Chrome OS is Worse, That’s the Point
I’ve been reading reactions to the Chrome OS announcement today and so far everything I’ve read has missed the point, or at least the point I see. Here’s my take on Chrome OS. It’s a story, though, not a soundbite.
Walks like a duck…
When Chrome came out I took a look at the architecture and thought, “Hmm… separate address spaces for each tab. That looks like an operating system.” So I decided to try it, to simulate using Chrome as my operating system. I made it my default browser (in spite of Microsoft’s periodic attempts to change my preference) and expanded it to full screen. From then on I did everything I could on the web.
The best part of a year later I can say Chrome is a little clunky as a desktop. Multiple windows are more work than they should be (I wish they’d automatically size to their contents). Some of the web GUIs aren’t as polished as native interfaces. However, there is a whole lot I don’t miss about Windows apps. Overall the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I still use a handful of native apps regularly: Skype, Eclipse, iTunes, and Outlook. I’d be happy to have web-based replacements (actually I only use Outlook out of inertia, not because Gmail wouldn’t do a just fine job). If I had them, I wouldn’t miss my old desktop at all.
Disruption
Negative reactions to Chrome OS seem to be based on how much worse it is than its competitors. Christensen provides an alternative perspective on the situation. The existing desktops are overkill for most users’ needs. The more features added to the desktops, the smaller percentage most people find useful. An alternative that is better at stuff users care about would be welcome.
This is a story that has played out thousands of times: digital photography was worse than chemical photography, wireless LANs were worse than wired LANs, microcomputers were worse than minicomputers were worse than mainframes, Java was worse than C++. Now Chrome OS is worse than Windows and the Mac and Linux desktops.
Innovations that start out worse need to be better at something new that matters. Imagine never having to install an application again. Never having to back up. Never having to reinstall the OS because it’s just gotten way too weird. I’d give up a lot to gain that. That was the point of telling you about my experiment: I’ve seen the future and it’s not so bad.
Next Moves
The next step in the innovator’s dilemma script is predictable. The existing participants will ignore Chrome (they may fuss, but they aren’t going to introduce something even simpler, even better, even cheaper–that’s just not how they think). Chrome OS will grow better and better, and be attractive on bigger and bigger hardware. More and more of the necessary apps will migrate to the browser or be replaced by inferior-but-good-enough entrants (do you hear that, Skype?) Since Chrome OS is genuinely better along some dimensions, the motivation is there for users, for application developers, and for Google to continue the march.
After a decade of nibble, nibble, nibble, Apple and Microsoft will occupy highly-profitable but miniscule markets. If I had to guess I would say that Apple will have the very best high end desktops and Microsoft will be strong on servers. By that time, though, Chrome OS will have grown bloated with seemingly-indispensible features and will be ripe for a little nibble, nibble, nibble of its own.
Alternative
Disruption isn’t inevitable. Relational databases successfully fended off clearly-superior object databases (although the stupidification of data poses a fresh disruptive threat). To remain strong in desktop operating systems, though, Apple or Microsoft or the Linux desktops would have to abandon their current profit model, find a fresh ultra-simplification twist, and run the new business far from rational-but-doomed headquarters (Merlin, Oregon has a lovely abandoned sawmill site ready for development, in case you’re interested). They aren’t likely to do so, though, because it makes no sense.
The current desktops are dead, even though they will linger for a decade or more. Welcome, Chrome OS. Here’s to a worse future.
(Thanks to Dion Almaer for encouraging me to write this up.)
If I can keep all my data local, then this could be a win. If I have to had over all my data to Google in order for this to work, it’ll lose in the enterprise. Corporations might pay to use Microsoft apps, but they won’t trust their secrets, competitive edge data, HR data, etc. to “the cloud.” Its not always about technology, its also about trust. Given the App Engine outage and the non-response from Google, they’ve got a long way to go (attitude adjustment).
What do you mean by the
“stupidification of data”?
Making data “smarter” (object databases) didn’t work. Now data is getting stupider–flat files, databases with limited or no joins, databases with no data types. Dumb, dumb, dumb. But it works for some applications. I see this as another disruptive innovation sequence. Is Oracle going to make really good tools like MapReduce for dealing with flat files? No way that makes sense for them.
I agree that storage of data is a sensitive issue. My hard drive is a terrible place to store data, though.
I see the location of storage as an orthogonal issue to the dominant metaphor of my local screen, browser vs. desktop. I could have a browser metaphor but keep all the data on a local cloud inside the firewall.
Who cares where the data resides when it fairly technically simple for me to control who accesses my data. I have encrypted blobs of data all over…
Browser vs. Desktop, Paul Graham, ViaWeb, the story keeps coming around. Is Google big enough to pull it off? Even if I can keep my data “local”, if Google’s App Engine Outage takes away everyone’s ability to work? Maybe Corp. data center can have a local app cloud cache too.
Application updates are fine until “The Cloud” pulls an Apple (oh, say, iMovie losing features). Ooops, didn’t want the new version? Too bad, there is no “version”, just the perpetual now.
Not insurmountable, but not actually technical issues either…
All the new apps will have a “decrypt on the way in and encrypt on the way out?”
Hmm, how to trust the app not to cache/keep your keys/secrets? Better would be to have a separate pipe-line that you can vet, control… trust.
“encryption” without control is snake-oil. data at rest encryption is only part of the answer if “the app” can phone home with your data to the cloud where a copy is “cached for performance”. Ooops, that’s data in the clear. Key management is at least as much social as technical. Focusing on the technical aspects (features, initially worse or not) is why Zune loses to iPod. Trust is what matters here. (technical issues are not irrelevant, but they are not controlling any more.)
I look at people that say they want their data local in the same way I looked at those that said CD would always be around because people want tangible products. The upcoming generation will care about where their data is physically stored the same way they care about owning a CD case. Who cares were the bits are stored? All I care about is availability and security.
What I’d really like to see is the death of file management. It’s about time to leave the file cabinet metaphor behind. That, together with the end of application installation and system maintenance would make computing much more accessible for the average user.
Kent, you’re missing a fundamental point – how are those ‘most’ users going to be convinced to switch an OS that isn’t Windows? The better or ‘worseness’ of an OS doesn’t factor into how successful an operating system is. I could be wrong, I’m just going by history here
None of my kids care one bit what OS they are using. Everything they do is online. When they begin making buying decisions, simplicity and cost will be big factors and emotional attachment to a particular OS will not factor at all.
In a single week my daughter used a Mac, two versions of Windows, Z9, and an iPhone. Outside of Word and iTunes she rarely uses a desktop app. All her data sits on a ginormous iPod which she can plug into any computer.
I think Kent is right, it might be stupid enough to just work. Maybe one day we can all get to pair with Kent through our browser.
[...] 8, 2009 Kent Beck writes his take on the newly announced Google Chrome OS (here http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=273). In it he refers to web apps as “inferior but good enough”. This really describes most [...]
Excellent analogy and reference to Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma.” I am just finishing reading it for the second time and it will be interesting to follow this story’s progression like many of the examples given in the book. What goes up has a hard time coming down. MS will probably concede much of this low end market only to find it squeezed into a shrinking corner.
I don’t see the cloud as that different than our financial system. I don’t have hardly any of my money. It’s in a bank somewhere, controlled by that banks computer, just the same as all those big companies. It goes form my employer’s account, to my account, to some store, without me ever really touching it. We are all used to this, and we understand that there are rules and regulations that help protect us from getting ripped off.
I don’t think data is all that different. There may be a lot more of it, and it may be harder to track, and harder to secure, but those are just scale and complexity issues. It essentially the same thing, I think.
We’ve got the financial system, and the power grid. Next we’ll probably have the data grid.
In the future you don’t have the “Java update popup” every too often? Wow take me there.
I don’t understand – if your kids don’t care what OS they are using, and the OS “doesn’t matter” any more, why would they choose Chrome?
Isn’t the whole point of web apps that they are making the OS irrelevant. That leads me to believe people will still keep choosing Windows due to inertia. Google will have in fact propagated inertia in the OS market by making it irrelevant.
Justicle, migrating your existing computer is not the only way to switch OS. People buy new computers every day. A free OS that runs fast on a cheaper machines and offers just enough to get my job done may be enough to sway people. Remember that Chrome OS is targeted at Netbooks and it will come pre-installed. Why would you want to pay the price and bloat of Windows on a Netbook?
OS’s for the masses will need to get as dumb as possible to match the mean IQ of users. When I was a lad, coding with Cobol coding sheets and a pencil, even the data prep operators wore white coats
The situation now is that even people of low intellect need to use the web, so it makes sense that the process will become more simple.
For big corporations it’s another story – can you see them storing their data anywhere on the web? It will take a long time…
Actually, people don’t buy new computers every day. Remember the crisis a few years ago when (in the USA) Christmas sales tanked because people realized that they didn’t need to get a new computer this year? Software bloat couldn’t keep up with Moore’s law, the latest version of Windows was not a driving factor. GPUs more than CPUs were the issue and lots of desktop systems have graphics cards, and the ones soldered into laptops/netbooks are just fine for everyday/non-hard-core-gamers anyways.
What comes pre-installed will win simply because it won’t matter. Can you put a capable-enough web-client/browser on it? If so, then Windows/Mac OSX/Linux/Chrome is utterly irrelevant.
As long as I could run the applications I need, I think an instant on Chrome OS would be far more intelligent than the burdens placed on me by Windows, Mac OS, or the Linux desktops. If I have to burn less of my IQ running my OS, I take that as evidence of higher intelligence on the part of the designers.
OK, so on one hand Google have made the OS irrelevant – this is a given, and they have stated it many times.
On the other hand Google are making a new OS that is “better”. So this implies the OS is relevant.
I really don’t think Google can succeed at both these aims. Although, they are pretty smart
It has been a few years since my client computer has done a big share of my computation. I have used web-browsers, SSL, VNC, WRD and other client programs connected to well-maintained servers.
This works well when I maintain the physical servers myself but it becomes really effective when I share the servers with other people or rent time from services like EC2.
The client server model works so well for computing that I think it is worth reflecting on why the heavy client model of DOS/Windows/Mac has lasted so long, and whether any of these reasons remain valid today.
- Slow or unreliable network connections. Fading into the past.
- Scarcity of cheap, scalable servers and server software. Fading into the past.
- PC hardware + software industry relying on continuing cycle of upgrades for profits. Credible alternative hardware (netbooks, smartphones, MIDs) and software (Chrome OS, stripped down Linux or maybe something Windows XP derived) look viable now.
- Cost of switching. Current networks, netbooks, client SW and cloud services are mature enough now that switching is easy. I am half-switched in that I run a powerful client OS that doesn’t do much other than launch client programs.
Of course many people at MS, Intel, Apple, HP, Cisco and other companies big enough to do something about this know it as well as you and I do. The interesting question for me is for why, of all the companies who could pull off the return to big servers + small clients, Google chose to move first.
At first glance, Google seem to have the least to loose, but the cost to, say, MS of being a minor player in computing 10 years from now is huge. The benefit to Cisco of having the majority of computer users running client server is pretty big too. It would be interesting to see how decisions get made in these big companies.
[...] Chrome OS is Worse, That’s the Point Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized [...]
i give it 2 years before chrome gets bloated and unresponsive – just like ff.
100% agree: every ‘cool’ feature that you don’t need makes a product worse, so I hope Google succeed. Case in point: I used to be a big fan of early Visio, for doing flowcharts. Then earlier this week I had to use the latest version, and found this has become so overloaded with random nonsense that simple things no longer work, and I gave up and edited the XML source using Textpad.
Kent, fantastic insight on how innovation starts out poor and builds as the new paradigm matures. This also made me think of what makes a new operating system successful, and it’s always a killer app: Visicalc for the original Apple, Lotus 123 and DBase for DOS, Apache Web server for Linux. So, it appears to me that the announcement of Chrome OS a day after the Beta tag was removed from GMail and Google apps, is no coincidence.
But, when you look at the Apple, Microsoft, and Linux OS’s, I would say the big differentiator always has to do with device drives, not where the data is stored. Apple controller their hardware, and has stability as result. MS has issues with stability and security and most of this stems from issues with drivers. While I can appreciate what you are saying about data, I don’t think we can forget the hardware issues around video cards, printers, usb and firewire devices, etc, etc.
Can Google really play in this space? I’m very interested in other’s thoughts on this and I do look forward to trying the Google OS as soon as possible.
Gene,
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that. The need for stable drivers certainly drives up the cost of the Chrome OS strategy. If they can do a little Tom Sawyer and get others to write drivers for them, they reduce the amount of money they have at risk.
[...] Chrome OS is Worse, That’s the Point [...]
I think Google moved first because they own the most valuable complementary business. They have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by evaporating the desktop OS profit pool and swelling the search profit pool.
[...] Chrome OS is Worse, That’s the Point Comentarios (0) [...]
If the OS will come mostly preinstalled the issue with drivers is taken away. The hardware maintainers will take care of them. As I assume it will be a Linux flavour everyone will benefit …
“If I have to burn less of my IQ running my OS…”
I would think that running your OS actually heightens your IQ.
“Slow or unreliable network connections. Fading into the past.”
Still with us often enough, I find.
“i give it 2 years before chrome gets bloated and unresponsive – just like ff.”
Chrome isn’t bloated but is often unresponsive already. FF is still good with multitude of features.
[...] Kent Beck on Google Chrome OS Interesting (as usual) point of view and interesting discussion in comments as well. [...]
[...] Beck was talking about how he is using Chrome Browser OS right now as a social experiment. Yes. We can all delete every application from our machines and [...]
Don’t forget video games. Microsoft is the king of desktop gaming. In fact, the ability to play the latest high quality, graphic intensive games (online and offline) is one of the major reasons why people still buy desktops — and by any measure it’s not a minuscule market.
Like Larry this post really reminded me of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. Also I thought a bit about MAX… was it too specialized to succeed? Or priced too low for the amount of specialization?