It is a minority that is getting rapidly bigger. Actually there are lots of business users who just use web based apps. When I go see my bank manager everything is now a web form. Why does he have a PC with all its hidden costs when all he needs is a browser?
I don't think everyone should switch. Photoshop is not going to run in a browser; however, most users don't run Photoshop and there are probably a lot of users, especially within companies who don't need the additional benefits of a traditional OS.
The mobile web has become a lot more reliable and a lot faster since the original iPhone.
I tend to agree with you. For the person who has a lot of time on their hands and is not doing too much complicated stuff, like web browsing buying on line etc, doing a few letters, email etc. and doesn't live under time constraints or needs total consistency, the cloud is somewhat OK, but it will be frustrating at times no doubt about it. There are just too many people and systems between you and your data.
But what is really new about all this web vs desktop apps controversy? I work in a lab at a very large communications company that was part of Bell Labs at one point. During the past 10 years or so we have been using servers mostly directly connected or in a private network. The last several years many of our products have switched over to being web based, or in other words cloud based. They work fine as long as you can control the space between the servers and the client. The difference in what we do and what the average private person is really the same. Only the public has to reach the servers via the caos of the telcos in a much less private and secure manner.
In large companies, like mine, we get to contract out with the telcos for a costly but private network, which is nothing more than using the carriers facilities in a partitioned manner to reach servers located at any one or more of a dozen or so physical locations. But even then its not great. Most of the time we don't have issues with the private network, but when we do, we do, and they are not rectified so easily and quickly. You have many more issues than when the servers are located very close or locally. The more people, wire, bandwidth or even air, as in wireless, are needed to get at these servers, the more problems arise.
So whats new, same old story. As the bandwidth increases, the processors at the client level will be made to handle more to max out their capabilities and then the demand will grow and so will the bandwidth needed to solve the increase in the new demand and we will still be in the same boat. Have you taken a peak lately at all the wires hanging from the telephone poles. The poles can't handle it any longer they are really bending like pretzels.
We are already there with the cloud apps and it is going to be used as best it can for ever by MS, Google, Apple and anyone else. It might never be better than apps at your desktop period. And really how hard is it to manage your desktop in comparison to getting what you want from the cloud. You have to wait for the pages to reload, the possibilities of timing out, losing your data or place in que etc. and scores of other issues. Many Applications offered over the browser already charge extra for the extras. So in the end you have to pay for storage and processing one way or another. Perhaps the telcos are getting better, but so are the computer manufacturers in both efficiency, reliability and security.
Shouldn't we be having a conversation about whether or not a Chrome OS machine is a "real computer", given its dependencies on the cloud? Apparently the big differentiation between iPads and real computers is that you need a real computer to get it up and running, update, sync, etc.
Does putting the "real computer" at a distance make this principle moot?
Shouldn't we be having a conversation about whether or not a Chrome OS machine is a "real computer", given its dependencies on the cloud? Apparently the big differentiation between iPads and real computers is that you need a real computer to get it up and running, update, sync, etc.
Does putting the "real computer" at a distance make this principle moot?
Interesting points. Maybe "real" is too vague to ever become useful as a category tho.
I'd go for "standalone" as a better descriptor, but that's off the top of my head and is probably not a good one either.
It?s not about ?want? it?s about was it feasible. I want a Bugatti Veyron and a G6 but I?m not getting either. If you look at what the average family in a world can afford to spend on a ?computer? a $500 iPad isn?t even an option. It?s also not designed to be a household?s sole computing device as noted by the initial tethering to a PC running iTunes.
I, as an affluent American, think the iPad is an inexpensive device, but it?s several times more the cost than PCs costs people in much of the world. I?ve seen this first hand!
Chrome OS, on the other hand, has the potential to be run on very inexpensive, low-power HW and yet still offer people a great resource for education that was never possible with the few used and outdated books many schools of the world have.
PS: I?ve stated what Chrome OS has to offer at every turn. if you can?t see how a free OS on cheap HW people can put together themselves could be a benefit to developing nations over a $500+ iPad (plus a PC) I don?t know what to tell you.
I'm with you Solip. I think Chrome netbooks should KILL windows netbooks.
A question in my mind is how much will these impact iPad sales. I tend to think not much but I half to admit that the platform is interesting and somewhat appealing to me.
Also not that the biggest drawback to netbooks for many users isn?t the HW, as most don?t expect such a small and cheap system to be powerful, but the A) resource heavy Windows trying to run ooff Atom, or some version of Linux that is okay on resources but impossible for most users to understand. Chrome OS is net OS for a netbook.
I think these will trounce the netbook market and then filter in to many other markets where a resource efficient OS running on cheap and slow HW dominate. Essentially, eating up Windows desktop marketshare from the bottom while Apple eats up Windows desktop marketshare from the top. In ten years I predict a three-layer desktop OS model with worldwide states of Chrome OS at the bottom with 50%, Windows in the middle with 40%, and Mac OS X with 10%.
Comments
It is a minority that is getting rapidly bigger. Actually there are lots of business users who just use web based apps. When I go see my bank manager everything is now a web form. Why does he have a PC with all its hidden costs when all he needs is a browser?
I don't think everyone should switch. Photoshop is not going to run in a browser; however, most users don't run Photoshop and there are probably a lot of users, especially within companies who don't need the additional benefits of a traditional OS.
The mobile web has become a lot more reliable and a lot faster since the original iPhone.
I tend to agree with you. For the person who has a lot of time on their hands and is not doing too much complicated stuff, like web browsing buying on line etc, doing a few letters, email etc. and doesn't live under time constraints or needs total consistency, the cloud is somewhat OK, but it will be frustrating at times no doubt about it. There are just too many people and systems between you and your data.
But what is really new about all this web vs desktop apps controversy? I work in a lab at a very large communications company that was part of Bell Labs at one point. During the past 10 years or so we have been using servers mostly directly connected or in a private network. The last several years many of our products have switched over to being web based, or in other words cloud based. They work fine as long as you can control the space between the servers and the client. The difference in what we do and what the average private person is really the same. Only the public has to reach the servers via the caos of the telcos in a much less private and secure manner.
In large companies, like mine, we get to contract out with the telcos for a costly but private network, which is nothing more than using the carriers facilities in a partitioned manner to reach servers located at any one or more of a dozen or so physical locations. But even then its not great. Most of the time we don't have issues with the private network, but when we do, we do, and they are not rectified so easily and quickly. You have many more issues than when the servers are located very close or locally. The more people, wire, bandwidth or even air, as in wireless, are needed to get at these servers, the more problems arise.
So whats new, same old story. As the bandwidth increases, the processors at the client level will be made to handle more to max out their capabilities and then the demand will grow and so will the bandwidth needed to solve the increase in the new demand and we will still be in the same boat. Have you taken a peak lately at all the wires hanging from the telephone poles. The poles can't handle it any longer they are really bending like pretzels.
We are already there with the cloud apps and it is going to be used as best it can for ever by MS, Google, Apple and anyone else. It might never be better than apps at your desktop period. And really how hard is it to manage your desktop in comparison to getting what you want from the cloud. You have to wait for the pages to reload, the possibilities of timing out, losing your data or place in que etc. and scores of other issues. Many Applications offered over the browser already charge extra for the extras. So in the end you have to pay for storage and processing one way or another. Perhaps the telcos are getting better, but so are the computer manufacturers in both efficiency, reliability and security.
Does putting the "real computer" at a distance make this principle moot?
Shouldn't we be having a conversation about whether or not a Chrome OS machine is a "real computer", given its dependencies on the cloud? Apparently the big differentiation between iPads and real computers is that you need a real computer to get it up and running, update, sync, etc.
Does putting the "real computer" at a distance make this principle moot?
Interesting points. Maybe "real" is too vague to ever become useful as a category tho.
I'd go for "standalone" as a better descriptor, but that's off the top of my head and is probably not a good one either.
It?s not about ?want? it?s about was it feasible. I want a Bugatti Veyron and a G6 but I?m not getting either. If you look at what the average family in a world can afford to spend on a ?computer? a $500 iPad isn?t even an option. It?s also not designed to be a household?s sole computing device as noted by the initial tethering to a PC running iTunes.
I, as an affluent American, think the iPad is an inexpensive device, but it?s several times more the cost than PCs costs people in much of the world. I?ve seen this first hand!
Chrome OS, on the other hand, has the potential to be run on very inexpensive, low-power HW and yet still offer people a great resource for education that was never possible with the few used and outdated books many schools of the world have.
PS: I?ve stated what Chrome OS has to offer at every turn. if you can?t see how a free OS on cheap HW people can put together themselves could be a benefit to developing nations over a $500+ iPad (plus a PC) I don?t know what to tell you.
I'm with you Solip. I think Chrome netbooks should KILL windows netbooks.
A question in my mind is how much will these impact iPad sales. I tend to think not much but I half to admit that the platform is interesting and somewhat appealing to me.
9
I think these will trounce the netbook market and then filter in to many other markets where a resource efficient OS running on cheap and slow HW dominate. Essentially, eating up Windows desktop marketshare from the bottom while Apple eats up Windows desktop marketshare from the top. In ten years I predict a three-layer desktop OS model with worldwide states of Chrome OS at the bottom with 50%, Windows in the middle with 40%, and Mac OS X with 10%.