personally, i thought there was little overlap in the first place, but i guess there is more than meets the eye.
So let's play fantasy for a second.
Apple (IMO) has always been about UI and hardware. making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use hardware around, software was just the ends to the means.
Google (IMO) has always been about making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use internet applications and software apps around.
what if...
Google joins apple and splits the company into two pieces, a hardware company and a software/internet company! all under the umbrella of Apple/Google, inc. Seems like the logical next move. Look at Chrome for example. basically built off a Linux system, like Apple and similar to Safari. that way Apple can just concentrate on what they do best and Google the same. Sounds like the perfect marriage to me?
yes, yes, yes...i'm living in an unrealistic dream world again...but sounds like an interesting business model.
Let the barrage of insults and scoffs my-way begin!
In my opinion, the Chrome OS will be more like an advanced version of an 'add-on' pack containing web-based Google services. It'll be really challenging for Google to start from Chrome and build an OS around it. Let's see if they can do that!
personally, i thought there was little overlap in the first place, but i guess there is more than meets the eye.
So let's play fantasy for a second.
Apple (IMO) has always been about UI and hardware. making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use hardware around, software was just the ends to the means.
Google (IMO) has always been about making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use internet applications and software apps around.
what if...
Google joins apple and splits the company into two pieces, a hardware company and a software/internet company! all under the umbrella of Apple/Google, inc. Seems like the logical next move. Look at Chrome for example. basically built off a Linux system, like Apple and similar to Safari. that way Apple can just concentrate on what they do best and Google the same. Sounds like the perfect marriage to me?
yes, yes, yes...i'm living in an unrealistic dream world again...but sounds like an interesting business model.
Let the barrage of insults and scoffs my-way begin!
discuss...
I don't think Apple's ego would let that happen! I also don't think the ambitious Google would like it!
I don't think Apple's ego would let that happen! I also don't think the ambitious Google would like it!
I agree, but like i said, IMO Apple is only really successful at Hardware and UI; Software is the ends to the means. I say let a more ambitious software guru take over that division so there is a single umbrella and to different genius companies at the helm. Of course there will be egos, but S.J. has always been into Hardware over Software. Seamless integration on every device, anywhere in the world is Google. That way google could potentially get their wish of an OS that spans multiple devices and anywhere you want it, and they don't have to deal with competition.
Just my wacky crack-pot fantasy, i know. The future of business (i've heard on several NPR interviews) will probably be involving market collaboration and integration, meaning lots of companies will be merging to gain an advantage on market share. Could be a very interesting future. OK, i'll get my head out of my butt.
i have a feeling that in the real world this is down to the fact that, after 15 years of market monopolisation, M$ have the world believing that its software is indispensable. remember when IE came with an icon named "The Internet"? a lot of casual computer users do not know about alternatives to microsoft options and (after torturous experiences with M$ software, i would argue!) are even less willing to try. i think that breaking the microsoft domination of the industry requires a concerted effort to educate the population. removing microsoft software from schools would be a good first step. google have a chance of making inroads since they are a well-known and trusted brand
Not quite. People really do need to be able to run applications. Yes, MS did fuck over a lot of people and I'd prefer it if they didn't have the monopoly they do, but that's just the way it is. Fortunately, Apple had a fairly decent market share before Windows '95 so developers were making stuff for their platform and Apple just about managed to hang in there as a relevant platform to develop for.
So now, the reality is that if you want to run mainstream applications you have to have Windows or OS X. With no OS X on netbooks (officially), that leaves Windows. I'm thinking of getting some netbooks at some point to set up a wireless home audio network, as netbooks are cheaper than Sonos modules but more flexible. I gave serious thought to getting ones with Linux but the fact is that you can't run iTunes or Spotify under Linux so it's a no-go.
Good luck, Google! I love it when pundits think they know what is going on. Guess that's why Sun was right about the thin clients we all now use to run PhotoShop.
Oh, did I say PhotoShop? I meant GIMP, because it's free and works so much better!
And thank goodness no one use Exchange anymore what with all the other stuff out there.
Point 1: This isnt really the same thing: TCs that sun did were in a differant era, aimed at corprate installs when office LANs were just too darn slow for it, and tehir tech kinda sucked -- but have you looked at anything Citrix has done lately? a web based citrix neighborhood plugin and the right published apps on the back end could make this thing usable in ways that Suns old stuff didnt.
point 2: no one but no one buys netbooks to run Photoshop,GIMP, or any other power creative apps
point 3: The new exchange server coming down the pipe in 2010 will allow users access via web browser, any web browser, and have the same exact experience as the Outlook desktop client, so who needs the breaky, shakey thick client with its corrupted OSTs and goofy ass errors, this will allow businesses to give the thick clients to only the few who really need it, those who are not connected for long periods of tine and need access to their mail in that time, think international travelers and executives..
Point 3, sub part a: MS is also releasing a completely web based version of Office next year, both as a subscribtion for end users and a server app for corps. so these netbooks would be able to run Word, Excel, PPT, Visio, Project and more on the net.
Google's "OS" is actually just a web browser. It's the Linux kernel with the Chrome browser on top; that's it. Any application you want to run will have to be web-based.
You know why the return rate of Linux-based netbooks was so high? It was because people found they couldn't run the software they wanted to run. So now, Windows owns the netbook market. Chrome is not going to change that. Unless Chrome undergoes a major alteration to its philosophy, it will flop.
You have no idea what Google OS is going to be. They may do the reverse that Apple did and make their Web OS a computer OS and then expand their phone market with a true OS in the next couple years when phones get more horsepower.
I would think the real question would be...
Are they going to rely on their own suite of Web Office Software or make the OS compatible the Windows Software. It would be logical if they are going to start with the Netbook Market.
If that turns out to be the case then we'll see how friendly Apple and Google are.
Google did release Chrome to the Windows Market months in advance to Apple or Linux.
It's a non-issue today yes but you have to look towards the future. There will be a day where you can have Internet access everywhere and the bandwidth will be enough to operate apps like Photoshop and Final Cut through the web.
But, why would you want to? I'd much rather have an app that's optimized for my OS and hardware that I can use if I choose to disconnect than a generic web app. And I'm not sure how many of us would really like a future where there's only one OS and type of hardware, especially if it's not the one we wanted. Of course, I've never been very impressed by gmail either, so, obviously, I'm just not that into web apps, netbooks, or the cloud.
(Well, OK, the cloud is useful for storing data, although I would never trust it to google, but this whole web app mania is a mystery to me. Well, so is netbook mania, besides the cost factor.)
I don't entirely understand what a "journalist" is doing by making the following statement. Are you making news or reporting it, Mr. Krazit?
"If Apple's board doesn't ask you do to so, please submit your resignation so both companies can free themselves of this obvious conflict of interest, and continue to develop the amazing products and services you have been separately creating," Krazit says.
But that's the point. It's even worse than just another Linux distro. At least Linux has some applications. Chrome "OS", to the user, really is just a web browser and that's it. If you want to develop apps, they have to be web apps.
Your post is like deja vu:
Lets do a find and replace: lets replace Google OS with iphone and Linux with Smartphones
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H;1446350 modified by a_greer
But that's the point. It's even worse than just another SMARTPHONE. At least other SMARTPHONES ha(ve) some applications. Apple iPhone 1.0, to the user, really is just a web browser and that's it. If you want to develop apps, they have to be web apps.
Well, hey, I can only go by what Google themselves have said. Which is (paraphrasing):
"Linux kernel + Chrome Browser. Development for the platform will be web apps."
Seemingly unlike many posting here, I know that a Linux distro like Ubuntu is a hell of lot more than just the Linux kernel, so I understand what Google's blogpost means. The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the term. You will note that I did qualify my original statement but I guess I should say again, with additions: Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be, Chrome "OS" will fail.
You see, I did say, "unless the philosophy changes". And I stand by that. If it remains essentially a web browser and that's it, it will fail. Ubuntu and other Linux distros on netbooks could boot up in seconds and if the user really wanted they could use just a web browser. However, despite the fact users could install other software if they wanted (i.e. these distros could do everything that Chrome will do and more), these distros failed in the market place because they weren't flexible enough. If users couldn't do what they wanted with Ubuntu, how can they possibly do it with Chrome when Chrome has even less than Ubuntu?
Well, hey, I can only go by what Google themselves have said. Which is (paraphrasing):
"Linux kernel + Chrome Browser. Development for the platform will be web apps."
Seemingly unlike many posting here, I know that a Linux distro like Ubuntu is a hell of lot more than just the Linux kernel, so I understand what Google's blogpost means. The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the word. You will note that I did qualify my original statement but I guess I should say again, with additions: Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be, Chrome "OS" will fail.
it IS an OS, it is a specific appliance OS, when is the last time you installed GIMP on a TiVO?
Linux is an OS, it gives you a kernal and a bootstrap, that is linux. DISTROS have UIs and apps, the Linux OS its self does not. Linux is a drawing board that gives you a low overhead OS to do whatever you want, from the worlds fastest databases, to your Tivo and more.
Well, hey, I can only go by what Google themselves have said. Which is (paraphrasing):
"Linux kernel + Chrome Browser. Development for the platform will be web apps."
Seemingly unlike many posting here, I know that a Linux distro like Ubuntu is a hell of lot more than just the Linux kernel, so I understand what Google's blogpost means. The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the term. You will note that I did qualify my original statement but I guess I should say again, with additions: Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be, Chrome "OS" will fail.
Has Apple ever released the true nature of their ultimate plans before the release?
Again. You have no idea what Google is going to do with their OS unless you are on the development team. All other articles, stories and rumor sites are just grasping at straws at this point.
it IS an OS, it is a specific appliance OS, when is the last time you installed GIMP on a TiVO?
Linux is an OS, it gives you a kernal and a bootstrap, that is linux. DISTROS have UIs and apps, the Linux OS its self does not. Linux is a drawing board that gives you a low overhead OS to do whatever you want, from the worlds fastest databases, to your Tivo and more.
Look, I know that technically speaking, the linux kernel is an OS. My point is that most people, hence why I said "most people", view things like Windows, OS X and Ubuntu as operating systems. What this means is that when you say "OS", people are thinking of something that is "kernel + libraries/APIs + GUI"; sure, they don't think those actual terms because they're not all geeks, but it's what they are thinking of. Chrome "OS", according to the info out of Google so far, is not this.
Has Apple ever released the true nature of their ultimate plans before the release?
Again. You have no idea what Google is going to do with their OS unless you are on the development team. All other articles, stories and rumor sites are just grasping at straws at this point.
Do me a favour and read my earlier post (the one you quoted) over and over until you understand it.
Arrogant doesn't even come close to the words for your posting.
YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL GOOGLE RELEASES IT.
READ MY SENTENCE ABOVE OVER AND OVER UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Clearly, you need this explained to you. Your proposal that "I don't know anything" is false; I know what Google themselves have said on their own website. Now read this quote from the end of my post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be
It sure seems as though we might be seeing history repeat itself. Back in the day we saw MS get in bed with Apple, learned their plans, and exploited that. Now we see Google possibly doing the same...first in the mobile phone space and now this. Things could get very interesting.
Comments
So let's play fantasy for a second.
Apple (IMO) has always been about UI and hardware. making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use hardware around, software was just the ends to the means.
Google (IMO) has always been about making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use internet applications and software apps around.
what if...
Google joins apple and splits the company into two pieces, a hardware company and a software/internet company! all under the umbrella of Apple/Google, inc. Seems like the logical next move. Look at Chrome for example. basically built off a Linux system, like Apple and similar to Safari. that way Apple can just concentrate on what they do best and Google the same. Sounds like the perfect marriage to me?
yes, yes, yes...i'm living in an unrealistic dream world again...but sounds like an interesting business model.
Let the barrage of insults and scoffs my-way begin!
discuss...
personally, i thought there was little overlap in the first place, but i guess there is more than meets the eye.
So let's play fantasy for a second.
Apple (IMO) has always been about UI and hardware. making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use hardware around, software was just the ends to the means.
Google (IMO) has always been about making the cleanest, simplest and easy to use internet applications and software apps around.
what if...
Google joins apple and splits the company into two pieces, a hardware company and a software/internet company! all under the umbrella of Apple/Google, inc. Seems like the logical next move. Look at Chrome for example. basically built off a Linux system, like Apple and similar to Safari. that way Apple can just concentrate on what they do best and Google the same. Sounds like the perfect marriage to me?
yes, yes, yes...i'm living in an unrealistic dream world again...but sounds like an interesting business model.
Let the barrage of insults and scoffs my-way begin!
discuss...
I don't think Apple's ego would let that happen! I also don't think the ambitious Google would like it!
I don't think Apple's ego would let that happen! I also don't think the ambitious Google would like it!
I agree, but like i said, IMO Apple is only really successful at Hardware and UI; Software is the ends to the means. I say let a more ambitious software guru take over that division so there is a single umbrella and to different genius companies at the helm. Of course there will be egos, but S.J. has always been into Hardware over Software. Seamless integration on every device, anywhere in the world is Google. That way google could potentially get their wish of an OS that spans multiple devices and anywhere you want it, and they don't have to deal with competition.
Just my wacky crack-pot fantasy, i know. The future of business (i've heard on several NPR interviews) will probably be involving market collaboration and integration, meaning lots of companies will be merging to gain an advantage on market share. Could be a very interesting future. OK, i'll get my head out of my butt.
discuss...
i have a feeling that in the real world this is down to the fact that, after 15 years of market monopolisation, M$ have the world believing that its software is indispensable. remember when IE came with an icon named "The Internet"? a lot of casual computer users do not know about alternatives to microsoft options and (after torturous experiences with M$ software, i would argue!) are even less willing to try. i think that breaking the microsoft domination of the industry requires a concerted effort to educate the population. removing microsoft software from schools would be a good first step. google have a chance of making inroads since they are a well-known and trusted brand
Not quite. People really do need to be able to run applications. Yes, MS did fuck over a lot of people and I'd prefer it if they didn't have the monopoly they do, but that's just the way it is. Fortunately, Apple had a fairly decent market share before Windows '95 so developers were making stuff for their platform and Apple just about managed to hang in there as a relevant platform to develop for.
So now, the reality is that if you want to run mainstream applications you have to have Windows or OS X. With no OS X on netbooks (officially), that leaves Windows. I'm thinking of getting some netbooks at some point to set up a wireless home audio network, as netbooks are cheaper than Sonos modules but more flexible. I gave serious thought to getting ones with Linux but the fact is that you can't run iTunes or Spotify under Linux so it's a no-go.
Good luck, Google! I love it when pundits think they know what is going on. Guess that's why Sun was right about the thin clients we all now use to run PhotoShop.
Oh, did I say PhotoShop? I meant GIMP, because it's free and works so much better!
And thank goodness no one use Exchange anymore what with all the other stuff out there.
Point 1: This isnt really the same thing: TCs that sun did were in a differant era, aimed at corprate installs when office LANs were just too darn slow for it, and tehir tech kinda sucked -- but have you looked at anything Citrix has done lately? a web based citrix neighborhood plugin and the right published apps on the back end could make this thing usable in ways that Suns old stuff didnt.
point 2: no one but no one buys netbooks to run Photoshop,GIMP, or any other power creative apps
point 3: The new exchange server coming down the pipe in 2010 will allow users access via web browser, any web browser, and have the same exact experience as the Outlook desktop client, so who needs the breaky, shakey thick client with its corrupted OSTs and goofy ass errors, this will allow businesses to give the thick clients to only the few who really need it, those who are not connected for long periods of tine and need access to their mail in that time, think international travelers and executives..
Point 3, sub part a: MS is also releasing a completely web based version of Office next year, both as a subscribtion for end users and a server app for corps. so these netbooks would be able to run Word, Excel, PPT, Visio, Project and more on the net.
No, really it won't.
Google's "OS" is actually just a web browser. It's the Linux kernel with the Chrome browser on top; that's it. Any application you want to run will have to be web-based.
You know why the return rate of Linux-based netbooks was so high? It was because people found they couldn't run the software they wanted to run. So now, Windows owns the netbook market. Chrome is not going to change that. Unless Chrome undergoes a major alteration to its philosophy, it will flop.
You have no idea what Google OS is going to be. They may do the reverse that Apple did and make their Web OS a computer OS and then expand their phone market with a true OS in the next couple years when phones get more horsepower.
I would think the real question would be...
Are they going to rely on their own suite of Web Office Software or make the OS compatible the Windows Software. It would be logical if they are going to start with the Netbook Market.
If that turns out to be the case then we'll see how friendly Apple and Google are.
Google did release Chrome to the Windows Market months in advance to Apple or Linux.
It's a non-issue today yes but you have to look towards the future. There will be a day where you can have Internet access everywhere and the bandwidth will be enough to operate apps like Photoshop and Final Cut through the web.
But, why would you want to? I'd much rather have an app that's optimized for my OS and hardware that I can use if I choose to disconnect than a generic web app. And I'm not sure how many of us would really like a future where there's only one OS and type of hardware, especially if it's not the one we wanted. Of course, I've never been very impressed by gmail either, so, obviously, I'm just not that into web apps, netbooks, or the cloud.
(Well, OK, the cloud is useful for storing data, although I would never trust it to google, but this whole web app mania is a mystery to me. Well, so is netbook mania, besides the cost factor.)
"If Apple's board doesn't ask you do to so, please submit your resignation so both companies can free themselves of this obvious conflict of interest, and continue to develop the amazing products and services you have been separately creating," Krazit says.
But that's the point. It's even worse than just another Linux distro. At least Linux has some applications. Chrome "OS", to the user, really is just a web browser and that's it. If you want to develop apps, they have to be web apps.
Your post is like deja vu:
Lets do a find and replace: lets replace Google OS with iphone and Linux with Smartphones
But that's the point. It's even worse than just another SMARTPHONE. At least other SMARTPHONES ha(ve) some applications. Apple iPhone 1.0, to the user, really is just a web browser and that's it. If you want to develop apps, they have to be web apps.
Lets talk again when Chrome 3.0 ships
You have no idea what Google OS is going to be.
Well, hey, I can only go by what Google themselves have said. Which is (paraphrasing):
"Linux kernel + Chrome Browser. Development for the platform will be web apps."
Seemingly unlike many posting here, I know that a Linux distro like Ubuntu is a hell of lot more than just the Linux kernel, so I understand what Google's blogpost means. The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the term. You will note that I did qualify my original statement but I guess I should say again, with additions: Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be, Chrome "OS" will fail.
Lets talk again when Chrome 3.0 ships
You see, I did say, "unless the philosophy changes". And I stand by that. If it remains essentially a web browser and that's it, it will fail. Ubuntu and other Linux distros on netbooks could boot up in seconds and if the user really wanted they could use just a web browser. However, despite the fact users could install other software if they wanted (i.e. these distros could do everything that Chrome will do and more), these distros failed in the market place because they weren't flexible enough. If users couldn't do what they wanted with Ubuntu, how can they possibly do it with Chrome when Chrome has even less than Ubuntu?
Well, hey, I can only go by what Google themselves have said. Which is (paraphrasing):
"Linux kernel + Chrome Browser. Development for the platform will be web apps."
Seemingly unlike many posting here, I know that a Linux distro like Ubuntu is a hell of lot more than just the Linux kernel, so I understand what Google's blogpost means. The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the word. You will note that I did qualify my original statement but I guess I should say again, with additions: Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be, Chrome "OS" will fail.
it IS an OS, it is a specific appliance OS, when is the last time you installed GIMP on a TiVO?
Linux is an OS, it gives you a kernal and a bootstrap, that is linux. DISTROS have UIs and apps, the Linux OS its self does not. Linux is a drawing board that gives you a low overhead OS to do whatever you want, from the worlds fastest databases, to your Tivo and more.
Well, hey, I can only go by what Google themselves have said. Which is (paraphrasing):
"Linux kernel + Chrome Browser. Development for the platform will be web apps."
Seemingly unlike many posting here, I know that a Linux distro like Ubuntu is a hell of lot more than just the Linux kernel, so I understand what Google's blogpost means. The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the term. You will note that I did qualify my original statement but I guess I should say again, with additions: Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be, Chrome "OS" will fail.
Has Apple ever released the true nature of their ultimate plans before the release?
Again. You have no idea what Google is going to do with their OS unless you are on the development team. All other articles, stories and rumor sites are just grasping at straws at this point.
it IS an OS, it is a specific appliance OS, when is the last time you installed GIMP on a TiVO?
Linux is an OS, it gives you a kernal and a bootstrap, that is linux. DISTROS have UIs and apps, the Linux OS its self does not. Linux is a drawing board that gives you a low overhead OS to do whatever you want, from the worlds fastest databases, to your Tivo and more.
Look, I know that technically speaking, the linux kernel is an OS. My point is that most people, hence why I said "most people", view things like Windows, OS X and Ubuntu as operating systems. What this means is that when you say "OS", people are thinking of something that is "kernel + libraries/APIs + GUI"; sure, they don't think those actual terms because they're not all geeks, but it's what they are thinking of. Chrome "OS", according to the info out of Google so far, is not this.
Has Apple ever released the true nature of their ultimate plans before the release?
Again. You have no idea what Google is going to do with their OS unless you are on the development team. All other articles, stories and rumor sites are just grasping at straws at this point.
Do me a favour and read my earlier post (the one you quoted) over and over until you understand it.
Do me a favour and read my earlier post (the one you quoted) over and over until you understand it.
Arrogant doesn't even come close to the words for your posting.
YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL GOOGLE RELEASES IT.
READ MY SENTENCE ABOVE OVER AND OVER UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Arrogant doesn't even come close to the words for your posting.
YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL GOOGLE RELEASES IT.
READ MY SENTENCE ABOVE OVER AND OVER UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Clearly, you need this explained to you. Your proposal that "I don't know anything" is false; I know what Google themselves have said on their own website. Now read this quote from the end of my post:
Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be