just wanted to clarify for you my opinion. No, I don't think Mac OS X is unsuccessful. I think it's just a necessary instrument to accomplishing Steve Jobs' goal to create the simplest, cleanest, easiest to use hardware, IMO. They had no choice but to create a platform for their fantastic hardware. So no, not unsuccessful but just the means to the end-goal. I think the priority is more hardware than software. Perhaps no longer now that they are broadening out to the mobile device market. but still the software is more the supporting infrastructure to the over-all goal to creating the most innovative and simplest hardware out there to the end-user.
The thing is, you've trapped yourself in to thinking about hardware and software separately. That is what most of the industry does too, and why products are often poor.
The Apple way is thinking of the two together, to think of the symbiotic relationship leading to a complete "whole"; one without the other is useless. Apple does not think of hardware. Apple does not think of software. They think of "product" and "user experience".
The thing is, you've trapped yourself in to thinking about hardware and software separately. That is what most of the industry does too, and why products are often poor.
The Apple way is thinking of the two together, to think of the symbiotic relationship leading to a complete "whole"; one without the other is useless. Apple does not think of hardware. Apple does not think of software. They think of "product" and "user experience".
sure, i probably am backing myself into a corner there. it's probably based from articles and commentaries i've read that state that Jobs' main focus has always been on hardware. you make a good point. but like i said, the software is the means to the end-goal. Perhaps that end goal (as i stated it) is skew and is more how you describe it.
If Google links Chrome OS to Android then I guess you could have a situation where all the Android applications become usable on a Chrome OS Netbook (or could be easily ported across). Add an integrated mobile contract and the netbook becomes a larger version of the smartphone. Apple has proved that given the right set-up software companies will produce a myriad of useful app's. Add this to Google's free app's such as Docs, etc and you could end up with a cheap and compelling alternative to a Windows netbook for a lot of people.
I'm not sure how this would impact on Apple but if more people are buying netbooks then presumably less laptops will be sold overall.
sure, i probably am backing myself into a corner there. it's probably based from articles and commentaries i've read that state that Jobs' main focus has always been on hardware. you make a good point. but like i said, the software is the means to the end-goal. Perhaps that end goal (as i stated it) is skew and is more how you describe it.
HURRAH!! *clap clap clap*
Someone who admitted they might have made a mistake! I congratulate you, sir! Please, come back and spend more time on these forums. We need more like you to balance out all the wackos.
It's highly likely that this idea was hatched during an Apple board meeting. Apple take the top end of the market - Google the bottom end - somewhere in the middle they close Microsoft out...
The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the term.
I think it is because most people don't know what an operating system actually is. In it's simplest form it is just an interface that allows a user interact with some piece of hardware. Even a $2 calculator has an operating system.
There are things I love about Google, their dedication to open platforms, free services, and the cleanliness/minimalism/simplicity of their products. With regards to Google & Apple, the two share the last trait. The other two traits will be the determining factor in the success of one company over the other.
Unfortunately for Google, they suffer the same flaw that NetZero initially did: People would rather pay for a reliable service without ads/garbage than have open platforms and free services, no matter how unobtrusive they are. If Google entertained the idea of a pay-for service with open standards and a clean, ad-free interface, they would certainly stand a chance.
It's a non-issue today yes but you have to look towards the future. There will be a day where you can have Internet access everywhere and the bandwidth will be enough to operate apps like Photoshop and Final Cut through the web.
I love it, Apple uses this model with the initial release of the iPhone and everyone pitches a fit.
Google proposes it, and it's the second coming of IT
Neither one is more important then the other. It's how they play TOGETHER that makes Apple products special. It's the whole experience.
To try to say "Apple is better at hardware" or "Apple is better at software" misses the point. Apple is better at "the experience" which encompasses hardware and software as well as things like media (iTunes), 3rd party applications (App Store), etc.
Google's "OS" is actually just a web browser. It's the Linux kernel with the Chrome browser on top; that's it. Any application you want to run will have to be web-based.
You know why the return rate of Linux-based netbooks was so high? It was because people found they couldn't run the software they wanted to run. So now, Windows owns the netbook market. Chrome is not going to change that. Unless Chrome undergoes a major alteration to its philosophy, it will flop.
It's more than just a web browser, it's a web browser urltilizing HTML5's local caching so you won't require an Internet connection to read your emails, compose and read documents in Google Docs and, most importantly, any of the apps that will created using HTML5 that won't just work on Chrome OS, but on any compliant browser.
None of this should be a surprise. Cringley was talking about this at least a half decade before It was even a possibility with the options HTML5 brings us. The idea that this is for netbooks isn't exactly truthful, IMO. I think that the emerging markets where a very simple cable/dialup modem with a simple appliance the size of a Linksys router is more than powerful enough with ARM or Atom to run Chrome.
Since it's open sourced even other appliances, like a cable box (or TV itself) or digital
picture frame could be used for full Internet access on your HDTV, or get weather, stocks and other updates sent to each device, respectively.
With type of OS there really is no limit to what can be done for the basic Internet user. This will not wipe out OS X or Windows, nor is or meant to, but it will get into a lot of nook and crannies that will benefit the majority or the world's population and may eventually benefit the rest of us where full license and install of OS X or Windows makes no sense.
As for Linux, there are plenty of phones that run Linux without the user being aware of it. I think this is what Google has in mind. Getting a netbook with KDE or Gnome as GUI is not simple for a non-experienced user. I think this will have a place for your files, perhaps accessible only from the tool bar on the browser, but everything else will be invisible to the user.
Someone who admitted they might have made a mistake! I congratulate you, sir! Please, come back and spend more time on these forums. We need more like you to balance out all the wackos.
Seriously!
yeah, I don't claim to know any more than the next guy. but as i've stated on other posts, at least I try to state my positions as "opinions" and not fact. and when i do have factual evidence, i try to at least sight my sources. somethings it's tough to do but I try at least. Thease forums are for friendly chat and exchange of ideas, not a pissing contest. However, opinions aren't always mistakes or false information...in this case i truly believe there is no right or wrong answer.
Tom Krazit doesn't know what he's talking about (shocker).
IF apple made an OS for commodity PC hardware that it didn't also manufacture, then he might possibly have a point. No surprise here, folks -- they don't.
Like I said, this Browser on an OS has been done... 3 years ago... And it works on hardware as old as Pentium 2. If you have a netbook, load it onto an SSD or USB drive and watch it fly! 2.6 kernel supports IntelMac's.
Like I said, this Browser on an OS has been done... 3 years ago... And it works on hardware as old as Pentium 2. If you have a netbook, load it onto an SSD or USB drive and watch it fly! 2.6 kernel supports IntelMac's.
Of course without the great spyware attached to it.
That looks a quite a bit difference. I see a desktop, toolbar and Menu button. This also doesn?t include the other, arguably more important, aspects ChromeOS will bring with it. Namely the HTML5-based apps that will be easily made by web developers and used on any OS with pretty much all browsers.
Comments
just wanted to clarify for you my opinion. No, I don't think Mac OS X is unsuccessful. I think it's just a necessary instrument to accomplishing Steve Jobs' goal to create the simplest, cleanest, easiest to use hardware, IMO. They had no choice but to create a platform for their fantastic hardware. So no, not unsuccessful but just the means to the end-goal. I think the priority is more hardware than software. Perhaps no longer now that they are broadening out to the mobile device market. but still the software is more the supporting infrastructure to the over-all goal to creating the most innovative and simplest hardware out there to the end-user.
The thing is, you've trapped yourself in to thinking about hardware and software separately. That is what most of the industry does too, and why products are often poor.
The Apple way is thinking of the two together, to think of the symbiotic relationship leading to a complete "whole"; one without the other is useless. Apple does not think of hardware. Apple does not think of software. They think of "product" and "user experience".
The thing is, you've trapped yourself in to thinking about hardware and software separately. That is what most of the industry does too, and why products are often poor.
The Apple way is thinking of the two together, to think of the symbiotic relationship leading to a complete "whole"; one without the other is useless. Apple does not think of hardware. Apple does not think of software. They think of "product" and "user experience".
sure, i probably am backing myself into a corner there. it's probably based from articles and commentaries i've read that state that Jobs' main focus has always been on hardware. you make a good point. but like i said, the software is the means to the end-goal. Perhaps that end goal (as i stated it) is skew and is more how you describe it.
I'm not sure how this would impact on Apple but if more people are buying netbooks then presumably less laptops will be sold overall.
sure, i probably am backing myself into a corner there. it's probably based from articles and commentaries i've read that state that Jobs' main focus has always been on hardware. you make a good point. but like i said, the software is the means to the end-goal. Perhaps that end goal (as i stated it) is skew and is more how you describe it.
HURRAH!! *clap clap clap*
Someone who admitted they might have made a mistake! I congratulate you, sir! Please, come back and spend more time on these forums. We need more like you to balance out all the wackos.
Seriously!
The fact is, calling this an operating system is disingenuous, because according to everything they've said about it, it's nothing like an operating system as most people would understand the term.
I think it is because most people don't know what an operating system actually is. In it's simplest form it is just an interface that allows a user interact with some piece of hardware. Even a $2 calculator has an operating system.
Unfortunately for Google, they suffer the same flaw that NetZero initially did: People would rather pay for a reliable service without ads/garbage than have open platforms and free services, no matter how unobtrusive they are. If Google entertained the idea of a pay-for service with open standards and a clean, ad-free interface, they would certainly stand a chance.
-Clive
It's a non-issue today yes but you have to look towards the future. There will be a day where you can have Internet access everywhere and the bandwidth will be enough to operate apps like Photoshop and Final Cut through the web.
I love it, Apple uses this model with the initial release of the iPhone and everyone pitches a fit.
Google proposes it, and it's the second coming of IT
I agree, but like i said, IMO Apple is only really successful at Hardware and UI; Software is the ends to the means.
That is an incredible disservice to the rich programming environment and frameworks that Apple provides with OSX.
Apple is very much a premiere software provider...
the software is the means to the end-goal.
I still think you are short-changing software.
It's both of them together.
Neither one is more important then the other. It's how they play TOGETHER that makes Apple products special. It's the whole experience.
To try to say "Apple is better at hardware" or "Apple is better at software" misses the point. Apple is better at "the experience" which encompasses hardware and software as well as things like media (iTunes), 3rd party applications (App Store), etc.
Google's "OS" is actually just a web browser. It's the Linux kernel with the Chrome browser on top; that's it. Any application you want to run will have to be web-based.
You know why the return rate of Linux-based netbooks was so high? It was because people found they couldn't run the software they wanted to run. So now, Windows owns the netbook market. Chrome is not going to change that. Unless Chrome undergoes a major alteration to its philosophy, it will flop.
It's more than just a web browser, it's a web browser urltilizing HTML5's local caching so you won't require an Internet connection to read your emails, compose and read documents in Google Docs and, most importantly, any of the apps that will created using HTML5 that won't just work on Chrome OS, but on any compliant browser.
None of this should be a surprise. Cringley was talking about this at least a half decade before It was even a possibility with the options HTML5 brings us. The idea that this is for netbooks isn't exactly truthful, IMO. I think that the emerging markets where a very simple cable/dialup modem with a simple appliance the size of a Linksys router is more than powerful enough with ARM or Atom to run Chrome.
Since it's open sourced even other appliances, like a cable box (or TV itself) or digital
picture frame could be used for full Internet access on your HDTV, or get weather, stocks and other updates sent to each device, respectively.
With type of OS there really is no limit to what can be done for the basic Internet user. This will not wipe out OS X or Windows, nor is or meant to, but it will get into a lot of nook and crannies that will benefit the majority or the world's population and may eventually benefit the rest of us where full license and install of OS X or Windows makes no sense.
As for Linux, there are plenty of phones that run Linux without the user being aware of it. I think this is what Google has in mind. Getting a netbook with KDE or Gnome as GUI is not simple for a non-experienced user. I think this will have a place for your files, perhaps accessible only from the tool bar on the browser, but everything else will be invisible to the user.
HURRAH!! *clap clap clap*
Someone who admitted they might have made a mistake! I congratulate you, sir! Please, come back and spend more time on these forums. We need more like you to balance out all the wackos.
Seriously!
yeah, I don't claim to know any more than the next guy. but as i've stated on other posts, at least I try to state my positions as "opinions" and not fact. and when i do have factual evidence, i try to at least sight my sources. somethings it's tough to do but I try at least. Thease forums are for friendly chat and exchange of ideas, not a pissing contest. However, opinions aren't always mistakes or false information...in this case i truly believe there is no right or wrong answer.
So where is the problem here? Why are people having a fit over this? Do people think Jobs is too shy or polite to confront Schmidt?
IF apple made an OS for commodity PC hardware that it didn't also manufacture, then he might possibly have a point. No surprise here, folks -- they don't.
No story.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=44110
Of course without the great spyware attached to it.
Like I said, this Browser on an OS has been done... 3 years ago... And it works on hardware as old as Pentium 2. If you have a netbook, load it onto an SSD or USB drive and watch it fly! 2.6 kernel supports IntelMac's.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=44110
Of course without the great spyware attached to it.
That looks a quite a bit difference. I see a desktop, toolbar and Menu button. This also doesn?t include the other, arguably more important, aspects ChromeOS will bring with it. Namely the HTML5-based apps that will be easily made by web developers and used on any OS with pretty much all browsers.