GoogleOS Scenarios 224
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."
Google OS (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
The Thin Client (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:My wishos (Score:2, Interesting)
my 2 cents
OR (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah yes, ANOTHER distro... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So in other words (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure analysts were doing the same sort of things during the first 24 months of MSFT or so.
these guys get paid to write this stuff? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Soooo ... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
What the Google OS is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Indeed, given Google's horsepower (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Kernel developers (Score:4, Interesting)
Meebo (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Oh phuleeze! (Score:1, Interesting)
With billions of dollars market cap with share price at 400+ dollars and all the smart people in the world what has Google turned up recently on their own? Don't cite these cheap knockout, me-too implementations like Google Talk (hi, skype) and GWallet (paypal). These never get out of beta, wither for a while and silently die.
Looks like lot of smarties made their money and moved onto other startups.
So given that, my guess is they will just partner with Kubuntu and release a distro with Google wallpaper and a google screen saver that displays their stock chart and call it GoogleOS.
yeah, call me cynical.
Re:So in other words (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Indeed, given Google's horsepower (Score:4, Interesting)
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)