Chrome OS may push Google CEO off of Apple's board

[AppleInsider]

Apple and Google have had a warm relationship for years, but the unveiling of Chrome OS on Wednesday may leave Apple with no choice but to oust Google chief Eric Schmidt from its board due to a conflict of interest.

Veteran journalist Tom Krazit warns that the two Silicon Valley companies will face an inevitable collision once the new web-based operating system is released and it has to compete against Mac OS X, rendering it more and more unreasonable for Schmidt to help oversee Apple's broader strategy.

The CEO is already in hot water with regulators as he frequently has to recuse himself from board meetings that involve iPhone plans, many of which would clash with Google's own attempts to promote its Android mobile operating system. Even though he makes this exception and has been adamant that the two companies don't occupy the same markets, the FTC has been investigating the Apple-Google link for a possible violation of antitrust laws through unfair collaboration. The companies are already known to be finding common ground as they both offer web browsers and, more recently, video services that involve commercially-produced, downloadable content.

With Chrome OS in place, Schmidt would not only have the obvious problem of conflicts in specific apps but with the original cornerstone of Apple's business and two out of three of the pillars that keep it running. Only board meetings discussing the iPod would be safe for him to attend, Krazit comments through CNET.

Apple and Google haven't yet discussed any of the implications for the new platform strategy. Unofficially, the software isn't thought to spark any near-term trouble: with the netbook as a primary target for Chrome OS and Apple deriding the category as unsuitable for the Mac name, few if any systems are liable to run one operating system and offer similar features as a computer running the other. Still, the similarity is close enough that calls are already being made for Schmidt to voluntarily resign from the Apple board to avoid butting heads with the US government any more than necessary.

"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.

[Ireland]

"unfair collaboration"

Huh?...

[frugality]

Originally Posted by Ireland

Huh?...

Thank you so much for the useful post.

[bugsnw]

Ouch. That was one drawback to the GoogOS. He's outta there for sure. I hope Apple & Google stay friends enough to come up with some exciting potential collaborations, whatever they are.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by Ireland

Huh?...

against Microsoft. Not consumers.

"Consumers can go hang, but nobody had better hurt poor Microsoft." <-- government viewpoint, after some Microsoft lobbying

[brucep]

Originally Posted by frugality

Thank you so much for the useful post.

huh!!

[skate71290]

surely Google and Apple staying friends and working together on their operating systems would benefit everyone... Safari Tabs on Top was genius and that was thanks to Google's Chrome... surely anything Google can do Apple will do shortly afterwards... but dangerous for Google to leave their OS as Open Source... but then again if we design and make it, we ain't going to complain... i just hope Apple provides support for Boot Camp on OS Chrome, sure it will beat Vista/Windows 7 (which i'm anticipating still won't be as powerful as OS X.6 and will still have the underlying problems like Vista especially with Viruses, Registry and basically just shite that makes Windows the way it is

[Stormchild]

I think this is a non-issue, as a web-based OS cannot possibly compete with OS X. To even suggest that they are in the same league is completely retarded. End of story.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by skate71290

OS Chrome, sure it will beat Vista/Windows 7

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.

[Tauron]

The whole thing is just mental masturbation on the part of the execs and will be much ago about nothing. Chrome will fail just like Android failed or is failing, like so many other Google "eternal beta" products.

[str1f3]

Originally Posted by Stormchild

I think this is a non-issue, as a web-based OS cannot possibly compete with OS X. To even suggest that they are in the same league is completely retarded. End of story.

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. Look at how far we've come in just ten years. We were at 28.8 Kbps modems and today we can stream HD. This isn't a plan for 2010 or 2011 for Google. This is for 15 or 20 years from now.

That being said right now there is little or anything that Chrome OS will have over OSX and what Apple can't adopt. It'll be funny if Schmidt is on the board as being a board member who would be absent from almost every single meeting.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

...
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. .. ..

You would think Google realize this but maybe they don't.

I suspect that Google will add a twist to make it different than just another Linux distro because that's unlikely to succeed. But what they do to distinguish Google OS from say Ubuntu, I don't know.

[g3pro]

meh, sounds like the ramblings of a rambling apple fanbois. ChromeOS and Apple have almost nothing in common.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by Tauron

Chrome will fail

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Tauron

like Android failed or is failing

I think it's too early to pass judgement on Android.

Originally Posted by Tauron

like so many other Google "eternal beta" products.

Didn't you hear the news? Many of Google's apps are no longer in beta!

[JimDreamworx]

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.
Is that why Windows has dropped below 40% of the marketshare in the last year?

http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/0...-get-some.html

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by backtomac

You would think Google realize this but maybe they don't.

I suspect that Google will add a twist to make it different than just another Linux distro because that's unlikely to succeed. But what they do to distinguish Google OS from say Ubuntu, I don't know.

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.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by str1f3

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. Look at how far we've come in just ten years. We were at 28.8 Kbps modems and today we can stream HD. This isn't a plan for 2010 or 2011 for Google. This is for 15 or 20 years from now.

That being said right now there is little or anything that Chrome OS will have over OSX and what Apple can't adopt. It'll be funny if Schmidt is on the board as being a board member who would be absent from almost every single meeting.

You think Apple isn't considering the future? And let me just say that no company on the face of the Earth plans for 15-20 years down the road, especially the IT Industries.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

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.

I hear you.

I have to believe that Google has some twist up their sleeve. I can't believe they're that dumb but time will tell.

[joe in miami]

It never made sense to me for Apple to have a board member who also competes in the smart phone market.

[jonnyboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

It was because people found they couldn't run the software they wanted to run.

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

[antkm1]

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...

[nite41]

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!

[nite41]

Originally Posted by antkm1

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!

[antkm1]

Originally Posted by nite41

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...

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by jonnyboy

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.

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by JimDreamworx

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.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by str1f3

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.)

[techoi]

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.

[PierreB]

Wasn't the SEC probing the fact that Google has a seat on the Apple board - if this resignation comes to pass likely would moot that inquiry.

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

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

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.

Lets talk again when Chrome 3.0 ships

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by iPhone1982

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.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by a_greer

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?

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

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.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by a_greer

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.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by iPhone1982

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.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by iPhone1982

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:

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Unless the philosophy changes or they're lying about what this is going to be

[Techslacker]

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.

[str1f3]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

You think Apple isn't considering the future? And let me just say that no company on the face of the Earth plans for 15-20 years down the road, especially the IT Industries.

Where did I say that Apple isn't considering the future? You are insane if you don't think companies don't look 15 years ahead. Maybe not IT companies but Google is not your average tech company. They can afford to wait that long because they are that dominant. Google is competing against Microsoft. Do you believe that Google's plan to crush Windows can be done within 5 years? 10 years? No this will take a long time to accomplish.

[OC4Theo]

I personally believe the guy need to pack up and leave. He does not need the money. He should have been gone since Google phone surfaced. A director need to be present in every meeting all the time. This guy is already absent on Apple's future growth strategy. So what does he do to deserve any compensation? And what secrets of Apple business is he diverging to Google kingdom.

Google never has a plan for a phone until iPhone debut. When did he start excusing himself from iPhone meetings; before or after iPhone has been created? It is more than conflict of interest. How about stealing business secrets? He has to go, today!

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by iPhone1982

That was the point I was trying to make with Mr H (ole).

Ah. The good old ad-hom. You will note that I never called you (or anyone else, for that matter) a name. I await your apology.

I'd also be interested in hearing an explanation as to what's so wrong with going with the information published by Google about the Chrome "OS".

Originally Posted by iPhone1982

They may take Google OS out of beta by 2012 but my guess is it will still kitck ass. It can multi task after all.

Which one are you talking about? Android? Android seems much more interesting to me. I just really don't see the point of the Chrome "OS" as stated by Google.