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!

Google Planning Web Browser?

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the reaching-out dept.

Google 387

Kick the Donkey writes "John Dvorak has just posted a very interesting, albeit hypothetical, analysis of Google's future directions. Citing the 'unusual' hires of Rob Pike (from Bell labs), Ben Goodger, and Darin Fisher (both from Mozilla) and the acquisition of the gbrowser.com domain, Dvorak speculates that a Firefox based Google browser and Google-OS may soon be coming to a cluster near you."

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

Hey, look (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498439)

It's a dead horse [slashdot.org] , let's go beat it.

Offtopic? It's a link to the FIRST discussion (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498498)

You know, because we've discussed this news before? Four months ago? Some would say it's basically a dupe.

Re:Hey, look (3, Funny)

MST3K (645613) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498644)

Nah, you can do that by yourself. I tried it once, but the horse wasn't actually dead. My girlfriend thinks the hoof sticking out of my forehead is kinda sexy, though.

Fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498440)

nAh..

Why the jump to OS? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498442)

A browser is one thing and apparently the only thing the evidence supports. Why the jump to a Google OS?

Re:Why the jump to OS? (1, Insightful)

Suburbanpride (755823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498504)

In a way, a browser is an OS, If google can create a portal that give basic functionality for what most people do in windows (web, email, digital photos, and downloads) within and opensource browser like firefox, it wouldn't be hard to move them to a open source OS that supports all their web-apps through the browser.

I really don't see this happening, seeing the (lack of ) sucess of web-apliances that we hear so much about.

Re:Why the jump to OS? (4, Insightful)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498615)

A browser is in no way an OS. An operation system by most accounts that I have heard is the program that handles devices, files & filesystem, processes(process manager), and I/O(input/output). What you are talking about is a thin-client system, where a client is connected to a remote server, but in this case there is still and need for I/O, so there at least must be some type of os locally in addition to the browser, which would be in the application layer.

-kaplanfx

Re:Why the jump to OS? (1)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498647)

heh that should read operating system, not operation system (I should use the preview button)...

How Microsoft got scared (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498696)

An operation system by most accounts that I have heard is the program that handles devices, files & filesystem, processes(process manager), and I/O(input/output).

Processes written in JavaScript and/or a server-side language, I/O through the browser interface, files through WebDAV, and how is a web UA not an operating system? This is what scared Microsoft into adopting its anti-Netscape strategy.

Re:Why the jump to OS? (5, Informative)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498529)

A browser is one thing and apparently the only thing the evidence supports. Why the jump to a Google OS?
Because Rob Pike was the developer of Plan 9 [bell-labs.com] at Bell Labs. His hiring by Google would imply they are looking to develop their own OS. Microsoft is trying to push in on Google's territory, so it makes perfect sense for Google to push in on Microsoft's territory.

Re:Why the jump to OS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498633)

How bout this... google is pushing into linux territory. Sounds a litle diferent isnt it?

Re:Why the jump to OS? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498663)

How about I push my hand into your faces territory?

Re:Why the jump to OS? (3, Interesting)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498541)

If anything it will just probably be a "Google Linux" distro...

Re:Why the jump to OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498561)

Googlinux???

Re:Why the jump to OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498681)

Goonix!!!

Re:Why the jump to OS? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498682)

If Google OS has DirectX game compability, then I am interested for real. No joke. Otherwise I'll just stick to any other existing version of linux or windows for games etc.

This browser thing must be a big news. I already got a ton of emails from friends and family about this. As if M$ is going down for good.

Re:Why the jump to OS? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498618)

What's broken in Unix? Rob Pike isn't writing it anymore. So when Google hires Rob Pike, they very well might be "fixing" Unix, or Linux, or Plan 9 - in any event, the move has "OS" written all over it. They're probably not just planning to produce a low-power CPU with a geek spokesmodel [transmeta.com] .

Dupe (mostly) (3, Interesting)

Fletch (6903) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498445)

The last article about Google browser speculation is here [nypost.com] .

Re:Dupe (mostly) (2, Informative)

Fletch (6903) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498471)

D'oh. I copied the wrong URL.

The last Slashdot article about Google browser speculation is here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Dupe (mostly) (1)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498499)

D'oh. I copied the wrong URL.

No worries, as long as the wrong URL isn't the pr0n site you've just visited.

Re:Dupe (redundant) (0, Troll)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498527)

Since I am never allowed moderation points, the last Slashdot comment about Google browser speculation concerning story duplication is here [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe (mostly) (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498562)

The moderation of your original post just shows how great the moderators are :D

Re:Dupe (mostly) (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498514)

Hasn't this posibility been posted on Slashdot before...many times? Sure the two firefox guys getting hired by Google is a good sign, but still....is this really anything we didn't already know?

*http://www.google.com/firefox

Oh no, it's EPIC ! (1)

tibike77 (611880) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498524)

[joke mode]
That's the start of Google Grid, and next thing you know, it's E.P.I.C. [robinsloan.com] before you know it ! [/joke mode]

Re:Dupe (mostly) (1)

fade-in (839519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498563)

This is just going to be just like that new browser that AOL annouonced. No new functionality.

Or maybe they want a Firefox that will filter all popup ads except for their own text-based ones.

In short, whoop-de-freakin'-doo.

Yes, they are (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498449)

I know for a fact. It will be announced in two months and four days.

Re:Yes, they are (4, Funny)

drdink (77) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498468)

I heard it will be a joint announcement between Apple and Google about a Google OS that has a Google Browser that runs exclusively on the new PowerBook G5s. THIS WILL BE AWESOME!!!

Re:Yes, they are (1)

linkinp4rk410 (838319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498523)

Ok lets get a link or some proof or something. Last time I checked the Powerbook G5 is a rumor and so is the GoogleOS.

Re:Yes, they are (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498554)

Did you hear about that whole 1x1 hitcounter gif on Apple's website entitled "apple_powerbook_g5" or something to that affect? That is basically the only evidence for the PowerBook G5, but it isn't very interesting.

Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498556)

Here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Yes, they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498567)

... that's the joke.

Re:Yes, they are (1)

linkinp4rk410 (838319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498596)

Ok, it get it. Is misunderstood. Stupid rumors.

Re:Yes, they are (0, Redundant)

ChuckleBug (5201) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498622)

It was humor. You know, a funny ha-ha thing that makes you expel air and smile and make a noise (it's called laughter). See, grandparent made a rumor by stringing other rumors together. That's a way of making ha-ha. There are others. Give it a try some time.

Re:Yes, they are (1)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498550)

I heard it will be a joint announcement between Apple and Google about a Google OS that has a Google Browser that runs exclusively on the new PowerBook G5s. THIS WILL BE AWESOME!!!

As long as I can connect my gPod, I'll be happy.

Re:Yes, they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498574)

And it will be called Gopple.

Re:Yes, they are (1)

imac.usr (58845) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498695)

I heard it will be a joint announcement between Apple and Google about a Google OS that has a Google Browser that runs exclusively on the new PowerBook G5s. THIS WILL BE AWESOME!!!

I can even prove it! http://switch.atdmt.com/action/apple_google_browse r_g5_powerbook [atdmt.com]

Dvorak (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498453)

Must have read slashdot about the same thing. Now he writes it up and people pay attention?

Well (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498462)

You're half right.

My wish... (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498460)

...is for Google, if the browser news is true, that they base it on Firefox and INCLUDE all extensions people add to Firefox in the browser's installation script. Of course these should be [installation] options.

I wish... (2, Interesting)

agraupe (769778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498463)

I wish this would finally happen, so we don't have to hear about the possibility of it anymore. A google browser, perhaps a re-skinned upgraded version of firefox, would be quite nice. With all the google functions built in. It would be interesting, if nothing else.

Advertising Tool? (3, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498464)

Google, although well known for its search engine, is making money out of advertisement.

The friendly article might have hinted a possible failure of such Googled-attempts - "Think of the potential advertising revenue you can generate when you own the entire desktop environment."

The reason why I choose and stick to Firefox is its simplicity and nothingness.

And even Microsoft dare not put a single advertisement in its desktop OS.

Simply put, most people use a tool because it works, and it does only what it's meant to do. An ad-serving (albeit how intelligent it is) browser or desktop is definitely not my cup of cappuccino.

Re:Advertising Tool? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498510)

Do you really think that Google doesn't know that?
They invented the un-intrusive web ad!

Hell, most of the time, I want to see google ads on pages I visit, they are almost always relevant to me.

When you use gmail, do the ads bother you? They are actually quite useful to me.

Re:Advertising Tool? (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498533)

Maybe they could use Opera's "We-have-ads-unless-you-pay" business model, that seems like it would work well.

(Before you criticize remember that this is also /.'s business model.)

Re:Advertising Tool? (2, Funny)

mph (7675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498693)

(Before you criticize remember that this is also /.'s business model.)
Far be it from anyone here to criticize slashdot.

Re:Advertising Tool? (2, Informative)

Holi (250190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498538)

Since whern does MS not advertise on the desktop. When you installed 98 there was an icon for AOL. You did not have AOL but that icon was their to let you know that you could get ite easily.

Re:Advertising Tool? (1)

blew_fantom (809889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498553)

i'm curious as to whether or not Google will continue to employ the current business model. what with their enterprise level search appliances, google desktop, and stategic partnerships, i wouldn't be too surprised if they actually spun off another divion of google and have that company NOT rely on advertising. certainly, they're building up capital for *something*, be it browser, OS, or whatever. methinks its a fine example of a dot.com idea that adapts to market conditions and actually delivers products and services, not just hording venture capital and delivering absolutely nothing.

Re:Advertising Tool? (1)

End11 (740392) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498566)

I wouldn't be surprised if the browser were add-free, but was instead used to collect information, (spyware) much as your gmail messages are parsed to direct adds. Perhaps this is above the threshold of what people will tolerate (if so I imagine google will know this) but there would certainly be an advantage in it for them if, say, a reasonable portion of browsers identified themself as "middle-aged male in X country/timezone" or gave some other demographic information when it visited google's ad generators. This would mean no adds in the browser itself, but rather the browser giving general information resulting in better directed adds from pages that serve adds anyway.

Of course i'm just speculating wildly, but my point is that there's ways google could capitalize on a popular browser other than simply sticking adds into it. Even simpler, it might just be a good way to integrate people's browsing even more with the other google tools.. who knows.

Re:Advertising Tool? (2, Interesting)

Mazem (789015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498585)

An ad-serving browser or desktop is ad-ware and should be treated as such. Period.

That said, I doubt google would do something that foolish.

Re:Advertising Tool? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498604)

No MS advertising in its desktop OS? Of course not. You just have to sign up for a passport account, use IE & WMP, and then all the desktop icons for AOL, Earthlink, MSN, etc. etc. There's also "crippled" versions of their software like Outbreak Express, Frontpage Express, and other things that basically offer you a preview of Microsoft Office.

Then there are the adware and spyware that LOVE ActiveX. MS doesn't put a single ad in its desktop OS. Nope, no advertising at all.

Re:Advertising Tool? (1)

PurpleFloyd (149812) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498716)

And even Microsoft dare not put a single advertisement in its desktop OS.

Sorry, I'd love to refute your claim in more detail, but Windows XP just popped up and said that I had to get a .NET passport.

Really, MS has advertised in its OSes since at least Win 95. Remember when MSN was going to be the AOL-killer and the world's ISP? It was on the desktop of Windows 95. IE was included in Win 98, when it was a direct Netscape competitor. Even in XP, there's not only the .NET Passport, but also the MSN integration, thus neatly closing the circle.

The truth is that MS has quietly advertised its own products in Windows for quite a while. While there aren't any third-party popups, they know that many users will just use what is presented to them on the desktop - thus, they put things like MSN and IE there.

If they are planning a browser, (2, Insightful)

silic0n (649294) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498473)

I hope they have something to add to browser use that isn't already covered by Firefox, and I'm not just talking about having the Google logo plastered all over it in an attempt at 'integration'. Otherwise it's going to be what is known as a pointless endeavour.

Re:If they are planning a browser, (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498620)

I hope they have something to add to browser use that isn't already covered by Firefox, and I'm not just talking about having the Google logo plastered all over it in an attempt at 'integration'. Otherwise it's going to be what is known as a pointless endeavour.

I'm waiting for slashgoogle.org, the up-and-coming Google news blog site.

With this guy's history... (5, Insightful)

de Selby (167520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498479)

Isn't this the John C. Dvorak that has worked in technology for several decades, making many predictions, talking of supposed trends... and being wrong on almost all of them?

Re:With this guy's history... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498548)

You should listen to him, you know... Given the law of averages, he's likely to be correct sooner or later by dumb luck.

Re:With this guy's history... (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498606)

Yes it is. Quite frankly he's the slowest and least insightful IT journalist there is. I think he's only where he is because his name sounds like he might once have invented a novel typewriter layout.

Since when has John Dvorak ever been right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498483)

I mean, really? According to him, Apple is deader than BSD. It will be interesting to see if he manages to get through this article without projecting doom about something...

Dvorak's an idiot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498487)

You can guarantee anything that fucktard predicts won't come true.

MARK MY WORDS!

What's with the stupid google predictions? (5, Insightful)

passthecrackpipe (598773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498491)

event: Google hired a dark fibre negotiator
press conclusion: "They must be doing VOIP!"

event: google hires clever browser developer
Press conclusion: "They must be doing their own browser!"

event:Google hired a plan 9 developers
press conclusion: "They must be doing their own OS!!"

What's next - google hires a plumber - the end of IT as we know it?

Re:What's with the stupid google predictions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498625)

they probably hired the OS developers to improve their cluster's performance.

Re:What's with the stupid google predictions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498679)

Next: Google hires Verne Troyer and registers the domain gmini.com

Just guessing... (1)

linkinp4rk410 (838319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498492)

Where's the proof for the GoogleOS?? Really? Isn't this all just really taking a total shot in the dark, except for gbrowser? This article is totally pointless, its just some guy trying to write something that gets some attention. Don't believe everything you read.

Google is not developing a browser! (3, Interesting)

koreaman (835838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498496)

No, they aren't. [eweek.com] I mean come on! We already heard about these rumors a loooong time ago. It's not true. Stop posting about it.

Duh! (2, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498501)

Dvorak must be the last person to work this out!

TWW

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498588)

Qwerty was the first.

Today ze search enginez (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498509)

....Tomorrow ze world. Muhahahahahhaha. Letz hire everybodyz who can maken ze browserz und take over!

Um, nice conspiracy theory, but they're a web technology company. Predicting that they'll build new web technology isn't exactly what I'd call newz...ahem...I mean news.

re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498517)

<IMG HEIGHT="1" WIDTH="1" SRC="http://switch.atdmt.com/action/google_web_bro wser">

New Era (2, Funny)

Obiwan Kenobi (32807) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498519)

Oh my God. I think that's the first time I've ever seen Google-OS in a /. headline (note: headline).

We've entered a new era.

I think a Google browser will be excellent, and a just imagining a Google OS makes me giddy. Yup, giddy.

New Ear (-1, Troll)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498643)

ME too, because they aren't evil evil people like those other companies. They work for good. I'm on their side. Not the evil side.

Fuck a google, how about that!

I troll all day and I still post at +2 beotch!

CMDRTACO LICKS BALLS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498520)

eat a bag of hell, fagots!@

Ouch (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498535)

I liked the idea of a Google branded browser just for the ideas they'll introduce, even if I don't want to use it. But with Dvorak's record, if he says it's so you can pretty much bet the farm against it...

This is such old news (2, Interesting)

BillsPetMonkey (654200) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498542)

Even Jason Kottke speculated on this in ummm, last September [kottke.org] .

Is it more credible now that Slashdot's found the story?

Settle down boy (5, Interesting)

shadowmatter (734276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498543)

Blake Ross, in his blog [blakeross.com] , had some insightful commentary that I didn't see mentioned here on Slashdot:

Google's interest in Firefox shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. At the end of the day, 90+% of Google's users are accessing its service through the browser created and controlled by its largest competitor. Would you feel comfortable if customers had to walk through your competitor's shop to get to your own? This is really what Firefox is all about from a strategic standpoint, and this is what "it's just a browser!" naysayers are missing: he who owns the window to the web owns the web. When there's one porthole on the ship, everyone has to look through it. Firefox seeks to add more portholes to make sure people really understand what's going on outside.

If they're planning an entire OS to make codifying and searching your data easier, I can't see that happening anytime in the short-term. After all, awhile back there was a shoot-out of desktop search tools, and the Google Desktop Search wasn't top-ranked (yet).

- shadowmatter

Re:Settle down boy (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498680)

When there's one porthole on the ship, everyone has to look through it.

If some things had gone differently we might be looking at a Passport.NET-based web authentication regime.

Fortunately Liberty Alliance and others ran interference and created enough FUD in the marketplace that it didn't come to pass.

Dear Mr. Gates.... (0, Flamebait)

bob670 (645306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498580)

Clearly the "browser war" is back on and Internet Explorer is clearly the loser of the bunch. With so many great choices like FireFox, Opera, Safari for OS X and now an offering from Google (as well as assorted and high quality offerings from assorted OSS projects) maybe it is time to admit that the browser is not part of the OS, pull IE out and at the same time reduce your security issues significantly? If you like this idea please feel free to use it without giving me any credit, the extra time off for I.T. staffers everywhere will be thanks enough.

Re:Dear Mr. Gates.... (1)

spectre_240sx (720999) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498719)

This post makes me wish there was a +1 "wishful thinking" option.

The Google Platform (1)

EggMan2000 (308859) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498584)

First: John Dvorak, I forgot all about his guy. I used to read his stuff all the time like 5 years ago. Didn't he work for PC World or something?

Anyway: I use the Google Desktop search to find things hiding in Outlook. It does not work with Firefox (yet) but that's cool, b/c I don't want to search my browser cache anyway.

But if you take the desktop search tool that runs in a browser, you could get away with using nothing else OS related. Sure you would use your Office Apps, your browser, your mp3 player, but looking for files, you could begin to use your desktop like a DMS.

Nice speculation, John (and welcome back)

Forget i and e... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498593)

hey all you domain squatters forget grabbing all the i-noun e-noun domain names the new letter is g! I have dibs on onads.com

Google OS based on unusual "hires" ? (1)

ajaf (672235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498594)

I don't think a "google os" is something google wants to spend time on.
Maybe they're going to customize firefox and linux and create a livecd distribution "Googlix".

Offtopic (0, Flamebait)

boffy_b (699458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498603)

Both this story and the last were dupes of dupes of...

I now understand the trolls, Slashdot is indeed shit and useless as a news source.

I think I'l go read some real news. Like Wikinews. Or The Sun.

I do, however, really like the /. font. Anyone know where I can get a copy or what it's called?

dvorak is a tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498611)

never understood why this guy has such a following...

Re:dvorak is a tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498630)

Some people believe he invented a keyboard format.

How about browser-in-browser thin client services? (4, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498623)

Google could also roll out a thin client service in which you do everything within any browser window connected to Google. Google could host user accounts that go beyond email and search. A person could browse through the google browser, manage their googlefiles, run googleoffice, send gmail, buy stuff through froogle, etc. It would be a totally portable thin client service.

Re:How about browser-in-browser thin client servic (1)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498712)

Google could also roll out a thin client service in which you do everything within any browser window connected to Google. Google could host user accounts that go beyond email and search. A person could browse through the google browser, manage their googlefiles, run googleoffice, send gmail, buy stuff through froogle, etc. It would be a totally portable thin client service.

Which all sounds fantastic, but they could do all of that with either XUL, or XAML (if it ever shows up). In the end they may simply be getting in some people to do some XUL applications. If they want to include a browser in that suite of applications then rebranding Firefox seems the obvious way to go. As for having an office suite - that one is a surpringly large amount of work.

In general the concept of Google using, say, XUL to create a suite of basic applications (a browser, a mail reader, a chat client, some calendaring and groupware etc. makes some sense. I wonder how much of that would simply be a matter of rebranding all the mozilla sub-projects?

It's possible, but I still rate it all as highly unlikely.

Jedidiah.

Re:How about browser-in-browser thin client servic (4, Interesting)

pavera (320634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498715)

This would be a trivial thing for google to do, and I think its where they are heading. If they release a browser, look for them to shortly thereafter release a web based office suite (that only works in their browser), or possibly a web based vnc viewer type app (again that only works in their browser), then they can sell desktop apps over the web, charge a monthly service fee, you get 10TB of storage on google's cluster, you get access to the compute power of that cluster, you have access to it anywhere, everywhere, fast and easy.

This will be the death of MS, but as other posters have said, it is scary as all hell. Google is a nice company now, but this kind of power concentrated in 1 companies hands will prove horrible for the net.

Vendor Lock-in (5, Funny)

reporter (666905) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498624)

The Machiavellian spirit in me says that Google is trying to creep into my desktop. The game plan apparently is to leverage Google's search fame into winning the web client market.

The web client is, in fact, the #1 application on the desktop these days. Literally, many people just click the "maximize" button after the browser is launched, and the web client occupies the entire surface of the screen. Off they go to read e-mail, look at porn, or cause a raucus on Slashdot by posting provocative articles.

Then, the next step for Google is to create Gunix (Google + Lunix), pronouced "goon-ix". With the Google client in place, you download Gunix and swap out M$ Window$.

Then ...

<waking up in a code sweat>
Google has a very good search engine, but I would prefer that Google stay off my desktop. I like Google just like it is -- a web site which I visit to read the latest news and to search for the best porn pictures.

The problem with Google taking over my desktop is that I would then be swapping one monopoly for another: Micro$oft. What I like about open source is the decentralization, anti-monopoly attitude of the folks behind the Free Software Foundation. This kind of environment tends to encourage programmers from all parts of the world to contribute her little bit to creating a peace of great software. No one group of developers becomes dominant like Micro$oft or eventually Google.

yumm google-OS (1)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498634)

so are google-Os gonna be frosted? or fruit flavored maybe....

gbrowser.com (2, Informative)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498653)

According to "whois gbrowser.com", the domain was created almost a year ago (2004-Apr-26), so, being true, this is a long time plan...

yeah... right (2, Interesting)

xbmodder (805757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498655)

The browser market is already filled for now. Maybe they will take firefox and modify it. Much like our old speculations. I think google is not a go for the browser market. What would be cool is interactive browsing. It will use google's technology to direct you to the sites you want when you want them.

Dvorak, OS? (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498656)

Will it have Dvorak as the default keyboard layout? I would love to see this happening :)

Great (2)

papercrane (817404) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498658)

As long as it's Firefox based and they *fix gmail's cutting off of messages in Firefox*. Seriously, this is getting on my nerves. Works fine in IE, but gmail chokes in Firefox. This didn't happen a few weeks ago...

Valid or not, it makes sense (4, Insightful)

saddino (183491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498678)

I'm sure it doesn't take a roomful of analysts at Google to realize that their greatest vulnerability is in web access. If MS were to embed their "next-generation" search so deeply into the UI experience of a future (Longhorn?) OS that the average consumer would become accustomed to simply using the, say, always visible MS search bar in the Sidebar for all web and desktop searches, Google would be toast. And you can bet Microsoft's roomful of analysts have come to exactly the same conclusion: the way to defeat Google is to make it hard to access Google.

So, if you're Google, are you going to sit around with your hands in your ridiculously deep pockets and let Microsoft dictate the future growth of your business? Hell no. In fact, recent comments from MS make it clear that war has been declared.

Defensive strategies are already in the works (e.g. using AdSense to "spread" their ad revenue generation so that it doesn't depend on hits to Google proper) so, how to counterattack?

Well, Google hires smart engineers and likely equally smart business strategists who know that Firefox's success is a free trial balloon -- and it hasn't popped. Google's best move is to build a browser and challenge MS on its own turf. There's a reason Google is always in need of Windows developers [google.com] and its not just to work on the Google Toolbar.

Is Google building an OS? Who knows. But is Google building a browser? They better be.

Once again... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498689)

"Dvorak speculates that a Firefox based Google browser and Google-OS may soon be coming to a cluster near you."

Just as I said last time [slashdot.org] the idea of a Google OS was brought up, there is no reason for Google to start it's own OS when it has everything running in a way that is platform-agnostic to begin with.

Google is above the OS wars.

Wish we would see XMPP based IM (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498692)

I wish Google would start an instant messaging service based on XMPP. They then could build as well a web based client front end to XMPP, so we could have the benefit of both a structured protocol like XMPP and as well a browser interface and people could use them simultaneously. Google could apply its knowledge of search facilities to XMPP extensions, searchable chat rooms, user directories, come to mind, as well as being able to search ones own chat room. A web interface could be built for all of that as well. It would be good to see Google get behind XMPP, being the interoperable IM protocol it is, like -email you can communicate with people on different servers.

Google one-upping MS again? (1)

doorbot.com (184378) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498700)

It would be very interesting to see Google take Firefox and Gecko as their next platform of choice, perhaps finally making truly web-dependant computing using XUL, etc? Where you use Firefox to access your full-featured Gmail interface and Google word processor, spread sheet, etc... which all save the documents on Google's servers.

Isn't this what MS tried to do?

Slow News Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11498703)

don't mod me troll untill/unless you read the entire comment please. (I am just trying to make a helpful suggestion.)

you can certainly tell when its a slow news day, two dupes in a row about topics that are questionably "news" in the first place. I like the suggestion that was made earler; fire the editors and put the story submissions on the front page according to mod points just as the comments are. this would resolve several common problems all at once. I guess that would make it more difficult for "editors" to post as many of these obvious paid-for ads that that have been posing as "news" recently though so I don't imagine you will take the suggestion very seriously.

I know. (1)

Arbin (570266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498711)

gbrowser = YES g/OS != YES g/OS had been considered, but too many issues.

App Launch in Google-OS (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11498717)

pronounced goo-gloss

Instances 1-10 of about 127,00 Instances of mywidget.app (0.23 seconds)

Tip: Trying to launch a program?

Gooooooooooogle
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?