RSSThe battle ahead: Google Chrome OS vs. Microsoft 'Windows 8'
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 8, 2009, 4:37 PM
(continued from previous page)
Time to rethink Windows and Office
Despite the odds against Google Chrome OS, Microsoft's two-pillar strategy for maintaining its software stronghold no longer appears indestructible going into the next decade.
For now, Windows 7 fulfills a near-term objective for Microsoft: to help wipe clean from users' minds the marketing mistake that was Vista, and to refocus their attention on the company's strengths: applications that users want, respectable performance, and despite all effective counter-marketing by competitors, decent system security.
"Windows 8" cannot be a near-term fix, if there should even be a "Windows 8." The public is starting to question the need for an operating system designed to manage a myriad of hardware components that many users don't even have. Windows remains a monolithic remnant of 1980s technology, in an era when any company with resources and wherewithal that dared to start over from scratch could create a wholly new OS architecture that assembles itself, using the Web, to fit precisely the requirements of the computer that's using it at that time. A rethought Windows or other x86 operating system would not have to support technology that isn't there, especially if it isn't even being produced any more.
Likewise, in an era where software is becoming more "componentized," and Web applications can indeed demonstrate that small nuggets of functionality can be put to use in a comprehensive context, the era of Office's giant applications monstrosities does seem antiquated. It does seem at times that the only real purpose Microsoft has for prolonging this architecture is because that's the only way it knows how to monetize its investment in client apps -- it doesn't know another business model, and it can't seem to make one.
As quad-core and six-core and soon eight-core processors don't seem to be making everyday work all that much faster for consumers, Microsoft's value propositions for Windows and Office make less and less sense. It can't even adequately explain to consumers why "Ultimate" is ultimate; and it can't make the case for Internet Explorer 8's exclusive features without, quite literally, barfing. The proverbial handwriting has long since jumped off of Steve Ballmer's wall, and is now all over his face. After Windows 7 settles in, it's time for a huge change in Windows and Office. Huge.
Who's the dominant player now?
The facts that Internet Explorer did not fulfill Microsoft's objective of leveraging its existing pillars to conquer the Web, and that .NET has not fulfilled its objective of extending Microsoft's development platform reach firmly beyond Windows, are clear indications that the leverage strategy that worked for Microsoft in the 1990s against Netscape has pretty much run its course. But Google will attempt its own leverage strategy -- using its dominance on the Web to blast its software platform onto every PC, everywhere, all the time.
The irony of regulators who had clamped down so severely on Microsoft's misbehaviors in tying the browser to the operating system, allowing Google to attempt pretty much the same play -- tying the operating system to the browser -- is not only ripe for exploitation but also pretty likely. The European Commission officially declined Betanews' request for comment on this issue this afternoon. Google, the champion of openness and an "observer" in previous EC actions against Microsoft, may very well get a free pass on this move.
But Europe is not the world. Asian regulators, especially South Korea's Free Trade Commission, are paying closer attention to companies that use "open standards" as a leveraging tool for their own private interests. And in the US, which had given Microsoft a free pass throughout the Bush Administration, the new Justice Dept. antitrust chief is Christine Varney, the outspoken opponent of Microsoft's anti-Netscape behavior during the height of the first browser wars. The merest hint of funny business will trip this lady's alarm bells, and we will all hear the wave of discontent.
Meanwhile, if Microsoft does change Windows -- if it makes the huge platform changes that are required for it to make a fresh and renewed value proposition for its key software brands -- it seems almost foolish to think that its competitors would not use legal resources including Ms. Varney to cry foul. When the company changed the architecture of Vista's kernel to disallow certain classes of exploits, security companies complained because that, in turn, disallowed their software from vanquishing that class of exploits. It was the silliest complaint ever, but legislators listened. Magnify that prototype to the size and scope of remaking Windows in an image that competitors can't use to their advantage, and therein lay the danger for Microsoft.
At this point, there appear to be fewer choices for Microsoft moving into 2010 and beyond than to make big moves to reconfigure the platform from top to bottom, in a way which may make Chrome and Firefox and quite a lot of other stuff outmoded and ineffective. When that happens, Google will probably make use of its newfound skill at wooing the hearts of legislators and regulators, pleading that such a move will dis-enable its carefully laid plans to innocently tie the operating system to the Web browser.
This is a battle that will be played out in many courts. That fact alone favors one player, the only one that has ever been successful playing all courts at once in a multi-front war: Microsoft. It could still be a very bloody battle. And anyone who truly believes this is about "openness," as my colleague Jerry Pournelle would say, is drinking the wrong brand of Kool-Aid.
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
|