Google Chrome OS: The Unnecessary Operating System
There has been an amazing amount of hype about Chrome, Google’s upcoming operating system. Before I get into this column let’s look at what Google says Chrome is:
Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we’re already talking to partners about the project, and we’ll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve.
Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform
Frankly, I’ve found it more than a little amusing to read some of the coverage of it and the comments posted by various readers on different sites. A lot of people seem to think that Chrome means the end of Microsoft is at hand and that Google will finally be able to destroy Microsoft’s office application and operating system monopolies.
But the truth about Chrome OS is a lot less rosy than the hype and I’ll tell you why in this column.
An alleged screenshot of Google's Chrome OS. No way to know if it's real or not.
(7 votes, average: 2.57 out of 5)
Loading ...Enjoy the blog? Feel free to leave a tip by buying me a cup of coffee. Thanks!
The Collective
I dunno, with the Google name behind it, it may go somewhere. The best thing they could do is drop the mention of Linux. How many people using Linux based smart phones know they are running Linux? Do they even care? The same questions could apply to Apple OSX being a version of BSD. What about the iPhone? If Google opens an app store similar to Apple’s, the OS question becomes a moot point anyway.
Another market beyond the Netbooks are the low cost laptops being sold every where.(one example: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0312136&utm_source=mcol&utm_medium=leader_bnr&utm_campaign=hmpg_aspirentbk158691). Microcenter has sold a ton of these, and just got in a new shipment. Walmart and Bestbuy are hit or miss on availability. The point is, Acer and others who play in the low end could increase what little margin there is with a free “branded” OS. Ubuntu, Mint, etal are very good Linux distros, but they still carry the Linux moniker which inhibits their adoption into the masses.
If successful, something like Chrome could be good for Linux as a whole when people discover the OS they like and use is actually Linux.
Jim, I am not enamored with the Google name, and I do not devote myself exclusively to using their products and tools, but I do include them among the mix of the things that I use. What will be interesting for me to watch is to see if Google adds anything at all interesting to the equation when it produces a small operating system with integrated Web based applications. Will this system provide ONLY Web based applications? Will it do anything innovative, in terms of fast boot times (such as boot to a screen in under five seconds)? Will it add anything creative or innovative that makes it easier to connect to a network, regardless of where you are?
If it really stretches any current areas of technology, or adds any new ones to the mix, it could ultimately have some use. That’s what I’ve seen so far with Google Chrome, the browser. It certainly has NOT replaced Firefox, and reading Google’s public comments, it is NOT intended to, and many of Google’s engineers continue to contribute to the Firefox project, and the company heavily supports the Mozilla Foundation. What they wanted to do there was explore Web browsing technology and try to improve it with a fresh, different look at ways of rendering pages and in building a smaller, lighter base for managing the Web.
If Google takes a similar attitude with an operating system, leveraging the same name, maybe it won’t be all bad. Chrome, the browser, has not taken over, and I sincerely doubt that ChromeOS, the operating system, will either. If it does introduce new ideas, it may validate those ideas, if they are good ones, or it will potentially help them and others to go in different directions if the ideas are a bust.
If Google can afford to make these kinds of investments with questionable payback, then I am all for it. From my end of the world, it does not hurt to have yet another alternative available to me. Whether I choose to use it or even test it will greatly depend upon what actually becomes available and what I happen to be doing at that time. To say much more than that becomes speculation on my part. I do look forward to tracking developments and reports as they arise, and if I can find a platform I own where it works, I’ll try it out when I can actually get my hands on it.
The web has trended toward a more rich experience and continues to do so. The most recent HTML 5 specification allows the web to do more things on the client side such as 3d graphics and local database storage natively. There is a point where we meet in the middle where native OS functionality and web-based technology are hard to distinguish. The hardware demands of the web are much less compared with running a bulky OS like Vista. Windows and Intel in the past have always propelled upgrading hardware to meet new OS demands in a self-perpetuating cycle to drive profits. As the lines between OS and web blur further in terms of functionality, the value of the OS goes away and it just doesn’t matter what OS you use at that point when using a standards capable browser. In the case of the Chrome OS, it is designed specifically for the web and embraces web standards, is light weight and has the backing of a multi-billion dollar company that became that way because of their dominance in the web. This is not comparable to anything that has come before with that in mind.
I believe it is too soon to say what the Chrome OS will be (necessary or not; good or not; …)
There isn’t simply not enough information out there that we can use.
But I do believe this is a good thing, even if it turns out to be a total failure. Whether people admit it or not, the google name has a lot of influence in people’s minds (it’s a fact: they’re everywhere on the web, whether we’re talking about their enourmously popular search engine or ads, they’re everywhere). We don’t see this kind of buzz about new versions of Ubuntu or the launch of any Linux distribution. And all google had to do was announce this OS in their blog (please correct me if I’m wrong here, but the advertising and buzz is made by people and not google, even by saying this OS won’t be necessary, you’re advertising it). This will make people see that there are free and (in most cases, for example, for gamers, depending on which games they play, this might not be true, unfortunately) better alternatives to using windows. And if the Chrome OS is a total failure, people will also see the word Linux written there, and research it.
About the OS itself, I believe that it can be something great or a total failure.
The google chrome browser, in my opinion, was an innovative piece of software, because it’s architecture is fundamentally different from other browsers, and it has a clean, simple and easy to use interface. I just don’t use it has my only browser because it doesn’t have a complete version for Linux yet and I still use som add-ons and greasemonkey scripts on firefox.
If google literally just builds a browser on top of the Linux kernel, then, in my opinion, it won’t be any good. As you mentioned, and I agree, people want and use native apps, and although internet apps are getting popular, they aren’t yet mature enough to totally replace a desktop (maybe someday they will be), so if google wants to do a decent OS, it should, in my opinion, mix both things: internet apps with native apps (and that’s what I think they’ll do … unless they want to launch a basically doomed software). However, if they can build an OS that can integrate web and native apps well, show an appealing, simple and easy to use design and maintain the performance they promiss, I think it’s an operating system that’s worth a while checking out. And I do believe that wouldn’t be just another linux Distribution, because it targets a market segment that is still little in alternatives: the netbooks. Although you mention there are a already some distributions that explore it, essentially, they’re all simillar, because they’re based on moblin, from intel. I am the owner of a netbook, and I think the web experience could be improved. Right now I’m using moblin v2 beta, and I really like it, because it performs very well, although it still has many bugs, and I believe it is very much limited (and I haven’t found any mention of removing many of those limitations on their website). Before this I used Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Both of these distributions still don’t fully satisfy me in internet browsing, because although it is supportable, many times it’s a slow experience, especially with sites rich with javascript and flash (which shouldn’t happen with a device focused on navigating on the web). If Chrome OS can change that, without presenting limitations to configuring the OS, and without complicating it too much, I think it has the potential to present something new to the OS market.
Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait and see what it’ll turn out.
There’s several things Google could do right.
First, they have a LOT of experience with optimized disk access – more than almost anybody on the planet, esp. since it’s all Linux experience. IF they can port even a portion of that to the desktop, they could bring a pretty severe speed boost to the table.
Next, something none of the distros have done yet (Ubuntu is in the early planning stages) is to do more OS-level (plus user interface level) integration with WINE. WINE is the most memory-efficient way to run Windows apps underneath Linux…much moreso than virtualization as you don’t have dual full OS stacks. It’s very compatible with netbook-class horsepower. Give people a way to run familiar Windows apps underneath Linux and get both a speed boost and a total dodge from Windows malware and yeah, people will eat that up. And WINE has become pretty damn solid of late.
Google has an advantage in starting this late: they can steal all the best ideas of a dozen-plus distros and NOT use what fails. Look at, say, OpenSuse: great distro except stuck (for historical reasons) with a package manager that blows chunks. Red Hat/Fedora too, to a lesser degree. Debian’s apt-get/Synaptic stack is the way to go.
Then put some real thought into the user interface starting with something compact and customizable like LXDE, Enlightenment or even OpenBox with tweaks and they could really be onto something.
Yeah the news articles and reports that I saw were way over-hyped about Google Chrome OS. They said it might give windows a “run for their money”, and made me think that it was a brand new PC desktop OS developed from the ground up. I wish.
It’s optimised for web apps, and, if I’m not mistaken, the “native apps” need to be developed using existing web platforms i.e. javascript, flash, java applet, silverlight etc. This may not be a bad thing, since that means any native-only apps can be more easily converted to web apps in the future. But is there enough technology out there (I mean existing software components) on these platforms (javascript, silverlight, etc.) for games and all the other apps we’re used to on our PCs? Only when that time comes, can Chrome OS be able to “take over” from Windows.
Thanks,
Nav
I agree with your final thoughts regarding competition leading to better products and I understand that Mac and Linux have been doing just that.
I think what this comes down to is a question of choice. It’s just one more choice. I have started using Chrome, Gmail, Calendar, etc. and I love their ease-of-use. Also, Google is the first company I’ve seen to give simple, easy instructions ANY time I’m not sure how to get something done (at this point I am obliged to note that I have always been a Windows user, unsatisfied, and I’ve been thirsting for simplicity and direct answers)
I’m excited to see what Google offers with Wave and Voice, and now Chrome OS. Quite simply, I’d like to see what they’re packing. And if I like it, I’ll use it. Who cares if it’s necessary?
There already is the ubuntu netbook remix which is a very good OS for a netbook. For chromeos to be successful, a lot is needed of it.