Google sets sights on enterprise, education with subscription 'Chromebooks' - Page 8

Are you purposefully obtuse or just a really loud idiot?

It is not that hard to understand but you refuse to even try...

I will waste my time once more and then at your uniquely ridiculous riposte I shall quit while I retain some sanity.

1. TCO - it is what it is - your inane rant about macbooks is irrelevant. If you look up Gartner or other reputable TCO calcs and you will see that desktop support NOT all internal IT is $3900-5300 per PC over 3 years. It is just fact.

2. NONE OF THIS INCLUDES INTERNAL IT DEV. That is all separate $s. (All those apps will work fine on Chrome). I didn't claim that IT support costs went to zero - you just inferred that. I just stated that whatever the Google TCO is, it won't be anything near to the standard cost. Even just using virtual desktop saves 20% over standard TCO and that is with the expensive hardware and fat MS licenses that go away with a Chrome solution. Many of the desktop support activities I mention do go away. You just walk up with another box, plug it in and don't have to do anything else. When one of our PC's breaks or at a client, it is a 2-3 day process to get a replacement, move data, reconfig the machine, etc.

3. Your argument seemed to be that $1008 is basically hardware cost, not what it is - hardware, 3-year warranty, tech support, and several cloud services. Businesses don't buy cheap laptops - they mostly buy $1000 Lenovo's HPs and Dells with expensive 3 year service contracts. The fact that you can find some cheap PCs with decent specs is irrelevant.

4. The Chromebooks cost what a netbook costs $349-429 base. Thus my estimate for a desktop is based on what the same spec nettop costs today - $150-250. Fair assumption. You are an idiot if you can't see what an Atom net-top machine costs today.

5. Google Apps had offline with Gears which they ended last year and has committed to HTML5 based offline capability this year. Yes they are late but we have no reason not to believe that Google will deliver what they have said and delivered in the past via HTML5 soon.

6. Enterprise IT is constantly redesigning its infrastructure. Most of our clients are at some stage of radically moving to cloud based infrastructure, refactoring their enterprise apps to be virtualized and many of them are outsourcing their cloud to hosters. If the cloud backs up all your desktop data, you can ditch that legacy cost of local backup, file shares, etc. Simple really. Chrome has nothing to do with a company's SAP or Siebel, Oracle, Autonomy or any other unrelated enterprise system.

7. I am not a Google shill. I barely use their consumer services for many of the mildly paranoid reasons you espouse. I bleed multi-colored Apple. I just see the massive potential for this approach to enterprise desktop management regardless of whether it is offered by Google, HP, Apple or JRag Industries. You are some kind of massive Google hater which seems to massively impair your cognitive faculties.

8. Google does not data mine corporate Apps "(Note that there is no ad-related scanning or processing in Google Apps for Education or Business with ads disabled)" - from the Privacy policy. Many reputable companies already use Google Apps including Genentech/Roche Pharmaceuticals:

From InformationWeek:
"Pierce [Genentech CIO] thinks a lot of CIOs are operating on "urban legends or rumor or misinformation" when they dismiss Google software for security and privacy reasons. That's a mistake, he says, "because this, in my opinion, is a major, major shift in technology and tools and capability. It's meeting a big unmet need. In these times, where people are really trying to figure out how can I control costs, how can I keep up with life-cycle management while managing cost--this is a dream come true. This level of functionality and ease of use at $50 per user per year: What's another example of a tool that has those properties in the enterprise?"

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...apps/224202359

It's not right for everyone but it is right for many. Your opinion is irrelevant to reality.

9. Security - most security failures are from Users, not hackers. Google is fully SAS70 compliant and is less likely to be hacked than all but the most paranoid of enterprises. If users lose data or give away their passwords they will do it regardless of platform except that under Chrome/Cloud people aren't moving files by USB drive and leaving it somewhere. On the flipside - giving away your password could be more dangerous under Chrome.
Speed - Chrome will run better than MS Virtual Desktop on WinXP or 7 on lesser hardware for the basic desktop tasks that this is designed for.

Like all the others, I will end my side of the debate here. You are welcome to rant on like the lunatic you are. Nighty night.

+++ best post in This thread!

This is a good deal vs $449 for a 14" 2.53GHz Core i3 Win 7 home premium laptop from Dell? That can't run any apps but what Google provides?

Hint: The $449 laptop can still run Google Apps and apps from their marketplace.

What frigging planet are you guys pushing chomebooks as a good consumer deal living on? One without cheap Win7 laptops evidently.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-14...-14r-combo-mod

Oh, hey look...$20 per month on lease from Dell.

And hey look...enterprise and edu chromebooks subscriptions require a 3 year contract, min qty 10.

The Samsung Series 5 3G runs $33/month (business) and comes with 100MB data per month. 100MB...wooohoooo!

The ETF? Pay out the remaining months. Congrats...your $28 netbook just cost you $1008. AND YOU CAN'T CANCEL.

Assuming you can fire 90% of your IT staff and have zero dependency on MS Office and other productivity and business apps this makes great sense and represents a huge cost savings.

On paper.

Ask Munich how well their Linux thing worked out for them. On paper it looked amazing to get rid of Micro$oft and their virus ridden stuff, huge IT infrastructure, etc.

This could be brilliant.

On the other hand that's what a lot of really smart folks said about Google Wave.

Actually I cannot work on a plane because I do need network access. I consider this a blessing when travelling.


However, this is back to the argument that ChromeOS will fail unless it handles 100% of people's requirements no matter how extreme. But that is not true. There are categories of workers who already spend all day in the browser, do not fly around the country, are not regularly editing massive video files etc. These people could switch to ChromeOS right away.

ChromeOS isn't a threat to OS-X but it could take a similar 5% or 10% of the market from Windows (those numbers are pure guesses by me). That must be worrying for MS being attacked from the top and now the bottom.

Sure, for $50 a year. Or $72 a year. Cloud based services all do this. This is the primary advantage.

The primary disadvantage appears when the cloud is down or otherwise unavailable.


Please, you're claiming that this is some huge advantage that was impossible before because your school didn't set up file shares...and you mentioned ZIP drives so I'm wondering which decade you're talking about...

Prediction:

ChromeOS will fail because it will not reach critical mass of sales 200K per month by 12/31/11.

Why?

Not because it is a thin-client that can run local apps -- rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable and the data you need is on the network.

ChromeOS forces this situation -- and is not robust enough to compensate for network unavailability.

Really, IT Director to ChromeOS Salesman: "you're gonna' pay me how much per month per seat to use this?:


5-10 years down the road maybe -- but not now.

A Xoom (or PlayBook or Galaxy Tab) running Android apps is a better solution!

You are sounding like a typical troll who is making shit up despite the truth being stated and shown multiple times over. You know very well it uses HTML5’s local DB options to have any and all apps and data stored with the user.

I don’t complain 30k feet up if I can’t get Netflix because I know that is not local. I don’t complain that I can’t get new mail or do a google search because I know that is not local. Why are you choosing not to understand what this OS can do?

If not in code then at least in function.

Syncing needs to be a function of the OS (or at least the browser), not at the application layer.

I need to some more testing on ChromeOS (they might have already implemented it!!) but it fails on Chrome (the browser).

A great example of what I'm talking about is Angry Birds which, with all the fanfare and its prominent position on the Chrome Web Store I'm sure you will agree is one of the "premier" apps for ChromeOS.

When you play a game on one browser, then log in to a browser on a separate PC you get the app installed automatically... but you don't get the saved games.

I need to test in Chrome OS itself (not just the browser), but the idea that an app might work offline (or it might not) and that it might sync its data (or it might not) and that if it does sync you don't really know where or how highlights a current failure of the entire concept and shows it's not ready for "prime time".

Of course Google can (will?) fix this. Like I said Google Music shows the kind of syncing functionality they need to shift to the entire system.

In all fairness, you dont get this with any disparate version of iOS. The only way this would work is if you have both an iPhone or iPod Touch, or more than one of each iOS device type by screen size.

Im surprised that Apple hasnt added APIs that tie app data between devices.

I resent that!

In over 5,000 AI posts (some under the dicklacara name) you are the first to insinuate that I am a troll.

BTW, Dick Applebaum is my real name.


I have tried in good faith to:

-- be open minded
-- to test Chrome Browser on 2 Macs
-- to educate myself by reading the announcements and reviews
-- by participating in this discussion forum

All-in-all I have spent over 20 hours trying to understand the claims of others -- and to try to make Chrome Browser work on two Intel iMacs -- with all the OS and software updates current.

Chrome Browser did not work acceptably on either Mac.

I am not naive nor stupid nor technically challenged-- I tried to make it work -- but I couldn't!

Sooner or later you must recognize an effort as a lost cause an abandon it.

That's what I have done.

The burden of proof is now the responsibility of others.

I know your’e not naive or stupid, and I worded my comment very carefully to say “sounding like”, not saying that you are.

I posted info right from Googles Chrome OS page:

Every Chromebook runs millions of web apps, from games to spreadsheets to photo editors.

Thanks to the power of HTML5, many apps keep working even in those rare moments when you're not connected. So you either you think Google is lying in that you can run apps and play videos and open documents (just like on WebOS) when you’re in Airplane Mode (or 30k ft up) or you’re choosing to ignore all these data that has been presented to you. But why? You’re ability to test it yourself should have no barring on these facts.

To the latter:

Why?

If you/they/anyone claims that people can do things -- why shouldn't I be able to prove to myself that what they claim is true -- If not, then you/they should be touting MS Cairo.

I believe nothing I read -- until it can be proven.

Syncing between different devices (like PC/tablet/phone/TV... car?) is a different problem altogether - although it's one that needs to be addressed as well.

Here I'm talking about plugging your username/password into two ChromeOS notebooks and not having your data synced between the two. When I download an app I have no way of knowing if it's going to work offline or not, if it's going to sync its data or not, and if it does sync its data where it does this to and how it does it (i.e. how it deals with sync conflicts).

As long as these kind of inconsistencies exist the concept around ChromeOS is a failure.

That's not to say Google can't fix it (I believe they will) but as it stands Chrome OS is not ready for a production environment. They might only be a couple of major releases away from something that's functional - and looking at Google's development cycles that might only be 1 or 2 years away.


There are a couple of other issues I just thought of that I haven't researched yet.

One is backup. If my Angry Birds saved data isn't synced between devices... then where the heck is it?

On Windows you have Live Mesh (or a 3rd party app) to sync between devices and backup to the cloud, on OSX you have Time Machine. What happens to my local data if my Chrome Book dies?

The second is file sharing between apps. From memory the Indexed DB is sand boxed between domains (I need to double check this) so if, for example, your Google docs are stored offline and you have an image editor app you want to use you need to either:

1. Open your Google docs, save the image to disk, open the image editor, edit the image, save back to disk, open Google docs again and re upload the file or
2. Have the image editor hook directly into Google docs and re-download the image (not fun on a 3G connection) and which I think will only work online (more investigation needed!).

Firefly7475,

I’m fully expecting something that works like Dropbox to be part of Chrome OS and every modern “cloud”.

Meaning your data is stored locally and in the cloud by default with the options to not share folders to others across OSes or just retain online. Of course you’ll have your typical local data options that don’t interact with the cloud, too.

On top of that you’ll get other features in Dropbox, like quickly searching for previous revisions of files and deleted files that you can restore, with only the changes of the files being pushed out to minimize the amount of data and time to sync.

Believe me when I say Dropbox can work on Chrome OS just like it does on Windows or Mac OS. The data in apps aren’t like in iOS and only regulated to the apps that are using them.

I totally agree with that. I also think Chrome OS must have that functionality to gain wide acceptance.

I like the way Google Music has "smart" syncing for devices with limited local storage. If Google persist with this limited storage model I think they will need a hybrid between Dropbox and Google Music.


Are you referring to the local file system or the Indexed DB? I was thinking about the Indexed DB.

I've been mulling over the problem and I don't think simply syncing the Indexed DB for each app is the solution... however the storage of application settings and configuration isn't something you want saved in a file either (as the Chrome needs to ask for permission each time it saves).

I'm thinking now Google might need another API into Google Docs to store configuration and settings for apps on the Chrome Web Store.

The only problem is that would tie Chrome Web Apps to Google (maybe not such a bad thing in Google's eyes)

I've read somewhere it will include some basic 3G data plan - 100MB or so. Good enough for urgent email over 3G, especially if user is living in wifi rich environment.

I think it is interesting idea, but would like to see all the details. Details about local caching of apps and local data storage (with option to sync with online storage when in wifi coverage). And of course, there is always a question of available apps (and quality) for specific needs in education and business. Also collaboration with PCs and tablets (I don't think unis will get rid of their existing IT infrastructure, likewise corporations) so this thing will have to speak some Microsoft standards, if nothing else.

You used a lot of words but didn't refute anything I said. You just keep repeating the same old debunked arguments. The crapbook is more expensive than a real laptop and does far less.

As for the rest, it's really sad how the Google shills accept everything Google tells them so uncritically. Google makes a statement and it's suddenly gospel - without any proof or evidence of any kind.


Funny how the people like you who can't logically or rationally refute my arguments always have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Thick client or thin client, if you are using browser based apps - as many companies already are - they are both worthless when the network goes down.

Like it or not, you're still ignoring that ChomeBook is far more degraded when not connected than a $450 netbook/laptop. Apps designed for local processing vs cloud processing will behave the same whether connected of not. A chrome webapp missing the backend processing will be far more limited.

Sure, you wont see this in angrybirds or most of google apps but not even the proverbial grandma or the average student is limited to just those sets of apps.

16GB for data and apps vs 250GB (typical 12" netbook HDD size) for data and apps makes a pretty big difference when off the network.

So I'd still rather have a HP Pavillion dm1z which is faster and costs about the same as the Samsung Series 5 WiFi.

Except that a similar cost netbook can run both cloud and native applications AND companies do not EXCLUSIVELY run cloud based apps.

Sams thing was said about the iPad to a comparably priced notebook, and that started at $500 not $349.


No, you’re lying. Local apps work as local app just like any other local app. If your app needs to connect to the net and it’s not available you get the same issue from any system.


So you’re claiming that it can’t be a serious tool for some users? Have you forgotten already about the iPad?


Again, this is blatant lie. You can have as much local storage with Chrome OS as you can with any other system. Except the iPad which makes you jump through hopes with expensive 3rd-party dongles and apps in order to access data via USB.


I’d rather have neither. I have zero personal interest in Chrome OS (or Windows or Android), but you’re confusing your interest and your needs with the goal and focus of this concept. You can bring up a 250GB HDD with Windows 7 all you want but there a great many machines that simply don’t need what Windows (or Mac OS) offers nor a large space for data. There have been plenty of great examples and scenarios throughout this thread already but here is another: An airline that offers WiFi on flights has found that not enough people are bringing their devices with them and aren’t getting the return on WiFi access that they wish. They decide to buy a handful of Chromebooks for each flight that can be rented (much like they do with headphones) that will allow customers a simple and secure way to read the airlines catalog online from the splash page and make purchases, and let them access anything they wish. With a long battery and zero config these would be a hit over renting a PC running Windows with a 2 hour battery for video playback. These Chromebooks would even allow people to create emails and send images of their trip right from a USB stick, HDD or SD Card securely. Once the machine is rebooted it auto-erases any history and starts from scratch. Flyers can log in via Guest, bypassing any and all Google services that they wish… just like they can now.

Being objective is seeing the value of something that offers you none.

This is basically going to bring Apple to its knees. There are so many great pros with this business model.

Schools dont have the added expenses of maintaining their equipment. Always up-to-date, the IT department will love it.

Apple will have to seriously change their entire business model if this take off.

I assume you meant to say Microsoft. Chromebooks would have little to no impact on Apple.

The iPad still functions as a complete unit without connectivity. I don't see the two as equal in terms of how the limitations work.

Google isn't Apple. Besides, if this were a Microsoft product folks would thinking it was an epic fail in the making and making Zune jokes.


Obviously because I disagree I am simply lying as opposed to having a different viewpoint.


No, I'm claiming that the mechanism for offline use is constrained by the architecture and design philosophy. If I'm designing a photoshop like app for the chromebook I'm far more likely to invest my time in optimizing for the designed environment: connected to a network. Meaning I'll likely put the heavy computing aspects on the server where it belongs and I can be pretty sloppy about it given I can just instance more servers if I really need to.

In a trade between optimization for an ARM or Atom to be performant vs time to market and an extra VM or two I know which most devs will pick every time. If the data already resides in the cloud (pictures, etc) and I have really thick pipes between my data stores and compute centers then I'm going to architect my app to take advantage of that rather than the thin 3G pipe and Atom on the client.

So you're going to see image editors in chromebook but it's going to be a lot more like SumoPaint or Aviary and I don't think you're going to get the same behavior as a cached app.

In comparison, if I'm designing a image editor for the iPad I'm going need to invest in optimizing the performance on the ARM natively. My performance bottlenecks are completely different than a webapp which needs to be performant across the network whether that's a rock solid FiOS link or a 3G link with 2 bars of service.

No, wait, I'm just lying.


Yes, I'm lying about the 16GB SSD that Samsung shows on their site. I'm guessing that Chrome OS is not app caching to offboard storage...yes, that's just a guess but a reasonably educated one.

16GB isn't much. I've got a few huge apps (CoPilot, etc) that has a lot of internal data associated with them. To the point where app footprint impacts the number of movies I tend to keep on my 16GB iPad. There's some headroom but I honestly don't have THAT many apps or large games ...which are some of the largest.

Angry birds is an optimal example for Chromebook. Great fun, very popular but fairly minimal art assets and limited computing needs.

Compare to say a FPS shooter game that is rendering on the server and pushing the image across (viable if you're a network centric platform) or a RPG with lots of content that is streamed over to the chromebook as needed.

Tell me that appcaching for offline use will be as effective given the design decisions to optimize for the primary use case that ASSUMES decent connectivity between client and server.


Eh, I'm saying that folks touting the chromebook as a great value are glossing over the fact that it's just an averaged priced netbook and not something special.

If I had some kind of weird emotional attachment I'd claim you guys were "lying" as opposed to overly enamored with the concept more than the execution is warranting. Folks were also claiming that Google changed the landscape when they came out with Google Wave.

Maybe...but that sure didn't last long. Apple strikes me as having a better track record of actually changing landscapes.


With a peak air-to-ground data rate of 1.2- 2.1 Mbps they're pretty lucky they don't have many folks hitting their wifi heavily. Row44 is offering 8 Mbps service but is still in the early deployment phase.

Ah...how many youtube streams and netflix streams is that?

Sure, each plane can have a local cache and it's own servers but wanna bet that a bunch of iPad 2 rentals would be better?


The netbooks and laptops in that price range have 5 hourish battery life.


As would an android tablet. Or an iPad with a dongle...but that's an Apple thing vs a tablet vs chrome thing.


Security is still something that remains to be seen. It's pretty easy to tout this as secure before it hits the wild.


Being objective is not calling other folks liars for disagreeing.

Im calling you a liar for lying not because youre myopic in seeing the value in this concept for certain uses.

webOS isn't being marketed as a personal computer replacement for consumers, education or businesses. All webOS is is a handheld device platform spanning a lowend smartphone (Pixi, Veer), a higher end smartphone (Pre-, +, 2 and 3) and the 10" TouchPad.

It's a pretty big step to go from a handheld satellite device to a primary personal computing device, especially in the scenario of large installations in education and enterprise.

And the argument isn't that it is impossible to have a decent OS when your only app is a "web browser". No one is arguing against that. The basic argument from me is that I don't think ChromeOS systems will displace Windows systems in Education and Enterprise. Don't think there is much of a case in the consumer space for ChromeOS as the games, form factor and cost equation isn't their yet.

I'll need to see same data before I believe "office drones" don't use a lot of space in their drives or "students" don't use all the space in their drives. After 1 to 2 years, the cruft builds up.

I do think the data is already in on the ~12" versus ~15" display sizes, and people overwhelmingly want 15" display sizes, so ChromeOS is already starting with a handicap in its entrance to the market.


We have web-browser based collaborative servers, with fancy check-in, check-out, routing services. In short: they suck. The user experience is terrible: slow, inflexible, limited.

Emailing is just a more natural and pleasant way to do it. No accessing the server, no downloading, no login gate. Yes, I would use a browser-based email the exactly the same way. Except it'll be slower, except for the locally cached data.


What makes you think ChromeOS systems won't be similarly burdened by the IT department. They want to be able see your screen and keystrokes afterall. At some point in the near future, our machines will be smartcard gated, oh joy.

At some point in the farther future, I bet facial recognition will be in play: the computer through the webcam must recognize the user before it unlocks.


Yeah, that's the idea. But there's a free lunch here somewhere. Virtual storage through the cloud is going to be expensive. That service takes hardware, software, people, lots of resources to run. The theory is that this cloud will be cheaper to do than local backup and IT support. I don't buy that yet.

It could be cheaper if Google is subsidizing the service contract through increased ad-revenue from having more people see Google advertising. We will see. MS can respond by simply reduce licensing costs.


Microsoft Office and Exchange is the best office automation set of tools available. It's really good. So, cost-benefit: better tools or less money.

1) Chrome OS is NOT being marketed as a replacement as a personal computer. They were very clear on the tie of usage its designed for.

2) The arguments here say that because its a browser-based UI that it cannot be used when you arent connected to the internet. I simply asked how WebOS, which is the exact same construct can still use apps when its not connected to the internet. Instead of getting a rational and intelligent, Huh, I see what you mean, WebKit as the UI doesnt mean you cant have quality apps stored and access locally. I got this horseshit that its okay for WebKit to be the UI for a smartphone but not the Ui for Chrome OS.

No, not for all employees but for certain roles companies do indeed exclusively run cloud based apps.

Are you bipolar or something? Because I seem to recall you being mostly sane other times.

... My homework's not done

.. The dog ate my ChromeBook!

So, what is it being marketing as?

Considering what Google executives are saying:

In a briefing with reporters afterward, Brin was asked how many Google employees still use Windows. As a rough guess, he said it's about 20%. The rest must use Macs or Linux. But by next year, Brin hopes the vast majority of Googlers will be doing their work on Chrome OS.

"I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with Windows," Brin said. "Windows 7 has some great security features."

But Chrome OS, by putting most of a user's applications and data on the Web with some offline capabilities, presents a "stateless" model that Brin believes will eliminate complexity for users and IT departments by un-tethering people from machines that are difficult to set up and manage.

"With Microsoft, and other operating system vendors, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users," Brin said. "It's torturing everyone in this room. It's a flawed model fundamentally. Chromebooks are a new model that doesn't put the burden of managing the computer on yourself."

Google executives said they surveyed 400 companies and found that with a combination of Web applications, offline access to Google Docs and other services, and applications delivered through virtualization software, businesses could move 75% of their users onto Chrome OS devices.

75% of users in business? Vast majority of Google employees on ChromeOS by end of next year? That sounds to me that they want to displace Windows as the dominant personal computer system in the market. Yes, obviously, they are saying the all the vast majority of the market needs is the capabilities as being promulgated with ChromeOS.


What's the point of this? It seems quite tangential to the discussion. One can design an operating system in basically any programming language out there. But there is a difference between web apps and apps built using HTML, CSS or Javascript. Look at the quote above. They are saying "some offline" capabilities. What that "some" means (Gdocs, Gmail, Calendar for sure), who knows, we'll see.

Me, the point doesn't matter that much. I just assume that every app in ChromeOS can be used offline and move on. My problems are that ChromeOS is starting out with a thin netbook architecture with hardly any storage. If you are going to go for it and grab the market, go for the middle, not some declining small laptop form factor based on a lackluster Intel architecture. There are data integrity, data availability, costs, exact capabilities/limitations, you name it potential issues, that haven't really been discussed.

Skepticism is warranted.

First you have to show this beyond bald assertion. Then you have to show these exclusive cloud apps actually run on a non-windows platform. Meaning these are not active-x, java or silverlight apps which Chromebooks will not run.

Second, you have to show that authentication works via active directory and without the requirement that there be a Google apps account in the middle. LDAP Sync exists but requires exposure of the enterprise LDAP servers to the outside world.

These typically get accessed only via VPN by security conscious companies (i.e. the ones not getting as regularly pwned without knowing it).

Note: There's no VPN support in Chromebooks at the moment.

I followed this thread with interest to see the pros and cons about Cloud services and while it looks promising, I have more than enough qualms about it to agree with the dissenters. It has nothing to do with Chromebooks, it boils down on three things,

1) Do I trust Google with my data.
2) Can I expect good customer support from Google when things go wrong or will I or any customers get the Ann Althouse treatment
3) How will Google solve the data pipe issue in regards to uploading and downloading pentabytes of data to and from Chromebook thin clients from multinational businesses and schools nationwide.

And this apply also to Amazon Cloud, Apple Cloud, Windows Cloud and any other Cloud. There is a good thread going on at Zdnet, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/googl...-strategy/3300. And 1 comment from CobraA1, sums it all. "At least when my computer crashes, it doesn't take the rest of the nation with it. "

+++ QFT

I, personally, have a good 33-year experience with Apple as: Customer: Reseller; Vendor; User; Observer -- and would trust them more than the others.

But there are many things that I would not trust to an Apple cloud service -- no matter how good their intentions or secure their data policies.

WHy you people cant get past Chrome OS being usable without an internet connection is beyond my comprehension. How many times does it need to be stated and shown that it can read and write files form USB attached disks and doesnt need any LAN or WAN access to function. Its a UI based on WebKit, not an OS reliant on the web.

Okay, would it make you happy if I say that, how would Goggle, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft solve the data pipe issue in regards to uploading and downloading pentabytes of data to and from their respective thin clients from multinational businesses and schools nationwide considering the fact that all of them will be sharing the same pipeline. Whatever the Chrome OS capabilities are, they are irrelevant to the issue because at the end of the day, Google wants people and businesses to use it's Cloud services and that is the core of the issue.

Someone remind me, how does Google make money off of Chrome, again?

Chrome or Chrome OS?

For Chrome OS they have multiple avenues for revenue. First is when you do connect to the internet (as most users tend to do on a regular basis) they want you to connect with Google Docs, Google Search, Gmail and so on. They’ll get their revenue in that regard just as they would through Chrome browser or any other browser that connects to those services.

Other ways are by getting contracts for subscriptions of Chrome-based notebooks and desktops and embedded appliances. There primary goal is to simply take a small chunk from MS’ Windows marketshare for overpriced machines that do very basic tasks. If they can achieve this then Windows dominance could dwindle farther and there are many avenues that could open up for everyone is Windows loses its hold on the majority.