5 ms·

Why Google Chrome OS has already won

30 points by sant0sk1 17y ago

lucifer 17y ago
Yes, trust your entire (cyber) life to Google Inc. They do no evil, haven't you heard? Platforms like Chrome OS are the enablers of (very possible) future police states.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Just reading through the chromium OS documentation and they at least claim that in future versions you'll be able to log in with an openid instead of a Google ID and use non-Google web apps.
  - shiranaihito 17y ago
    Does the ID matter? Google still sees most of the page loads on the Internet. I thought I was somewhat hidden when I started using a site-specific browser for GMail, to avoid Google's cookies in general browsing, but then I realized they still get my IP on every page I load. Surely it's not too difficult to match that with the IP I'm using GMail from, and so on. And the downvotes "lucifer" is getting are a good indication of the sad state HN is in.
- apallo 17y ago
  google is scared of having a bad reputation just like any other company. they know they cannot blatantly have faith in themselves, that their place at the top now is a precipice. I for one am glad they haven't let the power go to their heads that badly cause man it would suck having to wait for a startup to replace google.
panic 17y ago
This article conflates Chrome OS with the low-cost devices it will be running on. In reality, these devices will be able to run full-blown Windows or Linux as well; Chrome OS needs to prove that it can be better than a full-blown OS in some way (beyond just boot-up time, which is basically irrelevant).
- megaduck 17y ago
  I think any conflation is quite intentional. For all practical purposes, ChromeOS will be inseparable from the devices that run it, much like the iPhone and the iPhone OS. Google has been quite clear that ChromeOS will not be run on general-purpose hardware. ChromeOS is designed for low-cost low-power ChromeOS devices, that will be packaged more like an appliance than a traditional computer. You might be able to force Windows or Linux onto one of these ChromeOS devices, but you'll have to hack it.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    NB: ChromeOS is a Linux
    - Kejistan 17y ago
      ChromeOS is a linux like Android is a linux. Which is to say: just barely.
- tcdent 17y ago
  The goal isn't to replace your desktop and "full-blown OS" with a Chrome OS device, but to supplement it with a purpose-built internet device. Even if you could hack Windows 7 on to it, I'm sure would lag like hell on any hardware that's Chrome specific. Why else would Google be running their optimized browser, on an optimized OS, on an optimized hardware platform, but to cut down on processing requirements?
- dasil003 17y ago
  beyond just boot-up time, which is basically irrelevant Really? You don't think the idea of a 3 second startup is a game changer in the netbook space? Like all silicon valley geeks my laptop is never turned off, but I also happen to know plenty of people who do turn off their laptop after every single time they use it. Chrome OS needs to prove that it can be better than a full-blown OS in some way Of course as developers we're in love with the idea of powerful do-all machines. But most people seriously just need a way to check email and login to Facebook. The brilliance of Chrome OS is that Google can patch on the few little things that the masses really need to completely ditch the desktop paradigm. If they get it right users will eat it up because it completely sidesteps all the complexity of modern OSes, which no one likes, and only geeks put up with because we understand and can utilize the power it gives us.
SamAtt 17y ago
If Microsoft wants developers to develop for Silverlight so bad why don't they just make a Chrome OS plug-in? The thing is open source. Moonlight already runs on Linux. Wouldn't take a rocket scientist. That's even if Google wants Silverlight to not work. They clearly support Flash and I suspect they want the Chrome OS to support the entire web including Silverlight sites. So now you have open apps working on Windows and Silverlight apps working on Chrome while Robert Scoble just seems kind of stupid.
chaosprophet 17y ago
Seriously, I absolutely don't get the point of 'fast' boot times. Win 7 boots in 40 seconds and Chrome OS boots in 10 seconds. What are you going to achieve in the 30 seconds that Chrome OS saves you??? Save the world???
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  It's not "How will you spend those seconds," it's "What impulses become reasonable when you can satisfy them in ten seconds instead of forty?" Twitter is bigger than blogger because tweeting takes seconds and blogs take minutes.
- ThinkWriteMute 17y ago
  Lets say I have a series of installs to do that require rebooting. There are 10 boots total (New machine, lots of corporate software, probably poorly made!). 400s v 100s. Or 1m v 5m. Now spread that over say, 400 computers (New corporate office, new equipment). (40 * 10) * 400 = 160,000s, or 2666m, or 44hr. Vs (10 * 10) * 400 = 40,000s, or 666m, or 11hrs In short: Perspective, dude.
  - zephjc 17y ago
    You're not going to be installing any corporate software on a Chrome OS computer though. Also, why aren't you booting computers concurrently in your hypothetical?
  - skinnymuch 17y ago
    Hehe. Find me a corporate company that wants to put all their stuff on Google. Google Enterprise is one thing. ChromeOS is another.
    - ThinkWriteMute 17y ago
      If you think Google wont make this incredibly enticing to companies, you're a fool and probably would have scoffed at the idea of Adsense ten years ago.
hello_moto 17y ago
The argument of putting Chrome OS on low-cost low-power devices seem to put Chrome only for a short future doesn't it? As hardware continues to evolve, we will have better hardware with cheaper cost, less electricity but more powerful. Scoble re-iterates "developer developer developer". I think it's quite hard to have a scalable in-the-cloud web-app vs mobile phone app or one-off desktop-machines thus making the Chrome OS to have higher barrier of entry.
gamble 17y ago
> Or, what about my son who is in high school. By the time Chrome OS comes along in big numbers he’ll be in college. Why take a $1,000 computer to class? Couldn’t he do everything he needs to do on a low-cost computer that’s lightweight, replaceable, uses low power, and just uses the web? Absolutely! I see very few netbooks on campus. You might expect them to be overrepresented given that students aren't known for having a lot of money, but I suspect that most undergrads are reluctant to have what's usually their only computer be something that isn't fully-featured. The computer industry has a long history of claiming that certain users don't 'need' much power, so they should be willing to settle for minimal systems. It misses the point - people who don't need much computer are the least willing to buy low-end systems, because they don't want their one computer to be a dog. Netbooks are in a sense a luxury for richer consumers who are able to afford more than one system. Chrome OS strikes me as riding the far edge of the gadget nerd/web 2.0 bell curve. You won't find an audience for this thing at Walmart.
dejb 17y ago
> But what if there were a new device that costs less than $100 that JUST does cookbooks and other things I need in the kitchen? I would buy one. A Chrome OS is all that’s needed for such a specialized device. So someone would deliberately cripple chrome to prevent you being able to access the net on it? What a genius idea! What about an Amazon kindle that can only ever read one book? This is surely the author's vision of world with a simple UI for everything. No longer will users have to twist their brains to conceive of getting all sorts of information through the one device. Somehow I don't see this as being in the spirit of what google has in mind. I'm sure you could configure it to start of on a recipe site/content and package it as a cookbook for those who are not so tech savy. But totally crippling a general purpose device is a terrible waste of resources and is not the way forward IMHO.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
I think he nailed it: more of a competition for developer support.

30 points by sant0sk1 17y ago

Yes, trust your entire (cyber) life to Google Inc. They do no evil, haven't you heard? Platforms like Chrome OS are the enablers of (very possible) future police states.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Just reading through the chromium OS documentation and they at least claim that in future versions you'll be able to log in with an openid instead of a Google ID and use non-Google web apps.
- shiranaihito 17y ago
  Does the ID matter? Google still sees most of the page loads on the Internet. I thought I was somewhat hidden when I started using a site-specific browser for GMail, to avoid Google's cookies in general browsing, but then I realized they still get my IP on every page I load. Surely it's not too difficult to match that with the IP I'm using GMail from, and so on. And the downvotes "lucifer" is getting are a good indication of the sad state HN is in.
apallo 17y ago
google is scared of having a bad reputation just like any other company. they know they cannot blatantly have faith in themselves, that their place at the top now is a precipice. I for one am glad they haven't let the power go to their heads that badly cause man it would suck having to wait for a startup to replace google.

panic 17y ago

This article conflates Chrome OS with the low-cost devices it will be running on. In reality, these devices will be able to run full-blown Windows or Linux as well; Chrome OS needs to prove that it can be better than a full-blown OS in some way (beyond just boot-up time, which is basically irrelevant).

megaduck 17y ago
I think any conflation is quite intentional. For all practical purposes, ChromeOS will be inseparable from the devices that run it, much like the iPhone and the iPhone OS. Google has been quite clear that ChromeOS will not be run on general-purpose hardware. ChromeOS is designed for low-cost low-power ChromeOS devices, that will be packaged more like an appliance than a traditional computer. You might be able to force Windows or Linux onto one of these ChromeOS devices, but you'll have to hack it.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Nwallins 17y ago
  NB: ChromeOS is a Linux
  - Kejistan 17y ago
    ChromeOS is a linux like Android is a linux. Which is to say: just barely.
tcdent 17y ago
The goal isn't to replace your desktop and "full-blown OS" with a Chrome OS device, but to supplement it with a purpose-built internet device. Even if you could hack Windows 7 on to it, I'm sure would lag like hell on any hardware that's Chrome specific. Why else would Google be running their optimized browser, on an optimized OS, on an optimized hardware platform, but to cut down on processing requirements?
dasil003 17y ago
beyond just boot-up time, which is basically irrelevant Really? You don't think the idea of a 3 second startup is a game changer in the netbook space? Like all silicon valley geeks my laptop is never turned off, but I also happen to know plenty of people who do turn off their laptop after every single time they use it. Chrome OS needs to prove that it can be better than a full-blown OS in some way Of course as developers we're in love with the idea of powerful do-all machines. But most people seriously just need a way to check email and login to Facebook. The brilliance of Chrome OS is that Google can patch on the few little things that the masses really need to completely ditch the desktop paradigm. If they get it right users will eat it up because it completely sidesteps all the complexity of modern OSes, which no one likes, and only geeks put up with because we understand and can utilize the power it gives us.

SamAtt 17y ago

If Microsoft wants developers to develop for Silverlight so bad why don't they just make a Chrome OS plug-in? The thing is open source. Moonlight already runs on Linux. Wouldn't take a rocket scientist. That's even if Google wants Silverlight to not work. They clearly support Flash and I suspect they want the Chrome OS to support the entire web including Silverlight sites. So now you have open apps working on Windows and Silverlight apps working on Chrome while Robert Scoble just seems kind of stupid.

chaosprophet 17y ago

Seriously, I absolutely don't get the point of 'fast' boot times. Win 7 boots in 40 seconds and Chrome OS boots in 10 seconds. What are you going to achieve in the 30 seconds that Chrome OS saves you??? Save the world???

byrneseyeview 17y ago
It's not "How will you spend those seconds," it's "What impulses become reasonable when you can satisfy them in ten seconds instead of forty?" Twitter is bigger than blogger because tweeting takes seconds and blogs take minutes.
ThinkWriteMute 17y ago
Lets say I have a series of installs to do that require rebooting. There are 10 boots total (New machine, lots of corporate software, probably poorly made!). 400s v 100s. Or 1m v 5m. Now spread that over say, 400 computers (New corporate office, new equipment). (40 * 10) * 400 = 160,000s, or 2666m, or 44hr. Vs (10 * 10) * 400 = 40,000s, or 666m, or 11hrs In short: Perspective, dude.
- zephjc 17y ago
  You're not going to be installing any corporate software on a Chrome OS computer though. Also, why aren't you booting computers concurrently in your hypothetical?
- skinnymuch 17y ago
  Hehe. Find me a corporate company that wants to put all their stuff on Google. Google Enterprise is one thing. ChromeOS is another.
  - ThinkWriteMute 17y ago
    If you think Google wont make this incredibly enticing to companies, you're a fool and probably would have scoffed at the idea of Adsense ten years ago.

hello_moto 17y ago

The argument of putting Chrome OS on low-cost low-power devices seem to put Chrome only for a short future doesn't it? As hardware continues to evolve, we will have better hardware with cheaper cost, less electricity but more powerful. Scoble re-iterates "developer developer developer". I think it's quite hard to have a scalable in-the-cloud web-app vs mobile phone app or one-off desktop-machines thus making the Chrome OS to have higher barrier of entry.

gamble 17y ago

> Or, what about my son who is in high school. By the time Chrome OS comes along in big numbers he’ll be in college. Why take a $1,000 computer to class? Couldn’t he do everything he needs to do on a low-cost computer that’s lightweight, replaceable, uses low power, and just uses the web? Absolutely! I see very few netbooks on campus. You might expect them to be overrepresented given that students aren't known for having a lot of money, but I suspect that most undergrads are reluctant to have what's usually their only computer be something that isn't fully-featured. The computer industry has a long history of claiming that certain users don't 'need' much power, so they should be willing to settle for minimal systems. It misses the point - people who don't need much computer are the least willing to buy low-end systems, because they don't want their one computer to be a dog. Netbooks are in a sense a luxury for richer consumers who are able to afford more than one system. Chrome OS strikes me as riding the far edge of the gadget nerd/web 2.0 bell curve. You won't find an audience for this thing at Walmart.

dejb 17y ago

> But what if there were a new device that costs less than $100 that JUST does cookbooks and other things I need in the kitchen? I would buy one. A Chrome OS is all that’s needed for such a specialized device. So someone would deliberately cripple chrome to prevent you being able to access the net on it? What a genius idea! What about an Amazon kindle that can only ever read one book? This is surely the author's vision of world with a simple UI for everything. No longer will users have to twist their brains to conceive of getting all sorts of information through the one device. Somehow I don't see this as being in the spirit of what google has in mind. I'm sure you could configure it to start of on a recipe site/content and package it as a cookbook for those who are not so tech savy. But totally crippling a general purpose device is a terrible waste of resources and is not the way forward IMHO.

mark_l_watson 17y ago

I think he nailed it: more of a competition for developer support.