Disruptive technologies are disruptive not only because they make existing uses more convenient, but because they have properties that enable the technology to be used in radical different ways.

To keep to Christensen’s example of storage technology, the 3.5″ HD not only made smaller, more convenient “pizza-box” desktops possible, but also laptops. SSD technology will not only enable devices that were already using small HDs to be smaller and rougher, but will also make new types of intelligent devices possible.

So to extend the airline/casino metaphor, not only can Google give away the tickets free of charge, but their planes are smaller and don’t need much of an airstrip. Combined this means that they can set up flights from every little town. Microsoft on the other hand can only fly from cities with big enough population to sustain their pricier flights and with an airstrip long enough for their larger, more powerful planes.

]]> By: Tathagata http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-886 Tathagata Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:32:05 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-886 The time has been right for a new OS for sometime now. There might be more people already working on building new casinos. It seems likely that within a year or so more and more people will start joining in, a ripple effect will happen. There will be an overcrowding in the casino space, and it might no longer be very profitable for the big casinos to keep running their business, with lots of new small casinos all around. I think it will really become a big business for small startups, but a small business for the big guys. The web OS might make it big and replace the standard desktop OS, but it seems unlikely that only a few will rule that market, unlike in the standard desktop space. The big guys (including Google) need to look at somehting else. Although Google already has the search market. For other's it is more difficult, they need to innovate like mad in order to survive. The time has been right for a new OS for sometime now. There might be more people already working on building new casinos. It seems likely that within a year or so more and more people will start joining in, a ripple effect will happen. There will be an overcrowding in the casino space, and it might no longer be very profitable for the big casinos to keep running their business, with lots of new small casinos all around. I think it will really become a big business for small startups, but a small business for the big guys.

The web OS might make it big and replace the standard desktop OS, but it seems unlikely that only a few will rule that market, unlike in the standard desktop space. The big guys (including Google) need to look at somehting else. Although Google already has the search market. For other’s it is more difficult, they need to innovate like mad in order to survive.

]]> By: PierG http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-884 PierG Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:18:00 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-884 Kent, I think the problem here is not if they will do, the problem is if they can. Their culture is so different that should "embrace change" so much that will change the company itself. Yes I know, the fact they they haven't done it before it doesn't mean they are not going to do it in the future but when they tried, they just made a kind of "draft copy". I think they'd better go to another innovation direction: better for them and better for us. PierG http://pierg.wordpress.com Kent,
I think the problem here is not if they will do, the problem is if they can. Their culture is so different that should “embrace change” so much that will change the company itself.

Yes I know, the fact they they haven’t done it before it doesn’t mean they are not going to do it in the future but when they tried, they just made a kind of “draft copy”.

I think they’d better go to another innovation direction: better for them and better for us.

PierG
http://pierg.wordpress.com

]]> By: Sebastian Kübeck p http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-883 Sebastian Kübeck p Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:34:07 +0000 http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=287#comment-883 Kent, I think Google's motivation couldn't be better illustrated as with your airline analogy, however, there are probably enough bright minds left at Microsoft to consider a defense strategy. Jeff, I think it is a common mistake to consider ourselves as a representative example for computer users of the future. We'll be a small minority that probably will continue to use operating systems as we know them (Kent is again right that Apple has more suitable products for us). The majority will be far less technically skilled people as well as elder people (young people learn fast so they will work with most anything they can afford). There is just no way for this majority to work with existing operating systems and desktop applications. Moreover, most computer users will be located in Asia and an open source operating system that can be adapted to local needs is far more attractive to those markets compared to expensive, closed source products. See also: http://www.jroller.com/sebastianKuebeck/entry/some_thoughts_on_google_chrome Kent, I think Google’s motivation couldn’t be better illustrated as with your airline analogy, however, there are probably enough bright minds left at Microsoft to consider a defense strategy.
Jeff, I think it is a common mistake to consider ourselves as a representative example for computer users of the future. We’ll be a small minority that probably will continue to use operating systems as we know them (Kent is again right that Apple has more suitable products for us).
The majority will be far less technically skilled people as well as elder people (young people learn fast so they will work with most anything they can afford). There is just no way for this majority to work with existing operating systems and desktop applications. Moreover, most computer users will be located in Asia and an open source operating system that can be adapted to local needs is far more attractive to those markets compared to expensive, closed source products.

See also:

http://www.jroller.com/sebastianKuebeck/entry/some_thoughts_on_google_chrome

]]>