DISQUS

Fred Alan · 5 months ago

I'm not sure where your focus is of computer science, IT, etc., but it is painstakingly clear however that you have missed the train.

The majority of internet users usage is based upon web applications. Not Photoshop, not Outlook, not any current desktop applicaton. And thats another thing: I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but most desktop applications are being replaced by web apps.

Giving Google Chrome OS two years for 'significant penetration' is actually great! Windows 3 took forever to come around after Windows 1, so comparatively GCOS will fly.. as time does often when you're having fun.

Speaking of fun, thats where netbooks come into play. Again, the majority of internet users are just that: Internet, users, which do not need a full fledged heavy desktop to do web work. The majority wants portability, and reliability. And if it can be installed on a netbook, its just that easy to install on a desktop when at home or work.

You might want to board the new train, and stop wondering why your's isn't moving any longer. Oh, and that salt? May want to go lightly on that. ;)

schammy · 5 months ago

Fred, next time, try actually reading the post.

"Some arguing against Chrome OS have stated that it is deeply flawed because it lacks computer specific software (I’ve seen Photoshop mentioned on a few sites.) I find this line of attack strange because it ignores the underlying premise of Chrome OS to begin with: this is primarily a Web OS."

Duncan says plain and clear that *other* people are mentioning photoshop, etc, as a drawback for Chrome, and that this is strange reasoning because the goal of Chrome is to be a Web OS. He personally is not backing that up, just saying that that's what other people are saying.

Try reading. It's amazing what you'll get out of it.

Kyle Brady · 5 months ago

Amen.

And whoever "Fred" is here missed the entire point.

--Kyle

richardrabins · 5 months ago

There is general consensus that apps will be moving to the web - in fact that trend is WELL underway.

The next question is how are these desktop (fast/rich) applications going to be built so that they don't have the traditional "click and wait" feel of Web 1.0 apps? There are a number of options but it seems like AJAX is the most popular way to go (partly because unlike proprietary approaches like Air or Silverlight) it is based on JavaScript and other public domain technologies.

All in all exciting times where the consumer wins

richard rabins
Alpha Five
http://blog.alphasoftware.com

ITrush · 5 months ago

Interesting, lets see who will win the battle.

hbobrien · 5 months ago

Almost all the coverage focuses on the technical challenges, and on Google's positioning vs. Microsoft.

That's not the real story here, though.

The real story is -- How can an OS be advertising supported? Specifically, how can an OS be advertising supported using Google's "tiny little ads" model?

I don't think it can be. Which implies Chrome OS will be paid for by someone other than advertisers. Whether that's the OEMs, or ISPs, or the users themselves -- somebody is going to be forking over license fees to Google.

Which would appear to confirm an earlier comment I've made: "(Google keeps) trying so desperately to find something, anything, other than search that'll make money..."

This is a canary in a coal mine moment. This is Warren Buffett shopping for companies in Europe, or his saying he was "shorting the dollar" by buying non-US currencies. It's a massive vote of no confidence by Google on the future of advertising.

http://notthatkindofoperation.blogspot.com/2009...

adam_hartung · 5 months ago

That Google would go after this new business surprises only those that don't understand Google. Industrial-era thinkers believe you should "stick to your focus". Like GM. But Google knows that in an information economy if you don't keep moving into new markets with new technologies looking for more revenues you won't survive. Read more at http://www.ThePhoenixPrinciple.com