Chrome OS may push Google CEO off of Apple's board - Page 2

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.

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

Google IMO has been working on both a Mobile and a Computer OS for years.

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.

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.

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!

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".


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.

is ole now considered a slam?

My 'GUESS' as it's as good as yours is that they are one in the same and modular as the cloud services for their Web Apps (Office Suite) are.

We'll never know until we either see the source code or a real PR is released.

Where is everyone getting that I'm talking about one OS? This is benefitial to Apple as well.
There will always be a dominant OS. It is better that it be Google who thrives on open source. Apple will never have dominant marjetshare because they cater to the high end. It has always been beneficial to Apple that the web remain as open as possible because Microsoft has always tried to use their weight to create proprietary web standards.

As for hardware that is optimized for your OS, it won't be necessary. Sometime in the future you will be able to handle these things server side so you don't need the most powerful computer. There may be a situation in the future where you can only use a video editing app through a supercomputer because no consumer computer is powerful enough. A good example of this is Onlive. You can play any of the latest PC games no matter how powerful your computer is and on any OS. All of it is handled on the servers. It may or may not be realized this year for Onlive, but there is no question this will be coming someday.

As for Google, I'd never trust them for anything except search. There are too many privacy issues with them.

Just because Chrome OS doesn't overlap with Mac OS X doesn't mean the two won't be competitively seeking some of the same consumer dollars. Just because Android is open source doesn't mean the iPhone doesn't compete with it for marketshare.

With Android and now Chrome OS, it really begs the question: "WTF has Schmidt been doing on Apple's board all this time?" Schmidt shouldn't have been waiting to be removed from the board, he should have removed himself long ago. But now he's stuck there, no doubt feigning ignorance and having to deny to the SEC any reason to leave the board for fear of prosecution and all the while looking more and more like a greedy, conniving schmuck. IMHO it's time for Jobs to kick Schmidt's tusch onto the hard asphalt of Infinite Loop.

Apple knew about this for years. They will continue their friendship. They have one goal, to kill Micro$oft monopoly. Together they can make amazing products. Android OS and iPhone OS are pretty competitive yet Apple and Google continue to work together.

You said that Apple is only really successful at Hardware and UI. Do you mean that the Mac OS X is not a succeessful OS? And isn't UI a part of an OS?

Google is not a Software Guru, not yet. We will see how the Chrome OS performs. May be then it could be considered as a Software Guru. But for now, no way!

Now let me comment on you fantsay drive..
It sounds really good. But not realistic. Even if Apple and Google do decide to merge (which itself is a far call), the regulators (EU, SEC etc) will not let it succeed. Because when Apple and Google team up in full force, a worthy challenger would be hard to find. So, your idea, no matter how good it sounds, most probably won't bear seed. But good imagination though

Tim Cook would be his obvious replacement. I have no doubt he'll be replaced by the end of the year.

Apple will enter the netbook market as it will be an obvious extension of the iPhone OS (a.k.a. OSX) with multi-touch built-in. Netbook are mainly for web browsing, chat, and email via mobile provider networks and Apple cannot ignore that for very much longer.

The Chrome OS will only be a threat to Linux and XP (later Windows 7) on the netbooks and will be a better compliment to the devices if the Chrome browser is any indicator of the OS. I adore the Chrome browser.

Google's productivity suite will only come more to the forefront especially for mobile workers with their Netbook OS.

One more company that will copy Apple like microsoft did.

They should release Chrome for Moblin instead of polishing Chrome + Nacl into yet another Netbook OS.



This has nothing to do with Eric being on Apple's board. The market segments are vastly different.

someone beats their wife....

Come on. We all know what you meant.



What information do you base your guess on? When Google have said, "This 'OS' is going to be the Chrome browser running on the Linux kernel, it's aimed at people who spend most of their time on the web, the primary interface will be the web browser, the development platform will be the web", why on earth would you "guess" that it's exactly the same as Android and is going to be "modular as the cloud services", whatever that means? Essentially, you are saying that Google is lying about what Chrome OS is going to be. Why would they do that?

Surely the Apple board have some responsibility here too? I agree it would seem it's time for him to leave.

My point about one OS, a point I didn't make very clearly is that as long as there are multiple hardware and OS variations, apps written and compiled to specifically take advantage of their features are likely to outperform web apps, both in speed and the user experience.

In fact, the current trend seems to be in quite the opposite direction, the current discussion being related to a case in point.


But, again, why would you want this sort of future?

Yes, it would be nice to have access to all the latest whatever, but that doesn't have anything to do with web apps. That future already exists and it's called the App Store. You need something, you download it and run it on your computer, which happens to be an iPhone.

This view of the future of computing is contrary to everything that was behind the invention of the personal computer. The point was that you could have a computer of your own that you could do whatever you wanted to with. This whole cloud computing/web app thing is an attempt to stuff the genie back in the bottle so that someone -- google in this case -- can take away that freedom for their own financial benefit. (And this is, in fact, the one downside of the iPhone: unless you jailbreak it, your freedom to do with it as you like is severely curtailed.)

And, no, I do not see the day coming when, "you can only use a video editing app through a supercomputer because no consumer computer is powerful enough." Today's supercomputer is tomorrow's laptop, and there's no evidence that would lead me to expect that will change; unless we accept a future of web appliances and the cloud, and our personal computers become less powerful than today's iPhone. That's not a future I'd like to see: a future where someone else controls all our data and what we can do with it.

I'd like Eric Schmidt to resign from Apple's board because his philosophy is in direct contradiction to the philosophy that Apple was founded on, and his continued presence is likely to steer Apple further and further from it's own original principles. Google tossed their founding principals out the window long ago and has been doing evil for quite some time. Well, a moot point since he's going to have to leave Apple's board anyway, and not a moment too soon.


I don't even trust them for search as there are plenty of privacy issues there as well. Of course, the other reason I don't trust them for search is that it's clear, and has been for some time, that the goal of google's search algorithm is to maximize google's profits (by preferentially presenting links to sites displaying google ads) not to provide the best search results.

Maybe this is why Apple "has no interest" in the "cheap/low-end" netbook market? The Google OS is targeted there - Apple targets desktop/laptop and iPhones - everyone stays on everyone else's board and sings kumbaya.

In 3-5 years this could all change as markets change/converge, yes, but that's uncertain: Who would have predicted 3-5 years ago that Apple would be *the* pre-eminent contender to the throne of King of All Smartphones? I mean, outside of the apple-fans...

Google's OS is as much proof-of-concept as it is reality. If it works then we'll see marketplace acceptance for truly bare-bones OS architecture. If it's buggy/unreliable and it flops, then, meh. Personally I see it as a significant niche player, just as gmail is a significant player for personal email, but too unreliable for corporate/enterprise use (same as with google docs, etc).

Google always seems to provide "whatever you want (free if necessary), as long as you use it and look at ads".
Apple's aim is to provide you something so awesome, you just want to pay them for it, (even if you don't really need it).
M$ makes money only because it never really orphans off any technology that depended on them from ages past.

If I'm looking to upgrade (from say XP), would I prefer..
1. A free bloated browser (GoogleOS) that may provide offline versions of it's software, or
2. A mature, cool, robust uncustomizable system requiring me to repurchase software-if available, or
3. Same old system that will run my existing native apps?

I suppose they all have their benefits, but the consumer masses would fit best with (1), the creative bunch (2), and the business masses (3). Mind you people don't always use what best fits their needs, but it would appear that Google has a good case to change the OS landscape. Whether that translates into actually taking revenue away from the others is another story. Whether adoption is as quick and easy as they may hope is really up to their execution. We'll see where we are in 5 years.

just wanted to clarify for you my opinion. No, I don't think Mac OS X is unsuccessful. I think it's just a necessary instrument to accomplishing Steve Jobs' goal to create the simplest, cleanest, easiest to use hardware, IMO. They had no choice but to create a platform for their fantastic hardware. So no, not unsuccessful but just the means to the end-goal. I think the priority is more hardware than software. Perhaps no longer now that they are broadening out to the mobile device market. but still the software is more the supporting infrastructure to the over-all goal to creating the most innovative and simplest hardware out there to the end-user.

and to clarify the rest of your comments, as unrealistic as my thought sounds; I did call it a "fantasy". By definition: fantasy = "a situation imagined by an individual or group, which does not correspond with reality but expresses certain desires or aims of its creator. " wikipedia...Thanks for the feedback!

Interesting thoughts...

I never imagined Apple would be where it is today either. But, seeing the success of the iPod, the phone seemed to be a logical next step in hind-sight. It appears that Apple (in the last 10 years) has become a company that takes time to develop technologies and stews on innovative ideas until they have something that's so good, the end-user has no choice but to flock towards it. They don't test their good ideas on the end-user, like MS.

An IT friend of mine said once that MS (and others) always has the first good innovative ideas (whether they are successful or not...usually unsuccessful because they are new and untested). For example...look at Windows Media Center and Media Player. Great idea but it's never really been successful until Apple perfected it into iTunes.

That's one of the main reasons why I really respect Apple. They take their time to don't put something out until it's been tested and they don't waste their time on "fads".

MS tests all the new ideas on the end-users and Apple perfects it and goes beyond. That, IMO, is an interesting perspective on the major differences between the two giants. Google, probably fits somewhere in-between.

The thing is, you've trapped yourself in to thinking about hardware and software separately. That is what most of the industry does too, and why products are often poor.

The Apple way is thinking of the two together, to think of the symbiotic relationship leading to a complete "whole"; one without the other is useless. Apple does not think of hardware. Apple does not think of software. They think of "product" and "user experience".

sure, i probably am backing myself into a corner there. it's probably based from articles and commentaries i've read that state that Jobs' main focus has always been on hardware. you make a good point. but like i said, the software is the means to the end-goal. Perhaps that end goal (as i stated it) is skew and is more how you describe it.

If Google links Chrome OS to Android then I guess you could have a situation where all the Android applications become usable on a Chrome OS Netbook (or could be easily ported across). Add an integrated mobile contract and the netbook becomes a larger version of the smartphone. Apple has proved that given the right set-up software companies will produce a myriad of useful app's. Add this to Google's free app's such as Docs, etc and you could end up with a cheap and compelling alternative to a Windows netbook for a lot of people.

I'm not sure how this would impact on Apple but if more people are buying netbooks then presumably less laptops will be sold overall.

HURRAH!! *clap clap clap*

Someone who admitted they might have made a mistake! I congratulate you, sir! Please, come back and spend more time on these forums. We need more like you to balance out all the wackos.

Seriously!

It's highly likely that this idea was hatched during an Apple board meeting. Apple take the top end of the market - Google the bottom end - somewhere in the middle they close Microsoft out...

I think it is because most people don't know what an operating system actually is. In it's simplest form it is just an interface that allows a user interact with some piece of hardware. Even a $2 calculator has an operating system.

There are things I love about Google, their dedication to open platforms, free services, and the cleanliness/minimalism/simplicity of their products. With regards to Google & Apple, the two share the last trait. The other two traits will be the determining factor in the success of one company over the other.

Unfortunately for Google, they suffer the same flaw that NetZero initially did: People would rather pay for a reliable service without ads/garbage than have open platforms and free services, no matter how unobtrusive they are. If Google entertained the idea of a pay-for service with open standards and a clean, ad-free interface, they would certainly stand a chance.

-Clive

I love it, Apple uses this model with the initial release of the iPhone and everyone pitches a fit.

Google proposes it, and it's the second coming of IT

That is an incredible disservice to the rich programming environment and frameworks that Apple provides with OSX.

Apple is very much a premiere software provider...

I still think you are short-changing software.

It's both of them together.

Neither one is more important then the other. It's how they play TOGETHER that makes Apple products special. It's the whole experience.

To try to say "Apple is better at hardware" or "Apple is better at software" misses the point. Apple is better at "the experience" which encompasses hardware and software as well as things like media (iTunes), 3rd party applications (App Store), etc.

It's more than just a web browser, it's a web browser urltilizing HTML5's local caching so you won't require an Internet connection to read your emails, compose and read documents in Google Docs and, most importantly, any of the apps that will created using HTML5 that won't just work on Chrome OS, but on any compliant browser.

None of this should be a surprise. Cringley was talking about this at least a half decade before It was even a possibility with the options HTML5 brings us. The idea that this is for netbooks isn't exactly truthful, IMO. I think that the emerging markets where a very simple cable/dialup modem with a simple appliance the size of a Linksys router is more than powerful enough with ARM or Atom to run Chrome.

Since it's open sourced even other appliances, like a cable box (or TV itself) or digital
picture frame could be used for full Internet access on your HDTV, or get weather, stocks and other updates sent to each device, respectively.

With type of OS there really is no limit to what can be done for the basic Internet user. This will not wipe out OS X or Windows, nor is or meant to, but it will get into a lot of nook and crannies that will benefit the majority or the world's population and may eventually benefit the rest of us where full license and install of OS X or Windows makes no sense.

As for Linux, there are plenty of phones that run Linux without the user being aware of it. I think this is what Google has in mind. Getting a netbook with KDE or Gnome as GUI is not simple for a non-experienced user. I think this will have a place for your files, perhaps accessible only from the tool bar on the browser, but everything else will be invisible to the user.

Watch the sparks fly when Apple announces it is moving in a big way into search. iFind?

yeah, I don't claim to know any more than the next guy. but as i've stated on other posts, at least I try to state my positions as "opinions" and not fact. and when i do have factual evidence, i try to at least sight my sources. somethings it's tough to do but I try at least. Thease forums are for friendly chat and exchange of ideas, not a pissing contest. However, opinions aren't always mistakes or false information...in this case i truly believe there is no right or wrong answer.

If Jobs has an issue with Schmidt, he'll ask him to leave. If not, then there is no problem.

So where is the problem here? Why are people having a fit over this? Do people think Jobs is too shy or polite to confront Schmidt?

... call your attention to the fact that it's not "... off of but rather just off the board."
phil

Tom Krazit doesn't know what he's talking about (shocker).


IF apple made an OS for commodity PC hardware that it didn't also manufacture, then he might possibly have a point. No surprise here, folks -- they don't.

No story.

Like I said, this Browser on an OS has been done... 3 years ago... And it works on hardware as old as Pentium 2. If you have a netbook, load it onto an SSD or USB drive and watch it fly! 2.6 kernel supports IntelMac's.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=44110

Of course without the great spyware attached to it.

That looks a quite a bit difference. I see a desktop, toolbar and Menu button. This also doesnt include the other, arguably more important, aspects ChromeOS will bring with it. Namely the HTML5-based apps that will be easily made by web developers and used on any OS with pretty much all browsers.