RSSGoogle's value proposition for Chrome OS: Should we feel insulted?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 23, 2009, 1:19 PM
Let's be absolutely honest and straightforward about this right up front: Google Chrome OS is not an operating system. It's a device, like the iPhone, only that Google wants to license its specifications to OEMs. Any OEM that builds it is making a Chrome device, whose profile will be so low that it could probably never be switched out to run Windows, even XP. Probably great connectivity, but not enough solid-state storage to manage local documents or store many media files.
More than an Android device, less than a Windows device.
Any amount of SSD storage does not come cheap, though, so a Chrome device will not be a cheap netbook. But it will not be a PC, and that fact alone should tell the market that it will not compete against Windows -- not really. Instead, Google's play appears to be in the narrow field of subsidized connectivity devices that aren't meant to be used as highly portable PCs.
And who exactly is that? Not anyone who makes ample use of her digital camera, not anyone who collects music or videos (even legally), not anyone who makes DVDs of his home movies, not anyone who uses a printer for anything besides a screen dump, and not anyone who plays a game whose depth of graphics exceeds Frogger circa 1979 or whose interactivity with other players goes beyond Club Penguin. At the same time, this ideal customer must be willing to keep her documents online, her personal profiles online, each and every transported photograph online.
The difference between private and public in this world is that "private" starts out with "public" as its base, with layers of protection to obscure it. Security through obscurity -- a method that has never worked yet, not once.
There comes a point in the evolution of almost every computer company of respectable size when it toys with the idea of being able to channel the entirety of computer users through a device or mechanism or program of its own design. And for a while, their ideas actually show some progress and bear some fruit -- e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, and to some extent the iPhone.
But even then, history has shown that customers have only been willing to invest in devices or software that refrains from limiting their choices, whose clear and unequivocal benefits can be demonstrated, and where gains from making the choice and taking the leap are quantifiable and guaranteed. In every instance in history, that guarantee has come from a solid, underlying, pre-established platform.
Consumers do not take well to being cattle-prodded into pre-established purchasing channels on the promise of future value. Invest now, reap later, is a value proposition that has never worked for any type of technology, at any time in history.
Here's what Google thinks about you, the potential Chrome OS user, from the company's launch video last Thursday:
If you're like me, you spend something like, I don't know, 90% of your time on the Internet in a browser -- there's e-mails, chatting, you're reading news, you're watching videos, you're playing games, you're buying things, just to name a few. Which kinda makes the Web browser the most important program on your computer...If everything's stored on the Internet, then your phone, your computer, all of these devices, are what people call stateless. Which is kind of a big word.
Maybe you caught the hidden message behind all that: Google thinks you're unemployed. You're illiterate, you don't know the difference between a Web browser and a spreadsheet, and you spend 90% of your online time doing nothing that earns you a living -- Google either implied all that or said it explicitly. And as if to drum home the point, in the little cartoon, a speaking bubble next to a productivity icon on the desktop reads, "Nobody clicks me anymore."
I know when I've been insulted, and I know when you've been insulted. If you're indeed unfortunate enough to be among the 10% of our brethren who are unemployed, then I would imagine you are spending 90% or more of your online time working hard to rectify that situation. If I were to make the same presumptions about you that Google just did, you would stop reading me right now, click on a new bookmark, and never come back to Betanews again. I wouldn't dare make that presumption. So why should Google?
When Apple came to market with the iPhone, it was not like Great Britain's attack on the Falkland Islands. It had the well-respected platform of the iPod and iTunes already established, it had plenty of decent applications already built, and most importantly, it had one very attractive device.
The Chrome device, at this point, does not appear to have any attractive benefits to it, besides the possibility of those that OEMs may add to it through their own volition. One could foresee multitouch as an option. But with only enough solid-state memory to get it running and, I guess, store cookies and bookmarks, it would be difficult for the Chrome device to have enough local media on-hand to be stretched or shrunken or manipulated, even with a link to Picasa. And with the principal application being the Chrome Web browser, there really isn't much use for touch for most instances besides scrolling and tapping.
One has to wonder what manner of sociologist or market consultant or psychoanalyst or supermarket tabloid psychic led Google to this conclusion: that you, the poor, illiterate, unemployed socialite, have the intrinsic desire to become a bandwidth consumer. The Chrome device appears geared around the idea that you want to consume bandwidth, so much so that you're eager to transfer the interface between CPU and local storage entirely to the Internet, and delegate the job of protection and privacy to "the cloud." Because without a "killer app," without a truly revolutionary device design with orders of magnitude more functionality than you've ever had before, and without clear and obvious gains from making the switch, people typically don't make the investment.
![Mattel's Aquarius computer, circa 1983. [Photo credit: OldComputers.net]](http://images.betanews.com/media/4112.jpg "Mattel's Aquarius computer, circa 1983. [Photo credit: OldComputers.net]")
The Mattel Aquarius computer, circa 1983. [Photo credit: OldComputers.net]
Technology has never inspired leaps of faith from consumers. They will make leaps, but only with guarantees. Without them, the manufacturer's value proposition doesn't look any more solid than, say, Mattel's in 1983. Mattel put together a handful of applications (one of them Microsoft BASIC), made a deal with its manufacturer in Hong Kong for a cheap device, and essentially said this: Since you're only using your television to play games anyway, why not stick a keyboard on it, and maybe you can pretend you're doing something productive or educational? At least you'll feel better while you're wasting your time.
The consumer knows when he's been insulted. A new device's value proposition only works when its manufacturer demonstrates that it has at least as much faith in its consumer as it would ask that consumer to invest in it. That's why the iPhone works, that's why the first BlackBerrys worked, that's why the Macintosh worked, it's why the first Android devices are working, and that's why the Google Chrome device has already failed. Chrome is Google's "Bob."
Are you kidding me? Can you be anymore critical, or ignorant for that matter? The implied message is that you spend 90% of your time on the Internet WHILE YOU'RE ON YOUR COMPUTER! Ahhh, doesn't that make more sense than jumping to the wild conclusion that Google is attacking the niche market that is unemployed people? (Not to mention calling us "illiterate" which is quite the paradox now isn't it?)
And for all you other crackpots and hellraisers out there, why don't you take a step back and WAIT for Google to release more information and improve on their product before you start making these ridiculous claims. How many of you work for Google? Yeah, that's what I thought. So shut up and stop acting like a 12-year-old gossip girls. (Or at least stop acting like you know everything, when you OBVIOUSLY don't). Thanks.
Score: 0
|No, you wait for google to release more info. Unless that new info states they are buying Apple, their OS ventures will end up with a few billion dollars hole in their pocket. AND THAT, MY FRIEND, IS A FACT.
Score: 0
|This is about business, not consumers.
It's about the ability to take your office anywhere and access your Google office documents, your Google mail, your Google calendar and video conference to your colleagues over Google Talk.
No consumer, unless they have a Google fetish, will spend money on one of these machines because it's not right for consumers but it's the way that Google have planned to make money. Like an iPod or iPhone sells media and the media sells an iPod or iPhone, these machines will sell Google services.
Score: 0
|Businesses? You must be mad. Even the people (like me) that love Gmail for business (because of the best-in-the-world spam protection and minimal ad placement), will not dare buy something that'll limit their software choices. Businesses' software needs EVOLVE. And the cost difference between EXTREMELY-LIMITED GOOGLE OS and totally open Windows- netbook would be negligible or nonexistent. Not worth the PREDICTABLE future headaches of being handtied..
The vast majority of this failed products purchasers will be clueless home users that really do only surf and really are dumb enough to keep getting their Windows machines infected to the point the stupid-protector feature in Google OS will actually make their life better. But you cannot build a biz on total idiots alone, I'm sorry. Anyone under 30 today couldn't comfortably live with the limitations of Google OS. Naturally this OS has no future and is really trying very hard to become "the lamest of the lamers' machine".
Score: 0
|What on earth are you talking about Great Britain invading the Falklands Islands? I assume it is some sort of complicated naval anaology. Please explain.
Score: 0
|Dunno... given what I've seen most of my friends and whatnot do, it seems that the Google OS will not have much of a big market, regardless of how good it is at serving those people who use computers for mostly web related things. Because some people want more functionality from their computer
it would be perfect for my father though, who does do only web related things
but then again, I'm guessing Google really isn't going for a wide market anyways
Me, I play too many computer games and have too many media files to use Google OS
Score: 0
|If you read betanews (or write articles for betanews) then Chrome OS is not for you.
Chrome OS is perfect for my mom, who uses her computer for her yahoo email and thecatsite.com forums and NOTHING else.
Score: -2
|You may be one of the few to ever get that failed product, then. Despite what you claim about your mom, she will one day go to Sam's Club and see some nice software she may want to install...a game or some great productivity software to design something or get legal help..or some piece of hardware..like a new cell phone, printer, etc..then she'll come home and get reminded of her/your stupid purchase for her. She won't make that mistake again and she WILL demand a Windows machine for her next netbook, especially since there will probably not be a significant (if any) price difference between the "limited piece of junk" (her words in a few months of usage -- you can quote me on that), and the "complete freedom device"... Enjoy your mistake, my boy... It's funny how I know your mom (and anyone's mom) better than you do...
Score: 0
|she is still using the celeron 600 that I gave her many years ago, and she has never used it for anything other than a web browser.
Score: 0
|It is an insult to the tech community, and the youngs, for the rest of the people, like my mother, that don't know how to go to google maps when i told him throught the phone this may be usefull.
Score: 1
|When your mom is a "him", even *I* cannot come up with any counter argument. I do, indeed believe, your mom will enjoy his new Google Computa'.
And while I'm very known to be fond of moms (see my other post), in this specific case I think I'm gonna have to pass.
Score: 0
|Myth: Google will have all our data in their servers.
Truth: You can upload your data to any server you want, you will be able to use Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, and have your cloud data in any server of your preference.
Score: 1
|Question: Can you log onto the laptop without a gmail or any cloud based account?
Score: 0
|I have no doubt in my mind, that Chrome browser/OS would not be able to visit Hotmail or any Windows Live or Online Office websites (except POSSIBLY for very limited functionality). Microsoft will make sure you'll need a Windows machine for that, using whichever clever way to enforce that end goal (Silverlight, IE-specific code, out right barring non-Windows machines and non-genuine machines, etc).
Score: 0
|I'm pretty sure you won't need to be online to log-in to the Google machine... It'll probably locally cache your google credentials once you have them setup, until which point you'll be using some "first time running" very limited guest account. Chicken-and-egg issue, naturally, with very simple remedy...
Score: 0
|I think Youtube's failing over the past few months with basically constant stuttering video indicates Google might not want to push this puppy out until they get a grasp of some basic provisioning for their services.
Score: -1
|i just think, as a libertarian that it is a huge privacy concern, one company holding all your information. How much time will it take before Homeland security will ask for data on those servers?
I am against Googles relentless bid to capture the worlds information, information about everybody on their server its Bulls***
Score: -1
|Relax. Microsoft has just as much info on their hotmail servers and search engines' logs. There's no way to avoid giving up your privacy today and moreso in the future. As long as the information is "pseudo" anonymized, all govn'ts of the world would love to allow companies to store this info. With technical and legal assistance, of course, a piece of data with IP associated with it can become a psychological profile on individuals -- which is a great thing for the future to come, clearly going the way of clever criminals and terrorists... I clearly trust my govn't way more than I trust you specifically or any other random individual with possibly something to hide...
Score: 0
|if you don't like it don't buy it. we, that would like the product, will buy it.
Score: 2
|You're not gonna like the product, but I'll try not to laugh when you do end up one of the few hmm "brave ones" to actually buy it...
Score: 0
|The booting time issue has always been a scapegoat from the truth. People who dont like something look for ways to say something is bad. If windows 7 took 3 minites to boot up i still wouldnt care. Much like the issue with windows being a virus magnet. Which is only cause it has 90 percent or more market share. So virus creating geeks who never get laid try to make the world less fun. There is no piece of written software that can't be hacked, thats a fact. Windows takes alot of heat for no reason. We should be able to live in a world where people find better use of there time then to make a virus to prey apon innocent people. But the world is filled with morons.
Score: 1
|Windows is, by design, more open to threat than linux based OS's. Chrome OS as an example, doesn't allow anything to be installed on it and doesn't even trust itself, and runs a system scans on every boot, checking to see if anything in the system has changed, and corrects any changes immediately, not that can happen too easily because chrome sandbox's each tab contents, and prevents anything from entering, i'm not saying its hack proof, but its as water tight as anything can get. I'd be very surprised if chrome got as many virus' as windows, regardless of its popularity.
Score: 0
|"Windows is, by design, more open to threat than linux based OS's."
Coming from an OS Engineer, actually no. The NT Model from the basic kernel design, the kernel API layers, to the rigid non-exception based token based Security manager, there are technical strengths of the NT kernel that is the heart of Windows that just does not exist in the Linux world.
Even the kernel itself for 'trusted' calls has to obtain a security token for a thread on NT, something that runs unfettered on Linux.
This is just base technology, not even getting to higher level features like inherent thread ACLs, features of NTFS, and the hands off client/server nature of how OS subsystems are handled in NT.
Go find the original Inside Windows NT, not the revisions.
There are reaons Windows NT is desiged how it is, and why the top Unix and VMS gurus of the generation specficially designed and coded NT away from the pitfalls and INSECURITY of current kernel technologies like MACH and OS models like UNIX.
The whole myth that Linux is a better kernel design is like explaining how a Horse is a better design for transportation than a Car. There are simplistic advantages to a Horse, but you still have pick up its poop and it never will be able to do 100mph for REASONS.
Score: 0
|False
Score: -3
|They all talk about booting and how long it takes. im confused, i have my Desktop comp that runs win 7, on hybrid sleep(eg a fancier version of hibernation in win XP. It sleeps the comp, shuts it down(everything stops working fans etc) then with a touch of a key on the keyboard boots up in less then 5 secs, like it just has been paused, like a dvd player. I have never used the shut down button in a year now, just reboot when new updates need it. So really what is the big deal with the booting time?
Score: 0
|I'm looking forward to the google laptop... as software developer, my desktop is powerhouse. Because of my technical background I'm aware of the benefits of anti-virus and UserAccount Control, System Restore, Windows 7 (that just cost me 200 for upgrade!) and I've been using Firefox ... although lately Chrome... and I perform regular backups to my home NAS... all that for my laptop and my wife's laptop... which we only use for browsing!! I look forward to the simplicity and dependability suggested by doing away with (at least on our laptops) all this supporting goop when google OS becomes available. YIIPPPEEE
Score: 2
|Because of your technical background i am shocked you are so wrong.
Score: 0
|It's amazing to me how people cannot even understand their own needs in products. They gotta actually BUY THE PIECE OF CRAP only to realize "damn, I should have known I won't be able to do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, F, G... on it". Not to say I actually believe MrUp is a real user, since there is NO SOFTWARE DEVELOPER WHO WILL EVER CLAIM TO WANT A DEVICE THAT LIMITS HIM TO BROWSING..AND ON ONE BROWSER ONLY. Nice try though. Lotsa "first time faces" on this post hinting Google has a nicely oiled propaganda machine.
Score: 0
|This is ridiculous. I understand you yanks have rubbish internet services, but bandwidth usage is the least worrying thing since is will cache most of your contents. Windows costs to buy, so does antivirus software, and then having to defrag etc. Chrome OS is free, impossible to get a virus, and no defrag needed. Online apps are the future of computing, local storage will only be needed for extra backups if needed. Chrome OS is a zero maintenance platform that lets you do the work you intend, rather than waiting for ages to boot up or wait for your virus scanner to update its definitions, goodbye old tech, hello innovation. Although I do hope that Google provides better support for printers and cameras and support other platforms such as Silverlight and possibly Air
Score: -1
|You are clueless and totally wrong with everything you said.
Score: -5
|Will this OS fail?: Not if you have the ability to download things like mp3 of movies.
Score: 1
|Very well said...Spam company thinks we are idiots :)
Score: -1
|Fantastic article. I should point out i was never intersted in a google OS of any kind. Even if it was a OS that could be dropped in any pc. There is no need for it. We have windows and mac. We dont need anything else. I leave out linux cause who really uses that anyway. People want something that will have ample support among the programer community. Apps are good for my iphone, but not for my pc. And only web apps is just insane. There seems to be a large amount of hatred amoung the big names in the computer industry. Apple is always dogging Microsoft, Nvidia hates everyone. And google wants to rule the universe. It makes no sense. Work together to make us the customers happy. A google device will go nowhere fast. Even a google OS that could be dropped in any pc would go nowhere. Google is really making a big mistake.
Score: -5
|Great article, I agree with this 100% and indeed I feel insulted (by Chrome OS) even though I have great respect for Android.
I think Google should use Android as a base (which would be the real OS) and then have this other appliance, the so called "Chrome OS" running on top of Android as an Android application. This would give them some credibility. So, Android for PC running PC Android apps + Chrome OS app on top of Android. So this way one would have local storage and do all the cool stuff a real OS can do + have this online only environment.
Score: 1
|I was enjoying the read and for the most part agreeing... then "when Apple came to market with the iPhone, it was not like Great Britain's attack on the Falkland Islands” what does this mean, you know considerably more about browsers than history! Are you one of those passportless yanks who thinks Central America is somewhere near South Dakota... stick to the IT references when blogging mate.
Score: 0
|I absolutely agree. The internet is a golden carrot that is dangled in front of me every time I look at that blue "e". I know it will make me smile, laugh, frown, make me happy and angry and everything in between. It's daring me to click it all the time.
What it won't do for me is get any work done. I need Word, SharePoint Designer 2007, Expression Design 3, Expression Media 2, Screen Calipers, OneNote, Outlook, PowerPoint and Excel for that to happen. There just isn't enough horsepower in a netbook, bandwidth from my provider, and webs apps online with the moxy I need to pull that off so I could actually get paid using them.
So come back and visit me again in 3-5 years when you can actually do something better than dangle a web brower in front of me.
Score: -1
|"... you spend 90% of your online time doing nothing that earns you a living -- Google either implied all that or said it explicitly."
While the above may not be true for the typical BN reader, I would estimate quite a few people do "spend 90% of [their] online time doing nothing that earns [them] a living," at least when they're not using their company-supplied computer. Even then, if Chrome OS includes support for MS Exchange a lot of employed people will have everything they need to do perform work tasks.
It seems Chrome OS is really just Google extending their Android philosophy: Make an 'open' system that immediately works with their products in an attempt to subtly migrate consumers from MS services. Android was primarily gmail vs. hotmail with hopes that people would go a bit further, and Chrome OS is more of a push for Google docs over Windows Live and even Office applications. It's probably also a way for them to leverage Wave (which will probably be in open beta by Chrome OS's release) as the all-in-one portal for everything that you use (i.e., Google's services).
Score: 1
|it doesn't need to handle local user files, it's all in the cloud.
and the possibility of games is way far than that, have you ever heard of OnLive?
and besides, if this is a device that is not a full computer, is it's own device, why aren't you complaining that cellphones don't do the same functions as a mainframe server?
Score: 2
|Fair questions. A cellphone isn't sold to me as a replacement for a mainframe server. If it were, I would complain. Meanwhile, the difference is transparent enough that no one would be fooled. The Google Chrome device says, use this instead of a PC. I'm not fooled.
-SF3
Score: 1
|True, however Google Chrome OS isn't meant to replace desktops / laptops. It is meant to be a companion device, which complements your current PCs.
It doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a bootable browser, however what Google is trying to say is that, for some people, that might be enough.
Score: 1
|The value proposition I see, from a ChromeOS-based smartbook/netbook is:
- instant boot & fast runtime
- super long battery life
- minimal system requirements & cost
- no OS maintenance (virus/spyware scanning, re-installs, upgrades, etc.
- no app installs & upgrades
- no data backup & recovery
- "desktop" portability (your "desktop" is on the netbook you log in to)
Re. BANDWIDTH USAGE: browsers cache things (photos, etc.), so there isn't going to be a constant download of the same things, over & over, when you use ChromeOS.
Re. CLOUD STORAGE: use your own "personal" cloud server, or other online services, if you don't want to use Google's services with ChromeOS.
Re. OFFLINE USAGE: if you Google "HTML5 manifest", you will see that HTML5 provides a mechanism to "install" web apps, so that they can be used offline.
Score: 4
|So you're happy with your local storage being used as an inaccessible cache, only addressable by the browser and for the browser, rather than as a directory of files addressable by you and managed by you?
-SF3
Score: 4
|Read the Google text again. It doesn't say you spend 90% of your time on the Internet. It says you spend 90% of your time on the Internet *in a browser*. (emphasis mine). It meant that of the time you spend on the Internet (which may only be 5% of your total time) the percentage spent in a browser is 90%. How do you get unemployed out of this?
Score: 3
|Fair question. If you watch the video closely, it does not suggest you use any other type of program whatsoever to access the Internet.
But the "unemployed" notion is the idea that you spend 90% of your time on unproductive material, the extent of which was listed by the video. "Work" was represented by the monochrome Desktop icons which said, "Nobody clicks me anymore."
-SF3
Score: 1
|People in the U.S. might feel insulted. But the rest of the developing world that doesn't even have internet? I think not. Google is assuming the OLPC torch from Negroponte.
Score: -5
|Did you forget that internet connectivity is more important in this device than even an AC electrical socket? And I am not sure that a 56kb modem would play too well in this context.
Score: -1
|I disagree completely! Any thing with a Kernel IS an "Operating System"
Score: 2
|It's still a flavor of Linux.
Score: -1
|Yea, but by that token, the iPhone is an operating system. But you can't just go download it and install it on any device, can you? You purchase it as a device (as you should). And that's the way you purchase Chrome OS, as a device -- not something you downloaded from Fileforum. From a market standpoint, Chrome OS will not be a kernel.
-Col. SF3
Score: -1
|Since it is open source, you can download and build it yourself. Or download pre-built versions, more are more of which are showing up now.
While iPhone OS is locked to the iPhone, Chrome OS is basically just Google's OS for their netbook. Chromium OS, which is its open source counterpart can be installed anywhere.
Score: 0
|It's still a Linux-based OS under the hood, with a tweaked Chrome browser running as the graphical "shell" and "file manager".
Score: 0
|"Any amount of SSD storage does not come cheap, though, so a Chrome device will not be a cheap netbook."
So netbooks between $150-$400 aren't cheap? Let's not forget the significant cost savings of no Operating Systems License, which is between $30-$50...
Score: 1
|I've stopped reading right now, clicking on a new bookmark, and wondering if I will ever come back to Betanews again.
Scott - your turning this site into a chick's weekly mag rag. Give us something real to discuss...
Score: 0
|I agree completely. Also, keep in mind the fact that without the need for local storage, an SSD with Chrome OS installed would need to be only about a GB.
You are never going to be storing much on it, and the OS itself is quite small (currently).
Score: 0
|@montyaus: Agreed. I understand that it's his personal opinion but he should base his arguments on facts, not emotions.
Score: 0
|Great Britain didn't invade the Falklands, Argentina did, Britain went to protect the inhabitants as the Falklands are British (hence Britain couldn't have invaded it)
Score: 0
|