Google Chrome OS to Feature Single Sign-On for Chrome Browser
...but What About the Other Web Browsers?
We don't know much about the upcoming OS from Google, Chrome OS, so most of the news we read about it involves speculation or, sometimes, rather terrible attempts at faking some supposedly official screenshots. However, we recently stumbled on a tidbit of actual news that proves how tightly integrated the Google Chrome web browser will be with the operating system. Of course that makes sense - it is called "Chrome OS" - but it makes us wonder if Google will be required to support other web browsers on their new platform? After all, it's one thing to integrate your own browser with your OS (as Microsoft does with IE) but it's another thing to not even offer a choice. What will Google do? Will they go the "evil" route?
Blogger Lee Mathews of Download Squad recently found a reference to Chrome OS in the source code of Chromium, the open source project that serves as the testing grounds for Google's Chrome web browser. In the code, a line references something being called the "Chrome OS login manager." Essentially, this login manager will function as a single sign-on (SSO) cookie which will simultaneously log you into all Google services including things like Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Reader, etc.
That's as much as we know for sure, but what is not clear is exactly how this SSO option will be presented to the user. We wouldn't be a bit surprised to see you logging into your computer with your Google account the way you log into your Mac or Windows PC using a set of credentials you create during the setup process. However, in Google's case, it's easy to imagine a more web service like prompt on the login screen. For example: "Create a Google account" / "Already have a Google account? Sign in here." Perhaps there will even be a "Remember Me" option so you don't have to log in again, you just flip the netbook's lid open. Of course that's all speculation, but it seems logical.
Will Chrome OS Offer Browser Choice?
The real question here is whether this SSO option will only work with the Chrome web browser which comes pre-installed on the new OS. Obviously, Chrome OS will push people to use Google's own browser, but will it be your only option? What if you really want to use Firefox because you've discovered you can't live without your add-ons and Greasemonkey scripts? Will Chrome OS's sign-in manager support that alternative? Will it - gasp - support IE8? What about Opera? Safari?
Microsoft has come under fire for "bundling" their web browser, Internet Explorer, with their operating system. In fact, the issue has led to the European Union's requiring that the company offer a "select your web browser" ballot screen in the Microsoft's new OS, Windows 7, due out this October. It would seem odd if Google could get away with not just bundling, but actually not even allowing another browser to install.
Although Google hasn't come out and said that will be the case, they've made no mention of how browser alternatives will be handled. In fact, when describing how their OS works, Sudar Pichai, VP Product Management and Linus Upson, Engineering Director, wrote: "the software architecture is simple -- Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel." (In this case, "Google Chrome" refers to the web browser, not the OS. Oh, how we wish they had named them differently!)
What that means is that the very architecture of the OS depends on tight Chrome browser integration. While this is a revolutionary concept for building the OS of the future, to say the least, it begs the question: will Google get away with this? And finally, should they be allowed to?
Let us know what you think in the comments.
Image credit: Lee Mathews
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Really? You're going to open that can?
Microsoft got in trouble because it used its illegally established monopoly to force Netscape out of the market. The end result of its actions being Netscape giving away its code and selling its business to AOL.
Microsoft gained that illegal monopoly by using contracts that forced OEM's to include only their operating system on their PCs. If the OEM didn't, or it included something like BeOS or anything else, they suffered a financial disadvantage when compared with those OEMs that did agree to the contracts.
Google is building what will essentially be a desktop interface to their own services and the web. The platform will be open source and run on top of Linux in much the same way Android is open source and runs on top of Linux. In essence, that means that there will be no barrier to anyone with the skills to customise it or add/remove features/software as they want. Just like HTC has done with Android.
Your premise that Google including only Chrome as the only browser in the Google Chrome OS is even remotely in the same league as what Microsoft did with IE and Windows is just preposterous and ignorant. Its one thing to be contentious or controversial, its another to be foolish and make silly claims.
Operating system - Browser integration
Both Microsoft and now Google have problems with OS - Browser integration - at least from the OS side.
I guess Google can argue that for the browser they allow the user to select their OS.
Not to mention, what about those kitchen-computers that run an entirely new touch interface? They don't let you add new applications. The problem with Microsoft with respect to browsers is its monopoly, not the general blanket statement "everything should be open open open".
If I can't use Firefox in Chrome OS on my netbook, then I won't use Chrome OS. Simple as that. And I'm sure I'm not alone. Market forces will lead Google into allowing Firefox, or the market will kill Chrome OS. As it should be.
Yes, it is. The operating system, as far as I can tell, is built off of the browser. The two are not distinguished, it's like asking Apple to allow people to integrate something other than Finder into their OS. Chrome is the OS, if you are using it, it is to use the browser as the OS. Foolishness.
Posted by: Aram Zucker-Scharff
|
September 1, 2009 7:14 AM
Sony's PS3 and Apple's iPhone are another couple of operating systems that come bundled with a browser and no alternatives for the user.
As has already been pointed out, Windows and Internet Explorer was a completely different problem. Let's not forget that;
1) Microsoft had already agreed to stop bundling new "Applications" with Windows in a previous antitrust agreement (although new "Features" were allowed)
2) Internet Explorer was previously given away as an Application
3) In Windows XP, it became a "feature" of the OS
4) The complaint was that Microsoft were using their monopoly share of Operating Systems to gain an advantage in a different market (specifically, bundling Internet Explorer to attack the Netscape browser while also including IIS with Windows server software to undercut the Netscape web server software that their business relied on- funding development by funneling cash from other areas of their business.
Ultimately, Microsoft's problem was tying Internet Explorer into the OS so that it could be called a "feature", rather than a stand alone "application"- and not in a way that had issues like security at it's heart. The reason it's been so important to decouple it from the OS (first by sandboxing it in Vista, and by completely seperating it in Windows 7) is probably more to do with the security/marketing fallout than the EU anti-competition case.
The whole point of Googles Chrome OS is that it's built around the browser to run web applications, so you don't need to install local applications- so you don't need to worry about malware. Enabling users to install an alternative web browser goes against the most basic idea that it's built around. Comparisons to what Microsoft did with IE seem ill-informed, at best...
This is really a non-issue and I'm not sure why you even bothered questioning if Chrome OS will support other browsers. It's an open source operating system. Anyone who wishes to develop software for it or tweak it can. Thus any browser under the sun could run on it, assuming the developers want to spend the time and effort making that happen.
@Scott: In Chrome's case, it's not a bundle, but a 'core' piece of the architecture. I get that. I mentioned that above. So I get the anger over comparisons to the msft/ie bundle deal. What I'm wondering is whether an OS that ONLY allows you to run one browser is going to be a legal issue. As @Stephen C nicely mentions above, since Chrome OS is built on Linux, is *is* possible to install Firefox...but it's unknown at this time if Google will make that simple enough for the everyday user to do so. If not, could that not be an issue for the company down the road? Esp if Google grabs a solid chunk of netbook marketshare?
Don't forget that Chrome OS will be a linux-based platform. It should be able to run something as simple as Mozilla Firefox, of course you don't HAVE to install the OS.
Actually, the same goes for Windows. The problem is that they made a cheap deal with their OEM packages, this reduced cost for systembuilders. Don't forget, most people don't even realize they had a choice up until recently.
@Ariaan: Chrome OS may be Linux, but it won't necessarily be "community linux" - in other words, Google makes the code available but Chrome OS will be a company built product. They might ask for feedback maybe even open source some patches but its overall forward movement will be designed by Google engineers, not the open source community. Well, in all likelihood. Just saying.
@Sarah Google hasn't said if it will make the graphical shell of Chrome OS Open Source or even release APIs. They could lock it down so you couldn't install any applications like the 1st gen iPhone.
On Android you can't run Firefox. Mozilla hasn't taken the time to port to the platform. But Android isn't in a monopoly position right now and they built in support to run rich 3rd party applications and have an open policy when it comes to installing them so Mozilla could port Fennec to Android (and I hope they do).
Now Apple does block people from creating browsers on the iPhone and they are growing into a monopoly position. The iPhone represents a fundamental shift in computing away from user control and toward vendor lock down. I'm sure that's a reason the FCC is looking into Apple blocking Google Voice.
@SarahP Sorry, but you're fishing. You're looking for some conspiracy that Google is going to be Evil when there is absolutely no case to be made in that regard.
Who cares that you might not be able to install another browser on there? Doesn't matter. There is consumer choice. If people don't want it, they won't install it or use it. If there is no one buying it, the product dries up and Google either redesigns it or cancels it. Simple.
There is no "evil" in them only having Chrome as the sole browser. You're looking at this completely in the wrong direction. Think of this as being a customised desktop environment for Google's web products. It gives you fast and simple access to the Google products you use as well as to the web in general. Its basically that junk MSN Explorer browser Microsoft tried pushing a few years back, but as your Desktop environment/shell.
Your article appears to want to start rumors of Google being evil and blocking out other browsers by limiting things to only the Chrome browser. Completely outside of everything else, there simply is not enough information about the product for that to be the case. There isn't even an Alpha build available.
Secondly, its THEIR product, they can do whatever they like. Just as Apple can do whatever they like with the App store or OSX or Canonical can do whatever they like with Ubuntu, or Oracle can do whatever they like with their databases or Sun can do whatever they like with Solaris.
You're just coming across as trolling.
@Stephen C
I understand and agree with your argument of Microsoft creating an illegal monopoly and forcing OEMs to only build systems using Windows. I also understand and agree with the fact that they bundled IE and gave it away for free specifically to undercut Netscape.
I also agree with your last statement the it's THEIR product and they can do whatever they want with it. Microsoft should be able to include/exclude anything they want on THEIR own software. I see the antitrust issue of creating an illegal monopoly for their OS and bundling software that they've created as two separate issues.
I don't like Internet Explorer, I think it's terrible software, but I have always had the ability to install Netscape or now Firefox on a Windows machine. They never once stopped me from doing that.
If companies like Opera really cared about getting their software out there vs just attacking Microsoft, they would have named Apple in the suit as well. If we are going to force one OS to give users a choice of Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome during installs, shouldn't we force other OS manufacturers to do the same?
I do think this article is leaning a little too heavily towards the 'Google will be Evil' side, but I think Sarah raises some valid questions and we'll just have to wait for answers.
I have so much faith in Google to produce a good OS, I'll use it anyway.
floriculture business online flower orders I get from the Internet euğraşıyorum provinces, rather than natural olarakda flower pictures. explorer web page when opening the waiting period was long since out of Crom google I use it pretty fast in opening files congratulate my solo google de Crom has shortcomings, Explorer of the properties google google toolbar does not de Crom by these inserts they gonna be even more beautiful
The simple answer is that no, they will not allow alternative browsers. If you install and run Firefox or any other browser you are no longer using the ChromeOS.
Yes they could allow a choice were this a normal OS like Windows or OS X or Linux (normal in the sense that it runs various third-party software) but in the case where the OS is custom built to run only software developed by Google it doesn't make sense.
I asked much the same question yesterday (http://bit.ly/ycpY8)
sarah, you're a fucking idiot!
Here's the thing. Google's OS is not an entire OS. It is built off the browser. Basically, the browser is the OS. Though I believe I read something from google saying there would be some not internet functionality, it is built to function in the cloud. If it does offer another browser, it will be more or less redundant and most people will abandon the idea. If you ever have tried a so called cloud OS, they sometimes have web browsers and such, but they feel redundant. You're using a browser to access a browser. Foolishness. I'm sure there will be third party apps, but most will be web based. Chrome is the underlying component. Actually, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Chrome has the highest benchmarks and is easy to use and takes up less screen space. What's not to like?
I think Mozilla Firefox has beat Chrome on this step. AFAIK Weave has been (since may) offering openid support to whatever service having openid (includes this site). You can see "Login with Weave" button on several websites, or found openid url filled already with your mozilla openid URL: https://services.mozilla.com/openid/[username]
Posted by: https://services.mozilla.com/openid/neofreko
|
September 1, 2009 7:22 PM
1. Pick famous company
2. Write 400-word conspiracy theory
3. ???
4. Fail
I don't quite know how I feel about the Google Chrome OS. I'm sure it will be done well, but it's odd to have yet another aspect of our computer lives manufactured, maintained and monitored by Google.
"Should they be allowed" to engineer their product as they please? Should persons who like each other be "allowed" to continue meeting each other? Just how much governmental control of products -- or people-- do you wish?
As for my own preference, I like the ability to run whatever applications I desire to run and not be dependent on Web access to do it, so this product, if it does turn out to be ultra-browser-centric and somehow capable of using only Google's own browser, would be nothing to interest me. Still, if Google chooses to make it that way, fine with me. If it turns out to be a good seller (or the equivalent), fine. I do not feel any obligation to be in the majority in anything.
And I intensely dislike anybody trying to tell me -- or anybody else -- how to do things. As long as I am as mindful of others' rights as I demand they be of mine, there is no conflict.
The difference between Google's bundling and Microsoft's bundling, is that Google's is trying to restrict you to something that is public and open. They want you to develop with open web technologies, not with the native x86(_64)/ARM + Linux core.
Microsoft is under fire for making the OS something that you can't easily replace, and exploiting the hardness to transition to promote IE. Google is making the OS something easy to change by not attaching anything special beyond standards. If you move to Mac OS, or Linux, or Windows, all your apps will still work.
Let us look at the main goals Google is attempting to accomplish
Fast bootup times: allowing programs in general will force more startup procedures and increase boot times so allowing other bowsers conflicts with goal number 1
Secure web browsing a laughable idea really but they are designing this to run in such a way that viruses would be extremely hard pressed to infiltrate the system even if it was worth the hackers time to try allowing another browser would add a well a googol of backdoors they'd have to close. so it hurts security
Helping computing in general to evolve to a cloud centric design and make traditional desktops and local file systems obsolete. in other words make all applications run over the web and not actually be installed on your PC except or the one which is used to access the web and to improve performance this is to be integrated so deeply into the OS that there is essentially no difference between the browser and OS now that type of integration just isn't feasible unless the entire code of the OS and browser were designed with the other in mind so while eventually 3rd party browsers could exist if they are designed for chrome os without conflicting with this goal it isn't feasible for current browsers to do so without major recoding.
All in all I see this OS only being successful if they put a lot of work into dualbooting capabilities with other operating systems. One important thing would be to somehow allow part of the processing power be devoted to booting your main OS in the background and then allowing you to switch freely between them although this may only be feasible with multicore processors I'm not entirely sure how difficult it would be to code
Chrome OS won't run IE8 because IE8 does not run on Linux. Microsoft, not Google, would have to port it to use Linux OS facilities instead of Windows ones, because only Microsoft has the source. Microsoft will not do that.
There are legit questions about whether or not Chrome OS will allow you to load arbitrary X11 applications like Firefox, and whether it will be open. Selfishly, I'd love it if Chrome OS were a full-fledged Linux distribution I could run on netbooks with good vendor support. Many Googlers probably feel the same, since they run themselves a lot of Linux.
Google may have other ideas if, for example, they see netbooks following a cellphone-like model where they're subsidized by carriers who want to control what applications are run. Their strategy is usually to be pretty open, though; they tend to reason (or rationalize) that better stuff -> more Web pageviews -> more ad clicks, and they don't need super-tight Apple-style control of everything they put out.
Even in a locked-down model, Chrome OS would probably be like Android, in that all the source will be out there and someone could, with effort, undo Google's bundling and integrate some other browser the same way. Can't really do that with Windows.
That line in the Chromium source doesn't shed much light on all this one way or the other, though. It means the browser hooks into an OS facility to grab a sign-on cookie. Windows and the Mac also have cookie stores that the default browser uses and various apps can access, including other browsers. Better to talk about the real questions than read too much into this.
It's also not odd that Microsoft would have to play by different rules than Google here. Microsoft has a dominant position in desktop operating systems; Google does not. If any antitrust concerns apply to Google, they have to do with search advertising, not OSes. So, Google can pretty much do what it wants in OS-land short of outright fraud.
What an amazing level of ignorance and stupidity, both in the article and the comments....
PEOPLE....ITS LINUX... ITS OPEN SOURCE!
Google is merely creating another distro of the operating system, and just as it is with any other linux distro they can choose whatever set of packages they want for it.
Support of other browsers? Don't be stupid.
If someone wanted firefox in Chrome OS, all they would have to do is fork the code and re-package it as another distro.
Firefox OS! you heard it here first.
At the moment of course, exactly what will happen is mere speculation.
Whether or not making Chrome the only browser available on the distribution is evil is really in the eye of the beholder.
But evil/good aside, there is nothing wrong with Google making Chrome the only available browser on their OS. This argument expands on that touched upon by RF in comment #26
Microsoft was punished recently by the EU because they were doing something that any other company currently CANNOT do. They were abusing the power of monopoly in one market to push another product.
There are no laws in the EU (or the United States for that matter) which prohibit the existence of a monopoly. What is illegal, is using that position to force people to use/buy something else. Because Microsoft DOES have a monopoly in the OS market, they are prohibited from gaining market share for another product using their monopoly. Specifically, they have a monopoly with Windows, and by including only Internet Explorer with Windows, they are breaking the law.
Currently Apple does exactly the same thing with MacOS and Safari. However, this is not a problem because they DO NOT have a monopoly with MacOS. MacOS's market share is well below that of Windows.
Because Google OS has currently a 0% market share, there is no way in the next decade or so that they could ever be accused of abusing their monopoly position. This is due to the logical constraints, i.e. it would take a VERY long time for Chrome OS to gain a monopoly, and assuming a 5% p/a attrition rate from Windows to Chrome OS (a very liberal assumption), it would take 14 years for Chrome OS to become a monopoly. It would then take several years after that before the EU, or the US, recognised it as such.
So from a law perspective, this article has no meaning. From an ethical perspective, well, it really is up to one's own opinion.
Carpe Diem.
Stephen C, your position to defend Google and attack this article is clear and not even silly but also childish.
The article raises a concern allot of people have already. I don't see it as an attack at Google at like you suggested. I actually think Chrome is the best browser.
The Microsoft Monopoly claim is illegal. Any company has the decision to ship their products with what ever feature they like. If you don't like it, you don't use Windows, and thats it.
People attack Microsoft just because its the leader in the computing market currently but they don't even have real facts for it. Apple and tons of companies made even bigger monopolies then Microsoft ever did. As far as I concern, Google has the monopoly on Internet advertising not to mention Search Engine. They followed exactly the same steps Microsoft did. What do you say about Google buying all the companies like Postini, Urchin, etc?
If memory servers me right, they are also bundling Chrome with OEM partners. Does Sony ring you a bell?
I can assure you Google would had made exactly the same as Microsoft did with IE. People blame Microsoft for giving IE for free with their OS and Google is doing this for years with all their products.
Last time I checked, you could not use Adsense, Adwords, etc with your corporate email anymore. A nice message appeared that I had to use a Gmail account to log in for all Google services. Sounds like monopoly for me. I don't have a Gmail account. Why did they forced all people from one day to another to be able to only login to all their services with a Gmail accounts?
How about all their Chrome ads that appeared on millions of websites using Adsense accounts? Even worst. Go to google.com with Explorer 4 and you will see a big banner that takes all the screen to download Chrome. This would be the same position as Microsoft, if they abused their position as dominant on the PC, Google does exactly the same, as they are the dominant on the Internet.
Google tries to bundle their products just like any company does. The accusation against Microsoft never had legal facts to it. You can install anything on Windows. And how would you ever install Firefox if you don't even have a browser to go to the firefox download site?
Your position that OS Chrome is open source is a very bad excuse. I imagine Mom and Dad on their house and the average Joe, coding into their OS to install another browser. Thats silly.
Google is a corporation. Not a non profit organization. They are not open as you like to point it out. As far I as know they don't open their bank accounts do they....
They use open source products to make profit. Thats a complete other story as Open Source. They take Open Source, put it on a Box, say its Free and then push their services into it to make money. Wow, thats really open source !!! I wonder how legal that is. They are indirectly selling open source products.
If Microsoft was sued in the EU for Explorer then the same law will hit Google, unless they show they really made that only for Microsoft.
Google will not allow other products. They will force Gmail, Google Earth, Adsense, Adwords, Google Talk, etc, into their OS. Thats how they make profit. And yes, they will make OEM agreements as well to ship their OS into Netbooks !!!!
The real end question is. I can know use Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and install anything and even use Google services on my Windows Vista. Im free to install what I want and use what ever service I want.
Will I be able to use Microsoft products on Chrome OS? Thats the real question. Lets them see who is evil !!!
First of all. I love Chrome. And I also use Linux. So why do I keep using Windows? Because my programs just work with it and I don't have the time to be coding and programming or tweaking all the time to make things work.
What I don't like is the way Google tricks people and into believing every one else is so bad and they are so great.
Chrome was launched first for Windows. Today it doesn't even run in Linux stable. That should say allot about Googles open mind source project. They builded their browser as priority to Market and not to open code. Most people run Windows, and they decided to launch it first for Windows and as a second thought for all the open source platforms that run Linux. Do what say but not what I do right?
If they are so open source, friendly they would decided to launch their softwares first for Open Source community and not to their biggest threat. Its all about money you see. Chrome on Windows is just a bigger piece of the pie. So Windows fist, Linux maybe...
Also, when Chrome was first launched, a popular blog that had the domain for the name was not allowed to use Chrome Logo on their website. Even when it was 100% dedicated to talking about Chrome, Google send him a nice notice that it was their property (copyrights) and he was not allowed to use any of the logos on his website. Open mind and ideas but corporated actions right?
We don't have to go so far, to know the little secrets terms in Gmail and Chrome (later changed) that said everything you viewed with it was THEIR property !!!!
It seems allot of people are really not informed about how Google puts his brand and position in the market. The first Chromium releases where blank. Later they decided Google names should also appear in Chromium which is the open source version. It happens I used Chromium instead of Chrome and suddenly the name Google started to appear on the open source version as well. What does the name of a corporation do in a open code? Chrome was the Google version and Chromium the open source for developers.
Let me say clear that by this reply and the other I made im not defending Microsoft at all. I just think neither Microsoft, neither Google are the good guys, but also they are not evil ones. They do exactly what everybody of us would to in their position. Try to be the leader in their field. The problem is once they are, they seek other markets, and people see this a thread, so they start attacking companies. Its something we are always going to see.
Now. If we have to talk about browsers. Chrome is the fastest and most stable. Granted. I still prefer Opera because all the personalization it allows, but I have to admit Chrome is far better builded not only in speed but in general it just works great. If Google can do the same with the OS, welcome them. They will bring allot of new ideas into the field. Players are always welcome. But competition is also needed. The other way around we would not even be able to have the freedom to discuss this things.
I like to be fair. And I think everyone should be praised or punished the same way. Its called justice. Not to side on anyone and see things on a third perspective without taking position. If we really need to do this. The Apple and millions of companies should also be punished by the EU laws. If we decide to look the other side, then Microsoft should be threated the same way. If not. Then Google should also be sued if Chrome doesn't other browsers just like the iphone also doesn't allow Opera browser.
What is all this round and round and round? Google does not have a monopoly period. So long a people have choices there is no monopoly.
For OSes I can think of at least a dozen choices, and most of them free, as in price, and also what you can do to them. There are also several browsers and search engines that can be used, and MSN, Yahoo, and Google all vie for your eyeballs. So where is the monopoly in all of this?
Now for those of you who where around for the MS versus Netscape contest, the phrase "cut off their air supply" came up from Billy Boy. That is pure unadulterated intentional MONOPOLY. But to make a comparison between that scenario and the Chrome OS is pure crap. There is no comparison.
Now the feature and functionality issues, that is a different debate, the distinction between natural apps and web apps may get totally blurred.
I never said there was a monopoly. What I was trying to say in an ironic way, is that people that complained Microsoft had a monopoly where plain wrong and its was a false accusation. Just like other OS and browsers always existed.
From my point of view, if Microsoft was accused of monopoly, even when you had several alternatives back them, not only Netscape, you had Opera and other browsers, as well OS, what Im saying is that is by that sentence against Microsoft, Google is even worst in other ways. It was NOT not a monopoly, it was using their position as leader to try to rule on a certain market, people said this was an abusive act from Microsoft and they where accused. Same what Google does know, and same probably 95% of companies always did.
If you ask me, neither Google, neither Microsoft have a monopoly. What is not fair, is blaming Microsoft on the past, for things Google does in the presence exactly the same way.
Had Microsoft 100% of OS and browser share back them? No. They had most of it, yes, but not 100%. Just like Google has more then 90% of search market currently and probably even more from Internet advertising.
People started to attack this article just because they compared Google with Microsoft and hell broke lose. The article has a very good point. If some years ago they wanted to burn Microsoft because of forcing IE into their OS, Google will be guilty of the same with Chrome OS. (maybe)
The difference is everybody loves Google and hates Microsoft so nobody even tries to compare this, and its not exactly the same but worst, as you probably are not going to able to use Opera on Chrome OS not to say Explorer...
Fair? Not. Monopoly? Absolutely not.
I rather think it will be running on a web interface that can be accessed with any browser. An operating system on which you can't install the software you want is not an operating system in my opinion.
There are a lot of existing virtual computes or webtops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_desktop that looks better then this screenshots. For example check this one http://www.windows4all.com
The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.
To anyone paying attention, Google has announced exactly what Chrome OS will be. In case you haven't noticed, the Linux kernel is open source, the Chromium code is open source, the X11 windowing system is open source.
In case you are unfamiliar with the open source stuff and have no clue what it means... let's put it this way: you take what you want, you put it together and you obtain what you want (if you're good/know somebody who's good/have a lot of money).
If Google is true to it's word, what Chrome OS will change is the level of integration between the browser and various web applications, something that the Flock browser already does.
In a commercial variant of the open source OS you could see proprietary stuff like audio/video codecs (but.. that won't be truly needed since you can upload to YouTube and get flash video) or dvd/br playback software
Where is the monopole?There is a monopole from Google and you could pretty well accuse them of that. How well will the new Chrome OS integrate with apps that don't come from Google? Facebook, Tweeter, Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, Bing.com, Live.com will be properly and tightly integrated in the OS? Just as well as Google Docs, Search, Picasa, etc?
BUT, by making the stuff open source, Google dodges even that question. You don't like the way we integrated App.X.Y.Z? Well... go ahead, write the code for it and, maybe, we'll include it in the next release. If we like it... if not... you can always fork the code and say it's Opera OS or Firefox OS or Whatever OS.
I just figured I needed to address a little bit of ignorance.
"Will I be able to use Microsoft products on Chrome OS? Thats the real question. Lets them see who is evil !!!" -- PYDOT
You will be able to use any of Microsoft's internet products. However I don't see how anyone could be ignorant enough to think that products Microsoft makes would work on Chrome OS unless Microsoft themselves go and port them. To use the question "will I be able to use Microsoft products on Chrome OS" as an argument is just ridiculous. Would you expect to also be able to us Apple's products made for Macs on it too? Are you going to say Linux is evil because you can't install Microsoft products? Give me a break.