Last week Google made a preemptive strike against Microsoft, revealing details of its Chrome OS months before that product reaches its near-infinite beta release. The idea is simple: who needs a big OS if you are doing everything in a browser? It’s a huge threat to Microsoft and Apple. But then it struck me I’ve heard this all before, so I went back and found this video clip from my show Triumph of the Nerds, circa 1996, where Larry Ellison predicts the future, not knowing he was actually describing 2010.
The biggest news was simply that Google was finally taking Microsoft head-on. The rest of the news, at least to me, was that Microsoft should be worried, very worried.
While we’re talking about operating systems here, Google’s real target is Microsoft Office. Redmond makes money from Windows but makes a lot more money from Office, its productivity app monopoly. Google already has its Google Apps pitted against Office, but Brin and Page know they won’t crack Office’s hold on corporate America without addressing the Windows flaws that effectively underlie both Office and Google Apps in their current incarnations. That’s where the Chrome OS comes in.
The Chrome OS strategy comes down to services, servers, security, and an iTunes-like app store (this latter part having been missed by nearly all the pundits).
An operating system with a user interface done through a browser is a completely practical idea and a vastly superior way to code User Interfaces than the Windows API. It wasn’t always so, but now we have Java and Java extensions in the browser, so the UI capabilities are much better.
Remember Google makes its money differently than Microsoft, taking a few pennies here and there. It is doubtful that either the Chrome browser or Chrome OS will ever cost users anything, but Google will make plenty from providing services and servers that run using these interfaces, with the real gold mine being that app store.
Under the Chrome OS, security is drum-tight so users can’t install unapproved software that might break the OS. The client is small, light, secure, and easy to support. The back end can be in Google’s cloud or in one of those Google shipping container data centers dropped into the parking lot at a Fortune 500 company. Either way Google makes money at the expense of Microsoft/IBM/Sun/Oracle. Larry sure didn’t anticipate that part.
Google will make tons of money from its app store. Remember that unapproved applications won’t be able to run on the Chrome OS and the best (maybe only) way to find approved apps will be through a Google store as pioneered by Apple with iTunes. This wasn’t lost on Eric Schmidt during his days on the Apple board. Through such an app store, Google will get a percentage of all third-party software sales — something Microsoft has never been able to do with third-party Windows apps. The potential revenue from the app store alone is billions per year.
We know that under the Chrome OS Google Apps will be very secure. Any tampering will trigger the download of a new and pure OS image. But will the Chrome OS have enough performance to compete with Microsoft Office? I think it eventually will, based, for example, on extensions like Google’s recently announced O3D API, which will allow Google Apps and approved third-party apps to grab spare GPU cycles to improve performance.
What’s left to be seen here is whether these improvements will be enough to beat Office or if Google will have to make a standalone (local PC-based) version of these apps. Only time will tell.
The most interesting part for me will be Microsoft’s response. This strikes at the very heart of Redmond’s business success and Microsoft will not take it lying down. Expect thermonuclear warfare.
Your primary assertion here, “unapproved applications won’t be able to run on the Chrome OS”, seems at odds with the OS being open source and the kernel being Linux. Aren’t many customers going to prefer a modified ChromeOS that permits apps from other sources? And aren’t OEMs going to be willing (and trivially able) to provide that? And even when a netbook is obtained that has a locked-down install that behaves the way you describe, what’s to stop hackers from making cracking this thing open even easier than jailbreaking an iPhone is? I just don’t see this coming to pass the way you describe.
@Doug
I think many of the readers of Bob’s column will indeed want to roll their own. But that does not describe the bulk of the computer owning majority. The app store is already live for android phones, It’s only a short jump to think that there will be an app store for Chrome.
I think the rest of the world however will eventually follow Chrome, the same way that many companies have gone for android. Simply because Google have given it away for free and that makes the cost of shipping hardware cheaper. If you have to pay fees to the likes of symbian, palm or Microsoft then you need a higher price at retail.
Then of course there is speculation over at Linux Journal http://ow.ly/163YbE that Google are going to give away a minimalist free laptop/netbook. The question is would you take one? I think many people would, and others would willingly pay more for a “better” one. This is where the netbook has been taking the PC anyway. It’s commoditising the underlying platform. This is technology that is “good enough” you do not need cutting edge tech, or advanced design when you’re delivering “the internet in a box” besides which if you want something flash you can always buy it from Apple, (http://is.gd/52JXu) but guess what, they have an app store too.
The number of people who jailbreak an iphone is minimal compared to the number of people who own them, and given that they’re tethered to the network anyway, apple could brick you at any moment. Same with the xbox 360 or any other bit of consumer tech you can mention.
I think what Bob is saying is at least plausible, it wouldn’t surprise me to see Google try to kick start the market for a new kind of internet device. One in which Microsoft doesn’t have a product for. This will undoubtedly mean that MSFT will try to get the Fed’s involved to protect market share and disruptive market changes. The fact that this is a new device and not a direct challenge should stand Google in decent stead IMO.
Google may manage to lock Chrome OS up, open source or not. Read the specs: the first thing the boot-loader does is to checksum the OS and load a new one if doesn’t match the expected value. Only when that’s done does it boot Chrome. This doesn’t need to apply to apps because they all live in the cloud: the OS doesn’t have a local filing system except to serve as its scratch-pad.
Chrome OS is always on, so its not a stretch to think that the expected checksum will be fetched from the appstore, meaning that you can’t beat the system by replacing both code module and checksum. Replace the boot ROM as well? I can see ways of stopping that too. The published specs make it quite clear that gaol-breaking Chrome OS, which you’ll have to do to run non-approved apps, could be quite difficult.
And all this is done in the name of protecting the user from malware and stopping spammers, which it will do quite well. Thats what Google says and we all know their motto, so this can have absolutely nothing to do with controlling the platform. Of course!
For clarification for non UK folks, Gaol (“gaol-breaking”) is correct, but is better known as jail-breaking in the US.
quote:
“It wasn’t always so, but now we have Java and Java extensions in the browser, so the UI capabilities are much better.”
I think it would be more JavaScript and/or HTML5/CSS than Java.
Yeah, what he said!
Bob
Javascript will get a share and HTML5 will be ready someday – but bet the farm on Flash.
Only Flash offers developers the ability to write once and display correctly on all browsers – including smart phones. Cross-platform compatibility is the new standard and only a plugin can provide it.
So-called standards bodies take many years to approve new technologies. While each new version of the Flash Player gets almost universal ubiquity in approx 6-8 months.
I wouldn’t bet anything on flash. It is already gone.
If the iTunes App Store is the analogy, here, then another thing that can be predicted is deep dissatisfaction on the part of developers with Google’s opaque, arbitrary review and certification process. That will spur some to ditch the platform altogether.
Users probably won’t care or know the difference, though.
If users won’t care then the app store will succeed. And Google will take a very different approach to app approval than does Apple. This is a company, remember, that vets YouTube uploads. It won’t be a religious or philosophical approval process, just a way to make money as efficiently and safely as possible.
Bob
Bob, I don’t see you have a leg to stand on with this particular prediction. Either that, or there’s an angle I don’t quite get.
Web apps are out there and anybody with a modern browser and a half-decent Internet connection can use any of them. What can Google do to block them? Why would they?
The “Google App Store” you describe already exists. It’s called “Google applications” and they live under various .google.com subdomains. It’s a very exclusive club, indeed, and getting your app in there means you got bought by Google and made off quite nicely.
But anybody can deploy their own web app anywhere on the net and any Chrome OS user will be able to use it.
The only thing that would support your prediction would be if Google somehow (1) blocked access to other apps than their own, which would fail pathetically and frankly I don’t imagine them being this stupid; (2) withold certain web apps gizmos from the developers at large, but so far everything they’ve come up, such as Gears or Wave and so on, has been pushed out to everybody.
And let’s not forget that all their stuff is copied and imitated soon after taking off, by Microsoft, Mozilla and many others, so they’d only be shooting themselves in the foot.
I don’t think the App Store can be imitated on the Web, not successfuly. With the iPhone, Apple controls the OS, the hardware, the specs and APIs, the programming language, everything. Google controls nothing about the Web, and any attempt would be immediately circumvented, not to mention losing them the “don’t be evil” monicker forever.
They might try it with Android, but they haven’t set themselves up in a position to control anything there either.
In fact, I suspect that Google’s approach may be disarmingly simple and radically opposite: not to control anything, but to make sure that nobody else ever gets to control their cash cow: the Web.
I doubt Chrome OS will effectively target MS-Office in the short term. Companies are tied to MS-Office. Heck, they are even OK with introducing disruption by upgrading to the latest version!
The best use of Chrome OS is for Web *appliances* – not computers.
Right now, the best way to hit the Web is through a computer. Problem is: they require some maintenance, are overkill for the job and take forever to boot. There would be plenty of uses for Web appliances, but the thing is: they would *not* replace computers. They could be used in different parts of the house or in stores, replacing Windows-based machines when the goal is just to have customer browse the company’s Website.
The challenge here will be to find a manufacturer who can create such an appliance. Netbook manufacturers aren’t a good match – they’re the ones who tried to add office on light versions of Linux, eventually giving the market to Microsoft.
This is a marathon, not a sprint. If this Google strategy succeeded overnight Google wouldn’t be prepared to deal with the success. So it won’t happen overnight. Just because we can see the endgame doesn’t mean it is upon us. Google’s target is still Office.
Bob
Google’s target is still Office.
I respectfully beg to disagree. Google is not in the office business, it’s in the web app business. “Web” being the key word here. Google Docs is one among many other web apps.
I think Chrome OS is first and foremost an ensurance policy. It’s Google’s way of making sure that nobody will ever be able to block access to their web apps. Microsoft, still in control of a sizable portion of the OS and browser market, is potentially able to do that. Why take the chances?
Remember how Google bought dark fibre to free themselves from being dependent on any particular ISP, local network connections and so on? This is the same game.
Secondly, Chrome OS and the cheap machines it will run on is an enabler. It makes it trivial for anybody to access the Web.
Most of the pundits seem to be missing what Chrome is about. Its the direction rather than the specific implementation thats important here. A machine that has a lightweight OS, browser based, with access to mainly free managed services will satisfy the needs the bulk of people in the world who only require browsing and email and a limited number of apps like Skype for communication. People by and large don’t care about the OS, they want services and simplicity. the future is not with a think client. Windows in its current incarnation s simply a blip on the roadmap of technology history.
This statement
“A machine that has a lightweight OS, browser based, with access to mainly free managed services will satisfy the needs the bulk of people in the world who only require browsing and email and a limited number of apps like Skype for communication. People by and large don’t care about the OS, they want services and simplicity. the future is not with a think client.”
I believe “think client” is supposed to be “thin client”, a minor typo, but the statement is, IMHO, largely incorrect.
If “People by and large don’t care about the OS” then why is Linux with a nice fancy X based GUI not THE preferred OS & Environment?
– No more antivirus subscriptions
– No more malware
– It works on the PC you’ve got
– Your PC performance will probably improve
– The actual cost of owning it is pretty much nothing
but… the stumbling blocks I hear from people are…
– No more MS Office,
– No more GoToMeeting (they don’t support Linux (a mistake IMHO)),
– No more sharepoint (those people are fairly well locked in)
– No more buying any old printer… you need something made by a manufacturer
who is truly innovative.. .not just saying they are.
– No more IE targetted web-pages
– No more Windows only business apps (ACT, Simply Accounting, Quickbooks)
These are not the complaints of people who truly wanted to only surf and read their email.
> If “People by and large don’t care about the OS” then why is Linux with a nice fancy X based GUI not THE preferred OS & Environment?
Because Linux does not run the apps. And it’s the apps that people care about. A lot of people hate windows, but use it anyway, because it is the only OS that will run their apps.
It’s not just apps. It’s also all the USB consumer devices like iPods, phones and cameras and so on. I plugged an iPod into a EEE PC Notebook running Linux, and it trashed the iPod.
My mom’s machine dies – I consider Linux & Thunderbird for her mail (the ONLY thing she uses her PC for) – but reject it on the basis that she “wants to do photos” on the machine as well, and who knows if her camera will work.
People who browse the web think that all people do is browse the web. That may be true for some users, but it’s not true for LOTS of users.
At it’s heart the ChromeOS is fundamentally “just another Linux”. Even if it _wasn’t running Linux_ the tag would be accurate. The problem is that users won’t change platform en-mass, even if the new platform has 99% of what they do. Even 1% is a deal breaker. Can do everything except xxxx (fill in whatever you like here, run iTunes maybe?) and it’s a non-starter.
Sure some folks will use it, but I don’t think the Windows team need to lose much sleep. Ellison predicted it 15 years ago, and we’re still just talking about it.
Nothing is as earth-shattering and world-changing as the product that hasn’t shipped yet.
6th, booya!
The “network computing” model has been predicted for a long time, and basically floundered several times because of adverse economics: to provide relative quality to end-users, the server back-end necessary and the scale of operations needed dwarfes the advantages in terms of better manageability.
What Chromium does is not to offer a way to monetize apps: it’s against their interest, and I believe that the iTunes reference is not meant to provide a shop, but a way to direct users towards (external) web applications, and at the same time to promote the basic Google Apps services. As it stands now, for example, to use the “home page” you need a google apps account, because the link uses the smart links feature that is available only to Apps users; I believe that ancillary online storage will also be available for premium users. Google uses a shallow monetization scheme- lots of little transactions, and no direct handling of things; for this reason, I believe that the basic idea will be to create a compelling platform to move thick clients like PCs online faster, and thus reducing lock-in from existing vendors.
Google does not target only Microsoft: all ERP vendors that are not web-based are also prime targets for that.
Definitely Windows worst fear, middleware. This is what triggered the first browser wars and the antitrust investigation. Joel Spolsky hit this on the head perfectly
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Personally, I still have hopes for smartbooks, netbooks and nettops to lead the charge, with “instant on” OS’es on top of windows 7. The trick is that if I have an instant on or always on OS w/ the power of Chrome why bother cranking up Windows even if it is there?
At present I have a EEE 1000 HE dual booting XP and Easy Peasy. I only boot XP when I have to generate a 100% compatible office document by importing open office or Google Apps documents.
“but now we have Java and Java extensions in the browser, so the UI capabilities are much better”
Java? Did I hear that in the 1996 video or did I read it? Nobody is using Java in the browser anymore and I don’t recall Google even stating that they will support a JVM in ChromeOS.
Perhaps you meant Javascript… which has nothing to do with Java other than the name.
What he said! That Cringely is such a doofus.
Bob
Laurent sees the point Google is making, which Bob seems to have partly overlooked.
The apps don’t run on ChromeOS, the Chrome browser does, and nothing much else. Apps ALL run in the browser – ANY browser, not just Chrome on ChromeOS. And like any browser, you’re not locked in to any App Store for “applications”, which are really nothing more than web pages/services. You will be able to run web-apps from the ‘net, your own server, or even html text files, just like you can with a full-blown computer. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google never makes a dime from any App Store – they don’t need to. Their business model is advertising on their web services.
ChromeOS will run on the Web Appliance box Laurent refers to. It will be a dirt-cheap, wi-fi browser that boots in 7 seconds, with a security model that keeps the OS and browser up-to-date and secure (there’s really no point to “jailbreaking” it). It won’t replace your computer unless all you ever do with the PC is browse the web, but it will be a much more convenient way of doing that.
A few years down the road when everyone has one of these and finds themselves using it most of the time and hardly ever booting their PC, even for “Office” apps, that’s the threat this poses to Microsoft, Oracle, et al. People will trade the convenience of this thing for the lesser-used bells and whistles in Microsoft Office and other desktop apps.
I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to come out with a fast-booting portable web browser appliance. Thanks, Google! I can’t wait to get one!
Yes, yes and yes. You have hit it right on. That said I have very mixed feelings about your statement regarding users “hardly ever booting their computers”. This idea turns users into content consumers more than creators. I think part of what makes the web and modern computers so amazing is the ability to create your own content and share it on the web as well as consuming content created by others. Will Chrome allow me to download pics from my camera? Not likely. How about organizing my music and syncing my MP3 device? Or what about allowing me to draw pictures and post them to DeviantArt? Youtube from my Web Cam? It’s already been announced that Chrome OS will only support a select few devices. I think that Chrome OS definitely has it’s place but I don’t know that it fills all users needs.
And Bob, Java, really? Java?
I think a lot of that could be done through a browser, as long as the appliance has USB ports.
But either way I still think my comment stands. How often do you rip a CD or import photos from your camera as compared to browsing the web? And wouldn’t you prefer to browse the web in your easy chair or back-yard lounger on a snappy, lightweight, portable device that doesn’t burn your lap when that’s all you are going to do?
Forget USB. Future peripherals will just have their own IP address and mini-webserver running. You interact with your digital camera through a web page, just like you do now with your Linksys router. All the hardware driver software will be on the device, you talk to it through the web based API over http from any web browser. Palm WebOS is ahead of its time.
Steve-
Excellent point, and you’re probably right! Of course, ipv6 is required for all those ip addresses, but that’s well on the way.
> Will Chrome allow me to download pics from my camera? Not likely. How about organizing my music and syncing my MP3 device?
You’re still working under the assumption that you’ll need a physical computer to get media on and off those pieces of hardware. A better question would be, when is my camera simply going to connect to my google account in the cloud and store my pictures? And when is my MP3 device going to have wifi/3g connectivity (if it doesn’t already)?
If our future hardware devices all have IP addresses and web APIs and basically run little web servers, the software to manage them would all be webapps anyway.
Look at the Google roadmap for Chrome. The OS and browser share a name because it is Google’s intention to merge them into a single product. Now apply this to your multi-browser scenario. Google needs to support all major browsers right now to minimize the friction of moving users to web apps. But once the shift is far enough along to be declared an unstoppable trend, then they’ll merge the OS and browser and your comments will have less bearing.
Of course Google has to think of anti-trust considerations here and I’ll tell you right now how they’ll handle it. They’ll allow third-party browsers to run atop the Chrome OS and have their own app stores. Good enough to satisfy the DoJ, this move will also add a performance-robbing extra level of software between user and application: advantage Chrome.
Bob
They’re going to merge the OS and the browser because the goal is to get the browser as close to the bare-metal hardware as possible in the appliance, for performance reasons. They want the appliance to be fast, cheap, and efficient for long battery life. They won’t have to force others to “add a performance-robbing extra level of software” to gain the advantage, they’re removing it from theirs. This doesn’t preclude their web-apps from working on multiple other browsers, and it wouldn’t make sense to do so – they want you using the same Google Apps on your PC. Google has been pretty good about web standards, as opposed to another browser distributor I might mention, who we all know all too well. If they continue to follow web standards, which I expect they will, where is the anti-trust problem?
I don’t think a merged Chrome device lessens the bearing of my comments in any way at all – in fact, I think it reinforces them.
Hi Bob,
“Google needs to support all major browsers right now to minimize the friction of moving users to web apps. But once the shift is far enough along to be declared an unstoppable trend, then they’ll merge the OS and browser and your comments will have less bearing.”
I do remember though that Microsoft did something comparable with Windows and IE; merging the OS and the browser too tight. Google will be forced to open the OS for other browsers, using the very same API’s Google uses for their own browser. And then let the market decide what’s the best OS/browser combination.
Google will not be forced to open up to other browsers. Microsoft will try, but cellphones, smart phones in particular have not been targeted, and by and large, cannot be targeted, unless it is running a full blown OS, such as Palms or BlackBerries. But since the flash memory will be small, and the OS will be the browser, there is nothing installled, there is no way short of rewriting the entire OS or replacing the OS to allow other browsers. But if you want the OS replaced, we come to the service contract–Google is funding/subsidizing the cost of the netbook and the customer signed up for a data plan, so we are in the same boat as a phone. To force Google to rewrite the OS, that is feasible, but it is telling Google they can’t enter the netbook market at all, which is contrary to so much it will never happen.
Supporting multiple browsers isn’t a problem as long as all those browsers use the same WebKit engine. Apple is safe in the ChromeOS dominated future because they’re the ones who manage WebKit. Apple will make premium products that people want, and as long as Apple’s products are compatible with our Google Overlords, they’re happy with a minority, yet highly profitable, market share.
Apple takes the high end premium personal computers
Chrome takes the low end cheap fast low power netbooks
Microsoft is left with the in between PCs
Linux takes the servers, the supercomputers, the appliances.
Does not look like there is much profit in making OSs unless you are Apple.
How long before Microsoft shrinks into a niche specialist producing Apple software for access to legacy documents?
Let’s assume that Google successfully pulls off a device that’s attractive and provides a reasonable value proposition to end users. To challenge Microsoft, Chrome OS is still going to have to fight an uphill battle against two large factors outside of Google’s control. First, that CTO’s are actually going to embrace the cloud, and second, that there will actually be enough last-mile bandwidth to make a thin client practical.
I don’t think Google is targeting the enterprise with this, so CTO sentiment is moot. They’re targeting consumers, and like the Ma Bell telcos after the cell phone age, Microsoft will be relevant only to businesses (and maybe the gaming community). And businesses may even consider Chrome for non-power users if the economy continues to drag.
The language of the CTO, the CIO, and the CEO is cost. Money talks!
The cost to maintain a Windows PC or laptop is considerable and Microsoft is a big part of that equation.
If a high quality office suite existed, and if I could download it from an app store, and if it would not be a requirement to have always-on network connectivity — then Google would be poised to challenge Microsoft.
If the operating system takes less hardware and costs less, then that would be a step in the right direction. Microsoft business strategy has been built of forcing to change our equipment every 3-5 years. If this cycle is broken, then there are huge cost savings for companies. If the average cost of a workstation is $750 and one replaces it every 3 years, that is $250 per employee per year. For a good sized company with 5000 people, that is $1.25M a year. If one could reduce the cost of the platform to $400 and extended the life to 5 years, that saves that company $850,000 a year.
If the office suite is of high quality and costs less, then firms could break the cycle of paying Microsoft $200+ per employee per year. For our 5000 person company, that is a $1M a year savings.
Look at the cost of running an email system for a good sized company — even more money.
So far none of this has any dependency on buying into Google’s cloud. Let me operate, run my office suite, without a persistent connection to the Internet — and I and most company execs will be open to a new way of doing things. A few $M a year in savings will get some serious attention.
In the end Microsoft and Apple won’t go away.
1) There will probably be a Chrome browser for Windows and Mac OSX. All those Google App Store applications will probably run on both platforms.
2) Microsoft will finally reduce the price of their OS and Office products to compete. The monopoly will finally be broken, yes there was and is a monopoly! The price fixing will end, open market forces will take over, competition will flourish.
3) Apple will continue because they will sell very high quality products and applications. I could see them developing a special version of OSX and Chrome that will exploit the advanced capabilities of their hardware.
[QUOTE]
Remember that unapproved applications won’t be able to run on the Chrome OS and the best (maybe only) way to find approved apps will be through a Google store as pioneered by Apple with iTunes.
[UNQUOTE]
Wherever did you get that idea? ChromeOS uses HTML5 and open protocols ans source code, and applications run on the web server. How on earth would it be possible to prevent unapproved applications running on it?
I believe most people don’t buy operating systems, they buy computers with operating systems, and this makes a huge difference in perception.
You buy the operating system with the computer, the average person doesn’t separate out the cost of the computer and it’s software, it’s one price. And everything is included in the initial price.
With that said, if Google were to start charging for every app that people used to get for ‘free’ (meaning came with the computer , which really means the OS) people are going to resent it, up to and including calculator. And more importantly corporations will not want to have to spend the resources trying to determine all the ancillary apps that each person is going to need. No Way On Earth, not cost effective.
Even if it turns out to be cheaper to go Google ala carte in the long run, people will still feel like they are being nickeled and dimed to death. No one likes that feeling, and most people don’t want the hassle that comes with it.
Then there is the whole feeling of renting software, which I’m sure will come into play with Google. Meaning if the application isn’t on your computer, afer you pay to use it how long do you get to use it for? A week? A year? Until you upgrade your OS? If you don’t have the software on your system, you don’t own the copy, which means you are most likely going to get hit with a recurring bill. Which is always the kiss of death for people and they never realize it. The monthly bill that doesn’t seem like much until you add up the numbers after 2 or 3 years and realize no way on Earth did you get your money’s worth.
But I never have faith in the masses choosing the right path, so who knows what will work.
With all this said, Chrome may find a home for Netbook users who basically only want to surf the web, check emails, Facebook , whatever; but I think the world is still pretty far from running it’s operations in the clouds.
I think Chrome OS will be installed on several models of TVs before the end of next year. TVs makes more sense then netbooks. TV is always online (via cable), Chrome reboots in 7 seconds (TV users can handle that startup time), no HDD (usual stuff for TV).
App store? Maybe.. More likely – YouTube store, where you can buy or rent media (but never download them to local storage). It would be convenient way of bringing Internet (YouTube, maybe some multimedia magazines that will be created) to the living room.
Facebook, casual games – all available on big 50 inch LCD from the couch.
If you need to go out you can pick up on your netbook, laptop or cell phone where you left off.
I agree that Chrome on a TV with the addition of Hulu/Netflix/Youtube would become a “killer app” and totally shake up network tv and cable tv.
This would cement Google’s place as the king of advertising.
I was wondering if Chumby would run it
Also chuckled when I read “but now we have Java and Java extensions in the browser, so the UI capabilities are much better.”
Would like to hear more information about what you meant by that.
I think the PC architecture (essentially a thick client) made sense when interconnection between computers were limited (dial-up or worse yet, shipping floppies and CD-ROMS). You’d periodically ship code bits on a piece of plastic by mail, as L. Ellison puts it, have users load them into their computers, and wire only data on an on-going basis. This what you did when bandwidth was limited.
Now things are different. Communication bandwidth has come a long way. It is now practical to wire code bits on the fly. So it’s only natural to revisit the whole computer architecture, and find a new optimal configuration.
Another thing to consider is that these machines have become unbelievable complex, as we put more uses on them. At first, it was only writing and check balancing, but now it’s pretty much everything under the sun except physically touching someone. Therefore, the current model of every user maintaining his/her own PC is quickly becoming unbearable.
I’d love to leave hardware/software maintenance to vendors, provided that I retain reasonable ownership my data. This is not a question of ability. Just because I understand how a car works and know how to fix it, I’m not going to spend all my free hours being a mechanic for every car I and my friends own. Being a ‘PC mechanic’ will soon be out of reach for all except few dedicated enthusiasts and IT professionals.
Cloud computing centric architecture (Google Chrome OS Netbook) seems to be aiming at facilitating this transition to a more user-friendly architecture.
Should your subtitle be “Spock’s Chrome”? 😉
……all this O/S focus misses one important point baout the cloud….availability. Read up on the recent Microsoft/Danger/Sidekick fiasco, and see just what happens to “thin clients” – in this case phones – when the cloud crashes. There are other problems too.
1. Who owns the data in the cloud?
2. Can the cloud operator use YOUR data and sell it on?
3. Is the cloud operator taking ANY steps to ensure that you are who you say you are? If not, then there are bad guys out there, with illegal data, storing it in YOUR name!
4. Is the cloud operator going to turn everything over to the government without a warrant? Remember the AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile phone records were handed over without a murmer – only Quest refused. Remember Carnivore. (And read item 3 again!!)
Microsoft’s reply is already out there – its Windows Azure! In the future (at least in Microsoft’s imagination) third party Windows apps will run in the Azure cloud and in this way Microsoft will start to profit directly from their success.
[Quote]
The back end can be in Google’s cloud or in one of those Google shipping container data centers dropped into the parking lot at a Fortune 500 company.
[Unquote]
Wow, quite presumptuous about what a FT500 (or any large business concern) could do. The Cloud, or at least a VERY large part of it, for business, ‘has to be private’ for many reasons (security risk, possible loss of intellectual property, government data protection requirements, etc.) and it must definitely reside inside the FT500’s ‘parking lot’ (call that the ‘physical control’ aspect). However, isn’t the definition of this ‘parking lot’ or a ‘Private Cloud’ (a term which we’ve heard being bandied about) really just the ‘Data Center’ that FT500 businesses already have?
If it was in the ‘Public Cloud’, what kind of guarantee do the FT5’s that use the Cloud’s resources have that the physical data remains safe. How do these ‘Public Clouds’ meet and validate requirements for ‘US Citizen only’ (or any country’s citizen-only) access to the physical servers (e.g. say when support technicians replace failed…or ‘supposedly-failed’…hard disks)? And what guarantees do the businesses have that the physical drives are properly handled/disposed of? (Sure it could be physically delivered to the business, but how does ‘the business’ know that it wasn’t ‘copied’ along the way?)
[Quote]
Under the Chrome OS, security is drum-tight so users can’t install unapproved software that might break the OS.
[Unquote]
That sounds great! At least until the hacker’s start to ‘really’ target it. Then, who knows? And if hacked and the hack discovered, would those operating the ‘Cloud’ inform the user’s of the breach? [Definitely NOT in their best interest from a loss of business standpoint.]
[Quote]
The client is small, light, secure, and easy to support.
[Unquote]
Great! But what does that ‘support’ look like for an FT5 company?
And what about access to the applications an FT5 employee needs when traveling, telecommuting, etc. We just don’t have the necessary ‘wireless’ access points yet. Give me a blanket Web across the globe and you’ll have something to start with (well, as long as latency is not an issue). For that matter, imagine a student sitting outside on the lawn doing work/reading for a class. Does the university have a WAN covering them. Oops, no connectivity… no reading.
Oh, I know, they can use their cell phone to access. Hope they don’t need very fast connectivity speeds, otherwise…
What about all the current self-built/self-supported applications or COTS customized applications that each FT5 company has that would be required to converted to use in this new client (converting to web-based applications)? Many FT5’s easily have thousands of these applications (each!). Are there any FT5’s that have applications ‘certified’ for use by government or other regulatory agencies? You bet there are. Are they going to try to convert them all? WOuld the agencies allow it?
These are a few of the ‘massive’ background issues that the Editorial blurbs in major news media outlets overlook. Management reads these things and says, ‘let’s get on the bandwagon, let’s move to the Cloud and start using ‘fast-booting’ Thin-client systems (and Thin OS’es). [And then they say, Hey I should get a bonus for that suggestion!]
In truth, an FT5 ‘could’ probably get there, but the conversion would have to be slow, piece by piece, and the costs distributed over long periods of time. Interoperability issues would arise between operational groups using the new versus old systems and that would have to be worked out as well.
One idea would perhaps be for Google to be pursuing a ‘virtual Chrome OS’ virtual application environment similar to the new Virtual Windows XP application environment just released for Windows 7. This is where Virtual PC is running and only the legacy Windows XP based application window appears for the user to interact with…however, in this case, the Chrome OS based application would appear. Over time, more and more applications would run in this manner until a switch was possible…and then, of course, the reverse would be loaded (virtual Windows OS based applications running within a Google Chrome OS environment…if that is even possible).
I’m not in management (and do not want to be), but “can I have a Bonus for this last idea”? LOL 🙂
They already have a “virtual Chrome OS”…it’s called the browser. You can already run Google apps on XP through the browser. The whole point of Chrome OS is that it only has what you need to run the browser, making it much smaller and faster than other OSs. Running a browser on virtual Chrome OS on top of another OS would just be adding a redundant layer.
Can’t wait for the beta release, I have a couple old almost-useless laptops that are great candidates to be Chrome appliances.
People are finally trading freedom for stability/security, yeah? It started with Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem. Maybe a little app oversight is a good thing.
Erich Fromm wrote a book about that very subject. Might be worth reading again.
Google is an advertising agency, but has a CEO with a software background who covets Microsoft’s market. Microsoft is a software company, but has a CEO with an advertising background who covets Google’s market. Why don’t they just swap CEOs and live happily ever after?
What, you’re trying to take over this blog???? Bob has the smarts franchise. Said so his very own self.
The number 1 biggest hurtle in giving up MS Office I think is Excel. No other software works close to its utilitarian functionality. The second is perhaps Access. People that use them daily to enter, keep, play with, and present data have no replacement. The spreadsheets in Google Docs and other desktop office ware just don’t quite cut it yet, and dragging those users to newer platforms is about as easy a legacy database consolidation and migration project. Most other document-based workflow is slowly being displaced by online collaborative publishing media and culture. So I can see Word and Power Point losing interest from the next generation.
I don’t think this is a threat to Apple or Linux die-hards. Apple is practically training users and pushing a cultural shift toward greater mobile computing, and I think Jobs still have unrevealed plans to take people there. Also there will always be a segment (~10%?) of the population that want a nice, solid computer that they fully control. The reason we haven’t gone fully into network computing is not just because of Office. Lots of other heavy-duty drafting, media, and scientific software don’t quite run in a browser over Wifi yet. Sure you can use Citrus and other virtualization and remote terminals, but there is no free lunch. The crunching power has to come from somewhere. I say Google still have a ways to go to hurt MSFT, but I think their #1 goal with Chrome is still just to increase ad revenue through cheap, quick services while they keep on slowly chipping away at Office.
The cloud is where Apple might have a real advantage. Part of WebKit is access to SQLite via Javascript, so you’re not really forced to keep *all* your data in the cloud if you know what you’re doing app-writing-wise.
I’m just sayin’…
I don’t see Google Chrome OS + browser on “netbook” having longterm success.
Sure, they may sell a few thousand if this vaporware becomes a product…
but the moment the purchaser decides to do something OTHER THAN some Google app, like say, run their own video editing software that came with that new digital camera, and they realize it won’t even install, let alone run, on the “GooBook”, it will become a toy to give the toddlers in the house.
I’m also not too sure of the “ownership of the data” issues others have mentioned.
According to Google’s Terms of Service, you have to assert you have ownership of any data stored on their server, and in doing so, you give Google the right to use your work or derivitives for their purposes. No, I think I’ll keep my private
data just that…private.
But what if I don’t have always-on web connections? Or, if I’m traveling and the data connection is absurdly expensive? Or, just somewhere where security, geography, etc. make the connection unavailable?
Will Chrome have a local-server option for such cases? If so, will this be a security hole or a great opportunity?
Many comments worry about putting data on the cloud. There are two concerns:
1. Google get access to it
2. It might get lost
Concern 1 is easily fixed – encryption these days is good enough that governments have to take away your right to silence in order to get decryption keys. Chrome OS being open source will quickly gain tools to seamlessly encrypt everything you store on the cloud. How careful you are with your keys is still up to you.
Concern 2 is akin to fear of flying – when you take a dispassionate look at the risks, flying is far safer than driving. Likewise your data is far safer on the cloud, particularly for the vast majority of the population who don’t have a clue about data safety. Choosing a cloud run on Microsoft software increases the risks somewhat, but I’d argue that the data lost due to the Sidekick/Danger incident is still trivial compared to the carnage from everyday software and hardware crashes.
well said
This is just an X-term on a longer wire, which is a Good Thing, but doesn’t really solve the problem of displacing M$: how to get the Fortune X00 companies to dump Office. To do that, Google/Chrome has to show it can be just as secure as owned storage AND clone the Office file formats, past, current, and future. Without both, it will take a bold Fortune X00 company. From what I’ve read, IBM has started to do that, but not with Chrome.
I love the Chrome browser, and I love what I’m seeing from Android on mobile devices so far. I can’t wait for the Chrome OS to release.
I think the fact that Microsoft Office is available for and has grown respectably in its adoption on Macs illustrates the foundational challenge facing Google. Microsoft Office is the standard in the business world and in many homes for processing and sharing documents and spreadsheets, and it isn’t difficult to share Office-based products through web and intranet services. Why would businesses and individual end-users that haven’t already switched to using Google apps (or perhaps Open Office for that matter) for their document needs change their mind once the Chrome OS arrives?
The issue isn’t cost, or we’d already be seeing significant migration to free Office alternatives that exist today. The real challenge is the pre-existing condition of an entrenched standard – or brand really when you consider that new versions of Office documents are not usually backwards compatible. If Google Docs or Open Office couldn’t open and edit files ending in .doc, .xls, etc., I suspect they would not have a fraction of the user base they currently enjoy. I don’t see Google presenting a serious threat to Microsoft Office until they establish alternative file formats… and market the crap out of them.
This really comes down to a matter of marketing in my opinion, and I notice that one of the greatest marketers of all time Apple – while offering iTunes and Safari to PC users – has up to this point chosen to avoid pitting their iWorks directly against Office in the PC market.
I hope Chome OS succeeds brilliantly, but I don’t anticipate anything like Google Docs supplanting Microsoft Office.
Chrome doesn’t need to eat MS’s big corpo clients in the short term. Remember, MS has about 95% market share with Windows. If Chrome takes the low end netbookers and under-20s, half the college students, most of the tech-savvy nerds and gamers, 10% of the corporations (smaller ones) and maybe 20% of the AOL masses, then they’ll end up with nearly 25% market share. For an advertising company that’s not bad. If MS could get 25% of the search market with Bing they would pop champagne corks. If they lost 25% of desktops to Google they would be very, very upset.
Time is on Google’s side. Windows entrenchment is largely based on a generational habit of not knowing anything else (except the very boutique Apple). Penetration of 20% or so is only going to grow, especially as computers get smaller, the cloud gains credibility, and everything goes mobile. Google is like Japanese automakers in the 70s.
“Thermonuclear Warfare” is right. MS has billions in lobby money and is better at lobbying than Google. They’re going to fund a PR campaign against the cloud, maybe fabricating a privacy-loss incident or data compromise just to scare people away from it and hope to inspire new legislation. Think of GM buying the streetcar companies, or lobbying for building the US interstate.
MS is doomed largely because Gates has left. Say what you want about him, he was a visionary and might have moved MS toward the future. Chrome is a leap from Windows, but Bing is not a leap from Google.
Was the danger/sidekick data loss staged? i wonder
Microsoft strategy will probably be buying the information ! – news, social networks what not.
Google struggles for a long time to create information of its own ( books, maps, geo data, etc. ).
The net devices ( phones and others ) are another source generationg information
which can be searched.
If you check carefully the new generations of internet entities ( I prefer that over site and/or social networks ) , you see that they all control the flood gates of information accumulated there.
If I live in Facebook, I don’t really need Google to search for me.
That’s why Google plowing virgin fields.
Microsoft are very good in strategy elimination, so they will just buy all the information! Absurd? maybe.
I thought we settled this issue in the 1970’s!
End users prefer owning the complete process: hardware…software…data. That is what the microcomputer revolution was all about.
Cloud computing, Azure, Chrome, etc are just new labels for mainframes and dumb terminals. Granted the graphics are a lot better this time around, but the concept is the same.
I predict this fad will be short lived as users (re)discover why we abandoned mainframes. Yes I know, mainframes still have some uses, but they are not going to take over again no matter how they are branded.
Google doesn’t need to replace Windows; they only need to bleed off twenty percent of replacement PC sales. They will do that easily, year after year, and their market share will keep growing… and growing… and growing…
My customers don’t care: the only thing they want to own is their pictures and documents. They will be much happier accessing them from anywhere, and not worrying about backing them up.
I fix home PCs for anyone who still uses the Yellow Pages, which is the aging “60 Minutes” demographic. They don’t care about owning anything except their (one and only) E-mail address and a printer. If Google offers them a free, ad-sponsored computer running ChromeOS from the cloud, they will take it and ditch their failure-prone PCs. My future workload will be installing their printers and replacing their cable routers.
This migration started with Web-based Email. People don’t care about downloading their messages. Most of my customers don’t know the difference between Comcast’s Web-based communication center and Outlook Express. When they start editing documents and spreadsheets in their browser, they won’t even notice that anything (except the price) has changed.
Even the more demanding users are already migrating to the cloud. One of my best customers runs his business on QuickBooks Online. I just set up his new $600 HP desktop with his $250 copy of Office 2007. When I got done, he entered my payment into the browser, Intuit gave it to him as a PDF, and he printed it on a blank check. This will work just fine on Windows, Linux, Chrome, or anything else with a USB port. Again, all he needs is a printer and a cable router. Now that he’s in the cloud, he’ll skip his next $300 copy of Office 2010 when he discovers Google Apps… and the next step is a ChromeOS browser terminal, which he won’t need me to set up.
Chrome is NOT going to compete with Windows. No more than the MS-DOS and later Windows competed against the Mainframes.
No, this is the OS not of the future, but for the future platform. Windows is completely dominant on the PC platform. Apple’s best challenge is to get maybe an 8% market share. However, Apple has long ago (despite what their commercials claim) stopped competing against Windows. Like Google, Apple is focused on the next platform. And so far, Microsoft is almost completely absent from that race.
Apple developed Webkit as an open source platform, and Google is using it as the basis for Chrome. Both of these companies are ready for the new platform although both have slightly different ideas exactly what that platform will look like.
Google envisions a cloud environment. Your local hardware is a mere portal. Grab someone else’s tablet computer, and you see your apps and your documents. Everything is in the Ether.
Apple is taking a mixed approach. You have local apps, and maybe store your data locally, but these apps are mainly responsible for giving you an interface to the network where the actual work takes place. I’m not 100% sure this was Apple’s original intentions. After all, they originally told developers that iPhone apps could be done via JavaScript and Cloud computing. Apple only released the Apps store after everyone complained they wanted their own apps.
What is strange is that both companies benefit with this arrangement. Webkit lives in Apple’s browser, so Apple computers will have access to whatever Google plans for Chrome. That means Google makes money on Apple computers.
At the same time, the compatibility will put Apple in a better position than the old Windows vs. Mac days. In the old days, buying an Apple product meant you had to put up with incompatibility. You couldn’t run Windows programs, you couldn’t use banking over the modem programs, and there were whole areas of the initial Internet webpages that simply wouldn’t work with Macs. People avoided Macs not because they thought they weren’t good, but because their incompatibility in a Windows World made them useless.
Apple controls WebKit which is the basis of Chrome, so Apple doesn’t have to worry about its products becoming incompatible. Apple will produce products that people will want, and people will buy them knowing that their is no longer a down side for sticking with Apple.
I have no idea where computing will be, but both Apple and Google are ready for it.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is just missing. Windows Mobile has lost most of its partners most of whom are switching to Android. Out of six mobile operating systems, it is now in fourth place, and will fall behind Android (currently fifth place) by the middle of next year. Project Pink is dead. Zune has made no dent in the MP3 player/Internet device marketplace. And, even the XBox has yet to make Microsoft a cent. They spent so much time and effort competing against Sony’s PSP platform that they completely missed out on where the gaming world is actually heading: The mobile platform.
This could spell the end of another important cornerstone of the computer industry: the endless pursuit of Moore’s Law.
Computers become faster and faster because the OS and its applications require more power, and developers make power-hungry software because computers become faster & faster. Intel, AMD and the OEMs are depending on this cycle; their response to Vista’s bloat & slowness was to throw faster hardware at it… which barely helped under Vista, but it’s paying off now (Windows 7 x64 runs fantastic on a Core 7 Quad with 4 GB of RAM and a 512MB Radeon HD4350 video card… and that isn’t even close to the fastest computer available right now: I just bought that exact desktop from Dell for $1100 — with a 23″ flat panel).
When the apps are in the cloud, and the OS is only designed to connect to it, any processor made this century will be able to run them faster than their bandwidth makes them look with only 1 GB of system memory. There will be no tangible benefit to a faster computer: if the OS boots in ten seconds on a five-year-old Celeron, why pay more?
Like the netbook debacle (in which unit sales went up and profit went down), this spells doom for the large OEMs. They will be reduced to replacing failed equipment… just like the have been for the last 2-1/2 years in the business market, when virtually none of their customers migrated to Vista from XP and the corporate hardware platform remained a board with 512 MB of memory and shared video. They might need to follow the example set by American carmakers in the 50s (and 60s, and 70s): planned decay to force replacement after a few years. The back windows rusted out on your GM car for a reason. Maybe the future for Intel, AMD and nVidia is more of those thermal-failure-prone chips…
[…] – Cringely thinks Google can succeed with Chrome OS (making a lot of money from an AP store) and that Microsoft should […]
Maybe this is a dumb question, but how will a browser-based OS not run afoul of the same antitrust issues Microsoft faced when it built IE into the OS? For that matter, why hasn’t Apple run into similar legal issues given that the only browser allowed on the iPhone is Safari?
The neat trick is that Chrome and Safari are based upon WebKit which is what is really important, and WebKit is an open source project. Not only that, but it is open source under not the GNU license, but a more liberal BSD style license.
This means that ANYONE can download the WebKit source code. That ANYONE can make a WebKit browser. In fact, not only can they make a browser that looks and acts like Safari and Chrome (which is also open sourced), but they can add their own proprietary widgets and dingbats into it. Something that is much harder to do with GNU based licensed software like Linux.
With Windows, the OS was proprietary. Not everyone could make a Windows like OS that would run all the software that could run under Microsoft’s OS. (In fact, if you remember the DR-DOS debacle where Microsoft purposefully made their programs incompatible with that OS).
Of course, the really neat trick is that you can modify WebKit to your heart’s delight, your proprietary wingdings won’t work with the other open source tools that will expect “standard” compliance with HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS 3.whatever the latest incarnation is. And, the two biggest players in deciding these open standards are (the envelope please…) Apple and Google!
I suspect in the next few years FireFox and Opera will abandon their browser engines in favor of WebKit. Why bother throwing all those resources at writing your own browser engine if you have to make it work exactly like WebKit? WebKit is free and you can now spend more resources doing things that really make your browser truly unique.
“I suspect in the next few years FireFox and Opera will abandon their browser engines in favor of WebKit. Why bother throwing all those resources at writing your own browser engine if you have to make it work exactly like WebKit?”
This is like saying “Why bother writing your own OS (eg GNU/Linux or dragonflyBSD) if you have to make it work exactly like MS Windows?”. There are assumptions there that are not valid.
In the specific case of FireFox, it is based on Mozilla, which is an application development framework/platform. The browsers called Netscape, Mozilla and FireFox are just applications written using this platform. Now I know that XUL has not made much of a splash, but the Mozilla framework is a very different approach to WebKit, with a very different set of possibilities. You can use Mozilla to build stand-alone applications that are not browsers, or web-based at all. Would the FireFox project would want to break with those conceptual, phylisophical and technical foundations even if the end-user couldn’t see any difference in the final product?
Bob, first of all Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family from rain sodden Ireland.
The ChromeOS article was interesting, however it appears to me that Google have a huge task if they are to catchup up with Microsoft. Take, for example the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) of the .NET “stack”. In essence it has the functionality of Windows Forms but it can be run on the desktop or in a browser, and it farms out the graphical intense stuff to the gpu (via direct X). So why is this important, well MS Office is not just about Word and Excel on the desktop, it also about all those applications that have been developed over the years using Visual Basic, VBA etc. How does ChromeOS fit into this space? What corporation is willing to rewrite all those apps? Future releases of the Excel engine will be able to run on the Azure high performance computing platform, which implies that WPF will not only be able to farm out the grpahics to the GPU but it will be able to farm out the numerical stuff to an Azure server somewhere…..very very interesting times.
Outside of CorporateSpace, .NET has very little penetration in the Internet world. Nor, despite the bribes, Silverlight hasn’t exactly taken the Internet by storm.
.NET is proprietary and only runs on Windows servers. The Linux open source Mono project is just a cover, and will always be behind the official .NET project.
Microsoft needs .NET because it guarantees that Windows servers will still be needed (thus Windows licenses), plus you can have .NET request Windows services from the local computer. (That’s right, .NET is not exactly 100% platform independent). You can run some of Windows Office functionality via the browser with .NET, but it is not meant to replace Windows Office itself. Otherwise, Microsoft would be killing its own cash cow.
The biggest thing that uses .NET is SharePoint, and SharePoint requires Windows, .NET, and Microsoft Office to really work. Corporations love it because they’re in hock to Microsoft anyway, so they don’t have to replace any infrastructure or buy any new technology. But, outside of the CorporateSpace, SharePoint is simply missing (Yes, I know many webpages are created with SharePoint, but that’s because once you have everything in SharePoint, you might as well use it to create your web content).
Run some Google Trends with Java vs. .NET and Silverlight vs. Flash and see how much penetration Microsoft has been able to make with their proprietary technologies in the world outside the office towers.
X-terms have been around for how long? Their market penetration is what, exactly?
Putting aside my misgivings about the cloud, I find this article to be unusually full of assertions for which the foundation is either absent or insufficient.
1. An operating system with a user interface done through a browser is a completely practical idea […]
2. […] security is drum-tight […]
3. We know that under the Chrome OS Google Apps will be very secure. Any tampering will trigger the download of a new and pure OS image.
MAY BE YOU R RIGHT~
[…] Chrome and Chrome, What is Chrome? The biggest news was simply that Google was finally taking Microsoft head-on. The rest of the news, at least to me, was that Microsoft should be worried, very worried. […]
Wow, nobody gets the reference?!
“Brain and brain! What is Brain!” From “Spock’s Brain”, classic Star Trek. circa 1968ish. In which Spock’s brain is stolen so that it can be used to “control” the environmental system that supports a fallen civilization.
It’s one of the most bizarre and inadvertently hilarious Star Trek shows from that era – sublimely absurd (aside from the Ion Drive reference, which is surprisingly on-the-ball).
Bob, while I truly respect your opinions about technology and the direction it is taking, it’s stuff like this that earns me your everlasting respect as an author.
You have a wonderful sense of the ironic and absurd.
Nick
Brain? Still don’t get it.
Cringley,
1. Didn’t you recently write an entire article about the hazards of storing your data in the cloud? I think a client with no permanent storage would be a deal breaker for 99.9% of users.
2. Google doesn’t make a dime on all this free “stuff” and the costs are huge. If Microsoft had any sense, they would just quietly smirk to themselves and let Google waste all their resources. But Microsoft isn’t smart. Ballmer’s ego is too large and he has to control everything and win at all costs, even when the winner doesn’t get a prize.
3. I’m not sure Google is “targeting” office for the sake of hurting Microsoft. Google knows new platforms have always remained minor because they didn’t run key applications like office. So rather than having a goal of hurting Microsoft, their goal is to have critical mass in applications.
Swinging opinion , Bob ?
July : … while reporters (…) pretend that it matters.
Nov: Google’s target is still Office.
> We know that under the Chrome OS Google Apps will be very secure.
> Any tampering will trigger the download of a new and pure OS image.
As noted many times above, this won’t discourage hacking. What it will do is discourage *casual* hacking. Settings can be cleverly tweaked. Insecure clones of questionable compatibility will be available. But if you want to hack Chrome OS, you have to go the full monty.
The number of people willing to do this is even less significant that the number who would try hacking it in the first place.
With Chrome OS truly “the network is the computer.” We all know how far Sun got with that one.
I will go kicking and screaming if it truly means that I, i.e. my data, must be stored in the trusted cloud. I don’t trust the cloud and never will, and in my present employment it is my job not to. I require persistence of my information to reside only within my own media with only meta links in the Cloud, which in reality has long since been to the contrary as these words are now stored in Bob’s Cloud. I’ve already lost those parts of me that exist within the Cloud. I struggle against assimilation yet know that resistance is futile.
Let’s not forget that this won’t be great for Apple, either, the original “it just works” people. I’ve already been dreading the day they move the App Store idea to their OS–I sure didn’t expect Google to beat them to it.
First, many larger companies will be hesitant to adopt Google docs unless they can host it within their firewall. Second, many businesses have lots of custom apps tied to office. Third, nobody gets fired for spending lots of money with MSFT.
I am all for cloud computing, and have just finished a personal experiment moving 90% of my computing to the cloud. Music seems to be the one item that stays on my local system. I have now been fighting the cloud “battle” with several of my software initiatives where I work. User authentication (security password management), and cloud hosting outside the firewall are the major roadblocks (tough sells). I am not saying the resistance is correct, but it is there.
So, there was some stunt by Google a year or two ago about running native code from the browser. They posted their stuff online and asked people to crack it, hack it and generally find holes in it. Which people did.
I never heard about it after that. Matasano had a big write up about it on their site and discussed the threats posed by downloading machine code and running via the browser (think ActiveX). Google was trying to get the security of Java with the power of ActiveX.
Looks like that little project was a direct predecessor to Chrome.
Now what I want to know is this: If I obtain your Google username:password, can I log into my Chrome device with it? If so, can I just have all your info on my device from anywhere? Apps included?
I think the major oversight here is the fact that Apple is in more trouble with such a transformation than Microsoft. Also, it really is a bit of a misnomer to drop the Microsoft name, nowadays, without the word Office attached to it, but that’s for another time I suppose.
If Chrome takes off, Microsoft will always have traction in the market, because of Office and Project. The world of engineering management is Project. Project is a necessity. Excel/Access are required in any business. Work in the real world and attempt to do any sort of financing in OpenOffice/GoogleDocs and you’ll quickly see it’s a waste of time. Also, notice the new Office 2007 formatting and you’ll see if you’re trying to convert anything outside of Word documents, translations are severely impacted due to formatting. Point being, Office will make Microsoft always viable. In fact, the bigger news of all this is the forthcoming version of Office, which does exactly what GoogleDocs does now. Expect this to be the saving grace, hands down, for Microsoft. Microsoft is a differentiated company, because of Office.
The real question should be, in all of this, what is Apple going to do in response? That’s the real, million dollar question.
Apple have already started with iPhone/touch & the app store. These are but the first devices from Apple that are, for the most part, web endpoints. You can run local apps (ala pc’s) but you can also run cloud apps. You also have hybrids, locally installed apps that use services of the net at run time to create the desired result. While “pc’s” will never go away entirely, always connected mobile computing is the future and Apple already has a solid entry into that space with new devices and form factors to come
Google is also in this space with Android and one can easily imagine a standalone mobile device, maybe with an Android kernel, that runs Chrome/OS. Microsoft on the other hand, does not have much response here. Windows mobile is rapidly receding under the weight of iOS/X & Android and even at this late date Microsoft still don’t seem to get the web at a deep level, they just keep “refining” their cash cows (Windows and Office)
+Jay
I understand what you’re saying, Jay, but I don’t think you understand the direction the new Office is heading in or the market Office has. Even if corporate America jumps on the cloud bandwagon, they need Office. Too many legacy documents, projects, etc. are done in former versions of Office. If a client can’t have 100% compatibility with Office, then they will be out of this luck. For this reason, what Microsoft does beyond their new version of Office is the real question.
Yes, Apple has the app store. Does that app store have an alternative to Office? No, it doesn’t. What applications are necessary for every computer user: web browser, email, and Office. All of these options, with the exemption of Office, can all be done better by a community driven project.
This is the reason why Linux and formally Solaris, which I still use both at work, always hit a brick wall. As good as the OS is, it was never able to gain traction in the end user spectrum, because it doesn’t have Office. Again, while I do use OO and appreciate what it is, it falls very short in seamless transparency with Office files.
So, while Apple will continue to sell music, and go on to eventually sell movies and books, they are always going to be a media company, because corporate America needs Office. It’s a fact of life.
What Apple has carved out for themselves is a market that caters to spur of the moment decisions. Their app store is filled with junk/things that could be had for free elsewhere. I am not saying what they have done is a bad thing, but rather, all their applications they offer are not differentiated products. When you don’t have a differentiated product, as soon as a free alternative emerges that does the same thing those pay for app does that is not mission critical, then people won’t pay.
Apple’s only differentiated products is iTunes and its derivatives. Apple has gone on to build their entire business model around it with all sorts of products that cater to this media centered reality that people want. Apple’s OS is dead. Apple’s PC line is dead. Media, for Apple, is their future. And, if you look, you already see this.
My main point is we have emerging markets. Microsoft will always be around, because of Office. Google will always exist. My guess is Apple will, too. The point, however, is that we’re going to see stratification of the industry and not a replacement of any of these markets. Business customers, students, teachers, Microsoft; search engines, cloud computing, Google; the king of digital media, Apple. Any products they make simply support their core concentrations. Nothing more, nothing less.
Minux, your making the old mainframe mistake, “PC will never be as good, fast, collaborative, insert adj-v here”. The limitations you describe are only revision or two away. As far as the need to be backward compatible, got any tape reels around? We do. IT will drag their feet, but costs always win in the long-run with business. Hard to beat free. Google’s model will be difficult to defend against. Free productivity software, cheaper services, reduced HW, shipping, support costs. MS is going to have to change the rules to survive in the (very) long run.
Apple on the other hand is a hardware company. I predict that they are dancing in the Cupertino offices. Why would you buy a PC over a Mac? To run Office (fully functional), Access, Autocad, GIS etc. of course. But if they all eventually become web bound what the barrier to choosing Apple?
I’m not bashing here, but it show the company mindsets: MS, protect the monopoly. Apple be better. Only one of these works in a Google-cloud world.
You make some valid points.
I will point out again that free only works, where differentiated products don’t exist. Part of the success of Linux/Unix for servers, high end computing, etc., is the wealth of community driven solutions that negate the requirement to utilize the commercially available solutions from Microsoft, Oracle, etc. This is the major reason why Sun went out of business, as all their solutions could be had for free. Their idea of offering free solutions to customers was great, but about ten years too late to gobble up the Redhat/Novell market.
Again, why Linux never took off on the PC market was, because it had no differentiated products to give their customers. If someone buys from Apple or Dell, they have no need to replace that OS with a freeware one. In fact, with OEM licenses, one could make the case that they have no financial incentive to replace their OS.
This is in starch contrast to servers, data mining centers, etc., which would have to pay, in addition to their purchased hardware via service contracts, licensing costs, etc. So, there, free makes sense. And, that’s where Linux has been the most successful.
I think the end result is what the end user is willing to shell out for. If they are buying a Google Chrome laptop, just for the sake of having a connected device that can read email, play some simple games, browse youtube, run hulu, then sure, it’ll be just as competitive as any Dell, Apple, etc. Depending on cost, it might prove to be the best, most logical solution. If they’re buying a new device to take to college or through work, then they’re going to need Office, which would dictate a solution from Microsoft.
To say Microsoft isn’t working on cloud computing solutions of their own is a bit of a stretch. Microsoft currently has an app store, though it’s limited, in terms of the 360. There, you can buy movies, videos, and games. Sure, it’s limited, but if you look how they’re trying to make everything under the sun be connected through the 360, without actually going out there and making a web browser for it, then one can imagine they’re kind of already where Google is trying to go with Chrome. Whether this is Microsoft’s intention or whether they understand what they have on their hands is, really, anyone’s guess. But, it’s my guess they’re not dumb, when it comes to this evolution, either.
I think even Jobs made some comment to the effect that they’re a media company now or we’re in the age of media. The recent talks between Apple and the print media industry seem to dictate some sort of solution manifestation there, in addition to their current media offerings. Look at the iPhone/iPod/iTouch and it’s really just another portable device that keeps a person connected to the world of media.
I think the real issue with all of this is personal computing hasn’t evolved to the point where it should have been. We still don’t have applications that can take a blurry image, run some algorithms, and make it shot just as if it were in focus. We don’t have that true social interaction via the internet, where a grandmother in Texas feels like she’s interacting with her child in NY on a day to day operation. I think a lot of passion has been squashed out of this industry, since we’ve evolved from one or two companies making billions to 50 IT companies making billions.
I was a die heard MacOS guy, before Apple became this mass accepted computing company. I think a lot of the personal computing passion and love has been lost, since Jobs came back to Apple. Now, their solutions seem to be more the same than different. I don’t find any of their current products, outside of their iStuff to be anything revolutionary.
When will it rock the world?
“If Chrome takes off, Microsoft will always have traction in the market, because of Office and Project.”
Yes but “Always” is now a rather short period of time.
Light on resources, light on apps, light on imagination, light on functionality, Google chrome has it all. Seems like a GUI that harps back to the daze of windows 3.x! Yet there are “some” smart ideas here – of sorts.
Yet can you run all you need from inside a browser? Checkout Steve Job’s views on browsers versus streamlined client apps. OK, when it comes to overbloated, ribbon invested MS office, (who exactly came up with that brain bender called the “ribbon”?), then chrome may be a breath of fresh air – yet would you trust the pages of your new novel in the safe hands of the Google cloud? Or is it time to get your old typewriter out of the closet?
What you don’t see is the big money burner when it comes to broadband connections and isp revenues, everything you will need to do on your dumb terminal will require connection please, and don’t expect to get much done if your cannot connect – thanks a bucks!
On the plus side, perhaps it is time for no more bloated security updates that trash your system and leave you with the pieces to pick up.
As usual, an eye-opener. Thank you!
Maybe I’m missing something but … One thing that occurred to me reading the above, was that everything ignores the physical, retail market. It assumes all software either comes pre-installed or is to be downloaded.
Most of the software retailers I see carry MS Office and it’s components, big style. OK, so are we suggesting the future of our applications cuts-out the retail sales sector, replacing it with downloads? That would upset the big retail empires mightily.
Yes I know online music download stores have been hitting hard at the turnover of retail outlets for years, but there’s still be a huge percentage of customers who would prefer to get a properly packaged and pressed CD for their money – not just a CD-R with permanent marker on it! The local HMV I pass every day still has plenty of customers.
Well the same for software – which often needs DVDs to distribute – it’s not always because of bloat.
Once upon a time shareware was touted as the future, and though I think businesses have, in a round-about way, come to embrace the concept once more, it had never ruined the retail sector previously. It’s inception, however, was at a time when the prospect of buying a music track online was unheard of.
Trying to knock MS Office of it’s pedestal isn’t just a bout going head-to-head with the biggest software company. It seems someone is actually changing a world market place. Losing jobs, closing town centre stores, closing disk-pressing and packaging companies etc…
Sounds dramatic… Must be a lot of arrogance in this new technology wave…
Wow, the comments seem to be filled with FOGGY thinking. In my world FOGGY means “Flippin Old Guys Glorifying Yesterday.” PCs will never be as good as mainframes, The Japanese will never build cars better than Americans, America will always be the world’s leader of innovation, etc. All old news.
The truth is that if Blackberry had thought of the app store instead of trying to milk potential developers for $200 per dev kit we might all own Blackberrys now instead of iPhones. My point is that Chrome is now the right product at the right time.
The groundwork for free & hosted apps making their way into corporate America has been set. Virtually every business & computer user I know needs the Internet to have a fully functional computer. Hosted app technology is improving and many of our favorite apps are starting to be delivered in a hosted version. It’s not perfect yet, but some combination of hosted or hybrid apps will eventually replace our stand alone experience. Just look at what’s happened in the game space – for both PCs and consoles.
And eventually Google will either allow some form of local storage for apps & data or (because it’s open source) the community will provide that service. I completely agree that some form of local storage for hybrid apps will be needed to meet performance needs for at least a few years.
You can also expect the community to add their own version of a free apps store and support for additional hardware. Even Google wins when that happens. Google gets to dodge responsibility for anything outside their approved platform and the world gets a modified version of Chrome that meets the needs of 90% of all users.
The change that is coming with Chrome will rewrite the computing landscape as we know it. It will take time, but the effect is inevitable.
In fact if Google really wanted to build fast market share all they would really need to do is ensure four core applications were available. First, talk Apple into providing a version of iTunes so everyone could sync up their iPhones & iPods. Second, talk Blizzard into developing a World of WarCraft client – I know you don’t get it but with 10,000,000 subscribers this could be a significant barrier to adoption at home. Third, a portal for server hosted Windows apps similar to Citrix or any other remote desktop solution. and finally, a really slick developer’s kit for hybrid apps.
At that point between Google Docs and all the other web based solutions and the ability to run any required existing Windows software, you’ve nailed the needs of probably 95% of home users plus covered the needs of corporate America.
Minux, I agree with your points. Not saying who will win or lose in the short term, and who will will finally get it right in the long. But we are making the same argument. Distributed services (potentially) levels the field and a lot of the differences disappear, then cost matters. Linux wins where it is roughly equivalent, but for know consumers fear it (more) and Business-IT sees the retraining/compatibility costs. If consumers don’t see the operating system and a browser interface/web protocols addresses the compatibility and user training issues why pay more? I agree we are not there yet but it seems inevitable to me.
MS may be the winner, but my point is, not with their current business model and (apparent) mind set.
We don’t really even have Chrome yet so I don’t know if it is even close to addressing the needs. But someone will get it right, and it doesn’t even matter if its MS, the market pressure will lower the cost of Office and the OS. Again, MS is in trouble if they cling to the old way of making a buck.
I have been around long enough to experience a few of the “everyone can use a terminal/smart terminal/netpc” fiascos at the organizations I have worked for. I am a Mac guy for the control issues (ie IT leaves me alone). But even I see cloud-distributed services as the future, heck its already here, (we are having this discussion) it just hasn’t replaced some (all?) business IT functions yet.
Well said, Gustave.
The future is really going to be interesting. I think you make an excellent point about cloud computing really already being here. Really, we can even go ahead and say that all data mining is a form of cloud computing. As you point out, anyone who listens/watches/reads the news is well aware of the emphasis this country is placing on the availability of information.
Any ways, well said.
Microsoft was afraid of Netscape. Not because it would replace IE and cut Microsoft off from the browser “market”, but in case Netscape ever became an OS into and onto itself. As recent times have shown, alternative web browsers have slammed IE in recent years, with few people actually relying on IE to browse the web. But, has it hurt Microsoft? Maybe, in terms of people becoming in tune with alternatives outside Redmond, but Redmond isn’t suffering from lack of money. Not yet, any ways.
Google released Chrome. Not the OS, but the browser. Looking at the numbers, one can assume that Chrome has not gained as much traction on platforms as Google may have wanted. Firefox has been near perfect in fending off the competition and its sustainability and growth is evident of that. Firefox doesn’t care about competition, because it can always return to Linux, being just as community driven as it once was and it’ll be fine. Firefox and IE are in no fear of Chrome.
Chrome OS hopes to achieve what Netscape never could: replace Windows. It wants to do this through utilizing ad revenue to make two things free: both the OS and the hardware that will access the cloud. The question that remains for Google is in spit of the recent economic downturn, will it be able to?
Computer sales are down. Apple is gaining a market share, while the market is shrinking. People aren’t buying PCs every three years. Those days are done. Even if Chrome’s hardware is free, will it be enough for people to give up their PCs and switch to a mobile platform that is always connected? That is the million dollar question over at Google.
@ Minux..
Quote – “Microsoft was afraid of Netscape. Not because it would replace IE and cut Microsoft off from the browser “market”, but in case Netscape ever became an OS into and onto itself.”
Strange, I remember this differently, that MS precisely bundled and then incorporated IE into the OS to stage their play to the DOJ that it was an essential component of Windows? They wiped out Netscape Navigator with the power of the free bundled software, and could afford to pay the DOJ a million bucks a day to prove their long winded case!
Quote – “Chrome OS hopes to achieve what Netscape never could: replace Windows. It wants to do this through utilizing ad revenue to make two things free: both the OS and the hardware that will access the cloud.”
Is this what you really want, ads built into your OS?!!
What price freedom!, Oops, I mean free apps!!
Regardless of the ethics concerning free stuff and free apps, do you realise you throw away your freedom and rights not to be tormented by spyware and have your every click monitored!
Quote – “Computer sales are down. Apple is gaining a market share, while the market is shrinking. People aren’t buying PCs every three years. Those days are done”.
I disagree, whilst desktop sales may be down, have you noticed the focus on laptops and notebooks, and now even netbooks, (writing on one now). These have never been cheaper to buy, and they are readily bundled with and healthily spreading the new success of windows 7.
Apple PC sales may well be down, (whats new?) Yet do we all want Iphones and Ipods, do we all use these? The answer is no, for the most part they are pants – trendy pants, yes! But still pants regardless, (apart from itunes and that compass thingy that tells you which way you’re pointing – very useful).
Even if Chrome’s hardware is free, will it be enough for people to give up their PCs and switch to a mobile platform that is always connected? That is the million dollar question over at Google.
NO ! …and that answer for Google is for free!
Someone may have already mentioned this, but remember mainframes and X Terminals. That was supposed to be big because all the computing happened on big, fast hardware, and only the user interface went over the network to the X Terminal. That seems similar to Chrome and even cloud computing. It bombed. Why, and what does that portend for Chrome?
Actually your presentation of your point is probably the most spot-on I’ve seen here. However I think it also illustrates exactly the point you are arguing against as well.
Remote terminal / remote desktop technologies as generally used when the local client can’t meet the needs of the application for some reason. Those reasons tend to be hardware, software or geographically driven. In every case, there was some version of “local”, even if that local was the on-site mainframe. In the end it turned out to be easier to give everyone a faster box with more local capacity.
The web browser has largely solved those issues. It’s essentially platform independent, has access to the local machine and network when needed. Web browsers receive code to be run on the local machine from a server and process it locally and for the most part network latency has dropped to the point where it’s not a bit problem; even on the Internet.
Examples of the problems already being solved are everywhere on the web. We all use the web extensively for shopping, information, file exchanges, email, IM, etc. ad nausem. In short most of the applications we depend on are already being viewed through a portal and hosted remotely. There are exceptions, but those could be solved (temporarily) using either a hybrid format (like most online games; a local client domain specific program that dependents on a remote server to run) or temporarily though a remote terminal / desktop until that application can be repacked (or wrapped in middleware) to make it a web service.
Nothing I do anymore is independent of the web. Even if I’m working on CAD or programming I end up referring to the web for more information or to share the work I’ve accomplished with others. If my CAD software or games were browser plug-ins my overall technology experience wouldn’t be noticeably different.
The reason Google Chrome will fail to break the Microsoft Juggernaut is because the current way of doing things is good enough and getting better. The average user is resistant to change.. The average user I see, is happy with the way things are. All Micosoft needs to do is evolve its software for the better as they have done with Windows 7 and Office 2007, add a few data sharing Internet based components, and people will stay with the system they know. Even the people I switch over to Apple insist on MS Office being on the new system, and with Windows 7, why switch to a new OS at all. I wouldn’t underestimate Mircrosoft.
Seriously?
Java apps and the inability to install anything ‘homebrew’ or by other suppliers?!
That will in no way be a threat to any corporate installment of Windows.
Ever.
Hi there Minux
So, do you work for Microsoft?
Anyway, I do predict that Google will win. They will win via strategy that we have not even imagined yet. And no, they won’t put ads in your OS. What they will do is have millions upon millions of streams of revenue. TV is going away as an advertising medium, so to reach those numbers you need google and the google content network. it can and will deliver the viewers. but intstead of the ad dollars going to tens or hundreds of networks and thousands or print vehicles, those dollars will all go to google–that’s right, to one company, not many thousands of companies. they don’t even need to win the OS war, but they might, just for fun.
Yes, exmicrosoft, I work for Microsoft. I told Billy Boy that you said hello.
With that being said, you’re comments would have made sense, years ago, before major content providers realized they don’t make as much money as they wanted, because of Apple. Point is, with all forms of advertising down, no one is going to pay Google to be on their service. Again, this may have worked, if that’s exactly what Apple did, when they did the first iTunes, but now, they don’t have a snow ball’s chance in heck, as it goes.
This can be a I adore a few of the articles which were written, and especially the comments posted! I’ll definately be visiting again!
I have tried using Chrome OS in one of my desktop PC’s, the overall performance is above average to excellent *
manual the tonneau’s posible, there is numerous rumors since it can be done, then again i have been looking and as well as unearthed will surely. im simultaneously totally from mexico!
[…] Bob Cringely on Chrome OS and Google’s Larger Strategy November 24, 2009 by Russ Thornton via cringely.com […]
The days of rest depends on the type of workout, e.g. number of exercises for a muscle group, number sets, reps, intensity, etc. Some types of workouts do not require much rest and can be done almost daily.
This has truly sparked up an idea in my mind. This can be a superb weblog article.
Thank you so much for have very very good informations. Your website is great.I am impressed by the information and facts that you’ve on this blog. It shows how properly you comprehend this topic. Bookmarked this process page, will appear back for additional. You, my friend, amazing! I found just the data I already explored in all places and just could not find. What a perfect website. Such as this site your webpage is one of my new preferred.I such as this info proven and it has provided me some type of idea to possess achievement for some reason, so keep up the fantastic operate!
Can I web page link as much as this, through my webpage? I’m planning to get as much reasons for tips as i am able.
As seeking for a short time for finding a decent content articles in relation to this one area . Browsing in Yahoo I lastly have discovered this web site. Reading these details I am seriously happy to imply that I’ve got a really good feeling I stumbled upon the very things I was looking for. Most definitely i’ll make certain to remember this web site and look it over consistently.
What is captcha code? pls provide me captcha code codes or plugins, Thanks in advance…
I’m having trouble reading your blog with firefox. You think you could to tweak this so I could read at your blog? That’d be awesome 😉
It has been a great enjoyment reading your article. The time I spent was well worth while. Hope you will include more to your unbelievable collection.
Good thorough ideas here.You may want to actually consider such as something like graphic bomb. What do you think?
This is my first time I have visited here. I found a lot of interesting information in your blog. From the tons of comments on your posts, I guess I am not the only one! keep up the good work.
I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but I’m glad I visited. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.
This is my first time I have visited here. I found a lot of interesting information in your blog. From the tons of comments on your posts, I guess I am not the only one!
I really like your blog! My brother told me about it. Perhaps I will come back later.
I’ve discovered a lot in your site and I look forward to further updates and can be back. Perhaps it is a bit offf topic however in any case, I have been browsing about your weblog and it looks really neat. impassioned about your writing. I am creating a new blog and onerous-pressed to make it appear great, and supply wonderful articles.
Holy crap! I couldn’t have said that any better 🙂
Howdy! awesome web! I am a ordinary visitor to your site (whole lot like addict ) on your site even though I had a a doubt. I am only not truly positive whether it is the correct place to ask, but you’ve got no spam comments. I get comments just like mnQUzapokerstars bonus codesyUXMnY regularly. Will you help me? Regards.
Very interesting subject , thankyou for putting up here .
Great review. Thanks for posting such an in depth impression. I’ve handled one in the store, but your review covered alot of ground that I couldn’t with such a limited amount of time. Based on my in-store experience and your review I think I’ll be waiting for a future generation to arrive. The potential is certainly there for this device, but based on my current portfolio of tech devices (laptop, desktop, iPhone, iTouch) I’m not sure this device quite justifies the expense at this time for me.
I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it’s rare to see a nice blog like this one these days..
I’m not sure exactly why but this blog is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a issue on my end? I’ll check back later and see if the problem still exists.
I’m still learning from you, as I’m improving myself. I absolutely liked reading everything that is posted on your blog.Keep the aarticles coming. I loved it!
Good – I should definitely pronounce, impressed with your website. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related information ended up being truly easy to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it at all. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or something, website theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Excellent task..
Good thing that Chrome is getting better every couple months or so. The frequent updates make it easier.
Good stuff you have here, I was going to mention this to a good friend of mine
I’m still learning from you, as I’m improving myself. I absolutely liked reading everything that is posted on your blog.Keep the aarticles coming. I loved it.
The future is really going to be interesting. I think you make an excellent point about cloud computing really already being here. Really, we can even go ahead and say that all data mining is a form of cloud computing. As you point out, anyone who listens/watches/reads the news is well aware of the emphasis this country is placing on the availability of informatios
Can I web page link as much as this, through my webpage? I’m planning to get as much reasons for tips as i am able.
In the united kingdom, studies demonstrate that about 70% from the woman human population do not use the beats by dr dre headphones and rather straps on ill-fitting, not comfortable ones.
I think other website proprietors should take this site as an model, very clean and excellent user genial style and design, let alone the content. You’re an expert in this topic!
always a pleasure thanks.
We known that beats dr dre pro sale Online become more and more popular.
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all adidas predator x and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam. https://www.soccers-cleats.com/ PZZ
windows 7 64 bit key…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Chrome and Chrome, What is Chrome? – Cringely on technology[…]…
supplements.underneath the exercise category you may list…
subtopics such as: the importance of exercising for weight loss how often should you exercise what kind of exercise is right for you how to exercise in the winter without joining a gymchoosing the third subcategory of what kind of exercise…
mặt nạ dưỡng da…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive Chrome and Chrome, What is Chrome? – I, Cringely – Cringely on technology[…]…
substitutes considering the authentic content articles http://fationhandbags.skyrock.com/3090752953-Replica-Chanel-Bags-Too-Beneficial-Being-True.html a new Louis Vuitton is not just this ladies handbag
Howdy! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the
nice information you have here on this post. I might be coming again to your
weblog for more soon.
You should be a part of a contest for one of the greatest websites on the web.
I’m going to recommend this blog!
hey there and thank you for your info – I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here.
I did however expertise a few technical points using this website, since I experienced to reload
the website lots of times previous to I could
get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK?
Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will very frequently affect
your placement in google and can damage your high-quality score if ads and
marketing with Adwords. Anyway I aam adding this RSS to my
email and could look out for a lot more oof your respective fascinating content.
Ensure that you update this again soon.
Ariana Grande naked
[…]usually posts some quite intriguing stuff like this. If you are new to this site[…]
Extraenergie
[…]the time to read or take a look at the content or web pages we have linked to beneath the[…]
cheap jewellery wholesale
[…]The info mentioned inside the post are several of the ideal available […]
HENS NIGHT
[…]Sites of interest we have a link to[…]
spring repair
[…]just beneath, are quite a few completely not related web pages to ours, nevertheless, they may be certainly worth going over[…]
HITRUST Certification
[…]that could be the finish of this post. Here youll obtain some web sites that we believe youll value, just click the links over[…]