RSSThe battle ahead: Google Chrome OS vs. Microsoft 'Windows 8'
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 8, 2009, 4:37 PM
For Google to emerge as a true contender in just the field of netbook operating systems as soon as 2011 will require it to have smoothly and swiftly cleared an immense obstacle course first. But just the fact that Google will make the attempt will underscore a hard new reality facing Microsoft, one which my friend Carmi Levy pointed out on Monday: The rules of the game for operating systems and applications are changing rapidly, and their underlying principles are being rewritten.
Now, we can adopt Google's quaint little prophecy and sing praises -- perhaps to the tune of "It's a Small World After All" or, if you prefer to go really over the top, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" -- to the notion that "The Web is now the platform." In our hearts, we may hope for that to be true; in our minds, we all know that's rubbish, holding as much water as Intel's and Microsoft's 1980s notion that x86 architecture "is the platform." There is no single platform for online applications, and whether there ever will be is still a matter of some debate. At this rate, it's not happening.
But whoever holds the key to the applications that people want to use, will hold title to "the platform" that developers will support; and if that key should change hands, developers will follow. Right now, Google does not hold that key; and as far as applications are concerned -- functional tools that people and businesses want to use every day and trust with their livelihoods -- it actually hasn't been getting any closer at all to attaining that goal.
The killer app remains the killer
Microsoft's stronghold in software today rests on two pillars: the prominence of Windows and the ubiquity of Office. Windows is the strongest operating system for x86 systems today. But the principal reason for that is because businesses prefer Office applications. The secondary reason is because more businesses' custom apps are written for Windows, and thus their logic is based on Windows databases; but even now, the reason businesses still choose Windows as their custom apps platform is because they plan to also use Office. The third reason is because Windows Server is strong in providing Exchange and SharePoint services, but even those are more dependent upon Outlook, Word, and Excel as time goes on -- everything that follows merely supports the principal reason: Businesses prefer Office.
That's not just because of Office's reliability or even necessarily its quality (which has sometimes been a variable), but because of the colossal third-party support system in place for training its business users and supporting business' applications plans based around Office. It's still a very strong foundation that will not be toppled easily; what had appeared to be the best organized effort to dissolve Office's stronghold on business -- the attack on Microsoft's document standards -- has largely fallen apart after Microsoft's successful campaign to make ISO 29500 an international standard.
For Chrome to become successful as an operating system, it will need strong applications -- a counterpart to the boost that Office gives Windows. And right now, Google Apps are no contender to Office, despite the innovative platform on which they're based, and an even more innovative platform being developed for them. Google will need applications that are well supported, that businesses will adopt and trust, and that will also play equally on Linux, Mac, and Windows. Until it can play that trump card, Chrome will be, from the perspective of Windows users, the #3 or #4 Web browser.
Making the operating system not matter
Yet Google has made some progress in attaining one principal goal: specifically separating "the platform" from the operating system. This was Sun Microsystems' original goal: to make it feasible for developers to address a broader base of users than any single operating system would claim for itself. It's still a smart idea, making it possible to not have to publish "for Windows" or "for Mac." Google's revision of this idea is to set up "Web standards" as the basis for its platform, to make good with regulators who are easily placated by promises of "openness" and "interoperability."
But let's be honest: Google's objective is to create a way for developers to build "for Chrome," and have their apps run on Linux, Mac, and Windows. Whether Chrome is the OS on the client system or not, Google would provide users with as much intermediate code as is necessary -- as small as a runtime or a Web browser, or as large as a Linux environment -- to provide its Web apps with platform parity.
You can just see the logos now, can't you: "Works with Chrome OS." "Chrome-Ready."
Here's the real problem: The conditions which made it possible for Google to make this breakaway attempt to attack Microsoft, indicate that the operating system is less important as a foundation for "the platform." But for Google to be a contender, it has to make its operating system more important -- it has to convince users that because the OS doesn't matter much anymore, Chrome OS matters. It has to advance "the platform" to such a status that consumers and business purchasers will pay less attention to the client OS, even though that's part of the baggage that may come with Chrome.
Next: Time to rethink Windows and Office...
Google has no chance to be anything serious. Just like apple never did. Sure it's a niche OS. And i like Apple. But Bill gates was right when he said being better didnt matter. They control the whole game. Like it or not they will never go away. And it they ever did it would take many many years for it to happen. But it wont. Not like it should either. Windows 7 works fantastic for me. better then Vista and i like Vista, after SP1 of course. Like it or not Windows is much like oil. A car needs it to run. you cant toss in anything else and make it work the same. Compatability is issue here. Everything works on windows. Programs are mostly all made for windows, same with gaming which is a huge business. A netbook that cant do alot anyway is one thing. But even then i would want to toss some simple windows games on it to pass time. Lets not hype google more then we should. After all they are just a search engine. Remember Altavista? it was huge, and it was a search engine. Now nowone even remembers it. Google should be careful. Cause search engines are meaningless in actuality. How one managed to get so big is a luck. It could become history just as fast. Dont get me wrong. I like google. It's the only engine i use. But if i find something better it's***ory.
Score: -2
|Battle?
What battle??
Chrome lost not before the first shot was fired but before the cannon was even built.
One word:
I - N - E - R - T - I - A
Score: -1
|My life began with Windows.I cant leave them alone.Windows teach us see everthing...
Score: -1
|Funny. Legitimate Tech writers are all sounding the death knell of Chrome OS...but then again Beta News hasn't exactly been pro MS has it?
Score: 0
|Depends who you ask. Some have accused BetaNews of being a Microsoft shrill, usually one of the trolls.
Score: 1
|Well people use application to support this they need operating not the other way round. So if the application is written for office and windows Microsoft likely to survive. Also their (i.e Microsoft) exam fee is also lower in Asian countries like my country (Sri Lanka). Getting certified is one of the problem in the developing countries as these exam cost a lot of money compared to earnings (for example my salary is around 450US$ per month working similar to a DBA).I don't think people will move to chrome OS just because it's released. People also need support.
Score: 0
|So what you're saying is that Google (and 3rd party devs) need to have the application space cornered before the OS could make true inroads?
Sounds a lot like what I was originally hoping Google would do *prior* to launching the OS project.
Basically, make GMail, Apps, Chat, etc so useful intuitive that they could "integrate" them all through the Chrome Browser (Desktop) that the underlying OS becomes irrelevant.
This is where I see, in my opinion, that they have failed. GMail and search are their only real dominators. Their Apps are a disgrace comparatively. They should have put a lot more work into these prior to launching the OS. Had they done that, they could have marketed the OS as a simpler way to access the users current apps/desktop/browser.
Now it's just a replacement OS to access a bunch of shoddy, half-complete apps and one *really* good email service. Who needs that?
Score: 0
|So what you're saying is that Google (and 3rd party devs) need to have the application space cornered before the OS could make true inroads?
Not necessarily. Remember that Windows 1.x and 2.x hardley put a dent in the market...and we know the rest of the story. You can almost compare this to that phase--Windows was built around MS-DOS at the time, and Chrome is being built around Linux. If Chrome OS 1.0 "fails" like Windows 1.0 "failed", it will not necessarily be the end of the story. Now, I'm not sure that strategy will work here or not, I just know it worked out in the end for Microsoft is all.
Score: 0
|There's still a big difference between that market that existed back then for DOS/Windows and what exists now for Linux/Chrome. I don't really think the two would be comparable, but to be perfectly honest, we don't really know *squat* about this Chrome OS thing at this point so *anything* is pure speculation.
Still, good to see some competition in the netbook space. I would love to see Google dominate that (if they can get their "apps" usable...I'd hate to see *anyone* dominate that space without some decent app support...web or otherwise).
Score: 0
|So what you're saying is that Google (and 3rd party devs) need to have the application space cornered before the OS could make true inroads?
Yes, that's a fair statement. Google needs to prove there's a functionality value in making the jump, even for netbook users who may be sacrificing the interoperability factor with their big PCs. It needs to make Google Apps not only palatable and practical, but superior to what these users have installed on their notebooks and desktops (Office), because they will not want to use two sets of apps. And Google is nowhere close on that count -- I'll defer to your own term, "disgrace," and leave it at that. It takes more than guns to start a revolution, it takes ammunition -- and I don't see any proof that Google's got it.
-SF "Benedict Arnold" 3
Score: 0
|"The public is starting to question the need for an operating system..."
Umm....no. The public in general barely even knows what version of Windows they are running. Let alone know of any alternatives aside from Mac (and that's only because of all the Mac commercials). So saying that the public is starting to question needs of an operating system to do something or not do something is ludicrous, because the general public doesn't give a crap, as long as the product does what they want it to do.
On another note, I like how the article points to the fact that Google is using open standards, but for its own gains. Most people think of Google as a White Knight who wants to do everything for the people, when in fact, this is not true, and Google just is doing stuff because it is a business and is looking out for its own self. It just so happens it is able to use open standards to do it.
Score: 0
|Funny how unfair this battle will be fought, seems like Microsoft has a tought battle to fight and might lose it if everyone else gangs up on them just because they are successful. This article was great... i love it.
Score: -3
|Funny how unfair this battle will be fought, seems like Microsoft has a tought battle to fight and might lose it if everyone else gangs up on them just because they are successful. This article was great... i love it.
Score: 0
|Another linux distro. Swell.
And stripped to only have a web browser it sounds like.
Score: 1
|True... but maybe Google can build a quality windowing system, where others (like X) have failed?
Score: -1
|How has 'X' failed?
Score: 1
|Can't believe I actually agree with fatty on this one...
You can do better than that, Tenoq. (Not that I've ever seen a criticism of X that *didn't* fall into the same general, vague "it sucks" category...)
Score: -1
|PC_Tool, yeah, lots of people confuse X Windows with a Window Manager
Score: 1
|Great article... and I agree. Google is creating Chrome OS to water down the client market. Right now if you write a windows app you're assured millions of users. But if the number of platforms greatly increase (and Mac/Linux/Smartphones have already started doing a job on it) then no single platform will have millions of users except the web. Developers are going to be driven to write web-based apps so they can reach the largest set of customers, which is exactly what google wants.
Score: 1
|