Google's Chrome OS assailed by needless, dangerous by critics - Page 2

Nice to see someone here has a brain. How anyone can conclude from the volumes of evidence available, that Google is in any way a safe entity to be involved, is beyond me.

They are not good. Who they really work for I can't say, but it's not the user. It's the complete opposite.

Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS’ low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?

Some things are more significant than bullsh browser based OS. If you can't put two and two together (critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, non-ignorance) and understand why Google has proven themselves precisely EVIL, then you deserve what you get. Period.

I'm with you on this. Its not about whether Google is 'good' or 'bad', Chrome OS fills a need that netbooks have identified but don't quite satisfy. Windows based net books have always seemed like a really mediocre experience to me in the times I've used them. Chrome OS may make it better by eliminating a lot of the headaches. The big missing element seems to be apps. I've not seen any good reviews of the apps available at this point. Obviously that will change in time if Chrome OS gains any traction.

Dude, you're taking this way to personally.

I full fledged computer is probably better for you. But Chrome OS isn't designed for you in the first place. It's for the ludites. There are plenty of them out there. Many people just use there computer to update facebook and check email. They don't need windows or even OSX to do this.

And for the record I side with Melgross and PMZ. I use Little Snitch, and google software phones home like no other and I certainly don't buy their 'do no evil' mantra.
I used to respect google but nowadays they just irritate the crap out of me.

There is some odd rationale going on here with the “I don’t like a certain aspect of Google so anything they ever create is a bad idea and your stupid if you think anything they do is viable”. I certainly didn’t expect a lot of support at this point for saying that browser-based desktop OS would satisfy many netbook users, other satellite computing needs, and places where decent computer HW is hard to find or expensive, but to say that I’m “ignorant” for not vilifying all of Google ideas is just as absurd as those who defend all of Apple’s ideas, or loves or hates everything MS does. Critical thinking, indeed!


PS: If these people think that Google’s control means it will fail, then they need to explain Google’s Android OS, Gmail, et al. being wildly successful. Are these not part of the same company? So why all of a sudden to they think that Chrome OS can’t be a viable desktop OS for low-cost systems simply because of the way they feel about Google?

So you agree Im an idiot for thinking a browser-based desktop OS can be a viable platform for many users?

You miss the point. If the government wants my information currently, it has to act in accordance with the 4th Amendment. Namely, seek a Court's approval to obtain such information. When you put your information in the Cloud, all the government has to do is ask Google for it. Currently, big corporations are happy to give the government back door access to people's private information. ATT, Verizon, Comcast have given government agencies backdoor access to their whole networks. Court oversight is not needed because once you give the documents to a third party you no longer own the documents and the third party can hand your information over simply by being requested to do so. It doesn't even have to be the government. Corporations can give your private information to your employer, neighbors, whomever they please. Current practice is to sell much of your information to other companies so they can try to sell you stuff.

Wikileaks recently released documents that say the Chinese government gave authority to hack Google's network and steal massive loads of documents on it's servers. In a free country, the government has no business viewing people's private documentations. Further, the US government hasn't publicly condemned China for stealing Google's users information.

Information in the Cloud may be convenient, but it is not protected. Don't think for a minute Apple hasn't left a hole for it to access your encrypted documents.

Seems to me the biggest issue will be the effect, especially on Microsoft, of Google giving this OS away for "free", as surely they will.

Instead of storing all my data in the "cloud", how about make it easier to access the data that's on my desktop computer at home? I still believe it is much better and more secure for people to maintain and store their data on their own systems. The biggest reason, it is much easier for a hacker/thief to target a centralized repository, than it is to find and access individual systems. The second reason, if all your data is online somewhere, you are at the mercy of your internet connection and the uptime/reliability of the cloud service.

I would use cloud storage for a few things; as an offsite back up for important files that have been encrypted locally and then uploaded, as online site for storing files where others can get them and download them, i.e. file sharing, and possibly a place to temporarily store a few unimportant things I might need while "on the road."

As the title, for this single reason I will not buy a chrome machine. What does it offer more than a tablet? Or MBA? If I want to back up something, I save it to Nas and sync to the computers I have, my own mini cloud

Er No, I don't think your an idiot!? I was agreeing with PMZ and Melgross about Google being an untrustworthy company.

In response to above: I believe a browser-based desktop OS could be a viable platform for many users, but a hybrid would kick it's ass every time, making a solely cloud based system hard to sell in a competitive marketplace .

Why on earth would anyone buy a cloud based device when they could buy a hybrid for practically the same price. Which is considerably more responsive and does everything a cloud OS could do...only better.

The real problem with Google's Chrome strategy, as I see it, is that the web has always been a second-rate experience for apps and not really suited to anything but document reading. (Actually, it has always been a second-rate experience for documents too, but that's another story.) What people really needed was a simple way to get full-blooded, internet-connected client-side applications. Apple has provided that with the App Store. Until now, they've merely being putting up with what was available. The web has only ever provided an experience that's "good enough." You can't base a platform on that.

Browser-based OS doesnt mean that everything resides in the cloud. Sure, one can do that or it can be designed that way, but HTML5 has local DB storage support. WebOS is a browser-based OS, too. They have their limitations, but they also have their advantages. As I previously mentioned, this is the first real opportunity Ive seen to really take a chunk of Windows marketshare. It will be the low-end but it would be $30(?) MS wont get and unlike the Linux netbooks it will be an OS that is usable for the internet because the web browser is the one app people do use.

Full Disclosure: I use Google for my mail, have MobileMe backing up and syncing all sorts of data to my IDevices and Mac, use Dropbox to share files with friends, and even have AppleInsider account.

Just wanted to add. The people who are usually taken to be the target audience for cheap Chrome OS-based netbooks (lightweight users who don't need a full computer) are exactly the people who benefit most from the kind of user experience only client-side apps can supply and exactly the people who are buying the iPad in droves.

I'm aware of HTML5 local sqlite storage. But why could the above (windows annihilation ) not be achieved by Android or a cloudy version of Android?

How exactly is Android designed for this type of I/O when its not even ready for tablets?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/chr...l#xtor=RSS-181

When netbooks first started appearing Linux was the operating system installed on all of them. If all the people buying these devices only wanted to use them for a few simple things, then why, when given the choice, did they choose Windows XP and push Linux out of the market? Linux was a free system, very much capable of all the things those people may have needed. The fact is, people didn't want a small, cheap, portable computer, they wanted a small, cheap, portable Windows computer. When most of the world thinks, "computer", they think of the Windows based system they once used or are currently using.

You have to redefine a product in order to get people to even consider to make a change in their habits. Google is basically just offering a dumbed down computer. There's nothing new here, just a whole lot of missing stuff that people normally associate with a computer. And nothing that can't be done on Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X system.



Well Google is pretty scary. People have trusted too much of their information with a single entity... That's never a good idea. All the data they have of you has been at one time transmitted over a network. Data mining isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least until the CEO of that company runs around saying things like,

"More and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type. I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next. ... serendipitycan be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically."

Is this what you've entrusted Google with, to gather so much information on you that you want them to be able to tell you what to do? Most people who use Google, just want to search for stuff.

1) Capable ≠ easy to use.

2) Windows and Linux on those netbooks were dog slow.

3) As stated ad nauseam and for the last time Chrome OS and other browser-based OSes have the opportunity to offer a simple and useful satellite computing xperience that feels fast to the user.

This is the same writer that on Monday said Microsoft re-branded Windows CE as Windows XP Embedded to escape the negative stigma of Windows CE's failures.

I think the other writers at AI need to pull Mr Dilger aside and have a quiet word about writing articles on subjects where he is hopelessly outside of his comfort zone.

Giving an article a bias toward Apple is on an Apple-centric site is expected, but getting basic factual content wrong... that's simply not a good idea on any respectable tech site.

I think Mr Dilger needs to stay inside the Appleverse where he knows his stuff.

But cloud OS is not ready yet either!

Anyhow my point is that there is little point in a solely cloud based OS. Apple's iPad or a future version of Android will always have the upper hand because of their considerably better yet unburdening local capabilities.

Indeed. Overall, though, an insightful report. Thanks.

srsly i can't tell who's more stupid in the article that's actually the real story here

btw is there a tracking site that tracks and scores intentionally sensationalistic titles i mean i get that that's how most of this trade is peddled but metrics would be fun

I agree
Unfortunately, I found that his articles detract from the site. They tend to be based solely on shamelessly attacking Google while providing no new insight or analysis on the matter

And the notion of an Apple site quoting Stallman! The irony! I can't think of any guy who is more antithetical to Apple's computing philosophy than Stallman. Mr Dilger, you know this man browses the web by downloading webpages as plain text to his email, right? You also know that he also advocates for users having complete control over their hardware and software, down to the right to access and modify the source code, right?

The GNU GPL. Look it up. Last time I checked, this website seems to hate it (I think I remember some article about the iPad VLC media app)


Meh. That's technology for you.

A far scarier prospect for me has always been the cellular telcos and Facebook. The telcos essentially know your location all the time that your phone is on their network; we have no privacy of location any more. But I never see people bitching at their cell phone company for keeping records of their location

Same with Facebook. Half a billion people around the world are actively giving Facebook intimate details about their likes, interests, social conversations, activities (tagged bar photos, anyone?), etc. Total loss of privacy in your personal life
And Facebook has a terrible track record with privacy. Absolutely terrible

The price of technologic progress is privacy. That's just how it is.


Though the iPad can't be used as a primary computing device; it has to be tethered to a mother ship computer running iTunes. I think this is the iPad's single greatest disadvantage; it can't wholly replace a "full" computer.
Theoretically, a Chrome OS device could be used as a primary computer. From my perspective as a student, I could do serious word processing on some online document service and survive; I can't imagine writing a 4200 word paper on an iPad.

Why can't the iPad be used as a "primary computing device"? it already is for many, and will be for many more.
There is no reason why future versions of the iPad cannot do everything a 'traditional' computer can do today, including serious word processing (and if you can't stand the keyboard you can buy a bluetooth one).

The iPad is defining the future of computing right now. No need for Cloudy OS's. The iPad is not just a toy. Soon the majority of people will use an iPad style device as their primary computer, and only computing professionals will require the need for a 'traditional' computer.

When I first heard of cloud usage and storage I thought how stupid that would be to anybody concerned about privacy. I do think it has a place for being a repository of programs but only if one can store the results within one's computer. It is possible that the data could be deleted after the cloud program is used.

Since internet connections are vital to the Chrome OS that would be a big barrier to anyone who uses their computer for things other than surfing the web.

I think the whole concept of "Apps" has rendered most of Chrome OS unneeded. Having a quick connecting internet browser would be a worthy project for netbooks. As it is, Ubuntu comes close to doing that. More specialized versions would connect faster.

I don't trust Google so I use STARTPAGE.COM for my browser. They now partner with Google and allow one to use the Google search engine anonymously.

1) Well, Linux doesn't mean "difficult to use." There are many distributions of Linux that are tailor made with simple, easy to use interfaces. In fact there was a distribution called Lindows, sold on WalMart's cheap computers, that made it dead simple for people to maintain and install new software. Guess what? They're all gone - replaced by Windows.

2) Linux is also an OS that had been ported and optimized for many types of systems, so there's no reason for it to run slow on any class of hardware.

3) Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think a "browser" based system is necessary or the answer to achieve those things. I also don't think that will make a system feel any faster as well.


Bottom line, there's no inherent advantage of a system being browser-based.

I don't think that its an acceptable position to simply accept the loss of privacy as being unavoidable.


Unfortunately, where I am at least the law requires identification to be sighted and recorded with the purchase of a mobile phone or pre-paid sim card. It can't be avoided.

However with Facebook, I agree with you. I don't know why people would actually use their real names on that thing. I don't.

I guess you don't even know what was the first graphic user interface or an operating system that uses a mouse to move around. Windows fans think that Windows was the first one to make it like that; do a little bit of research and you'll find out that windows actually copied mac...
Apple change the way we used computers, therefore making them more appealing to casual customers that didn't want use just code.

Well, ChromeOS is not "cloud" based, it is a system installed on and run from the device. It simply uses a browser as its main user interface and because of this, all development is done with web standards, HTML, CSS, Javascript.

People seem to misunderstand what that means. It does NOT mean you need to be connected to the internet to use the computer. Applications can and probably will be stored locally when applicable -- coincidently, this will probably work just as on iOS devices. You can install web apps on iOS devices, by first going to the site and saving it to the home screen. This downloads a copy of the site which can be run offline (not connected to the internet). you can visit http://www.apple.com/webapps/ to see all the web-apps available for iOS devices.

Also, "local" capabilities can be built into a "browser" by extending and adding custom features to the browser environment. System specific Javascript objects can be created giving access to the rest of the system (outside the browser). Apple does this with Dashboard, which is also based off HTML, CSS and Javascript but with a few Dashboard only features added. I would guess developing for ChromeOS will probably be very similar to developing for Dashboard.

You're right -- and that's pretty scary! Hopefully, as scary to users as to MS.

As an aside...

I stopped reading DED's blog several years ago because i† was too biased for me (an overt Apple fan).

With the continuous onslaught of this same, over the to top reporting from AI, it is losing its value as a source of information and discussion.

There are many reasoned an intelligent people here -- why does AI allow DED to repeatedly set an agenda that brings out the worst...

Mel... ?

"Android is essentially a modified version of JavaME"

False, the only thing Android has in common with JavaME is that both run on mobile devices.

"Stallman orchestrated the Free Software movement, which promotes a specific type of freedom in software: the ability of users to modify their own software as they see fit, rather than being stuck with commercial, proprietary software they can't modify. Stallman's GNU software makes up the upper portion of most Linux distributions and portions are incorporated into Apple's Mac OS X."

Je, je, Stallman is now a hero for Daniel.


And regarding Stallman critizism, what makes different Chrome OS from having your account on GMail or MobileMe?

If you have an account there, your contacts, mail and calendars are stored on the cloud exactly the same way you have stored if you use Chrome OS

I think you haven't understood the sarcams. OS X is a modified version of Windows as Android is esentially a version of JavaME.

Is that confirmed or an assumption? Has anyone actually released benchmarks of this vs the same hardware running W7 Starter?

I just can't shake the feeling that if a website runs like a dog in W7 Starter it's going to run like a dog in ChromeOS as well.

Yes, this is a lot of quoted material, but for a reason... more commentary below.












Hallelujah!!

I am SO HAPPY to see many of you realizing the downside and dangers of one (or a few) companies in control of so much personal data! I've been 'preaching' the negative aspects of this model for a long time, and it's often felt like I was standing alone against an ocean of momentum. It felt like I was standing in the theater at the end of Apple's 1984 commercial, looking helplessly at the unwashed masses, without a hammer! ;-) No "I told you so" attitude from me at all, I'm just so elated to see a small change in momentum - even if only among the technically savvy of us.

This battle has barely started. There is a place for online data, but right now it's like the wild west, with little in the way of safety or protection. The best thing we can do at this point is to try to educate as many people as possible, and minimize storage of personal data on public servers. It will probably frustrate many people to hear this, but that includes using gmail for your primary email account. That's not just your own personal data, but that of your friends as well. As Mel said above, Google is the most dangerous company on the planet today. They know way more about you than you think.

Facebook may be evil, but it's easy to opt-out. Google is far more scary because it's very difficult to opt out of.

I've been on the internet since 1995. I've run a lot of different browsers from a lot of different sources. The absolute worst software on my computers for the past 15 years has been web browsers. There's no way I would ever agree to run a "browser based OS".

The cloud does not deserve our trust for two very good reasons:

1. The holders of our personal information want to use it to make money. Their only interest in keeping our information safe is so it doesn't fall into the hands of their competition.

2. Huge, supposedly safe databases with valuable credit card and medical data get cracked on a fairly regular basis. Do you really think that once all your eggs are in one basket that they'll be safer?

First, I'm happy you have an AppleInsider account. 20,000 posts and counting - please stick around for another 20,000!

So don't take this the wrong way, I just want to get you to start thinking about something. I've discussed this with personal friends, and the attitudes have ranged from "yeah, you're right, I think I'll change my usage", to "stupid #!*$#, shut up". More or less...

You are making a conscious choice to give full and unfettered access to your personal information when you use gmail. At least I hope it's a conscious decision! Nothing is truly free, this is the implicit "price" you are paying for the convenience of using their email system.

However, in doing so, you are also giving many of your friends' personal data to google as well. Are they all okay with this? Have you asked? Are they even thinking about it? Especially in light of the many comments above, I think this is something people are going to have to consider as our population becomes more educated.

Personally, it pissed me off to no end when people send me email via their gmail accounts, asking about personal information -- especially when it's about your kids!. This is most definitely not information that google has any right to, and even when I practically knock some people over the head they refuse to consider my requests. Why is this?! Are people so addicted to this "convenience drug" that they can't quit? Almost every ISP provides email accounts along with the pipe, so it's not like people don't have other options.

I'll leave it at that. I'm not picking on you in particular, I just want to get folks thinking.

Chrome OS is suitable only if you want to browse/consume online data, at that respect it is less practical than iOS or Android. It might sell, but only for people who do everything on the web or have another computer running a full fledged OS. But I know some people that all they use is the browser and iTunes, so ChromeOS has them covered except for iTunes, so unless Apple releases iTunes for ChromeOS it wouldn't get too far.

Absolutely agree with this. Considering that sufficiently fast upload and download "pipes" are necessary for many things to work in ChromeOS, I think most people would be better served, literally, with their own server setup.

I'm not up to speed with the workings of SL-Server, so I don't know if this is already the case, but I've stated here in assorted threads that I think Apple should take a look at an easy to use, consumer friendly server setup. Especially since iOS is their cash-cow going forward. Whether a NAS, Drobo-type, Mac-Mini, whatever. A media and document server that works across the entire Mac OSX and iOS line-up of devices. WITH connectivity options for when you're on the go with one of the mobile devices.

If SL-Server does all of the above and more already... forgive me for stating the obvious and what's already there, and being too dumb to find out.


The entire quoted reply by Blah64 is how I think too.

Here in Germany, Google is a bad word, and the govt. and media are consistently beating them over the head and in the courts about their abusive practices as it applies to the Data Protection Laws in place. I can't imagine ChromeOS and it's cloud strategy is going to be looked upon kindly here.

Even Facebook is catching some skeptical flak over their policies, and people using it for far too serious and privat subject matter, which "could" come back to haunt them.

I'm not afraid personally, because when I do use those services, I'm as anonymous as possible. However, I definitely see the appeal of the services for the technologically average person, and actually would prefer many of the people I know to use such a service. Certainly over a full-blown train-wreck like *Windows!

* I recently spent 2 days trying to rebuild a dead (computer - hard drive working) WinXP Pro installation to a new Win7 Home Premium system. Oh the pain! Printer, sound, ethernet driver hell! Old 16-bit business-app hell! Virtual PC-Windows XP Mode-180,- EURO upgrade Hell!

Oh hell... I finally tossed the flaming pile of crap to a guru in the area. Should have done it from the start, and saved a few "tinged" gray hairs.

*Windows is NOT the answer!