PDA

View Full Version : Opinion: Why Chrome OS will fail — big time


MacBytes
Nov 23, 2009, 06:45 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Opinion: Why Chrome OS will fail — big time (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20091123074542)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Shoesy
Nov 23, 2009, 08:39 AM
flexibility is definitely where this all falls down. Look at iphone os - it's inflexibility is what has caused it's very quick and certain demise.

What we need are more options! Not a knew way of looking at things at all! Make it do everything and then it's certain to beat all the other bloated osses around.

Brilliant thinking there, well done.

sconnor99
Nov 23, 2009, 08:43 AM
flexibility is definitely where this all falls down. Look at iphone os - it's inflexibility is what has caused it's very quick and certain demise.

What we need are more options! Not a knew way of looking at things at all! Make it do everything and then it's certain to beat all the other bloated osses around.

Brilliant thinking there, well done.

iPhone OS - demise, what on earth are you on?

Shoesy
Nov 23, 2009, 08:47 AM
Oh yeah, that's what I meant - the exact opposite of what I said. That passes for humour where I come from. ;)

ss957916
Nov 23, 2009, 08:49 AM
I just don't get the whole cloud thing. The last thing I want is a computer that only has full features when I have the internet.

MisterMe
Nov 23, 2009, 09:00 AM
iPhone OS - demise, what on earth are you on?I choose to believe that he was being facetious:)

As for Randall Kennedy's piece in ComputerWorld at the heart of this thread, it is nonsense. His Fatal Flaw No. 1: The Linux Foundation defies logic. Supposedly Linux is a weakness owing to its "spotty" hardware support. For it to work, it doesn't have to support every phone in the World. Each manufacturer simply needs to write drivers to support its own hardware. This is a limited task that can be done to high precision. As for his Fatal Flaw No. 2: The web user interface—well, I suppose that it is matter of taste. However, I would hardly call it a fatal flaw. For my tastes, it is not the iPhone OS. I have no desire to use it. However, a majority of phone users do not use the iPhone. It is up to Google to design its interface to satisfy a critical mass among that group. I am certain that it can.

Demosthenes X
Nov 23, 2009, 09:41 AM
The article appears to be written from the erroneous presumption that Chrome OS is intended to supplant Windows/OSX. That's hardly the case. I'd argue Chrome OS is intended to to supplement another computer running a full-fledged operating system. The author's statement, "Why you would want a web-only appliance as well is not so easy to answer," demonstrates just how widely he misses the point. Chrome OS will appeal to the same people who want netbooks.

As to "spotty hardware compatibility", I fail to understand the criticism. As long as it runs on the hardware it claims to, where's the problem?

jayducharme
Nov 23, 2009, 09:49 AM
However, it also inherits that platform's many warts, including spotty hardware compatibility.

Google is partnering with a few hardware vendors to make sure its system works. I don't see how that's a "wart."

The "applications" running under the Chrome OS are really just interactive web pages, with the Chrome browser's tabs serving to separate and organise them visually on the screen.

I'm reserving judgement on this until I can actually use it. Chrome isn't meant to replace hard-core computer tasks like 3D animation. It's meant for "most people" who check their e-mail and spend most of their time online. It's a slow process, but like it or not many tasks are gradually moving to the "cloud." Aviary is a good example: a fully functioning multitrack studio (similar to GarageBand) but completely online. It will probably take another decade or so, but eventually the cloud will rule.

Google has thrown out the one characteristic that made Windows and, to a lesser extent, Mac OS X and full-blown Linux successful: flexibility.

Ummmm ... but I thought you just implied that Linux was carp. And OS X isn't exactly the most flexible system ever devised, but it does what it does well. Chrome might find a niche it can fill. It doesn't need much flexibility if it essentially has one function: to handle web interaction.

gotenks05
Nov 23, 2009, 01:42 PM
I have not read the article yet, but I am about to. However, from a few posts to thread here, I think the article's author does not take a whole lot of data into account. Seriously, why would it require Internet all of the time? People can access most of Google's stuff offline. That is what Gears was supposed to accomplish, was it not? If Gears is included in Chrome OS, then that point is useless. Then again, the article is just an opinion.

ClassicBean
Nov 23, 2009, 03:05 PM
I just don't get the whole cloud thing. The last thing I want is a computer that only has full features when I have the internet.

I agree. Until all computers are automatically and forever online all-the-time without ever losing a connection, I'm not interested.

Jazurm
Nov 23, 2009, 06:37 PM
Some people fail to see the good in things. Just because a product or idea does not apply to you, does not mean it is "bad". This OS is perfect for the netbook or tablet revolution (especially one with a 3g plan), but it only applies to this field. No person would ever put this OS on a desktop computer or even a laptop if that was their only computer. I agree it's a very limited OS, but it looks to be able to do a few things very well instead of doing everything decent.

bmb012
Nov 24, 2009, 12:38 AM
I choose to believe that he was being facetious:)

As for Randall Kennedy's piece in ComputerWorld at the heart of this thread, it is nonsense. His Fatal Flaw No. 1: The Linux Foundation defies logic. Supposedly Linux is a weakness owing to its "spotty" hardware support. For it to work, it doesn't have to support every phone in the World. Each manufacturer simply needs to write drivers to support its own hardware. This is a limited task that can be done to high precision. As for his Fatal Flaw No. 2: The web user interface—well, I suppose that it is matter of taste. However, I would hardly call it a fatal flaw. For my tastes, it is not the iPhone OS. I have no desire to use it. However, a majority of phone users do not use the iPhone. It is up to Google to design its interface to satisfy a critical mass among that group. I am certain that it can.

Haha, thanks for making the perfect point. This might be acceptable if this was a PHONE we were talking about. But it's not, this is an operating system for a COMPUTER. An OS that makes the computer less capable than OS 9, Windows 7, even less capable than BeOS is nowadays!

If the thing uses low cost processors, how will it run inefficent web programs at a decent rate? Nail in the coffin: It's supposed to cost as much as current netbooks, which already do everything ChromeOS will, and TONS more.

zakfox1986
Nov 24, 2009, 08:30 AM
Chrome OS won't work for everybody. It may work for the most basic user out there though. Some people want the internet and nothing more. I was talking to a mom yesterday and she is Google's perfect user. She wants to be able to turn her computer on and it go straight to her Google home page. No clicking to open IE or FF or Safari...just boot to internet. Chrome OS would be perfect for her.

kerpow
Nov 24, 2009, 08:46 AM
Haha, thanks for making the perfect point. This might be acceptable if this was a PHONE we were talking about. But it's not, this is an operating system for a COMPUTER. An OS that makes the computer less capable than OS 9, Windows 7, even less capable than BeOS is nowadays!

If the thing uses low cost processors, how will it run inefficent web programs at a decent rate? Nail in the coffin: It's supposed to cost as much as current netbooks, which already do everything ChromeOS will, and TONS more.

Disagree. My netbook is under-powered, takes a long time to boot up and then has all the usual issues with XP. I could install linux but I can't be bothered to worry about whether the sound card or wifi card works. And it doesn't have a CD player so I've got to worry about iso on a USB etc. The hard drive failed a month or so ago so it had to be sent back.

A ChromeOS would boost faster, no hard drive to fail, no data loss.

For people that worry about it being useless if you're not connected to the internet - how often are not connected to the internet? Wifi is everywhere and will be even more prevalent. Planes and subway is possible quite soon. 3g and then 4g/WiMax etc. will only improve.

I would be very surprised if Google don't allow you to cache aspects of Google Docs and Gmail so that you can at least write stuff if you disconnected for a short period of time.

mgamber
Nov 24, 2009, 08:52 AM
IMO it only applies to super cheap netbooks, not really anything that's currently available. The problem lies in what will make netbooks so much cheaper that they, coupled with Chrome, will make them commercially viable? Taking out the hard drive? That's hardly going to make a dent. Suddenly a $250 netbook can sell for $230? Replacing Windows with a much cheaper system will make a difference but, as I recall, that was tried with Asus netbooks running Linux and we saw how they just leapt off the shelves at Target and Walmart, the exact target audience, according to Google, for Chrome. Finally, you have to really trust google to buy into this at all. Most people probably won't care, some people probably worship the ground it's built on but I, personally, don't trust anything with so many fingers in so many pies. It would take one greedy, self-serving CEO (and there's been no shortage of them everywhere else lately) to turn it into a total malware package and no one can guarantee that won't happen the next time Google's stock takes a big hit. In the end, I see as much of a market for this as with the OS Netscape trumpetted years ago. The one that never made it to market and yet still managed to ruin that company.

Pomares
Nov 24, 2009, 10:42 AM
Chromium is not meant to supplant anything. It is pioneering a completely new category of OS. The closest thing to compare it to is the iPhone OS, but even the iPhone OS has too much the feel of a full featured, albeit compact, computer.

This is completely new. It could very well fall on its face, but not because of the poorly argumented reasons the author gave. The interface does not have to be innovative, it has to be intuitive. If users are comfortable with browsers than they will be right at home on Chromium.

The author just lost all credibility for me.

SimonMW
Nov 25, 2009, 07:03 AM
I'm not a huge fan of cloud computing. However, remember that when YouTube first hit the web people were wondering what the point of it was. The videos were slow to load, and had absolutely abysmal quality in terms of the high compression used.

Now YouTube is used by all sorts of people from individuals posting clips of themselves farting, to businesses promoting their products. And now there is 1080p HD on there too.

brisbaneguy29
Nov 25, 2009, 07:13 AM
Until we get full broadband speeds 100% of the time in 100% of locations, I can't see cloud making huge inroads. Not to say it won't, but for me, people need to know they can be connected all the time, before they will take it up.

Also where is the cloud when it comes to security, and protecting my data from prying eyes. We have enough issues with data stored locally, without storing in some virtual hard drive for any haxor to come along and steal.

kimberly187
Nov 27, 2009, 02:53 AM
flexibility is definitely where this all falls down. Look at iphone os - it's inflexibility is what has caused it's very quick and certain demise.

What we need are more options! Not a knew way of looking at things at all! Make it do everything and then it's certain to beat all the other bloated osses around.

Brilliant thinking there, well done.

I just want to say that I've been sitting here in the middle of the night fooling around with trying to get Cubase set up again, and I was having all kinds of trouble. I hadn't fooled with it in years, you see -- my install has always been rock-solid. So I pulled down the asio4all driver and installed it, and got Cubase going, and was fooling around with settings wondering why I was getting 300+ms latency and a weird config for the Asio that I didn't recognize. I did fifty google searches trying to figure out what was going on...

...and it took this thread to pound into my thick skull that "Multimedia ASIO" is not "Asio4All". Thank you all for saving my life. And making me feel quite happily stupid.