Google's Chrome OS assailed by needless, dangerous by critics

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GmanMac View Post


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



    I wonder if that will trigger any type of anti trust.
  • Reply 102 of 132
    cimcim Posts: 197member
    If Google and Microsoft weren?t so out of touch, they?d realize netbooks are dead, and tablets are the future. Android won?t be tablet-ready until mid-2011, and WP7 might never be?Ballmer is still trying to push Windows 7 on tablets.



    Meanwhile, Apple will continue to sell millions of iPads a quarter, no competition in sight.
  • Reply 103 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    What you?re suggesting is making Android a desktop OS, which means adding a mouse pointer, which means a completely different UI and different I/O to control it. Apple didn?t use the Mac OS X UI for the iPhone or iPad because it wouldn?t work. They also didn?t have two UIs into the same OS. Just like Android, Chrome OS is based off of Linux, just as Mac OS X and iOS are based off of Darwin, but with disparate Uis for different input methods. Chrome OS ?is? a desktop OS.





    It would be the same for any PC where you?ve stored your data remotely, don?t have a local copy and then realize you don?t have access to the internet. Chrome OS has local storage via HTML5 DBs. It can also store and read files from HDDs that could be internal (though Google suggests NAND for booting), but this could be an external HDD, a separate internal HDD, or simply your most recent spreadsheet document saved in the native HTML5 DB. Browser-based OS ≠ Internet required.





    Windows is around for many reasons, but a simple to use, lightweight and cheap browser-based OS is the real threat to MS? Windows empire. I?d think more people around here would be happy about that. I think this will spark MS trying to do the same to maintain its hegemony, and we?ll see Apple release a web-based version of iTunes that completely renders in a web-page. That isn?t to say that MS will drop their normal version of Windows or Apple will kill their regular versions of iTunes, but this will be an alternative.



    I thought iTunes already used a web based interface... but I could be wrong.
  • Reply 104 of 132
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    I thought iTunes already used a web based interface... but I could be wrong.



    Nope. You have to use the native app if you want to sync to iDevice, store, organize or play your content. You might be thinking of the iTunes Store content pages that will take you to that product in the iTunes Store portal within the iTunes app.
  • Reply 105 of 132
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Dan's articles certainly are provocative. no question he is a longtime Apple fan, and loves to bash MS most of all. now Android too. his articles are one-sided, often take cheap shots at their targets, and frequently make overly broad statements without including crucial qualifications. i wish he'd let someone else edit his pieces before posting to clean this up somewhat. and like anyone writing about such complex topics, he gets facts wrong sometimes.



    all that said, he is also very insightful and in particular always addresses the essential history of "how we got here." which very few other blogs ever do. most blogs today are incompetently superficial in their so-called analyses that are really just bull sessions with no deep background or research at all. look around ...



    so i find DED a great fun read, often informative, and always thought provoking. sure, that draws out the a-holes in the comments too. if i were the moderator i'd set a stricter standard and delete/ban the personal attacks to chase those guys away. but that's not my call ...



    without DED, frankly, AI would be really boring. almost all the other AI pieces are re-packaging news items reported first someplace else. anyone can just go to MDN for that.



    why does AI carry DED's pieces? because i assume they generate a lot of hits. duh. they sure generate a lot of comments.
  • Reply 106 of 132
    Those are some good points. I never trust the 'cloud' to any data that is confidential or important. The only things I place on servers outside of my control are pieces of information that I am willing to share publicly anyway.



    The uniformed public isn't going to understand the precarious nature of data security, privacy & reliability.



    I will always choose to have a platform where I can install and run apps locally, and have local control over all my data. I don't mind connections to the internet for convenience, but it should be optional as opposed to required for operation. This means that for me, ChromeOS is a non-starter.



    On another note, I don't understand why Google is wasting time on ChromeOS. Android is the clear market leader, and I am uncertain anyone is willing to adopt a 2nd offering from Google. Seems to me that it would make more sense to put all that engineering effort into improving Android.
  • Reply 107 of 132
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    On another note, I don't understand why Google is wasting time on ChromeOS. Android is the clear market leader, and I am uncertain anyone is willing to adopt a 2nd offering from Google. Seems to me that it would make more sense to put all that engineering effort into improving Android.



    Should Apple drop Mac OS X and only focus on iOS? I certainly hope not.
  • Reply 108 of 132
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Dude, you're taking this way to personally. 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.



    Just for the record, Luddites resist the advance of technology and science, while "ludites" are probably, what, tranquilizer ("ludes") abusers...



    Even so, I think people here are missing most of Google's marketing plan here. These things are hardly just for Grandma's emailing. They're going to have huge cost benefits for a lot of corporations. First, in cost. Upfront, no drive means less of other things as well - power supply, battery size, chips, case material, etc. And fewer things to go wrong - less parts to fail, no (or certainly less) viruses and worms of the traditional sort, etc., etc.



    (This also means smaller form factors without all the expensive engineering to produce a jewel box like the MB Air). Also, no "Windows tax."



    So the cost of acquisition per thousand savings should be very significant and appealing to companies watching their IT budgets.



    But the big appeal for companies comes AFTER purchase. If a user breaks or loses his Chrome, IT just hands out another one and he/she is back to work on the latest web-saved version of their work. Zero down time for the worker. No trouble-shooting and diagnosis, no files to transfer, no security worries about what was stored on the existing machine, no lost work.



    And for all but the simplest problems, no repair. No parts bins on site. Expense the non-functioning machine, and with no drives to wipe, simple to sell palettes of 'em to companies who will refurbish and just keep fresh ones on the shelf.



    Support costs will plummet and TCO will make a very attractive value proposition.



    The multi-user and guest features also have their pluses in the corporate scenario.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    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.



    Most of the apps for business will be deployed as web front ends to their own corporate ones and you won't see those in any App Market.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by _kovos_ View Post


    Chrome OS hat it's users which just don't need more than it has to offer... so i'm pretty sure it will take a nice 20% bite out of the windows market within 12-24 months after release.



    Yup. See above.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robodude View Post


    Compared to iOS and Android it seems redundant, but this thing is looking to eventually displace Windows. On multi-vendor hardware at an affordable price, I don't see many reasons for Chrome not to do well. They'll roll it out on Netbooks at first, but down the line we'll be seeing it on full fledged desktop computers.



    Contrary to your point, I reckon that Chrome will be for the least technical users, as just about everyone knows how to use a web browser. I'd argue that the browser is probably the most familiar application for most users so making an OS based on it doesn't seem a bad idea by any stretch.



    No Finder and no Disk Utility on Macs, and on Win, no My Computer (I used to train people on this and know how daunting it is for many), no Control Panel, MSConfig, etc., etc., etc.



    And after a few months on Chrome as a browser, it's tons easier to use than FireFox - and I've adapted to having fewer config options. I do miss Cool Previews, tho'.



    So yes, a much less steep learning curve for newbies.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robodude View Post


    A shame Google didn't actually introduce any paradigm shift in terms of how we interact with the thing though, except for removing the caps lock.



    FOR LOTS OF SELF-IMPORTANT PEOPLE I KNOW REMOVING THE CAPS LOCK KEY is A MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT!!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    A hybrid of both local and cloud based computing combining the best features of each concept would always be the best solution IMO. Both local and cloud have advantages and disadvantages so why not use both?



    Why should those who don't (always) need those other advantages pay for 'em?



    It's like telephones - first each small town and neighborhood had a few. Then each home had a standard Bell receiver. Then "Princess" phones for the teens. Then cordless and then wireless and now a whole range of phones from tethered and stuuu-pid to highly mobile and reallyreally smart.



    The same thing's happening with digital devices. I'm always gonna need a computer to do heavy-duty Photoshopping level tasks, but as a writer/surfer, a light, cheap second machine with the whole web and Google Docs that I don't even have to worry about obsessively - with a real keyboard I don't have to pack separately + my phone is perfect for day-tripping around town or short trips.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    I feel a Cloud style OS would be deliberately disabling a computing device for ideological reasons rather than practical.



    I truly doubt Google's doing this for religious or political reasons. I've already gone over G's excellent business case for these machines which has nothing to do with how one "feels" about "cloud computing." And there multiple personal cases.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Can we really make a device much cheaper using a Cloud OS ?



    Yes. See above.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    The processor is gonna have to pack some punch to run HTML5 anywhere near the speed of a Cocoa app. And a cocoa app is already very well equipped to store data in and retrieve content from the cloud. I just don't see any potential advantage.



    And doesn't the speed of light pose response problems? No fixing that one sonny jim.



    I can't create Google Docs or populate a spreadsheet at the speed of light anyway. And I believe that's "Sunny Jim."



    And as long as it plays web vids and audio acceptably, enough "punch" for me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    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.



    Privacy - what's left of it in the world, at least - is still getting a bit of support, and Google has some restraints on its behavior. See the latest court decision: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/1...ls-court-holds



    It's hardly just Google, anyway...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pwj View Post


    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.



    Note to all you MobileMe and Ping users: Apple also has YOUR data. And on the App Store, it's also your censor and nanny.



    And then there's Twitter, Flickr, and a whole list of etc.'s.



    As for why someone might choose a ChromeBook over an iPad....



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pwj View Post


    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.



    I agree. Plus a bridge to the "Flashless web" Apple's started to bring about, but which ain't here yet.
  • Reply 109 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It would be the same for any PC where you’ve stored your data remotely, don’t have a local copy and then realize you don’t have access to the internet. Chrome OS has local storage via HTML5 DBs. It can also store and read files from HDDs that could be internal (though Google suggests NAND for booting), but this could be an external HDD, a separate internal HDD, or simply your most recent spreadsheet document saved in the native HTML5 DB. Browser-based OS ≠ Internet required.





    Windows is around for many reasons, but a simple to use, lightweight and cheap browser-based OS is the real threat to MS’ Windows empire. I’d think more people around here would be happy about that. I think this will spark MS trying to do the same to maintain its hegemony, and we’ll see Apple release a web-based version of iTunes that completely renders in a web-page. That isn’t to say that MS will drop their normal version of Windows or Apple will kill their regular versions of iTunes, but this will be an alternative.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    I thought iTunes already used a web based interface... but I could be wrong.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Nope. You have to use the native app if you want to sync to iDevice, store, organize or play your content. You might be thinking of the iTunes Store content pages that will take you to that product in the iTunes Store portal within the iTunes app.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Should Apple drop Mac OS X and only focus on iOS? I certainly hope not.



    Two topics here:



    1) Browser (web-based) iTunes



    1) Browser-based OS.





    As to the Browser (web-based) iTunes



    Technologically this is pretty easy to do. About 5 years ago, I wanted to access my entire iTunes library on my iMac at home from my AlBook G4, while out and about.



    I was using ColdFusion at the time and, for testing used my home iMac as a Web Server and ColdFusion/Java Web Application Server (ColdFusion compiles to Java ByteCode).



    The hardest part was parsing the iTunes XML file (I had about 7,000 entries) which took a little time (a couple of minutes). I set this up so the XML parsing occurred only once, at startup of the Web App Server.



    Then, from the client browser, you could access the web site and see/play any items in the home iTunes library.



    To improve performance, XML was NOT USED for data interchange between the client and server.



    JavaScript was used to sort and initiate searches.





    Another difficulty was accessing the iTunes store. the Store used the same XML, but it was encrypted. A friend was able to break the encryption, so we were able to get access. But performance could be abysmal -- A search of the iTMS for "elvis" would return the XML for thousands of records. We mitigated this somewhat by parsing the returned XML on the Web Application Server then delivering a more efficient data stream to the browser. (We had a faster connection between Apple iTMS and the Web Application Server than between the web application server and the browser).



    To improve performance further, we instituted an automatic drill-down. If the iTMS returned more than 50 hits, only the 1st 50 were sent to the browser - and JavaScript next/prev was used to access other groups of 50.



    All-in -all it performed quite well.



    As an aside, the current iTMS uses a similar drill-down with groups of 200 served at a time.



    We did some experimenting and determined that if Apple were to replace XML with a more efficient transmission/presentation format, the data could be presented to the browser (or the desktop iTunes app) with less than 10% of the bandwidth and packet size than is currently used,



    So a Browser (web-based) iTunes iTunes is very much a possibility.







    As to a Browser-based OS



    HTML 5 was not available when we did the iTunes Browser App (above). But it was possible in a Browser App running on the Mac to access the underlying OS (File System, MetaData, SQLite Database, etc.). You did this using similar constructs that are used to write a Widget.



    In fact, you could take the ColdFusion App discussed above, package it with a Apache Web Server, J2EE Web Application Server, ColdFusion Runtime, embedded SQL server. This was a very small package (a few megabytes for everything but the data) and ran quite efficiently.



    You simply downloaded the app and copied it to your desktop (Applications Folder) -- double-click and you were running a client-server web app on your desktop.



    Likely you can do similar things with HTML 5 -- more efficiently and without the need for all the server-side components.





    Given that, it seems that the advantage; of Chrome (or any browser-based OS) it that it:



    -- has built in web access

    -- allows custom web apps to be installed on the desktop (or equivalent)

    -- allows app access to the underlying OS components

    -- provides a common UI across apps -- be they browser or desktop

    -- by its very nature (few, concurrent, single-function, simple apps), can run efficiently on lite hardware.

    -- simplifies the user-hardware interface (the OS is invisible)



    So the Browser-based OS cold be considered an OS lite!





    Then, Chrome OS could be considered Google OS Lite -- paid for by advertising





    What if Apple were to introduce a Browser-based OS based on OS X (Mac and iOS) that was paid for by hardware and/or app/content sales.



    Certainly, this Apple OS Lite could be made to run on any existing hardware -- and provide a market for Apple apps (iWork iLife, etc.) and 3rd-party Developer apps.



    And, yes, that iTunes app would run from the web or the desktop... and so would Mail, and Pages, and Numbers, and iPhoto, and iMovie, and GarageBand, and Keynote....
  • Reply 110 of 132
    It's hardly just Google, anyway...



    that makes it all right then yay!





    Google Chrome OS = neat idea, so was google Wave. it will suffer the same fate. people aren't ready for it, and it ain't ready for people.
  • Reply 111 of 132
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    iTunes is very instructive for the cloud vs. local topic.



    when you are acessing the iTunes Store or Ping or Genius or your account and some other iTunes functions, you are in fact working within a web browser accessing Apple's cloud running its UI inside your local program that may be doing other local things at the same time - like playing music.



    when you are copying files from a CD or re-sizing files for various uses or editing your library metadata (a data base), etc., in iTunes you are doing classic local data crunching with the Quicktime engine.



    when you are sharing iTunes media around your house via Apple TV or other computers or AirPlay, you are running a network LAN media server (and this may be extended via the web beyond the LAN oneday).



    when you sync/update/backup etc. your iOS hardware you are running a complex hardware management utility program.



    and if you auto backup all your iTunes content via TimeMachine to separate storage, you have a secure copy of all your stuff with no dependecy on any third party and their unknown future requriements and circumstances.



    all this makes iTunes the most sophisticated consumer software (that is not an OS) in the world - a platform unto itself really. part cloud, part local, part network, part peripherals, all integrated. but the genius of it is, you never think about that. all this just works within a single window on your desktop. the only tricky part are some preferences settings.



    that is what is wrong with any one approach alone - cloud browser or local or network. none can do everything, and all its parts are never all unified by a single front end interface for the user.



    (i know some people "hate" iTunes because of its "bloat" - all these functions.)



    and iTunes is just about media. but Chrome OS would need to be about that and much more, yet it will be more limited in approach.



    if you want to keep your life simple most of all, then iOS and Android are enough. what important capabilities will Chrome OS have that Android 3.0 won't?
  • Reply 112 of 132
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


    Just for the record, Luddites resist the advance of technology and science, while "ludites" are probably, what, tranquilizer ("ludes") abusers...



    ....



    You got me there.



    Also another advantage of Chrome OS is not needing AV software. The platform is locked down and so AV SW shouldn't be necessary. That will cut down on cost, no need to purchase yearly AV SW, and the user experience will be superior.



    I'm still not sure it'll be that appealing to enterprise customers as enterprise users are pretty addicted to MS office, but who knows?



    Apple has shown that non-enterprise consumers have a pretty open mind about the technology they use. For the facebook, email, web surfing crowd I think Chrome OS has something to offer.
  • Reply 113 of 132
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 114 of 132
    There will always be critics of something new. Everyone laughed at the iPad before getting their hands on it, and look at where it is today.



    Can a Chrome OS notebook replace a Macbook? Well, it depends on your needs. While it wouldn't work for me, it certainly would work perfectly for my mom. She needs a machine that is fast, loads her favorite websites, plays her favorite games, and never needs to worry about viruses or updates. As long as they're priced right and perform well, I can easily see her put aside her Gateway laptop for one of these Google notebooks 90% of the time.



    Heck, while there are plenty of things I can do on my computer offline, most of what I use it for is on the internet. When the connection goes down in my house, I often simply turn off the machine for lack of anything to do. I think most people feel that way, too.



    These notebooks won't replace your primary machine any more than an iPad would. But then again, you don't need that full machine all the time. I think Chrome notebooks are going to be in a killer market against netbooks as long as the price and performance is right. If they're as simple to use as iPads, they'll do alright.
  • Reply 115 of 132
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I'm still not sure it'll be that appealing to enterprise customers as enterprise users are pretty addicted to MS office, but who knows?



    Two words: Office Live.



    A bunch more:



    Altho' their wide suite of Windows Live products - Office, Sky Drive, Messenger, Hotmail, photos, etc. - appears to have little mind share in the popular tech press, MS's (huge and continuing) investment in this stable reflects they know they have no choice but to be there when customers migrate document creation and collaboration into the cloud.



    Given how poorly I think the Google Docs experience compares to working in Word on my machine, there's a major opportunity for MS to keep its Office base thru this next paradigm change if they execute. This is enhanced because Office Live can be more closely integrated and compatible with Office than G. Docs, and both experiences can be aware and share with the other. Google has no base at all on the desktop and nothing to integrate with. Word Live has an "open with Word" button for whenever you're on a computer with Word (which can in turn, save back to the web in docx, keeping the document portable).



    And, for example, I just checked in over there and without any intervention and setup on my part, I have a new view called "Hotmail Highlights" presenting integrated material from what's going on in my facebook, Hotmail and Messenger accounts - with thumbnail visual previews of (a few spicy) attachments. Pretty damn cool actually, although my personal e-mail's with Evil G.



    In that sense, Chrome OS could help MS hold the enterprise document market, by driving corporations to the web version of Office sooner. Or they could get smoked. We'll see.
  • Reply 116 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post


    Quote:

    "I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems [Android and Chrome OS]. It's good to have one."



    ...well as long as you have a Basic, Home, Professional and Ultimate versions in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Right?



    The ones you mentioned are all basically the same OS with different components enabled/disabled. If you want to go nuts you can also add Win7 Embedded, Win7 Starter x86, Win7 Enterprise x86/x64, Home Server Vail x64, Server 2K8 Standard x86/x64, Server 2K8 Enterprise x86/x64, Server 2K8 Datacenter x86/x64, Web Server 2K8 x86/x64, Storage Server 2K8 x86/x64, SBS x64, SBS "Essentials" x64 and probably a bunch of others I don't know about.



    Microsoft do have two distinct OS's though. The "Windows 7" family (as above) and the "Windows CE" family (the thing that drives WP7). One for mobile and one for the desktop. The exact same situation as Google with Android and Chrome OS.



    Moral of the story is Ballmer talks out his ass.
  • Reply 117 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Those are concerns that can be summed up with basic feelings people have had about computers for as long as I?ve been alive.



    The fact is people already use the internet is ways that maintain their data in form or another. contacts, email, IMs, file sharing, web searches. Then you have open WiFi hotspots and internet purchases. All Chrome OS is doing is making the slow crappy HW in netbooks (for now) be a usable system for satellite computing.



    I don?t see how this can?t work.



    It might well work, I don't claim to see the future. But I do have a different perspective.



    For me, the concept is flawed. Storing everything in the cloud demands a connection to the cloud. With my iPhone, there have been numerous occasions where I'm away from a wifi hot-spot and the O2 network has crashed (it's not been good in London, although getting better now). Luckily, I've been able to work on my docs, watch a video or listen to a podcast as it's all on the device.



    I'm not particularly concerned about the privacy issues, or too worried about Google loosing everything I own. They're both secondary to me. What I want to be assured of is that I can have my stuff when I want it.



    Don't get me wrong, cloud computing has great potential. What I would like is to have files that live locally, but that can be edited on any of my 'computers', iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, XP box at work, etc. while always remaining as one version. For example, if I watch a video on my iphone, then get home, switch on the TV and select the same movie, I'd like to be able to watch it from the same point and with the same settings selected (volume, aspect ratio, can't think of any others). Similar for documents: Edit at work, get on the train, edit on the train on my iPad, get home, start my Mac, edit on the Mac, go back to work the next day, and have one version on my XP box of the same doc with all edits included, without me doing a thing. I suspect that this is what next year's MobileMe update and data centre are all about.



    So, for me, Chrome's not the future. You'll need access to t'interweb to get at your stuff. That'll kill interest from most consumers. Apple might, however, be able to offer a kind of cloud-computing that puts the power in users' hands while taking advantage of cloud-based sync.
  • Reply 118 of 132
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BertieBig View Post


    It might well work, I don't claim to see the future. But I do have a different perspective.



    For me, the concept is flawed. Storing everything in the cloud demands a connection to the cloud. With my iPhone, there have been numerous occasions where I'm away from a wifi hot-spot and the O2 network has crashed (it's not been good in London, although getting better now). Luckily, I've been able to work on my docs, watch a video or listen to a podcast as it's all on the device.



    I'm not particularly concerned about the privacy issues, or too worried about Google loosing everything I own. They're both secondary to me. What I want to be assured of is that I can have my stuff when I want it.



    Don't get me wrong, cloud computing has great potential. What I would like is to have files that live locally, but that can be edited on any of my 'computers', iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, XP box at work, etc. while always remaining as one version. For example, if I watch a video on my iphone, then get home, switch on the TV and select the same movie, I'd like to be able to watch it from the same point and with the same settings selected (volume, aspect ratio, can't think of any others). Similar for documents: Edit at work, get on the train, edit on the train on my iPad, get home, start my Mac, edit on the Mac, go back to work the next day, and have one version on my XP box of the same doc with all edits included, without me doing a thing. I suspect that this is what next year's MobileMe update and data centre are all about.



    So, for me, Chrome's not the future. You'll need access to t'interweb to get at your stuff. That'll kill interest from most consumers. Apple might, however, be able to offer a kind of cloud-computing that puts the power in users' hands while taking advantage of cloud-based sync.



    I honestly have no idea how ?browser-based? OS means that everything is on the cloud and that without an internet connection you are dead in the water. Despite the many demos and my repeated statements of the HTML5 DBs in the WebKit browser, the USB and HDD support, the file access, and pre-installed office doc suites that can be used offline why does this repeatedly get stated that you have to be online for it to be operational?
  • Reply 119 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I honestly have no idea how ?browser-based? OS means that everything is on the cloud and that without an internet connection you are dead in the water. Despite the many demos and my repeated statements of the HTML5 DBs in the WebKit browser, the USB and HDD support, the file access, and pre-installed office doc suites that can be used offline why does this repeatedly get stated that you have to be online for it to be operational?



    OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding.



    In Chrome OS, will the user be able to open a text document, edit it, save it and close it without an internet connection? I've been looking for an authoritative answer to this, and I can't find anything definitive. Just vague assertions. Can you give me a link?
  • Reply 120 of 132
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I honestly have no idea how ?browser-based? OS means that everything is on the cloud and that without an internet connection you are dead in the water. Despite the many demos and my repeated statements of the HTML5 DBs in the WebKit browser, the USB and HDD support, the file access, and pre-installed office doc suites that can be used offline why does this repeatedly get stated that you have to be online for it to be operational?



    Is this what you're referring to, in part?



    http://viralpatel.net/blogs/2010/10/...i-example.html
Sign In or Register to comment.