×

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!

First Chrome OS Notebooks Due This Month

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the sooner-the-better dept.

Google 246

adeelarshad82 writes "According to recent reports, a Google-branded Chrome OS notebook will be launched by Inventec later this month. Acer and HP will be launching theirs a month later, in December. This report is also backed by a source close to Google stating that the company is still on track to launch its Chrome OS by the end of the year, as well as its Chrome app store."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

246 comments

I for one welcome our new marketing overloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107106)

....sorry

Re:I for one welcome our new marketing overloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107474)

That's Marketing OverDroids, you insensitive clod!

Now with 100% LESS privacy! (0, Troll)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107150)

It's like the George Foreman grill; except it cuts the internet anonymity.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107344)

There is NO target market is for google's Chrome brand stuff, because they are totally self-serving.

Products which futher google's privacy invasion, without adding any value.
Whilst I can't stand anything apple, they have produced a unique sales proposition of "Place your dick and balls in this mysterious hole, and we'll make computing completely easy and fashionable for you".

Microsoft - Mr and Mrs default
Apple - Mr Hipster
Opensource - Geeks

Google won't snag any of those markets, especially geeks because they tend to put a value on privacy.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (3, Informative)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107398)

Google won't snag any of those markets, especially geeks because they tend to put a value on privacy.

You would think so, but then again, there are a huge number of people that think that pro-privacy things like NoScript are stupid on this website. Google-analytics isn't blocked by AdBlock or FlashBlock, but whatever. Those that set it in hosts are excluded from this sentiment, but I don't think that is too big of a percentage.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (1, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107576)

.. there are a huge number of people that think that pro-privacy things like NoScript are stupid ...

It's true, though. If you have nothing to hide, privacy is a total non-issue.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (2, Insightful)

grantek (979387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107758)

It's true, though. If you have nothing to hide, privacy is a total non-issue.

The problem is everyone has something to hide: passwords, bank details, religious views in certain contexts, genitalia, their company's trade secrets etc.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108018)

The first two aren't an issue if you're actually smart, the latter three aren't an issue if you're even smarter and refuse to get into stupid discussions online.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (3, Insightful)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108198)

you might be surprised to learn that keeping these things private online is much the same as keeping them private offline.

the problem is that people seem to be more free with their private details online than offline, maybe due to some flawed feeling of anonymity?

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (-1, Troll)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108012)

Show me a man with nothing to hide, and I'll show you this guy. [bit.ly]

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108056)

*sigh* A goatse link after all this time... just like the old days, I'm all nostalgic.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108114)

I want to point out, before that post gets modded to oblivion, that the link really was on topic. Goatse man REALLY has nothing to hide.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108160)

But you can be damned sure that Barney Frank would love to hide some sausage inside Goatse Man!

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107610)

The market is all those people who only use Gmail and Facebook anyway and whose tech savvy relatives are tired of fixing their malware ridden Windows installations.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (3, Interesting)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108228)

I believe the people you refer to are those who "have a life". Sure, people who dont know how to use computers well may be more likely to get viruses etc, but is it really their fault - considering it was computer geeks who originally wrote the buggy software...and other computer geeks writing the malware...??

If you think shutting ourselves up in a cave is the way forward for humankind in the modern tech era, then good for you.

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (1, Troll)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107806)

Funny how any negative comments about Google get you trolled off the the page...

Re:Now with 100% LESS privacy! (0, Troll)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108176)

Well, its more or less the definition of a troll post. No content. Just a derogatory remark. It doesn't mater if he's right or not, its how the post was written.

Inventec (4, Insightful)

itsenrique (846636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107160)

So, this Taiwan-based company gets their product to market first, before acer and hp. I wonder why?

Re:Inventec (3, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107324)

some companies are afraid of Microsoft or have been enticed to steer away from non-Microsoft software. Remember, the year the G1 was released there was that big annual mobile phone conference in Feb or March and nobody would or could say anything about Android. All they would talk about was Windows Mobile 6.5 which was due the next year. Independent press people and bloggers got some to spill the beans about releasing an Android product that year but they could not talk about it at the show.

So companies with any kind of relationship with Microsoft basically have the MS MiB's camped outside their corporate headquarters making sure nobody 'forgets' about Windows.

I'm thankful that some companies have the gutts to build and sell products regardless of what Microsoft wants or does not want.

LoB

It's time the geek stopped reaching for excuses (0, Troll)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108212)

some companies are afraid of Microsoft or have been enticed to steer away from non-Microsoft software

Walmart.com has in stock an astonishing 248 Windows laptops for the Christmas shopping season.

Something like 150 priced between $250 and $800.

98 Windows desktops, 109 Windows printers, 72 Windows webcams, about 700 flavors of the Windows mouse, keyboard and joystick, and over 1,000 Windows software packages, roughly divided between productivity apps and PC games.

Walmart is the world's largest retailer. Not easily frightened.

But notoriously efficient and ruthless in weeding out product that does not sell in numbers which matter.

_____

You will find the 10" Entourage Systems 10.1" eDGe DualBook [walmart.com] e-book reader here - at a stiff $500. E Ink on the left page. Color LCD on the right. Android OS.

The problem here is - as it always seems to be with OEM Linux - is that the add copy assumes that you are an experienced e-book reader. That you understand the technology. That you understand the supported file formats. That you where and how to find and purchase a book.

Apple doesn't make these mistakes. Amazon doesn't make these mistakes.

Re:Inventec (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107618)

And how much money did you say they paid Google for first rights??? Oh yeah that's why they got first crack at it. I haven't seen it but were I in the market I'd wait for Asus to put out their product before I even thought of forking over my hard earned moola.

Read the first line of the article & summary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107658)

"A Google-branded Chrome OS notebook will be launched by Inventec, with Acer and Hewlett-Packard following suit thereafter, according to a report."

It's Google branded, meaning Google probably chose that manufacturer for launch devices. With the run in the mid-tens of thousands, it seems to be a kick start for the platform, not a major brand.

Maybe if someone SRWare Irons out the Google spyware, I might consider one.

Sadly, this is almost certainly doomed to failure like every smartbook preceding it.

I don't think this will compete directly with iPad (4, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107172)

This is going to go straight for Microsoft's jugular.

Apple has pretty well innoculated themselves with a strong tablet (touch) and ultralight notebook (full OS) offerings.

If this comes with net access it will pretty much eat up the remaining netbook fervor.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (0)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107218)

Might be not a bad thing, considering MS sort of derailed the original netbook idea in the first place.

Especially if installing a bit fuller environment, for those who want it, won't require fighting.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107980)

Schmidt said it himself about six months ago: ChromeOS is targeted as a thin client for businesses on Google Apps, and he compared it to the SunRays. Heck, my employer could go ChromeOS -- everything is a web app already, and we use Google Apps for the students (and Lotus iNotes for the teachers ... WTF?). I doubt very many people would whine if we switched.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108146)

Not all Chrome apps will be web apps: see local 'packaged' apps [google.com]. Plus 'hosted' web apps could work offline using HTML5, although the two aren't the same.

Chrome app support has been in Chrome for months now. But you have to toggle it manually.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (3, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107278)

I don't think they're going to compete with Microsoft. But what they are doing is trying to invent a new class of computing device, which I think is going to fail. Maybe in another ten years having a constant internet connection will be a given, but right now... I'm just imagining people trying to type a document while riding on the subway: "Whoops, lost my internet. Oh, it's back again... let me re-open my session..."

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (2, Interesting)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107342)

I'm not sure Chrome OS will be a big success, but I think Google would have taken such connectivity issues into consideration.

I'm not sure why they have both Android and Chrome OS -- they seem to intersect and overlap awkwardly.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (0, Redundant)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107458)

I'm not sure Chrome OS will be a big success, but I think Google would have taken such connectivity issues into consideration.

I'm not sure why they have both Android and Chrome OS -- they seem to intersect and overlap awkwardly.

I'm sure they did take broken network connections into account, Chrome OS would be pretty useless without some sort of local persistence-layer/cache that is synced with their cloud services whenever there is a connection. I still agree with you that Chrome OS won't be a big success. It will appeal to a certain segment of the market but if I had to place bets I'd put a lot more money on Android as a Netbook/Tablet OS than I would on Chrome OS.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (4, Informative)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107552)

Google (google gears) and Mozilla (prism?) experimented with such a offline layer some time ago for normal browsers, and such a offline cache is part of the HTML5 spec. They have also included a file manager and media player, iirc.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107394)

"Whoops, lost my internet. Oh, it's back again... let me re-open my session..."

Don't forget, Google has been investing heavily in HTML5 with features like offline storage and other capabilities for apps to run offline. I doubt this tablet is going to be unusable the minute the cloud goes away.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (2, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107542)

I doubt this tablet is going to be unusable the minute the cloud goes away.

No, without any native app support, it's going to be unusable long before the cloud goes away. :-D

And it's not a tablet. It's a notebook.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108232)

It already has native 'app' (was that a typo?) support. Apps can be locally installed (ran in browser), and take advantage of native code libraries. Hell, by all accounts it will even support some form of remote desktop (aka 'chromoting').

Did you really think Google was going to launch their flagship product without thinking about it for five whole minutes? How the fuck did you think non-WebGL games would work?

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (5, Informative)

cacba (1831766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107444)

Gears or HTML5 allow for offline use of apps that will sync with the cloud once reconnected. Gears has been used in google docs for years.

To me the advantage of Chrome OS is an easy, cheap, secure computer. It would be great for my parents who seem to get a incredible amount of viruses just from browsing the web. Granted it wont replace their current PC.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107478)

I have pretty much constant internet access, even in the subway. It fails so rarely I sometimes forget to check my connection before blaming the OS (often MS, but I do already have chrome on a SSD for web sessions.

HTML5 local storage neé Google Gears (2, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107502)

...will keep your google document alive offline today.

If battery life approaches or exceeds iPad and current netbook class while providing instant-on and a keyboard, it will sell.

I don't WANT windows and all it's security issues and bulk for lightweight browsing, and I'd like a keyboard sometimes (which the iPad doesn't have).

At the right price, this will make a value proposition that takes the base of netbooks

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

shird (566377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107848)

There are a lot of people that just use their computer for facebook and generally using the web, especially people looking in this price range. The kind of people that need to write documents on the subway would not be using this. I see it as more the 'laptop for the kids/casual use' which is probably 90% of what laptops are used for in the home. I myself have an expensive laptop which I just use for browsing the web and a desktop PC for doing work. In hindsight I would have been far better off getting the cheapest smallest netbook that could run a web browser.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108112)

I think it will compete with Microsoft in the market of people ready to move off of XP but not ready to shell out for a Windows-7 capable laptop to replace it. That's sure to be a small market, but with the right price point it's a big enough one to be interesting.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108200)

you seems to forget that Google is a proponent of the offline browser capability, look at Google gear [blogspot.com] for what they have in mind.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

cacba (1831766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107412)

If this comes with net access it will pretty much eat up the remaining netbook fervor.

Do you know what Chrome OS is? Its a browser for an operating system, without net access it may as well be a brick.

How did this get promoted?

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108318)

How did this get promoted?

Probably as a test for html5 offline mode.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107526)

I don't think this will compete with much of anything; there's no real market for Chrome OS, and I doubt there ever will be. As I understand it, the target audience is people who:

  • Type too much to use a tablet.
  • Only use web apps.

For the most part, anybody who types enough to need a laptop with a built-in keyboard is also somebody who uses apps like Office and isn't going to be satisfied with a web substitute. Anybody who doesn't type enough to need a built-in keyboard would probably find a tablet (either iPad or Android-based) easier to use (not to mention more capable due to native app availability), and since you can use a keyboard with most of those devices for when you need to type frequently, it's hard to imagine why anyone would choose a web-only device like these.

I'd expect this to be even less popular than Linux-based netbooks, which is to say, remarkably unpopular. I really can't imagine why anyone would be interested in this, frankly. It's basically the computer equivalent of Palm's WebOS, and we know how well that has worked out....

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107588)

Apple doesn't directly compete in this market - they have no computing devices this cheap except for the iPod Touch - but that doesn't mean they're immune. The market for the iPad could be eroded by this, for example. I still have trouble understanding the market for the MacBook Air (I've seen a lot more iPads than MBAirs, despite the difference in how long each has been out) so I'm not sure whether they'll be any impact there.

MS definitely has reason to be concerned, of course, though they've been very successful at getting Windows on netbooks. The first netbooks almost exclusively ran Linux, these days you have to hunt specifically for a Linux one. Chrome OS may manage to oust Windows (mostly Win7 these days) in that market, but I wouldn't count on it.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

pckl300 (1525891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107794)

This is going to go straight for Microsoft's jugular.

Apple has pretty well innoculated themselves with a strong tablet (touch) and ultralight notebook (full OS) offerings.

If this comes with net access it will pretty much eat up the remaining netbook fervor.

You say that like those are the only kinds of devices people want.

Re:I don't think this will compete directly with i (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108236)

This is going to go straight for Microsoft's jugular.

Apple has pretty well innoculated themselves with a strong tablet (touch) and ultralight notebook (full OS) offerings.

If this comes with net access it will pretty much eat up the remaining netbook fervor.

hmmm lets see...Google? yeah I reckon it'll come with net access.

Do Not Want (3, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107210)

I've got a Nexus One and i'm quite happy with it, but i have no interest in a Chrome OS device in any format, notebook, netbook, tablet or anything else. The cloud can be convenient i'm sure, but i'm not enamored of an entire OS designed around the idea. I do not want to be dependent on internet access to run my apps and access my data.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107282)

Who cares?

Re:Do Not Want (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108246)

exactly. people WILL use it and they may find it improves their lives by helping them connect with others online and without needing to worry about mundain IT things like backups, configuration etc.

The world isn't full of IT people...and we should stop thinking these devices are being made for "us".

Re:Do Not Want (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107288)

like your Android running Nexus One, ChromeOS does not mean ALL apps and ALL data are on remote computers somewhere. Some Android apps are only useful with network connections to the data( google maps, email ) but others are more like "utilities" which have enough local data to run without a network. And those apps are run from your Android just like many ChromeOS apps will be. For example, there is a ChromeOS AppStore and when you load those they run on your device and are not just web pages to a remote system. Some are but this is not a requirement as I understand it.

I sure would like to see more Android apps allow for local caching of data so they would still work when 3G or WiFi were down in certain areas.

LoB

Re:Do Not Want (1)

shougyin (1920460) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107292)

I'm sure this would be a very beneficial OS for those that constantly feel the need to be online (some business types, stocks, and people that can't get off of facebook) but for the majority of the world, including myself, I simply don't see the need. I'm still very cautious as to systems built around the internet anyways (back when IE was first built into the OS and had many problems) but I’m sure things have changed greatly and maybe Google will get this right. I'd be interested to play around with it and see what it can really do, but I see no need to purchase one.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107322)

With how well Valves uses the cloud, and how convienant google is, I am looking forward to this device.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

shougyin (1920460) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107358)

I will say that Valve has implemented their use of the cloud very well (I for one use it) but in the beginning when it first came out, many users were very agitated that they HAD to be on the net regularly to use it. I still don't enjoy that fact either. Some of my business trips last for over 6 months, and I'm not always able to have internet. So Steam fails me at that point, when my offline time has run out and I have to connect in order to use it again. I wonder if the Chrome OS will be the same way?

Re:Do Not Want (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107430)

"So Steam fails me at that point, when my offline time has run out and I have to connect in order to use it again."

Doesn't Steam have an offline mode? Does it need to "phone home" every once in a while, or something?

Re:Do Not Want (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107472)

It has on offline mode, but you have to log in at least once to be able to use it. I seem to recall one issue with it a few years ago when some sort of storm knocked some of their authentication servers, causing you to be unable to log in for a few days. I bought a game around that time. Because of the issues, I couldn't play it for few days after I bought it.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

shougyin (1920460) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107524)

Yes, once you purchase or install anything through Steam, obviously downloading it, it has to authenticate it through their servers. After this is done, you are able to play it in an offline mode for a time...which I believe is around a month, but after that it has to connect again to play.

I've had 2 games that came in disks for Steam, while on business, but they wouldn't even install till I was online and connected.

If you can stay connected, the cloud in this aspect isn't such a bad thing, but as soon as there are server issues or connection issues for a long time, you might as well play tic-tac-toe in paint!

Cost is Key (4, Insightful)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107364)

I'm really hoping that this thing is super cheap. That's the only way I can really justify something that has so little capability. Some of my primary use cases - handling photos, video, etc. are just not well suited for non-native applications right now. So this would really truly be a limited device. However if the price was right - and I'm talking max $150, preferably $99 - I could really go for it. As in, I'd have them all over the house, just for convenience. But if this thing costs $300 or more then it's in iPad territory and there's just zero reason to buy it over an iPad.

Re:Cost is Key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107564)

if this thing costs $300 or more then it's in iPad territory and there's just zero reason to buy it over an iPad.

A $300 device would be literally half the price of a mid-range iPad. I think one or two people might think that was a reason. The rest of us will be looking at things like, you know, actually having a keyboard, and not making its users look like pretentious douchebags.

Re:Cost is Key (0, Flamebait)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107600)

Many of us, including those of us who post to Slashdot, find a hardware keyboard to be useful when browsing the web. I really dislike trying to use an iPad for anyything much beyond a vastly overpriced digital picture viewer.

Re:Cost is Key (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107922)

Absolutely, I'm in the same camp. But I'd bet that for the vast majority of people who want keyboards it's hard to beat a netbook unless this thing is competitive in some other major way (maybe battery life?).

Re:Cost is Key (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108054)

I was ultra-skeptical of the iPad until I used one. Even then, the only thing I like it for is passive reading--news and books, but I'm a lit major so I read a lot. The problem I have with it is that iBooks was (from what I could find in the ten minutes I had with it) severely limited. Enough to gaurantee I wouldn't use it.

I find this awesome... (5, Interesting)

victorhooi (830021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107470)

Hi,

As somebody who just lost a bunch of data due to faulty backup disks, I for one welcome this.

I've yet to lose data stored on Google's cloud *touch wood*...lol.

Having data in the cloud, as well as cached/accessible locally seems like the best option. And to those talking about going underground on a train, I'm fairly sure Google's accounted for that - either through Gears, HTML5 Local Storage, or another local caching mechanism. I have a Google Nexus One, when I'm underground, I can still access all my email (that's been synced), my contacts, my calendar etc.

And having all my contacts synced online, along with all my Google Talk logs, is *awesome*. I'm a bit anal-retentive when it comes to storing things, so knowing that it's all stored, and available, and won't get lost due to filesystem corruption or something equally idiotic is good news to me. And look, worst come to worst, I lose my phone (hopefully not...lol) I'll get another, login to my Google Account, and voila, everything is synced again.

And people seem to over-value their privacy, at least to corporations. Seriously, most of you are pathetically mundane. I for one am not so insecure that I can't admit I am too. I mean, jeez, trawling through my personal emails you get...err...a bunch of emails between me and mates talking about work, me arranging lunch with my parents, and me buying stuff on eBay. Big whoop de doo. I'm happy to admit I'm a fairly boring individual, and I'm sure statistically I just fade into the background. If I was the Pope, or Jason Bourne, or I was trying to overthrow the Australian government, I suppose I might think differently. But as it is, I'm just another random guy. I doubt anybody at Google really cares, except to display targeted advertising.

The government spying on me, yeah, I have issues on that. Serious issues. A teacher at uni. Absolutely. A colleague, sure. People I know IRL, yeah. Heck, if this was Sony even, I'd have issues, seeing as they're a bunch of immoral corporates, who have no qualms about installing malware on consumer's PCs (I bought into MiniDisc ok...lol, I have a right to be bitter). But some analytical algorithm, trying to figure out which ads I'll click on? Pftt, who cares.

Google has tried to hide what they do - they display targeted ads. It's not like they've every tried to cover that fact up, nor have they been really been caught out on a privacy breach. (I'm going to discount the technical incompetent idiots who don't understand what unencrypted wireless communication is, or who can't be bothered to read what they're clicking on before they click it, a la Buzz).

They also freely list all the data they store on you:

https://www.google.com/dashboard [google.com]

And they also don't try to lock you in to their system - they provide open exports from most of their systems.

http://www.dataliberation.org/ [dataliberation.org]

I find that really awesome, and a refreshing change from every other corporation that tries to lock you in, hand over foot. It also speaks volumes about their confience - they're confident enough in the technical superiority of their solutison, that they dont' ened to resort to lock-in to try to desperately cling onto their customers.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:I find this awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107850)

Victor, how long have you been working in Google's PR department?

Re:I find this awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107918)

I was trying to overthrow the Australian government, I suppose I might think differently.

Re:I find this awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107930)

Nobody is boring to a marketing/advertising company. If they could inject you with drugs to make you buy shit then they would do it.

Re:I find this awesome... (2, Insightful)

wrook (134116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108090)

Even if Google is completely beneficial today, even if you are completely mundane today, what makes you think it will stay that way forever? Once the data is in the cloud, there's no taking it back. Are you sure there is nothing in your email that could harm you? Have you ever sent your cellphone number to someone? What if Google decides that revenues aren't high enough and it's time to sell telephone numbers to direct marketers? Have you ever had an argument with someone in your email and said something that you wish you hadn't? What if someone gets hold of those emails and tries to paint a picture of you as someone you aren't? Maybe you get divorced in the future and Google decides its alright to let lawyers see your email for some reason.

You say that you wouldn't trust Sony, but Google openly says what they want to do with your data. You do realize that a company is not a person right? A company is inherently not trustworthy because it doesn't have a character. A company is made up of many, many people, some trustworthy and some not. Today the head of Google may be trustworthy. What makes you think that in 10 years the same guys will be running the show? Or maybe they will get so big that some moron in a small part of the company will be able to get away with shit that the guys at the top don't realize. Or maybe they will decide that they want to change the focus of the company and sell off parts (including your data) to another company that isn't so trustworthy.

Don't get me wrong. I use "cloud services". I even have a gmail account. But I don't put my head in the sand and say, "I'm safe because it is Google". In fact, there are several emails I now wish had not gone through gmail... Forever is a long, long time and pretending that the status quo will last as long as the data is very naive.

I think your "special" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108348)

Your either an astro turfing paid shill, or an idiot.

Im not sure which.

GREY! (1)

transfatfree (1920462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107520)

A Large Grey Area has just appeared in the land between Notebooks and Netbooks. Neither side have commented yet, and both seem hesitant to lay claim to this grey area.

A company, Google, has claimed responsibility for creating this large grey area. In a press conference earlier today, the company made some comments about "not being evil" and "don't worry".

The first migrants to this area are already en route, and are slated to arrive before the year is out.

Battery and cost (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107534)

With pretty long battery duration (15+ hs?) and very low cost (not a lot of local storage required, no software licences, etc... maybe less than US$100?) it could have an edge. Ok, maybe more than an edge, a 3g, as probably cellphone companies could bundle them for close to free with data contracts.

Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (5, Informative)

yelvington (8169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107586)

Every time there's a Slashdot post about ChromeOS there's immediately a rush of posts complaining that it won't work offline.

Slashdot is supposed to be news for nerds, not recent history for nerds ... but SOME OF YOU GUYS ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Listen up.
This is not 1999. You can come out of your bunker now.

Google introduced offline Web functionality in in 2007. Google Docs supported Google Gears, which made it possible to use the Google word processor on an airplane with no network connection at all. I've done it. It worked fine. When I reconnected, everything synchronized with the cloud.

This concept has been reworked and is a part of the HTML5 standard. See http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ [w3.org]

In 2010-2011, you can write highly functional applications using HTML5 and Javascript, make them installable on your web browser, and have them work offline. Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107684)

Somebody give that man some mod points. ROTFLMAO- It's not 1999 anymore . You can comeout of your bunkers now. Classic.

WHOOOO You get to type on an airplane! (1)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107724)


What a feature!

That really compares to being able to also watch movies and play games offline.

Chrome OS is going to bomb, I don't care if it runs Linux. If anything it will give Linux a bad name by having low sales.

Re:WHOOOO You get to type on an airplane! (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108140)

That really compares to being able to also watch movies and play games offline.

Do you really believe you're not going to be able to watch movies & play games offline?

Re:WHOOOO You get to type on an airplane! (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108334)

Ohh yea, mister smarty pants, how are you going to use an entirely web based OS without an internet connection? just cache things locally and run them or something? Then what? Resync them next time you connect? How pathetic.

dumb ass...

Re:WHOOOO You get to type on an airplane! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108274)

The /. retard train doesn't fail to disappoint, so here you go: a rich 3d game (Lego Star Wars) running natively [youtube.com] inside Chrome. For everything else, there's WebGL.

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107750)

In 2010-2011, you can write highly functional applications using HTML5 and Javascript, make them installable on your web browser, and have them work offline. Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

There was no Web when I was in junior high, you insensitive clod. :)

I'm glad you summarized all this because I've also seen and used plenty of these offline apps and they can be quite sophisticated. It will be interesting to see if the Web can become an app platform, beyond webmail and the other common cloud services we have today. Frankly, I look forward to it. Most of my life computing has been a balkanized activity, users running in one of several parallel ruts depending which hardware/software platform they happen to use. At times there has been convergence, at other times divergence. The Web has always held the promise of making the old platforms irrelevant, and in a very good way.

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107856)

Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

I know memory goes as one gets older; but I was in junior high during the mid-1970s and I DON'T REMEMBER NO WEB!

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108002)

It was made of silk and had arachnids in it... you need to get your memory checked!

HTML5 won't be a "standard" until 2022! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107940)

Wait, is this "HTML5 standard" that you speak of the same one that's expected to actually become a W3C Recommendation no earlier than 2022 [com.com]?

Re:HTML5 won't be a "standard" until 2022! (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108042)

Probably. But who cares?

If Google can get it working now, it doesn't matter if the standards change over the next 12 years. Your data will be on a Google server, and the WebOS applications can be updated to support the standards over the next 12 years seamlessly (compared to other OSs, anyway).

Heck, Microsoft Office document formats just became a standard earlier this year, and they've been used for over a decade now without too much of a problem.

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (1)

FrankieBaby1986 (1035596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108028)

Heh, makes me wonder if the Web is the new WHORE (java). Yano, Write (Hopefully) Once, Run Everywhere

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108060)

Is it webscale?

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34108080)

*applauds*

Re:Hey, clueless newbies, this isn't 1999 (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34108220)

In 2010-2011, you can write highly functional applications using HTML5 and Javascript, make them installable on your web browser, and have them work offline.

I'd say Windows 98 is more highly functional than html5 and javascript.

This is not 1999.

Quite right, you said it yourself... its almost 2011. Why are you trying to promote a technology that's on not even on par in terms of functionality and user experience with what was available in 1999.

I'm well aware that chromeos will work offline. But if docment editing is the criteria I'd rather use Office 98 on Windows 98 than ChromeOS offline... or even online for that matter.

But fortunately Office98 on Win 98 isn't even the alternative I'm faced with; the actual alternative is Microsoft Office on {Snow Leopard or Windows 7} or LibreOffice on {Windows 7, Snow Leopoard, or Ubuntu.}.

Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

Not a problem. In junior high I used a TRS-80. The internet existed, but there was no http yet. You really have to stop pretending the Web is a modern operating system. Its come a long way in the last 15 to 20 years, but its not there yet.

finally! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107646)

the real story here is that there are going to FINALLY be ARM netbooks for sale!

now if only they could get the sense to make a full laptop with them.

Re:finally! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34107956)

I remember the summer of 2009 when everyone was expecting the wave of ARM cpu netbooks... it never happened. My friend was designing power management ICs for them too. I suspect that the major desktop and notebook OEMs are afraid of Intel's reprisal if they were to market an ARM netbook (same goes for ARM tablets). I wonder what makes Apple so special that they are not afraid of Intel?

Begining of the end for Windows (5, Interesting)

foxylad (950520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107762)

We have a large local organisation that has been a rock-solid windows shop for ever. I've occasionally had dealings with their IT manager, and never got any interest in moving to linux. So I just about fell over when he told me he was planning to switch as many workstations as possible to ChromeOS and Google Docs as soon as it comes out.

This is just one sample of course. But if a conservative Windows-centric organisation is planning to switch so immediately, it doesn't bode well for MS's revenue backbone - all those corporate workstations running windows and office. A switch to ChromeOS would be disruptive, but not much more so than the Windows 7 upgrade that must be on 75% of IT managers' todo lists next year.

Don't get me wrong, MS will be around for years and years, but I think their Silverlight/HTML5 announcement shows they've recognised their supremacy is over and they can't assume everyone runs Windows any more. Interesting times ahead.

The way I see this is (2, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107782)

The way I see this is this is a business play. For a consumer like me, a castrated variant of a laptop I already own is not particularly exciting to me. As a small business, if I use Google Apps, this would be a huge money saver. You basically don't have to do much (if any) IT if you have this. Your data is always backed up. Your laptops never have any upgrade or virus issues - they upgrade themselves and system partition is read-only. You have endless amount of space for docs and email, and pretty decent collaboration features which will only get better over time. So for a business that can cope with the current limitations of Google Apps, there's quite a bit of value in ChromeOS.

Un-Words (1)

e-d0uble (531945) | more than 3 years ago | (#34107994)

I for one am so bloody sick and tired of the un-word "app". Can't morons just say APPLICATION STORE? Thank you, and have a nice day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...