Chrome and Chrome, What is Chrome?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Last week Google made a preemptive strike against Microsoft, revealing details of its Chrome OS months before that product reaches its near-infinite beta release. The idea is simple: who needs a big OS if you are doing everything in a browser? It’s a huge threat to Microsoft and Apple. But then it struck me I’ve heard this all before, so I went back and found this video clip from my show Triumph of the Nerds, circa 1996, where Larry Ellison predicts the future, not knowing he was actually describing 2010.
The biggest news was simply that Google was finally taking Microsoft head-on. The rest of the news, at least to me, was that Microsoft should be worried, very worried.
While we’re talking about operating systems here, Google’s real target is Microsoft Office. Redmond makes money from Windows but makes a lot more money from Office, its productivity app monopoly. Google already has its Google Apps pitted against Office, but Brin and Page know they won’t crack Office’s hold on corporate America without addressing the Windows flaws that effectively underlie both Office and Google Apps in their current incarnations. That’s where the Chrome OS comes in.
The Chrome OS strategy comes down to services, servers, security, and an iTunes-like app store (this latter part having been missed by nearly all the pundits).
An operating system with a user interface done through a browser is a completely practical idea and a vastly superior way to code User Interfaces than the Windows API. It wasn’t always so, but now we have Java and Java extensions in the browser, so the UI capabilities are much better.
Remember Google makes its money differently than Microsoft, taking a few pennies here and there. It is doubtful that either the Chrome browser or Chrome OS will ever cost users anything, but Google will make plenty from providing services and servers that run using these interfaces, with the real gold mine being that app store.
Under the Chrome OS, security is drum-tight so users can’t install unapproved software that might break the OS. The client is small, light, secure, and easy to support. The back end can be in Google’s cloud or in one of those Google shipping container data centers dropped into the parking lot at a Fortune 500 company. Either way Google makes money at the expense of Microsoft/IBM/Sun/Oracle. Larry sure didn’t anticipate that part.
Google will make tons of money from its app store. Remember that unapproved applications won’t be able to run on the Chrome OS and the best (maybe only) way to find approved apps will be through a Google store as pioneered by Apple with iTunes. This wasn’t lost on Eric Schmidt during his days on the Apple board. Through such an app store, Google will get a percentage of all third-party software sales — something Microsoft has never been able to do with third-party Windows apps. The potential revenue from the app store alone is billions per year.
We know that under the Chrome OS Google Apps will be very secure. Any tampering will trigger the download of a new and pure OS image. But will the Chrome OS have enough performance to compete with Microsoft Office? I think it eventually will, based, for example, on extensions like Google’s recently announced O3D API, which will allow Google Apps and approved third-party apps to grab spare GPU cycles to improve performance.
What’s left to be seen here is whether these improvements will be enough to beat Office or if Google will have to make a standalone (local PC-based) version of these apps. Only time will tell.
The most interesting part for me will be Microsoft’s response. This strikes at the very heart of Redmond’s business success and Microsoft will not take it lying down. Expect thermonuclear warfare.
I think the major oversight here is the fact that Apple is in more trouble with such a transformation than Microsoft. Also, it really is a bit of a misnomer to drop the Microsoft name, nowadays, without the word Office attached to it, but that’s for another time I suppose.
If Chrome takes off, Microsoft will always have traction in the market, because of Office and Project. The world of engineering management is Project. Project is a necessity. Excel/Access are required in any business. Work in the real world and attempt to do any sort of financing in OpenOffice/GoogleDocs and you’ll quickly see it’s a waste of time. Also, notice the new Office 2007 formatting and you’ll see if you’re trying to convert anything outside of Word documents, translations are severely impacted due to formatting. Point being, Office will make Microsoft always viable. In fact, the bigger news of all this is the forthcoming version of Office, which does exactly what GoogleDocs does now. Expect this to be the saving grace, hands down, for Microsoft. Microsoft is a differentiated company, because of Office.
The real question should be, in all of this, what is Apple going to do in response? That’s the real, million dollar question.
Apple have already started with iPhone/touch & the app store. These are but the first devices from Apple that are, for the most part, web endpoints. You can run local apps (ala pc’s) but you can also run cloud apps. You also have hybrids, locally installed apps that use services of the net at run time to create the desired result. While “pc’s” will never go away entirely, always connected mobile computing is the future and Apple already has a solid entry into that space with new devices and form factors to come
Google is also in this space with Android and one can easily imagine a standalone mobile device, maybe with an Android kernel, that runs Chrome/OS. Microsoft on the other hand, does not have much response here. Windows mobile is rapidly receding under the weight of iOS/X & Android and even at this late date Microsoft still don’t seem to get the web at a deep level, they just keep “refining” their cash cows (Windows and Office)
+Jay
I understand what you’re saying, Jay, but I don’t think you understand the direction the new Office is heading in or the market Office has. Even if corporate America jumps on the cloud bandwagon, they need Office. Too many legacy documents, projects, etc. are done in former versions of Office. If a client can’t have 100% compatibility with Office, then they will be out of this luck. For this reason, what Microsoft does beyond their new version of Office is the real question.
Yes, Apple has the app store. Does that app store have an alternative to Office? No, it doesn’t. What applications are necessary for every computer user: web browser, email, and Office. All of these options, with the exemption of Office, can all be done better by a community driven project.
This is the reason why Linux and formally Solaris, which I still use both at work, always hit a brick wall. As good as the OS is, it was never able to gain traction in the end user spectrum, because it doesn’t have Office. Again, while I do use OO and appreciate what it is, it falls very short in seamless transparency with Office files.
So, while Apple will continue to sell music, and go on to eventually sell movies and books, they are always going to be a media company, because corporate America needs Office. It’s a fact of life.
What Apple has carved out for themselves is a market that caters to spur of the moment decisions. Their app store is filled with junk/things that could be had for free elsewhere. I am not saying what they have done is a bad thing, but rather, all their applications they offer are not differentiated products. When you don’t have a differentiated product, as soon as a free alternative emerges that does the same thing those pay for app does that is not mission critical, then people won’t pay.
Apple’s only differentiated products is iTunes and its derivatives. Apple has gone on to build their entire business model around it with all sorts of products that cater to this media centered reality that people want. Apple’s OS is dead. Apple’s PC line is dead. Media, for Apple, is their future. And, if you look, you already see this.
My main point is we have emerging markets. Microsoft will always be around, because of Office. Google will always exist. My guess is Apple will, too. The point, however, is that we’re going to see stratification of the industry and not a replacement of any of these markets. Business customers, students, teachers, Microsoft; search engines, cloud computing, Google; the king of digital media, Apple. Any products they make simply support their core concentrations. Nothing more, nothing less.
Minux, your making the old mainframe mistake, “PC will never be as good, fast, collaborative, insert adj-v here”. The limitations you describe are only revision or two away. As far as the need to be backward compatible, got any tape reels around? We do. IT will drag their feet, but costs always win in the long-run with business. Hard to beat free. Google’s model will be difficult to defend against. Free productivity software, cheaper services, reduced HW, shipping, support costs. MS is going to have to change the rules to survive in the (very) long run.
Apple on the other hand is a hardware company. I predict that they are dancing in the Cupertino offices. Why would you buy a PC over a Mac? To run Office (fully functional), Access, Autocad, GIS etc. of course. But if they all eventually become web bound what the barrier to choosing Apple?
I’m not bashing here, but it show the company mindsets: MS, protect the monopoly. Apple be better. Only one of these works in a Google-cloud world.
You make some valid points.
I will point out again that free only works, where differentiated products don’t exist. Part of the success of Linux/Unix for servers, high end computing, etc., is the wealth of community driven solutions that negate the requirement to utilize the commercially available solutions from Microsoft, Oracle, etc. This is the major reason why Sun went out of business, as all their solutions could be had for free. Their idea of offering free solutions to customers was great, but about ten years too late to gobble up the Redhat/Novell market.
Again, why Linux never took off on the PC market was, because it had no differentiated products to give their customers. If someone buys from Apple or Dell, they have no need to replace that OS with a freeware one. In fact, with OEM licenses, one could make the case that they have no financial incentive to replace their OS.
This is in starch contrast to servers, data mining centers, etc., which would have to pay, in addition to their purchased hardware via service contracts, licensing costs, etc. So, there, free makes sense. And, that’s where Linux has been the most successful.
I think the end result is what the end user is willing to shell out for. If they are buying a Google Chrome laptop, just for the sake of having a connected device that can read email, play some simple games, browse youtube, run hulu, then sure, it’ll be just as competitive as any Dell, Apple, etc. Depending on cost, it might prove to be the best, most logical solution. If they’re buying a new device to take to college or through work, then they’re going to need Office, which would dictate a solution from Microsoft.
To say Microsoft isn’t working on cloud computing solutions of their own is a bit of a stretch. Microsoft currently has an app store, though it’s limited, in terms of the 360. There, you can buy movies, videos, and games. Sure, it’s limited, but if you look how they’re trying to make everything under the sun be connected through the 360, without actually going out there and making a web browser for it, then one can imagine they’re kind of already where Google is trying to go with Chrome. Whether this is Microsoft’s intention or whether they understand what they have on their hands is, really, anyone’s guess. But, it’s my guess they’re not dumb, when it comes to this evolution, either.
I think even Jobs made some comment to the effect that they’re a media company now or we’re in the age of media. The recent talks between Apple and the print media industry seem to dictate some sort of solution manifestation there, in addition to their current media offerings. Look at the iPhone/iPod/iTouch and it’s really just another portable device that keeps a person connected to the world of media.
I think the real issue with all of this is personal computing hasn’t evolved to the point where it should have been. We still don’t have applications that can take a blurry image, run some algorithms, and make it shot just as if it were in focus. We don’t have that true social interaction via the internet, where a grandmother in Texas feels like she’s interacting with her child in NY on a day to day operation. I think a lot of passion has been squashed out of this industry, since we’ve evolved from one or two companies making billions to 50 IT companies making billions.
I was a die heard MacOS guy, before Apple became this mass accepted computing company. I think a lot of the personal computing passion and love has been lost, since Jobs came back to Apple. Now, their solutions seem to be more the same than different. I don’t find any of their current products, outside of their iStuff to be anything revolutionary.
When will it rock the world?
“If Chrome takes off, Microsoft will always have traction in the market, because of Office and Project.”
Yes but “Always” is now a rather short period of time.
Light on resources, light on apps, light on imagination, light on functionality, Google chrome has it all. Seems like a GUI that harps back to the daze of windows 3.x! Yet there are “some” smart ideas here – of sorts.
Yet can you run all you need from inside a browser? Checkout Steve Job’s views on browsers versus streamlined client apps. OK, when it comes to overbloated, ribbon invested MS office, (who exactly came up with that brain bender called the “ribbon”?), then chrome may be a breath of fresh air – yet would you trust the pages of your new novel in the safe hands of the Google cloud? Or is it time to get your old typewriter out of the closet?
What you don’t see is the big money burner when it comes to broadband connections and isp revenues, everything you will need to do on your dumb terminal will require connection please, and don’t expect to get much done if your cannot connect – thanks a bucks!
On the plus side, perhaps it is time for no more bloated security updates that trash your system and leave you with the pieces to pick up.
As usual, an eye-opener. Thank you!
Maybe I’m missing something but … One thing that occurred to me reading the above, was that everything ignores the physical, retail market. It assumes all software either comes pre-installed or is to be downloaded.
Most of the software retailers I see carry MS Office and it’s components, big style. OK, so are we suggesting the future of our applications cuts-out the retail sales sector, replacing it with downloads? That would upset the big retail empires mightily.
Yes I know online music download stores have been hitting hard at the turnover of retail outlets for years, but there’s still be a huge percentage of customers who would prefer to get a properly packaged and pressed CD for their money – not just a CD-R with permanent marker on it! The local HMV I pass every day still has plenty of customers.
Well the same for software – which often needs DVDs to distribute – it’s not always because of bloat.
Once upon a time shareware was touted as the future, and though I think businesses have, in a round-about way, come to embrace the concept once more, it had never ruined the retail sector previously. It’s inception, however, was at a time when the prospect of buying a music track online was unheard of.
Trying to knock MS Office of it’s pedestal isn’t just a bout going head-to-head with the biggest software company. It seems someone is actually changing a world market place. Losing jobs, closing town centre stores, closing disk-pressing and packaging companies etc…
Sounds dramatic… Must be a lot of arrogance in this new technology wave…
Wow, the comments seem to be filled with FOGGY thinking. In my world FOGGY means “Flippin Old Guys Glorifying Yesterday.” PCs will never be as good as mainframes, The Japanese will never build cars better than Americans, America will always be the world’s leader of innovation, etc. All old news.
The truth is that if Blackberry had thought of the app store instead of trying to milk potential developers for $200 per dev kit we might all own Blackberrys now instead of iPhones. My point is that Chrome is now the right product at the right time.
The groundwork for free & hosted apps making their way into corporate America has been set. Virtually every business & computer user I know needs the Internet to have a fully functional computer. Hosted app technology is improving and many of our favorite apps are starting to be delivered in a hosted version. It’s not perfect yet, but some combination of hosted or hybrid apps will eventually replace our stand alone experience. Just look at what’s happened in the game space – for both PCs and consoles.
And eventually Google will either allow some form of local storage for apps & data or (because it’s open source) the community will provide that service. I completely agree that some form of local storage for hybrid apps will be needed to meet performance needs for at least a few years.
You can also expect the community to add their own version of a free apps store and support for additional hardware. Even Google wins when that happens. Google gets to dodge responsibility for anything outside their approved platform and the world gets a modified version of Chrome that meets the needs of 90% of all users.
The change that is coming with Chrome will rewrite the computing landscape as we know it. It will take time, but the effect is inevitable.
In fact if Google really wanted to build fast market share all they would really need to do is ensure four core applications were available. First, talk Apple into providing a version of iTunes so everyone could sync up their iPhones & iPods. Second, talk Blizzard into developing a World of WarCraft client – I know you don’t get it but with 10,000,000 subscribers this could be a significant barrier to adoption at home. Third, a portal for server hosted Windows apps similar to Citrix or any other remote desktop solution. and finally, a really slick developer’s kit for hybrid apps.
At that point between Google Docs and all the other web based solutions and the ability to run any required existing Windows software, you’ve nailed the needs of probably 95% of home users plus covered the needs of corporate America.
Minux, I agree with your points. Not saying who will win or lose in the short term, and who will will finally get it right in the long. But we are making the same argument. Distributed services (potentially) levels the field and a lot of the differences disappear, then cost matters. Linux wins where it is roughly equivalent, but for know consumers fear it (more) and Business-IT sees the retraining/compatibility costs. If consumers don’t see the operating system and a browser interface/web protocols addresses the compatibility and user training issues why pay more? I agree we are not there yet but it seems inevitable to me.
MS may be the winner, but my point is, not with their current business model and (apparent) mind set.
We don’t really even have Chrome yet so I don’t know if it is even close to addressing the needs. But someone will get it right, and it doesn’t even matter if its MS, the market pressure will lower the cost of Office and the OS. Again, MS is in trouble if they cling to the old way of making a buck.
I have been around long enough to experience a few of the “everyone can use a terminal/smart terminal/netpc” fiascos at the organizations I have worked for. I am a Mac guy for the control issues (ie IT leaves me alone). But even I see cloud-distributed services as the future, heck its already here, (we are having this discussion) it just hasn’t replaced some (all?) business IT functions yet.
Well said, Gustave.
The future is really going to be interesting. I think you make an excellent point about cloud computing really already being here. Really, we can even go ahead and say that all data mining is a form of cloud computing. As you point out, anyone who listens/watches/reads the news is well aware of the emphasis this country is placing on the availability of information.
Any ways, well said.
Microsoft was afraid of Netscape. Not because it would replace IE and cut Microsoft off from the browser “market”, but in case Netscape ever became an OS into and onto itself. As recent times have shown, alternative web browsers have slammed IE in recent years, with few people actually relying on IE to browse the web. But, has it hurt Microsoft? Maybe, in terms of people becoming in tune with alternatives outside Redmond, but Redmond isn’t suffering from lack of money. Not yet, any ways.
Google released Chrome. Not the OS, but the browser. Looking at the numbers, one can assume that Chrome has not gained as much traction on platforms as Google may have wanted. Firefox has been near perfect in fending off the competition and its sustainability and growth is evident of that. Firefox doesn’t care about competition, because it can always return to Linux, being just as community driven as it once was and it’ll be fine. Firefox and IE are in no fear of Chrome.
Chrome OS hopes to achieve what Netscape never could: replace Windows. It wants to do this through utilizing ad revenue to make two things free: both the OS and the hardware that will access the cloud. The question that remains for Google is in spit of the recent economic downturn, will it be able to?
Computer sales are down. Apple is gaining a market share, while the market is shrinking. People aren’t buying PCs every three years. Those days are done. Even if Chrome’s hardware is free, will it be enough for people to give up their PCs and switch to a mobile platform that is always connected? That is the million dollar question over at Google.
@ Minux..
Quote – “Microsoft was afraid of Netscape. Not because it would replace IE and cut Microsoft off from the browser “market”, but in case Netscape ever became an OS into and onto itself.”
Strange, I remember this differently, that MS precisely bundled and then incorporated IE into the OS to stage their play to the DOJ that it was an essential component of Windows? They wiped out Netscape Navigator with the power of the free bundled software, and could afford to pay the DOJ a million bucks a day to prove their long winded case!
Quote – “Chrome OS hopes to achieve what Netscape never could: replace Windows. It wants to do this through utilizing ad revenue to make two things free: both the OS and the hardware that will access the cloud.”
Is this what you really want, ads built into your OS?!!
What price freedom!, Oops, I mean free apps!!
Regardless of the ethics concerning free stuff and free apps, do you realise you throw away your freedom and rights not to be tormented by spyware and have your every click monitored!
Quote – “Computer sales are down. Apple is gaining a market share, while the market is shrinking. People aren’t buying PCs every three years. Those days are done”.
I disagree, whilst desktop sales may be down, have you noticed the focus on laptops and notebooks, and now even netbooks, (writing on one now). These have never been cheaper to buy, and they are readily bundled with and healthily spreading the new success of windows 7.
Apple PC sales may well be down, (whats new?) Yet do we all want Iphones and Ipods, do we all use these? The answer is no, for the most part they are pants – trendy pants, yes! But still pants regardless, (apart from itunes and that compass thingy that tells you which way you’re pointing – very useful).
Even if Chrome’s hardware is free, will it be enough for people to give up their PCs and switch to a mobile platform that is always connected? That is the million dollar question over at Google.
NO ! …and that answer for Google is for free!
Someone may have already mentioned this, but remember mainframes and X Terminals. That was supposed to be big because all the computing happened on big, fast hardware, and only the user interface went over the network to the X Terminal. That seems similar to Chrome and even cloud computing. It bombed. Why, and what does that portend for Chrome?
Actually your presentation of your point is probably the most spot-on I’ve seen here. However I think it also illustrates exactly the point you are arguing against as well.
Remote terminal / remote desktop technologies as generally used when the local client can’t meet the needs of the application for some reason. Those reasons tend to be hardware, software or geographically driven. In every case, there was some version of “local”, even if that local was the on-site mainframe. In the end it turned out to be easier to give everyone a faster box with more local capacity.
The web browser has largely solved those issues. It’s essentially platform independent, has access to the local machine and network when needed. Web browsers receive code to be run on the local machine from a server and process it locally and for the most part network latency has dropped to the point where it’s not a bit problem; even on the Internet.
Examples of the problems already being solved are everywhere on the web. We all use the web extensively for shopping, information, file exchanges, email, IM, etc. ad nausem. In short most of the applications we depend on are already being viewed through a portal and hosted remotely. There are exceptions, but those could be solved (temporarily) using either a hybrid format (like most online games; a local client domain specific program that dependents on a remote server to run) or temporarily though a remote terminal / desktop until that application can be repacked (or wrapped in middleware) to make it a web service.
Nothing I do anymore is independent of the web. Even if I’m working on CAD or programming I end up referring to the web for more information or to share the work I’ve accomplished with others. If my CAD software or games were browser plug-ins my overall technology experience wouldn’t be noticeably different.
The reason Google Chrome will fail to break the Microsoft Juggernaut is because the current way of doing things is good enough and getting better. The average user is resistant to change.. The average user I see, is happy with the way things are. All Micosoft needs to do is evolve its software for the better as they have done with Windows 7 and Office 2007, add a few data sharing Internet based components, and people will stay with the system they know. Even the people I switch over to Apple insist on MS Office being on the new system, and with Windows 7, why switch to a new OS at all. I wouldn’t underestimate Mircrosoft.
Seriously?
Java apps and the inability to install anything ‘homebrew’ or by other suppliers?!
That will in no way be a threat to any corporate installment of Windows.
Ever.
Hi there Minux
So, do you work for Microsoft?
Anyway, I do predict that Google will win. They will win via strategy that we have not even imagined yet. And no, they won’t put ads in your OS. What they will do is have millions upon millions of streams of revenue. TV is going away as an advertising medium, so to reach those numbers you need google and the google content network. it can and will deliver the viewers. but intstead of the ad dollars going to tens or hundreds of networks and thousands or print vehicles, those dollars will all go to google–that’s right, to one company, not many thousands of companies. they don’t even need to win the OS war, but they might, just for fun.
Yes, exmicrosoft, I work for Microsoft. I told Billy Boy that you said hello.
With that being said, you’re comments would have made sense, years ago, before major content providers realized they don’t make as much money as they wanted, because of Apple. Point is, with all forms of advertising down, no one is going to pay Google to be on their service. Again, this may have worked, if that’s exactly what Apple did, when they did the first iTunes, but now, they don’t have a snow ball’s chance in heck, as it goes.
This can be a I adore a few of the articles which were written, and especially the comments posted! I’ll definately be visiting again!