Google sets sights on enterprise, education with subscription 'Chromebooks' - Page 9

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by addabox

I think you're over-thinking it, and giving Google undue credit for being an MS competitor in the way we normally think of competition in the tech industry.

Google is an advertising company. First, foremost and always. So when a business considers buying into the Chromebook business model, they must also consider exactly how Google is monetizing the proposition.

That is to say, all of your information is going to be moving across Google's servers, where your data will harvested and parsed with an eye towards selling information. Because that's what Google does.

As frustrated as you've been in this thread with people misunderstanding the nature of the Chrome OS, I get frustrated with how Google has managed to misdirect people's attention away from what they're actually about. They're not about open, they're not about empowering people, they're not about creating the best possible technological future. They're about tying as many users as possible to Google servers so they can get more information about those users to sell to the highest bidder.

Now, maybe some or most people are perfectly OK with that, and don't see any downside. Even welcome targeted ads that align with one's interests.

But as we live more and more in a digital world, the curation of what you see becomes a rather significant factor in how one apprehends the world.

And what Google wants to do is fine tune the mechanics of that curation so that you're every move online is tracked and calibrated to sell you back yourself as a digital shadow. People bitch about Apple's "walled garden", but at least you know exactly where you stand. Google shouts "Open!" while crafting a much more insidious garden-- one that pretends to be the world itself.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Mmmm...

If Google really were open and altruistic they would offer the Chrome package with the backend server components -- so that an enterprise could utilize the entire package within it's own servers -- without any connection to the Google infrastructure necessary, except for searches and app purchases.

Originally Posted by solipsism

And you can! Google would rather you be tied to their apps, but it’s not a requirement. We’ve been over this!!!

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

We, you and I, have not been over this!

Do you have a link where I can download the Google Docs apps and the necessary supporting server components?

I run a local web server on several of my Macs and would like to evaluate the system from both ends totally within a firewall.

Originally Posted by nht

Google took a hit dropping Gears so they have to refactor their offline support in HTML5.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Do you have a link where I can download the Google Docs apps and the necessary supporting server components?

I run a local web server on several of my Macs and would like to evaluate the system from both ends totally within a firewall.

Originally Posted by solipsism

We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you dont even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome even though they want you to.

Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.

*

http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Googles data centers.

Originally Posted by solipsism

We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.

Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.

•*

http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google’s data centers.

Originally Posted by solipsism

They have been working with HTML5 DB options since at least 2009 and stated decision to halt development of Gears (though not drop support) almost a year and a half ago. HTML5 is plenty capable of deal with offline storage.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

The link you provided is for search!

I was asking about being able to buy the server backend to support Chrome OS and Google Docs and the Google Docs apps themselves.

You keep saying that Google OS doesn't need the internet connection to perform useful work.

You appear to think that having access to local data provides this capability.

Where can I buy Chrome OS apps to process this data local only -- at a minimum:

-- compose emails
-- write a WP document
-- create a spresdsheet
-- create a presentation
-- maintain a contacts list
-- maintain a calendar
-- do basic file manipulation

A likely response is that these are not available... yet!

But, they will be available... later!

When?

If Google were close to having these, they. would have demoed them and given a firm availability month.

So, without someone writing apps (HTML5 or whatever) all the local data is of no use -- without apps to process them.

Originally Posted by nht

How late is HTML 5? The expected recommendation date is 2014. They say Last Call by end of this month. 6.6 seems solid but still...it's not totally under Google's control even if they are the 500lb gorilla.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. You know that Google SoCs can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an
Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur.

Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.

All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.

Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. :

Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.

All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.

Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.

Originally Posted by solipsism

We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.

Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.

•*

http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google’s data centers.

Originally Posted by addabox

But what possible motivation does Google have to make this scenario in any way desirable or convenient? In fact, if Chrome OS were used largely with local storage and servers, without Google apps, it would be disastrous for Google-- they would have empowered a paradigm shift that did them absolutely no good.

You don't even have to imagine that Google is particularly sinister or dishonest to understand that they're interested in wedding you to their servers and services-- anything else makes no business sense. None.

Just because certain things are possible doesn't mean they are easy or likely to be well supported. It's not hard to imagine Google getting people to use Chrome OS and if it proves successful starting to withdraw local options (for the betterment of their users, of course).

I'm not quite getting your insistence on the efficacy of offline functionality-- it's true as far as it goes but clearly that's not what Google is gunning for. And Google has shown itself pretty willing to take proactive steps to get what it wants. I mean, surely we're not imagining that Google is just trying to save us all from MS with altruistic technology that we're free to deploy as we see fit?

Originally Posted by solipsism

Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.


There is no way to tell if Google plans will succeed. There is just too much uncharted territory with what they are doing*— CHROME OS IS NOT THIN CLIENT — but the premise is sound.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of an IT executive who recommended a Chrome OS solution -- and have Google discontinue development 2 or 3 years down the road.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Are you really arguing that we shouldn't use any parts of HTML5 until it's completely ratified? You better step away from every modern browser until then.

Originally Posted by nht

No i'm simply saying they don't control that critical piece of their ecosystem anymore like they did with gears. Nice avoidance if the main part of the post for this side issue. Do I have to post as if you are a troll?

Originally Posted by solipsism

What’s you’re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.

Remember, this isn’t an all or nothing solution. This isn’t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won’t. If it does work out it won’t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It’s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.

Originally Posted by solipsism

It wouldnt be great for them, which is why they are pushing this as a cheap alternative to companies and schools leasing considerably more expensive HW for mostly simple tasks. Part of the lease fee is to get more access to Google Docs.

Outside of that, the cost of 12 notebook with a full-sized keyboard and oversized multitouch trackpad for $349 that can launch into a browser in 8 seconds is fast and convenient. No 3rd-party browser can even start in that time frame on such an inexpensive device. THIS IS NOT THE MACHINE FOR ANY OF US ON THIS SITE.

But I digress, even if a customer isnt using Google Docs they would still be using Google for search and likely Google for email. Id think this would be more than enough for Google to find it worthwhile.

Now consider their Android system. vendors and carriers can completely trash anything relating to Google on that system. Google gets nothing. Google only profits if their default services are used or if their additional services are purchased. So the same argument permits between the two: What does Google get out of it?

Again, this is not an OS for anyone on this site, nor likely for anyone we know. We just dont fit the demographic. At the same time writing it off as a foolish idea because were now at war with Google (Weve always been at war with Google) or because we cant see how WebKit can be used as a UI despite the clear evidence to the contrary isnt being objective.

Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.

There is no way to tell if Google plans will succeed. There is just too much uncharted territory with what they are doing* CHROME OS IS NOT THIN CLIENT but the premise is sound.

Originally Posted by solipsism

@ Addabox,

I don't disagree with any one point so there is no point in me quoting your reply. Although I do think I'm looking at this lightweight OS much differently than most others on this site. To me this feels very circa 2009 when I was getting demure for saying that an Apple tablet wouldn't work with Mac OS.

I guess I have years vested in this concept. Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare. Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows, but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.

Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Implying that all parts of HTML5 is unreliable because parts are still being worked on is pushing into that area.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Whats youre premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.

Remember, this isnt an all or nothing solution. This isnt like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they wont. If it does work out it wont replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. Its just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.

Originally Posted by solipsism

It wouldnt be great for them, which is why they are pushing this as a cheap alternative to companies and schools leasing considerably more expensive HW for mostly simple tasks. Part of the lease fee is to get more access to Google Docs.

Outside of that, the cost of 12 notebook with a full-sized keyboard and oversized multitouch trackpad for $349 that can launch into a browser in 8 seconds is fast and convenient. No 3rd-party browser can even start in that time frame on such an inexpensive device. THIS IS NOT THE MACHINE FOR ANY OF US ON THIS SITE.

But I digress, even if a customer isnt using Google Docs they would still be using Google for search and likely Google for email. Id think this would be more than enough for Google to find it worthwhile.

Now consider their Android system. vendors and carriers can completely trash anything relating to Google on that system. Google gets nothing. Google only profits if their default services are used or if their additional services are purchased. So the same argument permits between the two: What does Google get out of it?

Again, this is not an OS for anyone on this site, nor likely for anyone we know. We just dont fit the demographic. At the same time writing it off as a foolish idea because were now at war with Google (Weve always been at war with Google) or because we cant see how WebKit can be used as a UI despite the clear evidence to the contrary isnt being objective.

Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.

Originally Posted by nht

Because we don't want instant on? Please.

You keep claiming objectivity while being hugely defensive and accusing folks of lying or shortsightedness. Coupled with ignoring inconvenient limitations of ChomeOS you're not being objective at all.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I guess I have years vested in this concept.

Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare.

Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows,

but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.

Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Something not achievable with any Windows netbook or cheap notebook you keep touting as a superior option for any and all needs.

The quick boot and instant on go right to the heart of the OS being optimized for the HW (but since you have disallowed iOS as a prime example of such a feat I guess I can mention that again of how this is a goo thing over Windows).

I called you a liar for making a statement as fact despite knowing (or ignoring) that it was a false claim. Maybe it was unintentional and you just aren't following the thread closely because I've clearly mentioned the limitations of Chrome OS many, many, many times in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Ya' know...

I've been experimenting with Chrome browser and Google Docs (with both Chrome and Safari browsers).

1) Online works OK, but I am concerned with, bandwidth large file upload times, storage costs, security and availability (no access to the Internet or the Service is down).

2) I don't believe that local processing is robust enough (yet) to satisfy my, or most people's, needs -- Google Docs needs the ability to directly input/output the common file formats in use today.

3) What I really did like was when the [online] service was available -- it was great to login and have all those [currently active] lfiles available and processable in one central place -- as opposed to fiddling with File Sharing or Screen Sharing.

Originally Posted by Firefly7475

I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.



See my posts here, here and here.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

In an effort to be objective, I have done some further experimenting with Chrome Browser on Macs.

Here are some results:

1) I was able to get Angry Birds to run, kinda' -- the default is "HD" and after a delay, the music starts playing, but the light blue screen remains. If you switch to SD, the AB startup screen appears and the app loads and plays in a very small window within the Chrome browser window. Play feels sluggish, though. It feels like something is dampening my gestures and taps -- don't know if this the Chrome UI layer or if the app is downsized for the expected Chrome hardware.

I have the AB Mac app (57 MB size) -- it runs full-screen and performs as expected.

2) I also installed Plants and Zombies. It loaded and ran, in a larger window within the Chrome window. It too, seemed sluggish when compared to the app running on the iPad.

3) On the Mac, the Chrome browser app is 100.7 MB vs Safari at 57.1 MB -- That's almost double, and it's just a browser. I wonder why?

4) Angry Birds, once loaded, worked with the Internet unavailable. Plants and Zombies would not!

5) After reconnecting to the Internet, Plants and Zombies still would not run, even after refreshing Chrome, I could not resume P&Z until I accessed the Internet through another tab. This appears to be a miscommunication between Chrome and the app -- how to determine if the Internet is available.

6) I also installed the BBC Good Food Recipes app -- When disconnected from the Internet:
-- sometimes it would run fine
-- other times it would bring up a "page not available" message within the app
-- still other times it would open a new tab with a 404 error - apparently linking to another web page

7) I played around with the apps at docs.google.com -- some pleasant surprises and disappointments

8) GoogleDocs help docs are sketchy at best -- or non-existant when the Internet is unavailable.

9) I tried to open a blank Document file and drag and drop a local .doc file in to it. This did not work. I had to Open the file with Pages, Word, etc. and copy/paste from it to the Google Document file -- 2 extra steps.

10) Oddly, I was able to drag and drop an image file directly into a Google Document file.

11) I could not drag that same image into a Google Drawing file -- it opened a new Google Browser tab and displayed the URL of the local file, e.g. file://... In the Drawing file, I clicked the Image icon and was presented with several options. One way was to select an already uploaded image. Another way was to open an image URL. I tried the file:// URL, but it would only accept http or https URLS. Obviously the Internet had to be connected to include images in the Drawing file.

12) Each time I tried something that the Google browser didn't like or a specific Google Docs app couldn't handle -- it would open another browser tab to display, say, the local image that it couldn't drag and drop.

13) Sometimes, in some Google Docs apps, you could copy from the new tab into the Google Docs app -- other times you couodn't.

14) Very quickly the Google browser's tab bar became loaded with tiny tabs containing these things that it couldn't handle -- to the point that you couldn't tell what was in the tab without mousig over it or opening it.

15) I was surprised by the robustness of the drawing program -- though it felt sluggish compared to a local app.

16) I didn't check it but there appears to be an humongous amount of packet request/responses as well as an humongous amount of data exchange going on between the local device and the Internet using Google apps. They appear to be neither fish nor fowl -- rather, they attempt to bridge the gap between local and online. I don't believe they have succeeded.



All-in-all it was a very mixed bag best described as: some are some, and some are not!


I found that if you wanted to do anything worthwhile -- you pretty much were expected to be connected to the Internet.

Google claims that, paraphrased: "Many apps will work offline".

But they don't quantify "many" nor do they attempt to define the types of things you can do offline.

It is very interesting, to me, that Google's Flagship apps do not perform consistently, or at all -- when offline.


I found the entire experience unsettling and confusing -- and I am not technically challenged.


As it stands in today's world, I suspect that a Chrome OS-ChromeBook solution would work in a very limited set of use patterns, with very specific apps and activities -- if the Internet is available.

But, anyone who has any rudimentary experience would be put off by the lack (or inconsistency) of features such as copy/paste and drag and drop. They would be fighting the system!

For an enterprise or education IT department there may be some value to embracing the Chrome OS solution for some tasks and activities -- but I don't believe it is robust enough to wholesale replace PCs within an establishment with Chrome OS and Chrome Computers.

If the latter is true, then the individual establishment must evaluate if there's enough benefit in add another, incompatibility to the mix of IT offerings, training and support,

It is not "The Devil We Know" vs "The Devil We Don't Know" -- rather it is "The Devil We Know" vs "The Devil We Don't Know" plus "The Devil We Know".

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

JC Almighty are you all still on about this?

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

If the OS/Apps cannot save the scores and status (maintain the state) of your usage for a simple game -- how can one assume that it will do so across critical applications -- especially those involving collaboration of several users.

I remember seeing in the slides of Google's Chrome OS preso -- that they touted it was "stateless" -- and thinking at the time that this was an odd thing to tout as an advantage. How could the system maintain sync of a single user's offline and online updates to a file if it didn't maintain some sort of "state" -- let alone the case of several users collaborating.

When I posted questions related to this, I got responses that iOS or OS X don't do this and therefore it was unreasonable to expect Chrome OS to do it -- or somesuch.

Originally Posted by Firefly7475

I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.