To get a final, more succinct, picture of whether R/WW readers expect to see a GoogleOS - here is a poll for you. I hope there are sufficient options in it, but you'll notice that option 6 is open-ended and invites you to leave a comment to explain more (at the risk of duplicating the comments in the original post). Also re #4, that's a reference to Robert Scoble's comment that Emre and I must've been "smoking good crack" ;-) There were some even more brutal comments that came our way, but in the end that only showed it was a thought provoking post that many people had opinions on :-)
]]>
I have yet to hear a reason (or reasons) why I need a WebOS. My hardware is already dirt cheap and bundled with Windows. Data portability is on its way and will be device independent. With that said, why limit myself to a WebOS?
]]>THe only reason for deploying a new operation system is to get a product to face Microsoft. The issue is that microsoft is still large for the consumer market and the sources aint open. √?n order to develop new hardware mainframes - which is vital for personal computer security of non-nerdz - or something like this, you need to be able to work with the hardware better and more efficiently.¬¥
So I think if they head for a "OOG", they will have to come up with something entirely new and big concerning the way personal computing works itself. Maybe the first step will however be an online OS, but I dont know, it would be mere adaption, not a real google-style breakthrough.
]]>Google makes a lot of money with its toolbars, which are distributed through Google Pack, Google Earth, Google AdSense-for-Firefox-paid-downloads, Google Picasa, and more. This is quite easy to develop (it's just two toolbars - one for Firefox, one for Internet Explorer), which makes them the money.
Creating a OS would be completely against their approach to the web. Google is innovative because they do NOT create applications for the desktop (at least as litte as possible). We now have high-end maps on the Web, because Google thought it would be possible. We have high-end e-mail on the Web, because Google thought it would be possible. We have at least simple office-appications on the Web, partly because Google thinks it can be successful.
The only things they released applications for the desktop, are the following things, for the following reasons:
- Google Picasa: There are apps for managing images online, but Google Picasa is much faster, and it doesn't require to have photos upoaded. They are working on bringing it to the web, too, though.
- Google Earth: Everything's not possible for online mapping, so they have, in addition to GMaps, a high-end mapping appication.
- Google Talk: Online IM is cool, and they do it through Gmail-integration, but tabs in my browser change, I open and close tabs regularly, and the chance to close a window accidentially is too risky. Also, in work, I can't always have the browser open, but an IM in the task bar is no problem. (This is aso the reason why Meebo and others will fil a successful niche (if they're able to monetarize their service), but will never enter the mass market)
- Google Pack: The Google Pack is a whole package of applications that can't be easily replicated online (or haven't got working online alternatives out there, yet).
These applications ship the Google Toolbar with them, which is expected to make Google 20 Dollars per user per year. They make a whole lot of money through that, without the risk of having a operating system that's expensive to develop, could have image-damaging security holes, etc.
]]>If that's the idea of the "OS", then someone could go out and create that in a single night shift. It wouldn't be hard to modify a small Linux distribution that boots specifically into a browser environment.
I'm going to say this...
1) I can accept a local Linux distribution that runs on my local hardware, but gets almost all of its data from the web (from whatever storage I choose - NOT specifically Google)
2) I can accept a completely hosted small Linux distribution that is pulled to my machine via network boot (so that way my existing Win installation isn't fubar'ed) - It would aggregate my web applications, in addition to being capable of running OpenOffice, GIMP, etc.. Everything would be synced online (this would require bandwidth north of 12Mbps)
3) I will NOT accept a simple browser-environment that can only run web applications and nothing graphically intense
4) The day I quit computing is the day that I can't build and enjoy my own PC
]]>Even if the replacement is "slow", there aren't any web-based technology that can support native languages (C++). The closest thing we have is Java, and that's not very efficient and still requires a platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, JavaOS, etc).
Even with all of this talk of a WebOS, I still have yet to see a reason as to why I (or anyone else) needs a WebOS.
1) If it's about price, then forget it. PC hardware is dirt cheap, and that includes your OS. The biggest benefit in this sector would no doubt be enterprise, but they would probably like a solution that they can implement with their existing infrastructure (not hosted on Google).
2) If it's about portability between PC's, forget it. I'm not a nomad computer user, and don't know many people who are.
3) If it's about having access to your data and applications everywhere, forget it. A WebOS locks your data up in a bunch of databases that are pretty much proprietary, and a browser-based UI is required - good luck getting your web-connected appliances to retrieve data from your "account".
Why not a solution that works *WITH* Windows, Mac, Linux, and *ALL* of your devices? Why not a "data platform"? Why not log into any Windows/Mac/Linux machine and have instant access to your RICH applications AND data? Why not have instant access to all of your media files from your TV or cellular phone ... Or your documents and 10,000 photos on your PDA?
That, my friends, is a better solution. Rich applications. Data everywhere.
Let's face it, the browser is only good at "browsing" - it sucks as a platform. Emre - you have thrown out multiple solutions. The only ones that COULD stick are the ones based on some sort of Linux-based kernel. But then why bother - you're just recreating what already exists.
BTW... Keep up the good blog posts - I've been visiting your site more than TechCrunch :)
]]>More and more people are looking for data portability. Logging in on any system anywhere and accessing the same data quickly and without glitch in display. That's where the real market is, show any corporate user that they can create a document in one rich app, save it and have it accessible to 3 or 4 or other applications and devices and he'll be your best friend forever :) .. we don't need another OS, mrerely enhancements on the ones we have
]]>2-3) Portability is really very important. Moreover, there's another advantage; consistency. You access your data from many places; work, home, mobile devices, guest locations.. All of us are becoming more and more nomads. We also need a unique experience to access our data, and GoogleOS approaches can provide us consistent experience as well.
1) Price still matters; OK hardware is cheap but maintenance also costs. With GoogleOS like approaches, you don't have maintenance efforts and costs.
And connectivity should not be seen as a problem anymore. With WLAN, WWAN, you can connect from anywhere.
You can still use C++ in server side but Java, PHP, Ruby are more popular these days. If what you mean is Javascript, yes JS is inefficient but check out Mozilla and Microsoft's new Javascript drafts, it's becoming a full featured, standardized language like others.
I understand that everyone may not like such a solution, but even if GoogleOS becomes a reality, the adoption will take time and problems you mention will completely disappear in time.
]]>Michael Robertson (remember the Guy behind mp3.com, lindows/linspire) too was busy starting a AjaxOS). With the advent of Server/Desktop virtualization , OS is increasing and rapidly becoming irrelevant. Applications need to be
o Portable
o Reconfigurable
o Scalable
o And ofcourse as thin as possible.
Microsoft, Redhat, Novell and other OS vendors are in for a shock of their lives. We don't know yet if Google will deliver that "shock" but it will come OR from Google OR from some crazy zany startup who will redefine the OS by destroying the whole concept of a OS locked on computer.
The network will eventually be the place where we will compute/commute.
Tarry Singh
______________________________________
Founder and CEO, Avastu Appliances
Avastu Appliances
Blogs: TarryBlogging
SecondLife Name: Joshum Zephaniah
The reason I'm so interested in this space is because my team and I are working on a package that would standardize storage across all devices using an SDK and open protocols. Our general belief is that you should be able to walk up to any device (or PC) and login, connecting to your storage. It doesn't matter where your storage is (LiveDrive, GDrive, NTFS, SAMBA, etc.). Your storage could hold applications, an OS, whatever - it's up to you.
I would like to get as far away as "GDrive will be on every device" and "GoogleOS will dominate". I would rather leave the decision up to the user (what if I want LiveDrive storage? or Amazon S3?) - the OS and storage should be as transparent as possible, just like cable television. It doesn't matter WHO your cable company is, the channels are the same.
Thus, the only solution that I could really see working would be a thin OS that mounts directly to a PC or device. The said OS could actually configure on-the-fly to whatever machine or *device* you are using. That's ubiquitous computing AND gives you the advantage of local hardware.
]]>These are my general observations on openness, I don't know what exactly you're talking about. But it sounds similar to what stealth mode mojopac is doing.
]]>Google will end up being the 1 stop shop for search/email/shopping/rss/news etc.
]]>Well, technically I'm not supposed to say more (I have an NDA drafted up with the co-founders), but I can tell you that it's not like MojoPac (although, that's a cool product). We're more along the train of thought that the future will be "medium-less". In other words, you won't carry around flash memory, CD's, portable hard drives, etc..
When I mean "open", I simply mean you walk up to a device and connect to a remote storage. The system is uniform and connects the user to their storage (GDrive, LiveDrive, NTFS servers, etc) via routing methods. What good is a device if it can only connect to one specific provider? Think of how many flavors of PDA's, cellular phones, and other devices you will have - lots of discontinuity!
I'm sorry that I can't say much more than that. We are a pretty young startup, so we have been getting advised by Andy Bechtolsheim of Sun Micro.
]]>M$, Linux, Mac OS, etc. just provide the frame for all this wonderful applications. All this made possible by the Internet standard which is platform independent.
The Future looks rosy.
]]>Actually "eXo Enterprise WebOS" is the merge of two eXo products: Portal 2.0 and ECM 2.0 (ECM stands for Enterprise Content Management) in their alpha stage. Those rely on industry standards such as the Portlet API (JSR 168/286) for the application/windows development and the Java Content Repository (JCR JSR 170/283) for the File System. That makes both data and application open, portable and accessible in a standard way. Widgets are also in teh way to be supported.
Openess, portability, mobility, lightweight, collaboration, price are factors that make the WebOS move an obvious one
Cheers
Benjamin