Well I’m just glad I can make some good predictions once in a while… I nailed this one last year:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/forums/viewthread/70784/

Patting myself on the back,

MacGuffin

Let’s get back on topic. A Google OS targeted specifically at the netbook market is a smart idea. With margins already razor-thin on the devices, offering a no-cost/low-cost alternative to Windows is a savvy move.

If there’s one way to move people away from Office and other Microsoft proprietary products it’s by offering an OS that integrates well with Google office solutions.

The proposition that users of mobile devices need a new lightweight OS that boots faster than the currently available options is weak.  1) Hardware keeps getting faster; 2) the network is more often the bottleneck than is the device; and 3) increasingly the handheld device will need to connect to other devices, not just to the internet.

My first reaction is that Chrome, if successful, will impact Apple turf more than Microsoft turf.  1) It is targeted at mobile devices and Apple is the current world leader in mobile computing platforms; 2) Microsoft has the Office moat, which is formidable.

In both devices and operating systems, Apple is ahead; Google is playing catchup.  In cloud computing it is reversed.  Let’s hope Apple is investing in Mobile Me and the App Store.  Neither is currently up to Apple standards.

DawnTreader - 08 July 2009 04:17 PM

Let’s get back on topic. A Google OS targeted specifically at the netbook market is a smart idea. With margins already razor-thin on the devices, offering a no-cost/low-cost alternative to Windows is a savvy move ...

Is there a conflict with your comment in the other thread:

“The fastest growing segment of the PC industry in netbooks. Netbooks are designed to be cheap and provide little more than a mobile Web portal for users. The netbook market is not one upon which to build the foundation for the resurgence of an OS in the consumer market. Enterprises will adopt Windows 7 for no other reason than to finally escape an OS (XP) that was released eight years ago.”

capablanca,

What about Android?  Are you saying that Google would drop Android eventually?  Google makes money from ads and not from hardware, OS and applications.  Its initiatives drive price of these stuffs down to free.  Bad for Apple and Microsoft.

Mace - 08 July 2009 10:43 PM

DawnTreader - 08 July 2009 04:17 PM

Let’s get back on topic. A Google OS targeted specifically at the netbook market is a smart idea. With margins already razor-thin on the devices, offering a no-cost/low-cost alternative to Windows is a savvy move ...

Is there a conflict with your comment in the other thread:

“The fastest growing segment of the PC industry in netbooks. Netbooks are designed to be cheap and provide little more than a mobile Web portal for users. The netbook market is not one upon which to build the foundation for the resurgence of an OS in the consumer market. Enterprises will adopt Windows 7 for no other reason than to finally escape an OS (XP) that was released eight years ago.”

No.

Google (like Apple) is purposely debasing MSFT’s software monetization model. Attacking Windows at the low-end of the market means not only volume, it reduces MSFT’s overall relevance to the consumer. Netbooks using a Google-developed OS will have a cost advantage over Windows-based competitors and most likely operate more quickly and efficiently and all hardware elements being equal, brought to market by the OEMs at lower costs to the consumer. It erodes what little revenue MSFT might mine from those sales while positioning Google to further penetrate the digital life of PC users.

This is starting to look like a co-ordinated, two-pronged attack on the Beast.

Apple hits ‘em high, Google takes ‘em low.

Right now, Chrome OS is total vaporware.  I wish Google the best of luck, and competition is great, but Apple is in no danger right now, and I doubt it’ll be anytime in the near future.  Starting things out with netbooks?  Er, netbooks aren’t exactly setting the world on fire despite the global economic downturn—probably mostly because you can only put in so much quality and speed at such a ridiculously low price.  Being able to start up and get on the Web in a few seconds?  From sleep, maybe.  But come on, most computer users—even Windows users—can do that already…simple as waking the computer from sleep or breaking out of the screen saver.  If instant-on tech existed, I doubt OS X would be much slower to get on the Web.  Of course, you’d have access to, well, all your apps at the same time too.  Let’s see a “network computer” offer that world of choice from a browser base.

There’s some other dubious vaporware claims in the PR.  Users not having to deal with security updates and viruses?  In a fantasy world maybe.  I question trusting the network to automagically handle things like that.

Hey, I’m a Google fan, and more competition for Microsoft can’t be a bad thing.  But so far, Google hasn’t proven itself to have mastered the art of the OS and user experience quite like Apple has (Android, anyone?).

mbmullin - 08 July 2009 11:40 PM

This is starting to look like a co-ordinated, two-pronged attack on the Beast.

Apple hits ‘em high, Google takes ‘em low.

Old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Both companies (Google and Apple) seek to debase the software monetization model which is the underpinning of the MSFT global empire.

Part of the agenda for both Apple and Google is to work for a world where content formats are not proprietary, where it’s easier for users to use non-proprietary formats than MS-formats. Google needs to index everything, therefore needs to be able to look inside everything. Apple needs to be able to create new products that work with content and the only choices are open formats or Apple replacing Microsoft as law-breaking monopolist (an option beyond Apple’s power to achieve).

Achieving open content formats undermines the universal current basis of Microsoft’s revenues, so it appears like a sort of war against Microsoft, but that is only a side-effect. I don’t think Apple or Google are actually interested in Microsoft at all. MS has to step off the main road, join this stampede, or become roadkill. Ballmer’s pride is currently only allowing the roadkill option.

To see a Google OS as “another competitor for Apple to worry about” is small-minded and back to front. A Google OS is just another aspect of a process that is also enabling Apple’s future success. (Although of course the big picture is more complicated.)

sleepytoo - 09 July 2009 09:33 AM

... A Google OS is just another aspect of a process that is also enabling Apple’s future success. (Although of course the big picture is more complicated.)

I fail to see why Google driving down the price of OS and applications to zero is good for Apple.  Even though Apple don’t price their software products high but zero is not acceptable.

Google’s OS is yet another version of Linux. Frankly, that doesn’t excite me in the slightest given that I have a Mac. If Google had been around to pick up Be instead of Palm, then things might be a whole lot different as that was genuinely a great, lightweight, modern OS.

I fail to see how Google’s OS is going to be much different from all the various stripped down versions of Linux that are tailored to specific purposes.

Why Google’s Chrome OS Bomb Has Minimal Fallout On Apple.

Five Reasons Why Microsoft Does Not Need to Worry About Google Chrome OS.

Mace - 08 July 2009 10:43 PM

[...]
capablanca,

What about Android?  Are you saying that Google would drop Android eventually?  Google makes money from ads and not from hardware, OS and applications.  Its initiatives drive price of these stuffs down to free.  Bad for Apple and Microsoft.

I would characterize it as suggesting the possibility that Android will merge into Chrome.  Does Google see two separate markets for mobile operating systems?  A smart phone running Android in your pocket and a netbook running Chrome in your backpack?

Even if they don’t merge, though.  Apple will still be competing with Google netbooks.  Again assuming Chrome is successful.

Your point about ads is well taken; the markets are complex and overlapping.

I’m not going for online apps!  The US is no where near where it needs to be to offer online access anywhere, with the security, cost, and stability offered by a hard drive (that is backed up).  Frankly, it’s stupid to talk about it today.

Kick Schmidt off the board now.  Then Apple can launch its own search engine that beats both Google and Bing with little effort.  Google has such hubris..

Search engines are child’s play now.  Plus, no one evaluates the “quality” of a search anyway.  There is little “stick” with search folks, and it’s HIGH time Apple demonstrates it.

Think about it:  How much time would it take for apple to add a kick ass toolbar for search?  Or, how long does it take to switch your search loyalties:  About the time it takes one to type Bing instead of Google.  Sheesh.

In theory, google’s approach of centering a new OS around the Web is the only sensible way to break into the OS market for any device more computer-like than a chumby.  Most basic computer functions that are not web based have a web based analog, including photo-editing, office suites, etc.  This functionality won’t appeal to a power user or business implementation, but casual users, especially those who are attracted Netbooks, can find a slim streamlined new OS has something to offer that Windows, XP or 7, cannot match.  While Windows or Mac OS might still be necessary for pro/power functionality, Chrome will work admirably as an OS for causal laptops and family computers.  Once google’s gotten it’s foot in the OS door, it can then build functionality and attract developers until it provides a much more credible threat to MS than any Linux has had until now.
The Chrome concept is the only plausible business strategy I can see that could make the OS market for computers more populated than the current MS/apple duo.  And that makes it interesting to watch.