Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Google Needs To Pull the Plug On Chrome OS

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the pull-tha-stringzz dept.

Operating Systems 266

judeancodersfront writes "It's time for Google to realize that it is way too early to be pushing an OS that only provides a browser. If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows. Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform and provide a system that offers local applications."

cancel ×

266 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169004)

And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?

The most frustrating part about Linux to end users is installing it and making sure everything works and that the hardware is supported and configured properly. Computer manufacturers are more than capable of doing that for the end user, and let the end user just boot up the computer. Linux even allows you to customize it perfectly and there are already various distros designed just to be simple and provide browser and such. This also has the advantage of having even some local file storage and not being tied to any single company like Google. You can also customize the OS to receive automatic updates just like Chrome OS and make it so that the casual user doesn't need to do or worry about anything.

That is meant strictly for people who might enjoy the simplicity of Chrome OS and just having a browser. Personally I want my desktop apps and games to work.

-sopssa

Re:Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169174)

Do you feel lucky [google.com] ?

Re:Linux (5, Informative)

danny_lehman (1691870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169198)

ugh.. i hate you. dont follow the link

Re:Linux (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169360)

I've got to admit, it's a pretty clever way of tricking people into going to a site; people rarely fall for the url shortening sites any more, but everyone trusts Google! (Except Slashdot of course, we don't like anyone).

Re:Linux (2, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169530)

Not really. Anyone who actually examined the link target would see the "goatkcd" in the URL (and the "I'm Feeling Lucky" lets you know you're not actually visiting Google itself).

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169948)

you are such a genius that you didnt fall for that.

you must never make any mistakes... EVER!!

Re:Linux (1)

English French Man (1220122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170140)

I was tricked by this once however :(

Re:Linux (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169602)

This is begging to become the vector for the next Rick Roll-esque phenomenon.

I want my CPU cycles back, dammit. (1)

dpiven (518007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169918)

Isn't that clever. I saw the link target, clicked it anyway, and all I got was a Google search-results page.

Maybe it's me, maybe it's my browser config, but that "clever trick" is Fail City over here.

Re:Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169196)

How's the ballmer cock today, sopssa?

hmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169738)

It's fun to see how many of us hate his fucking British guts. XD

Re:hmmm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169996)

He is a fucktard who posts obvious drivel and uses his sockpuppet clone53421 to mod himself up.

Opinionated Article is Confusing (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169034)

This guy makes a lot of assumptions.

Though it looks like Chrome will have a basic media player the dependence on the internet for applications will be too limiting for the typical user.

So you're telling me that you know for sure I won't be able to bring up Google Docs and access my Google docs when I have no internet connection? Because right now I can do that in the Chrome Browser with Google Gears and they are working on HTML5 which is supposed to natively support this "offline" functionality. But what you're telling me is that they plan on dropping this paradigm?

No local printing

All I've heard is that Google Cloud Print and the proxy service for your printer plans to be bundled with Chrome OS. I've not heard whether it's opt-in, opt-out, mandatory or if -- shock of all shocks -- they figure out a way to make it work like Google Gears.

That’s some advanced technoshit when I have to contact a server in California if I want to print a bbq recipe from a printer that is 2 feet away from me.

Google Cloud Print aims to make printing from any online device to any printer available. Apart from what you so eloquently claim, they did not set bricking your printer as a goal. Nor did they express a desire to inhibit your ability to print on your printer from your local machine directly. If Google Cloud Print is not opt-in on Chrome OS, I will be just as critical as you but there's no indication one way or the other yet.

Every consumer OS has a browser. Selling an OS based on the fact that it has a browser is like selling a car based on the doors. Consumers will be confused when they are told that Chrome OS is just a browser. Just a browser?

And let the terrible analogies flow. Wrap your mind around this: what if the consumer just wants a netbook to surf the internet and do word processing? Like me and my netbook.

Why can’t I access local files? This netbook actually does less than my cell phone?

Is it that you can't access local files or that you can't discern between work that's being stored and cached locally versus being out on the cloud? One may claim that this simplifies the user experience. Who cares where it is? I can access it.

A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

The $300-$400 price point

Seriously? People belly-up to pay top dollar for quality and components that come with an Apple Product and then you quibble when Google offers something at a similar price with possibly better quality and components?

Android

While Android could run on netbooks, all the development I've done for it is through Google developed Java libraries. It's a trimmed down version of Linux so much so that I'm not sure the full functionality of Linux could be harnessed. I personally don't think the advantages that these modifications hold for handhelds would translate well to netbooks.

Jerkface Playhouse indeed.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (3, Informative)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169166)

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

Using one of the 3rd party cards you can store data on a MicroSD/MicroSDHC and play it back. However this is a device that's normally used for "other" things than playing music... and may/may not be legal where you are. wink,wink nudge,nudge

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (2, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169220)

And the DSi has a full-sized SD card slot. However my understanding is that it only supports AAC, not MP3, due to licencing.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169562)

it supports mp3... just have to know how to unlock it

, , , , , , , , B, A

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169586)

special character fail.

up up down down left right left right B A

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

Knitebane (64590) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169672)

That's the combination to my Palm Pre!

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169774)

Yeah, I haven't played with a DSi myself, but my understanding was that it was "locked down" as a music player.. wasn't sure if it was format limited or some goofball interface to obfuscate the data on the device so that it had to be played their way (see: iPod)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

C1970H (811524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169276)

So you're telling me that you know for sure I won't be able to bring up Google Docs and access my Google docs when I have no internet connection? Because right now I can do that in the Chrome Browser with Google Gears and they are working on HTML5 which is supposed to natively support this "offline" functionality. But what you're telling me is that they plan on dropping this paradigm?

Yep -- at least last I heard Gears/offline editing is temporarily going bye-bye. Questionable choice at best -- why not get HTML5 working first unless they really don't care about being a viable option to traditional MS Office type editors? http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224202374 [informationweek.com]

Google's other big bet is on the all-cloud environment; it's dropping for now the ability to use Docs when not connected to the Internet. Google thinks most employees don't care about offline mode, but the company knows that C-level execs--the ones who need to approve Google apps--do. They're often on airplanes without Internet connectivity, so not having offline access could be a big strike against the rewritten Docs.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (0, Redundant)

mutu310 (1546975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169298)

Where's the super-like button? So many people use a PC *JUST* for browsing. They don't even need Google docs or printing or the like. They just want a browser. And currently they have to pay for more expensive hardware that can do all the extra background processing and support so many other features that they don't need or want to use, and are occasionally confusing to them. These same people will have a faster, cheaper experience.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169300)

...is like selling a car based on the doors...

And let the terrible analogies flow.

Come on, at least he made it a car analogy

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170106)

...is like selling a car based on the doors...

Buick tried to sell the Opel based on The Doors [idafan.com] .

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169342)

A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

Something like an R4 card or similar allows you to run homebrew software and play media from a microSD card (as well as more dubious things).

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169536)

Jerkface Playhouse indeed.

Well, I for one like this new egalitarian Slashdot that will publish any random moonbat's frothy diatribe purely in order to troll us into dissecting it.

We bite every time, but isn't that how we like it? Be honest now, would you really want to read a cogently argued article that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170006)

Agreed. This is troll bait.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170150)

Well, I for one like this new egalitarian Slashdot that will publish any random moonbat's frothy diatribe purely in order to troll us into dissecting it.

New?

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169546)

I still think ChromeOS needs to disappear, but I have to admit you've brought up good counter arguments. I'll still have to agree with the original point that its going to cause consumer confusion and frustration. I also realize that I'm not a normal user and probably want too many things that just aren't on the web yet ... unless someone can find me a full CAD/CAM/CNC controller solution done in HTML5 (Obviously not the target market) then I could switch my shop computer to ChromeOS and be happy.

I realize thats an extreme case, but I think you're still going to have that problem for normal users. It won't be the lack of CAD software, but there's going to be 'something' for a long time I think.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

enigmatics (972410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169834)

... unless someone can find me a full CAD/CAM/CNC controller solution done in HTML5 (Obviously not the target market) then I could switch my shop computer to ChromeOS and be happy.

I think you fall into the exact opposite target demographic that Google is going after with their chrome OS. I think you also fail to realize that chrome OS isn't looking for 100% market saturation, or anywhere near it. Of course their system isn't designed to replace computers for resource intensive applications. Also, why should they stop producing an OS when it does what it was designed to do well and fits the bill for a section of the market? They're not forcing you to buy it.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

Quantumplation (1692804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169564)

An additional point that I thought of while reading the article: He complains about being offline at inconvenient times. Didn't Google make a move, a while back, to push the FCC into "open sourcing" the unowned frequency wavelengths in between the major points on the old national TV broadcast band? The ones that are covered over very long distances by just a few towers, and that go through standard building materials? Isn't it possible the have something planned to make the unavailability of internet a moot point? =P Just my speculation and pseudo-conspiracy theorizing here, though.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169904)

Why is it that you guys have to use "open source" for every single instance of something being public? Can you please stop this practice? It really is annoying.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

raodin (708903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169614)

Regarding the Nintendo DS comment, he is referring to the DSi here, not the plain DS or DS lite. The DSi has an SD slot that can be used for photos or music, although I don't believe mp3 is a supported format.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169832)

While Android could run on netbooks, all the development I've done for it is through Google developed Java libraries. It's a trimmed down version of Linux so much so that I'm not sure the full functionality of Linux could be harnessed. I personally don't think the advantages that these modifications hold for handhelds would translate well to netbooks.

I think it would be a lot smarter for Google to bring out tablets/netbooks with Android than with just Chrome OS. They can sell people apps for it out of the store, which is a huge win! And it's based on Linux, so users can have their full environment. Which brings me to actually addressing your point; the Android NDK permits you to build software in the usual Linux environment, there's libc and a handful of other libraries, and you need to build anything you need; additionally, only the libaries provided in the NDK are guaranteed to stick around so you may end up needing to do an epic build to get all the prerequisites for complex software. And as well, all Android apps are required to be Java apps, so if you need a GUI component to whatever you're building, and you want to distribute it through the store, then you're going to need to write a Java front end if one does not already exist, or port it to Android if one does.

Meanwhile, such a device could be sold with its default configuration sending the user straight to chrome, thus providing all the benefits of the chrome OS (simplicity, Linux underpinnings) and all the benefits of Android (too many to mention, but let's just focus on Android Market and the ability to do stuff that is less than elegant in the browser) at the same time.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169900)

"A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.....You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?"

I was so going to moderate you up until I read that. The Nintendo MP3 Player [wikipedia.org] has been out for 4 years. Games 'n' Music [wikipedia.org] is (or was) available at Walmart [walmart.com] and still available online [codejunkies.com] .

"Seriously? People belly-up to pay top dollar for quality and components that come with an Apple Product and then you quibble when Google offers something at a similar price with possibly better quality and components?"

Apple google is not. Apple has a 30 yr history of charging top dollar for premium products. Google doesn't. Horrible comparison, might as well throw in some car analogies and ask why Daewoos [wikipedia.org] don't sell for Ferrari [wikipedia.org] prices (yes, I did just compare Google to Daewoo).

While I do agree JerkFace is making an awful lot of assumptions without any links or references to back up his quotes, some of his points are valid. However all he has to do is look at the usefulness of Android cellphones when they lack an internet connection to see it's still fully functional, and that's a cellphone that is meant to have some sort of internet reception 24/7.

JerkFace did get one thing wrong: "4. The $300-$400 price point... Chrome OS at least had a chance in hell before I read this... There are Windows 7 netbooks at $280 "

You failed to do your homework JerkFace. While you correctly quoted the Google CEO of saying "$300-$400", you conveniently left off the rest "..that all the cost will be associated with the hardware, since the OS itself is free." [electronista.com] With a free OS there is no Windows device that can compete on price.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing (1)

DdJ (10790) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169950)

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

They may be talking about the DSi, which has an SD card slot and a media player. You just load the files up on the SD card and pop it in and you can play them, it's very easy and pretty nice.

(But maybe that's not what they're talking about, since that plays AAC, not MP3. I load mine up with music from the iTunes store all the time. At this time I have more devices that can play AAC than MP3, including a bunch of devices that have no problem playing both, like the XB360 and Chumby and iPod.)

Agree but you are a bit outdated (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170086)

The newest DS, the XL has a standard SD card slot, for playing music from. Why you would want to do that I am not sure, as there are cheaper and superior players around but it can be done.

This Jerkface Playhouse guy is just windows noob upset that the world he knows a tiny bit of is collapsing around him. People like that react with fear and hostility to anything new.

I have no idea if ChromeOS will be anything more then a thought experiment, but stranger things have happened. Right now Android is outselling the iPhone. Who would have thought eh? granted there are more android phones and they are cheaper but still. And who would have thought that with all this MS is behind EVERYONE on mobile phones. So much for 3rd time is the charm with a MS product. What release is Windows Mobile 7 by now (and no, it ain't 7)

I think Google is just seeing what sticks. It wants to break open the entire IT market and it is succeeding so far. MS ain't its enemy, MS lock-in is its enemy. Same as telecom lock-in and email provider lock-in. MS is breaking this up. more and more small companies and bigger ones use gmail. Gmail. Not exchange. BANG. Gone MS lock-in. For that matter lock-in with anyone. Granted now you got a bit of gmail lock-in although since there is far less tie in going on, you can far more easily migrate away from gmail then exchange.

If the internet becomes open then Google can sells its services to anyone. The more cheap devices are out there connecting, the more people will want to use online services (I barely ever write documents, and then often on different machines, I don't need office. I don't want office. I do use google docs. Anywhere, anytime.) and google makes money from that.

ChromeOS is just another attempt to break the lock-in. Maybe someone will make a cheap netbook with it purely for web access in the house. A cheap iPad for in the kitchen. Or maybe it will be in eternal beta. But Google is constantly trying and a lot of its succeeding.

When news broke about Android outselling the iPhone, where were all the doubters? To busy eating crow to admit they were wrong?

I am personally very intrested to see where Google is going. They are one of the freshest daring companies out there.

I Disagree (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169056)

The only way we're going to get simple web "appliances" is if someone with muscle and money starts pushing them now.

Google has the resources and the "good name" (at least for now) to make this happen. Simple, safe & secure web appliances will make the basics of e-mail, web surfing and reading common format documents cheap and easy for everyone (this includes the poorer countries of the world). Document & content creation are down the road, but for right now let's get this moving in the right direction.

Re:I Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169260)

The only way we're going to get simple web "appliances" is if someone with muscle and money starts pushing them now.

So dumbass users can stop getting Windows viruses (er, sorry, Microsoft Windows (R) (TM) viruses - gotta give recognition where it is due) and contributing to botnets and spam and fraud and phishing while wondering why their computer runs so slow. It'd be a better world!

"But I'm not a computer expert!"* Great, here's your appliance. It auto-updates and you can't modify anything except user preferences. Enjoy.

* A "computer expert" is someone who can RTFM.

Re:I Disagree (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169320)

We have them.
They are called Android, WebOS, and iPhone phones. And now the iPad.

Plus it is just a terrible idea that is crippled from the start.
Lets take two device.
1. Chrome OS
and
2. Android.

From the end user point of view what can Chrome do that Android can not?
I am sure that the Web Apps that run on Chrome OS will work just as well on the Android browser. Unless Google cripples Android which I do not see.
So the Android smartbook can run all the apps that Chrome OS will
So 1 point for each Chrome and Android.
What about all the Android apps that are available on the market place? Well Chrome will not run them but Android will.
So 1 point for Android and zero for Chrome OS.

Now from a developers point of view.
If they want to make a web app do they target Chrome OS or Android? Well no need to choose. Both work just fine. So here is a tie.
Now suppose the developer doesn't want to run a server? He just wants to write an app. Chrome OS is out of luck but Android is just fine. Plus one for android.
Suppose the developer wants to sell the app and not depend on advertising? Well the develper could offer subscriptions on line but it is so much easier to just sell the app. another for android.

Suppose the developer wants the app to only work on a lan that doesn't have an internet connection? You may be able to do something with Gears but again an app is just a clean simple solution.

A browser only OS is a limited OS.
Any gains in ease of use will be very limited compared to what we have already gotten with smart phones.

Chrome OS is a case of philosophy over functionality and to be honest IMHO greed. Google thinks it can make more money off of ads than it has off of apps IMHO.

Re:I Disagree (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169424)

The thing about Chrome OS is that it has a UI more suited towards mouse+keyboard, whereas Android's UI is more suited towards fingers.

Also, Android uses a lot more code that runs in Dalvik, so Chrome may perform (significantly, in some cases) better.

Otherwise, yes, Android wins.

Re:I Disagree (1)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169778)

ChromeOS will never get far enough in the marketplace for developers to even consider targeting it, so it's null set all around. Consumers will obviously pick the Android tablet/netbook/whatever that can play native games over the ChromeOS one that can only play crappy Flash games. ChromeOS widely misses the mark with consumers in the first place, so it's got absolutely no chance with developers.

Re:I Disagree (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170066)

From the end user point of view what can Chrome do that Android can not?

What can an Android device do that a PC can't? You're asking the wrong questions.

A device that has no storage, no potential infections, no installable software ... nothing but a UI and an internet connection. It's the "toaster" of computers. The easier and safer you make them the more they will end up in every room of every home.

They are not replacements for Android devices, iPads, etc ... nor replacements for full blown computers. Ask a parent if they want their 6 y/o using a controllable "dumb" internet terminal appliance or anything else and they'll tell you "safe and dumb as possible".

Re:I Disagree (1)

nashv (1479253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170216)

You are looking at Chrome OS with a perspective rooted in present-day models. The whole project is based on a cloud-computing paradigm where users do not have to download or make binary blobs in order to do anything.

Suppose I wanted to see to do some advanced image processing. I don't really care for writing the code, editing the code and so on. All I want to do is get my data out from the images. Today, I have to have MATLAB, Photoshop, Origin and sleuth of other suites installed which I don't really use every day but need say once in a few months. The idea of web-based applications means that no one has to get, install and maintain software. You just point your browser to the right website.

So yes, Chrome OS makes no sense in a world which is in general bandwidth starved, has clumsy and slow web-app technologies and browsers that were built mainly for rendering a markup language that is at least years old. In a future, where Internet coverage is 100% , where net bandwidth speeds are higher than or equal to the rate of data flow between your RAM and processor, Chrome OS is perfect.

Google is not a charity, its a corporation - and greed is an asset as long as they give more to get more. If they want to get some money and show me ads in exchange for providing me a service I find useful, I see nothing wrong with it.

Re:I Disagree (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170018)

It will come down to the cost of the netbook, and the ease of use. Unix on the netbook was not a great success because MS was easily able to come in and subsidize. In addition, the cost on always on internet access on those netbooks was not negligible. WiFi is still often something that can be a profit center, and 3G and 4G is $50 a month. Someone who is buying a netbook because it is cheap is not necessarily happy with the 'hidden' costs.

So here is the thing. A netbook can work today because of WiFi access and the possibility of $30 a month data plans A Google netbook can work because if the internet is always connected, then the Google model will work well. In fact, I would say it is critical for the future of google to have a cadre of netbooks that depend on the services, and can't easily run MS services. If google does this as it did the Nexus 1, there will not be a great deal of success. If it can convince the mobile carriers to really push the netbooks, I mean give them away free, in exchange for a two year contract, then we will see great market penetration. The question is will google pay for the design work so all the mobile people has to pay for is manufacturing costs.

Re:I Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170130)

Unfortunately, the poorest countries often don't have fast broadband connections...

Nah (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169080)

Google has built an empire on having the balls to do stuff that the industry thinks it's "way too early" to do.

The only thing that makes it too early is that no one has done it right yet.

Google already provides web versions of office apps, RSS readers/players, photo management, email (naturally), and a ton of other things. From my understanding, online MP3 and eBook repositories are in the works that would allow you to stream that content from centralized storage.

Essentially, they're preparing to position this thing so that 99% of what people need to do on a computer will be available on this, and since it's all web-based, you effectively get roaming desktop on any ChromeOS terminal you sit down to.

Besides, I'm willing to bet that while Google themselves won't be making them, they will quite likely setup some ability to install 3rd party applications.

Re:Nah (1)

danny_lehman (1691870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169148)

exactly, exactly, exactly. this article actually made me a bit mad at the thought of trashing innovation and opting for upgrades..

Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of (2, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169200)

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "right" in retrospect.

Re:Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of (1)

danny_lehman (1691870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169528)

on the contrary, this could have been done years ago. the "right" time for this particular innovation is long overdue. This could have been done the moment network speed became realistically proportionate to file transfer needs, and online storage was available.

Starting your message in the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169544)

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "right" in retrospect.

breaks quotations and makes the message overall harder to read.

Re:Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169574)

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "revolutionary" in retrospect.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Nah (2, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169314)

Google has built an empire on having the balls to do stuff that the industry thinks it's "way too early" to do.

Google already provides web versions of office apps, RSS readers/players, photo management, email (naturally), and a ton of other things. From my understanding, online MP3 and eBook repositories are in the works that would allow you to stream that content from centralized storage.

Search and webmail are making Google money, and they entered those markets long after other companies had mature products already serving those needs. It looks to me like Google's success is about improving on mature markets. None of its brand new ideas has been a business success. I'm not asserting that ChromeOS won't be successful, but I think that your particular argument is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Re:Nah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169382)

They aren't adding anything though, only subtracting.

Printing to any printer over the internet with a nice GUI has been standard on Windows for a decade or more now, and it certainly isn't new in the Unix world. The web apps already run on real computers, etc etc.

If you're going to make a Linux kernel based laptop, why are you removing the GNU tools that typically go along with it? It's not like they're costing you money. It all comes down to dominion over data for Google. If you print through the cloud, then they get a copy of your printout. If your documents are stored on a Google server, they're certainly crawling them and filing that data away diligently for whatever Madison-avenue cum California marketing bullshit purpose they dream up next.

Re:Nah (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169414)

So tell me.
Why is an OS that you can only use web applications on better than one that you can use web applications on and native apps on?
Any increase in ease of use over say an Android or WebOS smartphone would be marginal at best.
A lack of native apps and local storage would mean that the user really would need to pay for an mobile data plan in addition to the cost of their cell phone which is not cheap.
Roaming data charges overseas are very expensive...
I see no advantage in these limitations do you?

Re:Nah (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169670)

We've yet to see whether 3rd party native apps are allowed yet or not (my bet is that they will), but you're forgetting the advantage here: the entire desktop is setup with web-usage in mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if even 3rd party executables were distributed in a byte-code style fashion and could download and run on any system you logged on from.

Having a single sign on, to any ChromeOS system, where all my apps, all my bookmarks, all my media, and everything was available anywhere with a net connection, would be HUGE. Regardless of if I'm working from my phone, netbook, desktop, work system, friend's computer, whatever.

As to mobile data plans - that's already becoming ubiqitous. Tons of people are using their mobile data plans more than their actual cell plans now. If any part of your argument is that a mobile data plan would be required then you're just arguing against change, and uselessly. It echoes the same arguments people once had against purchasing internet plans for their home computers back in the mid 90's. Fast forward to today, and no one makes that argument anymore because internet connections are useful enough that everyone has them.

As to roaming data charges overseas, honestly, what percentage of the market needs that? Do you think that this percentage (which I know is non-zero, but still somewhat small compared to the entire population) is enough to derail an ENTIRE PLATFORM, or is it more likely that that small subset of users just gets a full OS on their netbook and is happy?

This fit will NOT work for everyone. Heck I'm not convinced that even if it took off that I personally wouldn't just use ChromeOS from within a VM on a full system (best of both worlds), but there is a lot of promise in it.

Re:Nah (3, Interesting)

Quantumplation (1692804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169860)

Except for the complete impossibility of having to deal with viruses. Ever. There literally can be no native stored code, and if somehow the running code does get infected, it's wiped on each reboot. For the user that wants those increase of ease over Android (which are significant when comparing mouse, flash, keyboard, etc) and over Desktops/Laptops (Chrome OS can boot by the time you open your laptop, meaning MUCH longer battery life by just keeping it off), not having to deal with virus's (at least, not without a major paradigm shift in the attackers methods which will happen eventually, but for now it poses a significant difficulty) capitalizes on the same market that Mac went after, but more effectively, as it really IS more difficult to write virus's for the ChromeOS than for a Mac (rather than just being unrealistic due to market share).

Re:Nah (3, Interesting)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169526)

I would argue that Google takes risks on innovation not because they "have the balls," but because they MUST do so to survive.

Right now advertising makes up over 90 percent of all their profit. Being an innovative tech company, they understand that someone will eventually find a way to beat Google in the advertising business..or at least strongly compete. They need to take huge risks in order to find their next profit stream. If they cannot do this soon they will be taken dismantled by their competitors.

Re:Nah (2, Interesting)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169542)

Besides which, Google's main source of revenue is advertisement. These are all side projects. They're meant to cause a stir in the relevant software industry, drum up some good PR, but the truth is, Google can sit on them for years and wait for them to mature into competitive products.

I suspect some of these projects are there just provide incentive for the competition to continue to advance and progress. If Google's version catches on, it's great, but it doesn't have to. And sometime, somewhere down the line, somebody is going to find a use for it beyond its original scope, and that's when it'll make money. It's like how they're slowly positioning Gmail (or at least its internals) to become Google's competitor to Outlook.

Re:Nah (1)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169906)

Or, you could have that roaming webtop() on your Android device and be able to use native apps such as ported C/C++/OpenGL commercial game titles, or leverage locally stored media for playback. No sane consumer is going to pick the needlessly limited device. ChromeOS should be merged into Android for the foreseeable future. They can always strip it back out again if the market is ready at some point.

Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netbooks. (4, Insightful)

wesw02 (846056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169088)

I agree with the assumption that failure of Chrome OS could be harmful to the general comfort of using Linux-Based OS's however I think substituting Android is almost as bad of an idea. Don't get me wrong, I love android, I own two android phones and have developed a few apps for the platform. I just think you should use the right tool for the right job and putting Android on netbooks doesn't fit.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo (2, Insightful)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169390)

I feel like I'm iGodwin'ing this discussion, but it's going to happen eventually. Isn't Android on a netbook essentially the (apparently successful) idea behind the iPad? You and I may decry its applicability, but the gadget-crazed masses seem to love it. A smart-phone OS essentially delivers a web browser and just a little something extra through installation of programmable apps. This is apparently all people want from a 'netbook'. I think* Android would actually be better than iPhone OS in this regard, if only because it is the more open platform.

*Historically, the device market tends to disagree with me.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo (1)

wesw02 (846056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169560)

I suppose it really depends on your definition of a netbook. IMHO, a netbook is a device with a physical keyboard and mouse, and without a touch screen (essentially a smaller laptop). Again, IMHO, the iPad is not a netbook, it is a keyboard/mouse-less tablet and it has a touch screen. In that respect I think android is suited for the tablet market, but not for the netbook market.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo (0)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169504)

Have you used Android? I'd love to have it on a netbook. I'm currently in the market for one, and I'm debating between Android and UNR, and really Android seems to be winning out, though I would have to make sure I have root and can run Emacs.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo (4, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169690)

I love android, I own two android phones and have developed a few apps for the platform.

Have you used Android?

Now I'm understanding of not RTFA, but not reading your fucking parent post is a bit much I think.

Apple section (2, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169114)

According to the apple section, "Netbooks are irrelevant because they are dead!!!111"

I personally thought netbooks would have hit the mark better than they did. I should have stocked up on them whilst they were dirt cheap, low powered, and came with linux.

Rebrand it as Android Lite (0, Redundant)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169132)

Boom, done, I'll take my $100k consulting fee now.

He's right (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169158)

Give it up already Google, no one wants your piece of shit web-tablet. They want magic.

- Steve

Linux? (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169168)

If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.

Hesitant to use a Linux-based OS? Doubtful. If Chrome OS fails, OEMs might be hesitant to use a Google-developed OS on future products but I don't think it'll impact their view of Linux-based OSes one bit. Either they're open to them or they aren't - the success or failure of Chrome won't change that. What will change is their opinion on Google's offerings. Google should hold off to make sure their foray into the OS market doesn't die before they get a chance to succeed. Unlike the web, you can't release a beta OS into the market and fix it until it works. Consumers who are buying products won't wait around for you to get it right. On the web, sure - knock yourself out. Take a few years to polish the product until you're happy and content to remove the beta tag. On people's computers, either a person is enough of a tinkerer that they'll play with their OS more than Google will or they just want their computer to work and will expect the OS to be finished (as much as can be reasonably expected) from the get-go.

Chrome will have no impact, positive nor negative, upon anyone's opinion of Linux-based OSes. It will only impact people's opinions on Google's OS offerings.

Re:Linux? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169458)

The iPad is proving that people are willing to buy a limited device that doesn't run Windows and has set functionality. While on paper, I would personally prefer something like Android with an app store and additional functionality, I think there is a niche for a dedicated device.

How many of us have friends and family members who basically live out of their browser, and don't really use any other apps? How many of these friends and family members complain about updates, security, anti-virus, spyware, etc?

The niche market for this dedicated device might just be the majority of individual users.

Re:Linux? (1)

crazycheetah (1416001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169488)

They seem to be doing pretty decent with Android on the level of getting it working before pushing out. And Chrome OS doesn't appear to be coming with some kind of great speed at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're polishing it before pushing it. Just sayin'...

Bad car analogy alert (3, Funny)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169186)

Selling an OS based on the fact that it has a browser is like selling a car based on the doors.

Obviously he hasn't considered the Mercedes AMG gullwing. [google.com]

Re:Bad car analogy alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169324)

... or the DMC-12 [google.com]

(if you buy one, be careful with the top speed.)

Re:Bad car analogy alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169566)

Didn't work out so well for the Delorean! (doors are still cool though)

Haters are gonna hate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169264)

Who cares?

If it's good use it, if not don't. Free market, brother.

Regardless of what happens with Chrome OS, I'm certain some of it will be beneficial to the Open Source Community.

Wrong? maybe. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32169272)

Thats what people said about Android, and Android had 28% of the smart phone market... (The Iphone has 21%)

Google Native Client (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169294)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client [wikipedia.org]

Read up on Google Native Client. Then consider they have a very secure, simple, fast OS that runs on minimal hardware. The OS is treated almost like firmware. Think about what these things have in common with each other.

Let me know when you figure it out.

Why? (1, Funny)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169318)

It's time for Google to realize that it is way too early to be pushing an OS that only provides a browser.

Why? Emacs did it for text editing...

"Independent .Net developer"? (5, Funny)

lophophore (4087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169336)

I think I will take my advice on Linux and Netbooks from an "independent .Net developer".

NOT.

Why was this "news" even posted? Slashdot editor fail.

Re:"Independent .Net developer"? (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169422)

The best Slashdot article within the past week was someone stating that since Netbook sales exploded, but then the growth curve slowed down in June of 2009, it was all because of the iPad, which was announced in January of 2010.

Netbooks were clearly dead as a doornail, despite not only still selling, but continuing to GROW in year-over-year sales.

The logic of that article still hurts my brain.

Re:"Independent .Net developer"? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169876)

I think the "fail" part may be redundant.

*ducks*

Why would Google support local applications? (3, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169354)

> Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform
> and provide a system that offers local applications.

Google doesn't want anyone to run local applications.

Chrome vs. Windows. vs. Linux vs. ... (2, Interesting)

jabberwock (10206) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169356)

It seems to me that Chrome's *success* would have a marginal negative impact on Linux.

It's *failure* has significance for general acceptance of Google's model.

It's *existence* does a lot for the notion that Windows is not the only choice out there.

Open Source does well in a marketplace where there is the perception of choice.

Re:Chrome vs. Windows. vs. Linux vs. ... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169756)

Outside of the browser type stuff, there would be more people switching to other OS's myself included; if developers for games wrote stuff in more then just the DX API, or there was native support for DX in 'nix.

Native Client (1)

goruka (1721094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169364)

Chrome OS starts making sense as a "full" OS when you consider the existence of Native Client:
http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/Downloads [google.com]

This runs safe, sandboxed, native (x86/arm) applications downloaded from the cloud.

A mobile computer with chromium? (1)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169460)

I run Ubuntu Moblin Remix, without the telecommunications contract, I use my phone as a wifi router and have instant internet access wherever i go. Linux+netbook+smartphone = never out of range, now unless google decides to offer a similar convenience or route, I agree, this might be one of those *duh* moments for google.

Too early? (2, Insightful)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169470)

Wait, I'm to believe that a large company that is based around a user living in their browser should actually care what OEMs think? So you're telling me that Google should actually stop developing a competitive operating system because *this guy* thinks that they'd be better suited to wait 5-10 years to do something? Let's stop innovating because a nay-sayer thinks it may harm their prospects. BRILLIANT!

hahahaha (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169502)

Yeah, those Google guys have a reputation for not knowing what they are up to~

Unless you are away of Google internal goal or design, maybe you should stop using them to generate hits? you making yourself look foolish.

Time to ditch any net device with XWindow? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169506)

XWindow may have a place somewhere, but it seems to be poor fit for net devices.

Let's be honest, XWindow's performance is just bloody awful. It's slow, it pixelates, it's a difficult platform for software development.

The early 1980s architecture is not well suited to today's demands. And I doubt XWindow can be improved enough to make it worthwhile.

What a load of crap (2, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169758)

"Let's be honest, XWindow's performance is just bloody awful. It's slow,"

Is it? I can run a full screen video no problems on my laptop, I can play 3D games and so forth. How exactly is it slow?

"it's a difficult platform for software development."

Really? I've written apps in Xlib and I never had any issues. And there are plenty of higher level libraries if you want to
develop GUI apps. The way Xwin deals with visuals and colour is a bit archaic , but aside from that it works pretty well IMO.
Even properly scalable fonts were sorted out years ago.

"The early 1980s architecture is not well suited to today's demands"

Rubbish. Its client server remote desktop architecture is perfectly suited to enterprise enviroments. Why not go find out why
Citrix et al have been playing catch up on Windows for years to try and do the same thing.

um What? (4, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169510)

If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.

OEMs are not hesitant to use a Linux-based OS on netbooks. They started off with it. The problem was that most of the target market wanted Windows. Those customers were not comfortable with the various Linux distributions being used and they couldn't run the applications they wanted. OEMs are out to make money. Windows may cut into the per unit margin, but if they sell enough units then the OEMs make up the difference in volume.

Re:um What? (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169888)

To continue your thought, if discomfort with the interface was the issue with Linux netbooks, then it's actually an argument in favour of Chrome OS. If it's web-based, then the "apps" and interface are already second nature to the user.

A device that is dead when you lose your signal? (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169572)

I for one would never buy a device that was useless once you lose your signal! A "real" linux version with the ability to run applications on the hardware would be imminently preferable to one that is "only" a browser that need a connection to do anything useful!

think of it from this perspectiveperspective (1)

mkw87 (860289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169604)

Before gettinflg my android phone I might have agreed....hut what the op is missing is that Google isn't trying to beat windows at their own game.....Google is reinventing the wheel. Android hanged the way I not only use my phone, but the way I look a laptops and how they could be. Think of all your parents and grandparents who just want to get a few things done on a computer, think of therlir desktops full of shortcuts, it resembles an android desktop. Sure, for windows and Linux power users chrome OS may seem simple, but for your average person who thinks ram is an animal and doesn't know the difference between dvi and d-sub, etc, chrome OS could be a wonderful interface to computers and the web.

Why so biased? (2, Funny)

adeft (1805910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169622)

Why does this person care what OS OEMs ship with? This is slashdot we build our own computers or at least run whatever software we want on them.

Why limit choices? (2, Insightful)

steveaustin1971 (1094329) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169886)

"Because it might hinder linux" is a pretty stupid reason for dumping the chrome OS. I don't know if you realize this or not, but the reasons for not using linux aren't limited to it not being available or known to the masses. At this point most people know what it is, and many people have tried it. I had it on my netbook pre-installed, and I installed windows 7 instead. Why? It saves me a lot of time and effort to run windows over linux. I find applications I need more quickly, never have installation issues or driver issues, all my devices work with it as is, and I have far more options. Linux is a very solid OS, but its really not a good choice for many people who could care less about learning it or spending more than 5 minutes configuring their software. My netbook is a tool I use for work, and I don't particularly enjoy my time using it. I would much rather be doing something else, so spending extra time on it, to me, is just not something I am willing to do. I have very rarely had virus or security issues because I just don't run around clicking on random crap online, so the whole "security" issue is just not there for me.

I for one (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169924)

Think that Google needs to figure out why their browser constantly times out when my other two browsers don't. It's one of the reasons I would never try to use Chrome OS because if their timeout algorithm is the same as the one in the browser, such an OS could never function from my house. I realize I may have a latent connection or some other issue with my network, but for crying out loud, every OTHER time I try to browse with Chrome it says "Oops! I can't find that."

I NEVER have this problem with IE or Firefox. And I specifically include IE in that to rub it the fuck in. Chrome sucks. I won't use it as my main browser until they figure that crap out. And it sounds like Firefox will be Chrome-like soon enough so that I can get the simplicity and functionality I want both at the same time.

Chrome OS could do more than you think it will (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169928)

Consider that the only thing the user is intended to have access to is the browser. That doesn't mean it's the only thing running on the box. What's stopping google from making Chrome OS contain a LAMP stack, or similar, and writing more complex applications that won't fit entirely in the browser. Hmm, my sources say nothing. I've been dabbling in drupal off an on with the intent of using it as the basis for various applications which would run in a browser (obviously) on a machine which basically just runs Chromium with some nice plugins. Kind of waiting for D7 so I can get proper sqlite support so I don't need an RDBMS. The machine would also contain, among other pieces of software designed to operate in the background, UMN mapserver. If I write some simple daemon to make GPS location available to the browser then it's easy enough to use the browser for mapping (if not navigation, yet.) Google could do the same sort of thing, except probably a lot more gracefully...

Let's see... (1)

Exitar (809068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32169946)

Apple builds a crippled device (iPad) and sell 1M of them in one month.
Why Google isn't allowed to do it too?
Because it "would just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows" should it fail?
Just hope then that the "Year of Linux Netbook" isn't after the "Year of the Linux Desktop"...

Breaking News! Random Blogger has something to say (3, Insightful)

buback (144189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170010)

I don't know who this guy is. He might be some teenager sitting in his parents basement. There's no explanation in the post why i should care what this guy thinks. And it is just one guy; it's not like this is a link to an article about how "some study finds devs hate Chrome OS." It's just a blog post.

Why is this on Slashdot?

chrome os vs moblin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170210)

I never understood the hype around Chrome OS vs say Moblin. With Chrome OS you needed to have google account (and to use apps your google account would be shared with 3rd parties). Whereas Moblin (now MeeGo) did the same thing but didn't require you have a registered account, and had apps already installed. It was minimal like Chrome OS.

I'm not saying Moblin was/is great, but it was definitely better than Chrome OS when I tried it.

Google should just make yet another linux distribution, and make all google applications installed by default, and can tweak it however they want. Make it so it can be easily ported into other linux distributions. I doubt google would care whether you use their products on their OS or on another OS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>