GoogleOS Scenarios

ReadWriteWeb writes "Read/WriteWeb offers 3 scenarios for a GoogleOS and suggests it could be less than 6 months away. They say it may be a web based desktop (aka WebOS), a full featured Linux distribution, or a lightweight Linux distro and/or BIOS. They predict that once Microsoft's Vista rolls out, it will present a direct threat to Google's Web properties and so therefore Google will start a more punchy strategy — pushing Firefox and some form of Google OS in order to nullify Vista's potential impact."

So in other words

"They say it may be a web based desktop (aka WebOS), a full featured Linux distribution, or a lightweight Linux distro and/or BIOS."

They have no idea.

Re:So in other words

Only thing they ("analysts") understand is that unless they put out baseless claims frequently, they are out of job.

Re:So in other words

I think this is just a message to MS: "If you don't play nice with vista, this is what we can do..."

I think the amount of money to be made from Desktop OS's is going to take a drop, even for MS. Piracy is going to continue to take a chunk of business no matter how much MS pushes WGA and DRM. But an even bigger problem is that most people just don't need that many features from an OS. the Office, IE, and Windows lock in schemes are being chipped away by increased competition and anti-trust rulings. Computers aren't going to keep improving geometrically forever, so people will stop replacing their computers every couple of years, and that means less bundled copies of windows being sold.

Now these same conditions also affect Linux. I don't think a Desktop Linux distro could do much more than break even. There's money to be made on servers, but not as many people will bother paying for support for their desktop. So Google probably doesn't really want to do a Linux desktop distro, its far easier to let Mark Shuttleworth dump his time and money into it. But if Microsoft gets up to their usual dirty tricks with vista... well buying ubuntu and puting a few billion into improving it is a good strategy to prevent Google from becoming another Netscape.

Re:So in other words

The biggest ways I see Google being different from most companies in tech is that they are not into competing in well-established markets. Google has a tendency either to redefine the whole meaning and level of a market segment (like they did with search and Gmail), to invent whole new markets where they are the first company present (placing context-relevant ads on many, many websites), or get in to markets where therre are a few small players but they're going to be the only big one (online office suites that actually work).

It's a strategic company, not a tactical company. I think most companies think tactically. Most analysts almost certainly do. Google is so hard to analyze because they don't do what other companies do. Other companies look at what's out there and try to be better or to market better. Sometimes they try something new. Google just keeps doing new things, and the ones that stick to the wall stick hard.

Google doesn't focus on maximizing packaged units or hitting the sweet spot on the existing promotion cost/ROI curve. They are about moving the promotion cost/ROI curve to a new level by building strong user loyalty, and waiting for everyone else to catch up. Then they move on to another market curve where they do the same again.

The way they build strong user loyalty is often to make simple things simple to do. MS Office can do more than Google Spreadsheets and Google Documents. But Google's offerings work from just about every device you own, do everything you need to do for most documents, don't have to be installed, and only cost you the price of looking at ads (and maybe a bit of privacy). Google's search engine gets uncannily good results without going into the advanced search, and still has the advanced search when you need it.

I'm not a Google insider or anything, but I'd bet their products are dreamed up by brainstorming techies rather than market researchers. Then, the usability experts probably do the UI before graphic designers ever touch it. Marketing probably just markets what is ready for people to see, and of course most marketing for Google is just posting a notice on their sites anyway.

Re:Slasbots don't understand Google either

And thats what is great, they are an ad agency willing to create brand new technologies just to push their ads. Hell they encourage their employers to create random technologies with 20% of their paid time that may or may not do Google any good.

Indeed, given Google's horsepower

I'd go for a VNC(or similar) download. You heard it here first.

 

Re:Indeed, given Google's horsepower

That's what I think they're doing. It explains the data-center-in-a-shipping-container phenom. I also think that's why they're partnering with Sun - Sun will make the thin clients.

They'll make them cheap enough (or subsidize them). It's a compelling set up. Consumer Joe buys a thin client for $100, plugs it into his broadband connection and connects to apps running on a terminal server in the shipping container nearest his home. For less than the price of Vista or a new PC, he satisfies all his computing needs. He never has to install any software. He never has to worry about viruses. The terminal server is maintained by professional sysadmins. The heavy lifting is done in the shipping container, so the thin client is relatively "future proof". All the client ever has to do is run an X server, and that requires a fairly fixed set of resources.

The only thing I'd worry about is privacy. Maybe they'll let Joe use a thumb drive to store his data. Or maybe Joe doesn't care about his privacy. Google then has control of the desktop, so ads are not limited to the web browser. We'd better hope they stick to the "Do no evil" thing.

Re:Indeed, given Google's horsepower

I take your point on the bandwidth thing. Should Google suddenly expand it's free wi-fi nation wide AND offer a thin client that connects for free, not only are they taking MSFTs customer but they're undercutting the crap out of the Telco's and ISP's as well.

Peacing together the thoughts from this thread I can now see that it is not hard for Google to offer the following. Now that we (think we) know what they already have, and what we have heard they've expressed interest in:

- A super thin client (Google VNC BIOS / Damn Small / similar)
- A super cheap computer - or free OS that sets you free from Windows!
- Free Wi-Fi / free connectivity for Google users, therefore no ISP charges (all that dark fiber they own starts to get used, as well as that mother huge data centre)
- A full range of Web based (thin client) apps, suited to the home user
- No maintenance for the user - no viruses, mal-ware etc, and very good spam filtering
- Slightly better privacy than some of the other providers (e.g AOL)


What it doesn't offer - Local space for your photos, MP3's etc.

I think this has some merit. It'd certainly shake up the Internet 'industry' in the USA particularly the Telco's and DLS providers - but they've had their chance. (Think back to when the ISP forced your browser to their home page, and required you use their services. They had all the opportunity in the world to get it right, but didn't. I have no sympathy for them)

The list is missing something

It's not a proper fake news unless it speculates on BeOS, too.

Arg

What compels people that know nothing about technology to keep writing these "Google OS" articles? Do they even understand what an OS is?

MS bought into this "web OS" hype over 5 years ago. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.

AIEEEE!!!

"The GoogleOS, they do nothing!"

BSD

I think it will be a full featured BSD distro.

Or maybe the return of BeOS.

Or NeXT.

You might download the ISO and run it off a CD. You might not. Maybe BIOS will be involved. Possibly even TCP/IP. It will probably include some kind of menuing system and maybe a ribbonish banner that can be docked somewhere on the desktop or not, that might include items like Vista's Gadgets or OSX application launching capability or possibly some blend of both. Almost certainly the web will be involved.

Or none of the above, who knows.

Re:Broadband addiction

> How is something like this going to run on non-broadband?
Same as the answer to the question - how is this going to run on systems with 16MB ram, a 256 colour display and no cd-writer:

Who cares?

6 months?

Maybe after the 10 year beta test.

Google OS

Linux/FreeBSD, Gnome/KDE, OOo, Firefox, Gaim, on Wii and PS3. At $50 a CD just the Wii with 4 million units to be released by the end of the year it would be a killing.

They wouldn't need to develop it just negotiate with Ubuntu. It's easier to maintain than Windows.

I've even sent Nintendo an email last year. To bad I don't have the finances to fund this.

My wishos

I wish Google (or someone) did the following OS:

• My computer image is hosted somewhere, is always with up to date software, upgrades are tranparent
  
• There are a lot of access tiers:
  
  • An ajax based command line for pro users.
    
  • Google spreadsheet and Google docs let you browse and edit the files in your desktop
    
  • Specialized software lets you login with remote desktop or X windows or whatever
    
  
  
• I can run servers on my computer
  
• If I don't the provider can park my image while I'm not logged in
  
• They provide a database if I want to run a server
  

Please don't click this unethical story.

It was submitted by the blogger himself, and the website is more than 40% advertisement. Here is the article text:

Written by Emre Sokullu and edited by Richard MacManus.

There's no such thing as the GoogleOS in reality - but despite that, it is one of the most talked about Web products. People can't stop discussing it - and even imagining screenshots for it! Seems like everyone expects Google to get into direct competition with Microsoft, by releasing an operating system. However Google refuses such claims and even makes fun of this kind of buzz. Nevertheless we decided to analyze where Google may be heading with their product strategy - and from that determine what are the chances of a GoogleOS.
Possibilities

We see 3 scenarios for a GoogleOS:

* A web based desktop (i.e. operating system)
* A full featured Linux distribution
* A lightweight Linux distro and/or BIOS

We'll try to explain each of these in detail - then in the conclusion, make our prediction. What's more, we think this could be less than 6 months away from happening.
A Web Based Operating System

If you asked "what will a GoogleOS look like?" - most people would answer that it'll be an AJAX-powered copy of the Windows desktop. In other words, a WebOS (aka webtop). To remind you of what a WebOS is, it is basically a virtual desktop on the web and has various built-in applications. Google already has a history of producing web-based products that mimic desktop apps - Gmail was the first desktop client like email reader, and now they have Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Calendar and other desktop-like products. Also note that Google's internal open sourced widget toolset, GWT, allows them to replicate any desktop capability.

On the other hand, a bunch of startups like YouOS , Goowy, DesktopTwo, Xin and open source eyeOS are already tackling this exact problem - and have been for a while now. So if Google engineers are not already working on their own webOS project, they may want to snap up one of these! AJAX powered YouOS, which is a yet another Paul Graham investment, seems like the most obvious choice at this time.

Screenshot from YouOS

Besides the startups we've already mentioned, there may be other surprises that Google looks at for WebOS purposes. Meebo, for instance, has created a very large user base with their web-based meta instant messaging product (it enables you to use multiple IM services on the same webpage). IM is a crucial application, because many people spend a lot of time on the computer IM'ing. So Meebo could use IM as a base - and utilize the empty spaces on their page for new applications.

Meebo OS with fictional Calculator application (taken from YouOS)

30 Boxes also has a webtop offering, but it looks less promising than their calendar. Start pages like NetVibes, PageFlakes and WebWag could also potentially enter the webos business.
A Full Featured Linux Distro

Another possibility for Google is to create their own Linux-based operating system. The free license of Linux allows anyone to create their own version of Linux. Although Linux is the most popular operating system in the server market and it's free, it is still far behind Windows and MacOS in the desktop market. Some believe this may change with the latest enhancements to the Linux user interface.

This scenario is a more traditional model to replace Windows - with a direct competitor, instead of creating a web-based replacement. Indeed this has already been widely speculated - Ubuntu, a semi-free Linux derivative, was rumored to be acquired by Google.

If this scenario happened, Google may open up their operating system as a free download and promote it on their homepage - as they once did with Firefox. They could also make a networked file system the default, instead of the complex UNIX file hierarchy of Linux - which is another reason why Linux struggles in the mainstream

Re:What you're doing is unethical

I wrote this hyped up nonsense in order to place ads on it and make a lot of money for my 10 min of effort. You're free not to visit or promote my page, but please don't steal my intellectual property.

There, I fixed that for you. :)

The Thin Client

I think the way that Google will go is to make thin client apps that will run on any old computer. They could use a simple file system to install on peoples old and insecure desktops to secure them, and have something to run Firefox or whatever client will access their products. And they will have all their other apps put together in a nice form or package. Whatever file system people install on their desktops will allow them to install third party software.

Really it's a hard sale for most people. Do you want all your info, or say just all your email, documents, video, and whatever else (depending on what products they create) on Google servers. Does Google want to compete with M$ in this arena? Of course the Google OS would be free as in beer with labels. I'm not sure.

I think the more likely scenario would be a Google OS for Servers. To be sure, they are using a custom file system, and they have that down pat. An end-user product is less likely. If it isn't perfect, they likely won't release it.

Well, do ya? Punk?

I'd like to see a Google OS, if only because I have enough of a Discordian streak to appreciate all of people's systems, work, and data based around an "I'm Feeling Lucky!" button.

Bad tag

GoogleOS isn't vaporware as it hasn't been announced for a public release by Google.
There was some news about Google using a custom *nix based OS internally, and it has indeed been deployed.

That it's not even vaporware also says a bit why I think these articles are a bit useless.

Soooo ...

Let me get this straight ...

Google is expected to release an entire operating system that's supposed to compete heads on with Windows Vista, which is the result of years and years of work and billions of dollars invested? Say what you will about Windows, but it certainly is a massive behemoth with sh*tloads of functionality. You don't just shake something like that out of your sleeve in a few months.

And what's the supposed rationale behind a GoogleOS? Better integration of Windows Vista with Microsofts Live Search, or whatever they call it. Here's where the flip side of the coin comes in. Google has, for their part, invested years and years and billions of dollars in creating the best search engine out there, bar none. Is Microsoft suddenly going to undermine their user base by making their search engine integrated into Vista? I don't think so, Tim. People aren't total morons. They know how to type google.com into their search bars when they want to use a real search engine. It's no small cooincidence that the verb 'to google' has become prevalent among the English speaking, and has even been adopted and localized by many other nationalities.

There is absolutely no logical basis behind these speculations. Sheez.

Re:Soooo ...

People aren't total morons.

Actually, when it comes to computers, most people are.

Re:Soooo ...

They know how to type google.com into their search bars when they want to use a real search engine.

Actually I have come across many users who do not understand the whole typing of URLs in the address bar and are completely dependent on Google for ALL web browsing because someone (probably one of us) set it as the default page. In fact one person I know was having a problem where Google was not opening up, so I asked if it was just google or if it was every page. He replied that google was the default page and that he can't get to any other page without it. When I asked if he tried typing in another web address into the address bar, he returned a blank and confused stare. I encountered other people who used this same method of web browsing and my head almost exploded the first time I encountered this.

My point being (and I do have a point), that if the user is running vista, and he or she opens up IE7 (cause that's the default) and the first page they see is MS Live (cause that's the default), and MS Live is conveniently modeled to look almost exactly like google (can you blame them?), they probably won't even realize that it is NOT google. They will assume that this is the new Google Vista edition or something, and just continue on using MS Live. This is a serious threat to Google. Google needs to come up with a way to either compete directly in the way that MS is (which is what this article is about), or they need to educate users that they need to type in WWW.GOOGLE.COM for that Genuine Google Advantage (GGA, accept no substitutes. This would be interesting as it would involve some kind of media advertising which to my knowledge google has never done.

Re:Soooo ...

You know, funnily enough, I never bothered to check out live.com before I read your comment. I just did now, and boy does it look exactly like Google. They have copied their entire functionality and look. Like you said, a lot of people will probably think that this is the same old Google they've been using, or something close enough. I have absolutely no doubt that this is Microsoft's motivation. Then they have the gall to off-handedly suggest that Linux violates their patents. What a pathetic way to do business.

Nevertheless, I'm still not that convinced that an OS is a viable means to fight this, although it would be exciting to watch. Microsoft just simply has too tight a grip on that market. Then again, seeing that they have essentially started a war on Google with this live.com thing, maybe it's worth a shot.

Ah yes, ANOTHER distro...

They say it may be a web based desktop (aka WebOS), a full featured Linux distribution, or a lightweight Linux distro and/or BIOS.

Yes, of course, the bulk of end users are just waiting for yet another Linux distro before they drop Windows.

They predict that once Microsoft's Vista rolls out, it will present a direct threat to Google's Web properties and so therefore Google will start a more punchy strategy -- pushing Firefox and some form of Google OS in order to nullify Vista's potential impact."

Good luck with that. Say, which major hardware manufacturers have said said they will support this still-to-be-spec'ed Google OS?

Google Apps

Google Apps for My Domain is pretty close to being a "web-based desktop." combine this with the fact that they purchased Jot.

Because all of the heavy processing and data storage is done on the Google end of that desktop, there is nothing that is stopping them from releasing a $250, all-solid-state appliance which consists of linux/X/firefox. But that's not going to find any buyers until a large number of people are comfortable trusting all of their data to Google, and its perpetual "beta" applications. Which won't be any time soon.

If a product manufacturer is not confident enough with a product to call it anything but beta, you shouldn't trust that product.

these guys get paid to write this stuff?

These WebOS's that keep popping up are nothing more than proof-of-concept web pages that do nothing except prove that you can emulate the look and feel of a desktop OS using web technologies. They are in no way practical and anyone who thinks that a real company would pursue this option as a real OS solution rode the short bus as a child.

Looking at things from Google's perspective, they should want to support whatever could help topple MS. They have a spot of Apple's board, so they are helping Apple from a strategic standpoint. I think it is also important to note that Google is a supporter of open source and Linux, and it would not make sense for them to release their own distro when they could help to support an existing and privatly funded distro that has already made huge inroads (relatively speaking of course, in comparison to other linux desktops) in the desktop market, that being Ubuntu. I personally would like to see google throw their weight behind Ubuntu, as it would really get linux out there as a viable alternative to windows.

The idea that google is gonna release their own OS? Never gonna happen.

What the Google OS is...

Google is a minimalist company. The Google OS will probably be a basic OS with the ability to check mail, maintain basic documents, your calendar, photos, and your news. Oh wait... thats already here! Am I the only one who realizes how much we're in the browser these days? When I'm writing in Writely I actually try to Alt+Tab out to my browser... before realizing I'm in my browser already.

Re:Kernel developers

I think its more likely that Google will just team up with an existing (preumably, some version of Linux) open-source OS distribution in a cross-promotion deal and by dedicating Google staff time to submitting code (and chrome) for it (and to work particularly on getting key applications working well on it): it provides the same insurance against Microsoft leveraging their OS/Browser position against Google that a "GoogleOS" would, and is what Google has essentially done in the browser space with their relationship with Mozilla (and RealNetworks).

Meebo

The first thing I thought of when I saw Meebo in action was "coolness."

The second thing I thought was "Holy crap, an emulated windowing environment within a web browser."

Presumably the backend to run IM clients was straightforward enough; there are several open implementations. The reason, I think, they took the time to set this up is to show that you can actually run a GUI within a browser window and have it be convincingly responsive. They've gotta be hoping Google and some other corporations are attracted to this decentralized, client-naive way of computing.

In the right hands, this stands to be a boon for computing in general, as the OS becomes largely just another abstraction layer between the browser and the hardware. It would also be a boon for Linux as a viable desktop platform, because all you'd have to do is boot up into a web browser in kiosk mode to have functional (and cheap!) workstations, which are essentially OS-agnostic. Brilliant.

GoogleOS

I always figured that GoogleOS is what we'd be explaining to our children as the reason we're living underground in caves, hiding from the robotic Google Search Engines that scour the earth looking for humans to "index". Oh, and it's also trying to send Ahhhnold back in time to eliminate "the one called Sara Connor".

Or maybe I've watched The Terminator a few too many times.