Written by Emre Sokullu and edited by Richard MacManus
Did the above image shock you?
No, this is not a real Google advert! But something similar may well turn into reality.
In this sequel to our original GoogleOS blockbuster, we try to clarify our thoughts on what GoogleOS will look like. You'll have to read to the end for the exciting conclusion, but we can hint that Linux creator Linus Torvalds has a starring role to play. Please note
that these are not insider rumors, but just some educated guesses ;-)
In our first article we examined 3 GoogleOS scenarios:
Also there were some outstanding suggestions and ideas in the comments section to that first post. One of them (comment #49) noted that Google could utilize virtualization technology to host multiple operating systems smoothly - this technology has been developed by Microsoft, VMWare, Xen and others.
However our conclusion is that the most feasible one is the 3rd scenario - a mini Linux distro, that users can very easily install and essentially makes Google/Firefox the default Internet services. Now let's get into some detail about that option...
Some of you reacted to our first article by saying that it is silly for Google to get into the operating system business - that they are a search company and they don't want to lose their focus. And at this point in time, we agree that it doesn't make sense for Google to enter the OS space. That's why we wrote that all these scenarios will only take place if the new Windows Vista OS defaults to Live.com – which will then put pressure on Google. We think Google will have to respond to that scneario, so it'll be well within their business focus then.
There is no doubt that operating systems have become little more than a commodity in today's world. The most popular server operating systems Linux and FreeBSD are free and open source. There are many others that are free and open source too. The fact that Sun Microsystems has recently open sourced and released for free their Solaris OS also proves this. The new trend is Internet as the development platform - and all new innovations take place in Internet space and not on the desktop anymore. We are seeing more and more Meebos, Writelys, salesforce.coms - but not so many Intuits anymore.
So really, operating systems have become no more than a middleman for the internet. You use an OS only to access the Internet, which then takes over as the platform to socialize with people and create/consume data. In other words, the Internet is not a mere component of an operating system anymore - because it's fast becoming impossible to imagine an offline operating system.
All of this pushes us to think that if Google sees a threat from Microsoft's latest Windows OS, then they can release a practical operating system that will fit into today's world. That is, it must have these characteristics:
So the purpose of a GoogleOS will be to cut out the middleman (Windows) when it comes to connecting to the Internet.
Google is not the first to try beat up Microsoft in their own game. But there has been no decisive victory against the Redmond company so far. So everyone knows that Google should be well prepared with a great strategy this time. And the first condition of this is awareness, because for most people Windows = Operating System. So first and foremost, Google should break this dogma and create awareness of its alternative product.
We believe that Google will spread the word with their typical tactics - i.e. no big advertising campaigns in traditional media, but as always a big buzz campaign via user recommendations and reviews, blogs and other viral marketing elements.
Internet ads will play an important role in long-term marketing of GoogleOS. Firefox was very successfully marketed in this manner and Google can do the same with GoogleOS. The current referral offerings of Google AdSense are:
But depending on the acceptance of Vista, Google can give a greater incentive of revenue for GoogleOS. Something like:
First of all, the name will not be GoogleOS, Googlix or even Google. Our guess is that Google will simply use the Linux name for their new operating system. They won't try to rebrand and will prefer to take advantage of Linux' neutrality.
This is the same thing as with Firefox. The reasons:
Needless to say, to be able to do that - as with any other Linux company - Google also will need to pay large amounts to Linus Torvalds, the holder of the Linux trademark.
And note that Google is not alone in this. Oracle, another NASDAQ giant, created its own version of Linux - with an emphasis on the Linux brand instead of rebranding it.
Google already has many Linux Kernel level engineers in their team. And you can see
from http://google.com/jobs that they're still very
hungry for this position.
So we don't think they will spend much money to acquire a company like Ubuntu (Canonical) – because they are known to be very selective and acquire small but efficient companies only. But we may expect huge hirings from the Mountain View company. Don't be surprised if they hire the father of Linux, Linus Torvalds!
That's something that Google likes to do; they have the creator of Python (the main programming language used in Google applications), Guido Van Rossum, and the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, in their team already.
All promising Google products had a disruptive offering that shook the market up and changed the rules.
Gmail's unlimited storage space promise is perhaps the best example of this. This time, besides the advantageous ad campaign for web site owners we mentioned, Google can come up with a Free Support offering. Because so far, Linux has been free - but support is paid for. If you think free support will be way too costly for Google, you are wrong. Because this will be such a small system, that the number of possible problems will be very limited.
Secondly, Google may introduce a seamless VXML powered phone support system that will be close to human quality, but depend on machines.
And thirdly, this will be for the clear advantage of Google - because if they want to beat Windows at their own game, they should definitely play the game perfectly and embrace non-geek users (who for example are unable to change a few changes in their BIOS).
Another possibility is that Google could send copies of their operating system to consumers, via CD-ROM, free of charge. Don't say this is impossible, because Ubuntu already did it! Ubuntu is known to send free CDs all around the world, under a program called shipit.
We end this post with a passage from Nostradamus, slightly modified ;-)
An Emperor shall be born near Italy
From a soldier
A great troop shall come through Russia
Great swarms of bees
The destroyer shall ruin a city
The exhaustedwhite
OK perhaps all of this is fantasyland. You may even think we smoke too much crack. But even if these claims do not come true, there is some valuable analysis here that hopefully helps understand Google's patterns and potential.
Tell us what you think, we have just covered 5 points here - but you may have other predictions. Or criticisms of our line of thought. After all, Nostradamus does not help us with GoogleOS predictions, we have to make those ourselves ;-)
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: GoogleOS II: Starring Linus Torvalds.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2917
This is the third annual Best Web Companies round-up from Read/WriteWeb (see 2005 and 2004). This year we're spreading it out over 2 separate posts. In this post, we announce Best Bigco and the runners-up - with our special... Read More
Did the above image shock you? No, this is not a real Google advert! But something similar may well turn into reality. In this sequel to our original GoogleOS blockbuster, we try to clarify our thoughts on what GoogleOS will look like. You'll have to r... Read More
TITLE: Google Killing the Picasa Brand? URL: http://www.zoliblog.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/21/2589158.html IP: 216.40.34.103 BLOG NAME: Zoli's Blog DATE: 12/21/2006 02:00:11 PM Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
I just want to say that Emre Sokullu and Alex Iskold write truly QUALITY CONTENT to this site. Read/WriteWeb is my first stop each morning and many more during the day (when my ADD kicks in!)
Excellent work guys! This is the most informative web 2.0 source today.
Jason
Posted by: Jason | December 20, 2006 6:31 PMThis is not to say that Richard isn't doing a great job, it's just that lately I see more and more great stuff by Alex and Emre. I hope they get paid well for the rich content and excellent analysis they contribute.
Posted by: Jason | December 20, 2006 6:37 PMJason, thanks this is flattering!
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | December 20, 2006 6:43 PMEmre,
What are your thoughts on Google / Firefox dynamics?
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | December 20, 2006 6:44 PMI agree Jason! Only the best for R/WW :-)
Posted by: Richard MacManus | December 20, 2006 6:45 PMI dont think Google will enter the OS market at this point in time (or in the next 1.5 years either), their search dominance is still very fragile -- considering, Microsoft acquiring Yahoo, is still a big threat even if this still seems like a rumour to some -- if not all.
I think they (Google & Apple) have already agreed with each other that, Google will remain as a service provider (search etc) and Apple as a Desktop 'commodity'. Linux will remain as a test-ground for future projects.
Google is already using their custom Linux ditribution in their labs titled "Goobuntu" (derived from Ubuntu).
I can see Google becoming a sponsor or a partner of Canonical but thats it.
I do agree with some of your points however buying a company like Canonical is out the question. Mark, will not sell his company -- and getting Linus fulltime is also out of the question - Google will have to settle with #2 Kernel hacker for now.
You have explained very well how Google could exploit the marketing side of launching their Linux offering, rather this article should have been primarily focused on the Why! Why Linux and not Solaris or BSD? How could this strategy be implemented? Will they require Sun for assistance? What does this mean for the end user.
-- not much has been said about this.
None the less, interesting read.
Posted by: Hasan Akyol | December 20, 2006 6:55 PMSome advice for next time: Less detail, and more modification of Nostradamus prophecies.
Brilliant... ;-)
Posted by: Jason R Briggs | December 20, 2006 7:11 PMThanks for borrowing my idea for using quatrains in technology predictions...
http://www.cooqy.com/blog/2006/12/12/five-predictions-and-quatrains-for-the-internet-in-2007/
Posted by: Robert Yeager | December 20, 2006 7:16 PMI think you are all too enthusiastic about the future of Google. The road will be bumpier then this post suggests. I hate having to keep remind everyone that they have basically 1 source of revenue and have already pretty much exhausted any potential for optimizations in their adwords algorithm.
Are any of the ideas discussed in this post going to generate more revenue for Google? Or are they just ways to stop the company from losing revenue to emerging challenges by Microsoft and Yahoo (with Panama)? While you make many arguments as to why Google may want an OS, why do *I* care? Because it has different defaults? C'mon. If Linux hasn't challenged Microsoft on the desktop without Google, why would adding Google to the mix make the slightest difference? The geeks will stick to their distros and the independent minds already have Apple.
I think Yahoo may be the sleeper in all this. It's much easier to improve your ad-serving algorithm then it is to get more eye balls visiting your website. Google's wide and wild search for new things to do is not a strategy, it's desperation.
Posted by: shadilac | December 20, 2006 7:22 PM@Jason, thanks for your comments, good to hear that R/WW is your first stop. But when you talk about my articles you should give big credits to Richard, you can't know "behind the scenes" of these articles and how my pure articles look like :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 20, 2006 7:34 PM@shadilac -- Totally agree.
@Emre -- Let's just cut the thank-you's its getting silly. Read/Write Web is cool but its getting un-cooler as more and more thank-you's are pooring in.
Good day gentelman.
Posted by: Hasan Akyol | December 20, 2006 8:02 PM@Hasan, good points..
I want to reply your Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris point with a few lines of PHP:
$os = array('Linux','FreeBSD','Solaris');
$newos = $os[array_rand($os)];
$this->article = eregi_replace('Linux',$newos, $this->article) ;
I mean FreeBSD - Solaris - Linux doesn't matter. But Linux is more likely because:
****** Linux is already the natural choice of Google for their servers; they have many Linux engineers in the team, why not going on with the OS they know very very well...
*** Linux awareness is much greater, many people already want to give it a try, so.. my 2nd point in the article...
** More people already know Linux. This is a more common OS, no need to change habitudes.
* Although this is a compact distro, Linux is more desktop-ready than Solaris - FreeBSD; this is a slighter, but valid reason.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 20, 2006 8:02 PMAs for Mac, yes I expect a cooperation between Apple and Google. But don't forget that Google supports both IE and Firefox.. So many strategies are possible... As I mentioned in my previous article, even a BIOS based thing is possible...
@shadilac, @Hasan I recommend you guys to read one more time the first point: Purpose: Cut the Middleman
This explains very well the purpose of this distro. And I'm trying to explain that this won't be yet another Linux distro. A portable, live thin client OS.. that has one sole purpose; opening up Firefox in full screen.. So that you can connect to your Google directly... The purpose is to clear off bad effects of Vista's default Live.com.... But this is just a theory of course..
And I'm not enthusiastic about the future of Google or any other. This Nostradamus passage was just for fun :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 20, 2006 8:13 PM@Emre -- That was fast, im flattered.
The PHP code was just unnecessary. I already know why Linux is the best choice but most poeple dont. I just thought it will be good 'just-for-the-sake-of-enlightenment-for-the-average-joe'.
The article goes in debt about marketing and not much about "how-it-benefits-average-user". This should of been the heart of the article. Since you guys (excuse my french) seems to know -- please enlighten us.
Secondly bios-based system is just not reasonable. A stand alone distibution is more probable (i know its possible).
Linux is the only choice for Google if it ever wishes to be an OS -- which at this time to me feels unnecessary and it will be an act of desperation rather than a strategical move.
Let Firefox destroy IE embrace Open Source support Ubuntu and watch Microsoft fall -- thats Google's real manifesto.
Good day.
Posted by: Hasan Akyol | December 20, 2006 8:18 PMWhile I would welcome a google OS... I really doubt it.
Google hires engeneers to make motherbaords and power supplies optimized for what google does... it does not mean they are going to start selling PC's.
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2006 9:18 PMNice job on the Nostradamus passage, slightly modified! As a reader, I really appreciate when the writer can have fun with a good topic.
While Google has the current mindshare, what's to prevent any Linux distro from following these same steps? Perhaps Hakia and Ubuntu could get together (Hakibuntu? :) and beat Google to the punch.
Google has certainly shown they are willing to reward companies that capture their own mindshare. Maybe Google's best play is to let someone else try it and then buy them.
Posted by: John Milan | December 20, 2006 11:43 PMWonderful read! Thanks.
My first thoughts after reading your article were focused around the tiny operating system (BIOS or otherwise). I don't think it's likely the way you describe it.
1. I may be mistaken because I have little working knowledge of Linux, but from what I've read and what I think I understand, Linux is a pain in the a** when installing on different types of hardware. Generally it's always possible to run linux, but much of the time is spent customizing the Linux distro to work on your specific piece of hardware. To support the multitudes of hardware (Audio, DVD, I/O, USB, CPU (single core, dual core, etc.), Mainboard, etc.) how could it be tiny? how could the support be free?
2. If the GoogleOS was itsy bitsy, would it do enough? This might be an argument for a thick-client operating system, but I need local system speeds (chiefly local storage for massive files), and applications that take advantage of hardware. Don't I? Sure, we may have Internet data transfer rates where Photoshop filter previews are displayed in the browser while all processing happens on a server somewhere. That would be intense. Not likely though. Not when the average consumer video camera shoots in HD (couple of years out, but on its way), and transcoding of video will happen locally and then shared via local servers or uploaded to some sharing service on the Web. Local processing required.
3. Hardware is purchased because of the applications it can run, and the way those applications take advantage of the hardware. Business apps, games, graphics applications and video playback, DVR capabilities, RAID configurations for workstation setups, etc. Many have strong local hardware requirements. I'm not much of a gamer (ouside my occasional 360 binge), but I know that if I was into graphical games, I would want the best. A browser cannot deliver that, not even in my server rendered photoshop filter preview utopia. I would need an OS that spoke directly with my hardware, woudln't I? And my games need access to the Internet for my friends and stats, etc. Why would I want (or need) two operating systems to do this?
4. Would Google use the Linux moniker if their GoogleOSinux didn't do everything a normal Linux distribution can do?
Posted by: Ben Long | December 20, 2006 11:49 PMI really enjoyed the article, but I still don't know about this mini OS. Maybe with controlled hardware, or in the mobile space only.
"If you think free support will be way too costly for Google, you are wrong. Because this will be such a small system, that the number of possible problems will be very limited."
1) We're talking about an OS, right? ;)
2) I would guess that the number of "possible problems" that need support has more to do with the size of the customer base than the size of the software. Even just a couple hundred bugs/problems would be rather costly when supporting a couple million users.
Posted by: doug | December 21, 2006 12:49 AMGreat Post..... and really good insights...
Posted by: Vishal | December 21, 2006 2:13 AMI think Google would need to up Linux's gaming power first.
its all very well saying that the OS is just the middleman to the internet but its not for gamers.
I think the google OS idea could work in poor countries but I just don't think rich countries need it.
Posted by: Darren Stuart | December 21, 2006 5:00 AMGoogle also hired Bram Moolenaar, the creator of the popular Vim editor (http://www.vim.org)
Posted by: Swaroop C H | December 21, 2006 5:36 AM"A portable, live thin client OS.. that has one sole purpose; opening up Firefox in full screen.. "
Hit F11.
Posted by: shadilac | December 21, 2006 6:44 AMI think that if such thing will happen, it will be soon.
But it seems that sooner or later, the desktop will leave way to the Internet, and the proposition of an OS that will be used only to access the Internet is something that will end up happening.
Don't you think that Google will leave somebody to do it, or perhaps give somebody the idea and then just support it the same way that they do with Firefox?
Posted by: Flammae Long | December 21, 2006 7:35 AMPerhaps all the hirings about Linux is to build their own network. Do they want to spend resources in creating a tool that will give them no direct revenue? Perhaps is just better wait and pick a winner.
"A new trend in Personal Computing is to market PDA appliances: the so-called Personal Digital Assistant. Because of the size of these computers this family is called: Palmtop, or handheld."
HP omnibook 100
http://www.thocp.net/timeline/1993.htm
The future for Orange could soon be Google in your pocket
"Their plans centre on a branded Google phone, which would probably also carry Orange's logo. The device would not be revolutionary: manufactured by HTC, a Taiwanese firm specialising in smart phones and Personal Data Assistants (PDAs), it might have a screen similar to a video iPod. But it would have built-in Google software which would dramatically improve on the slow and cumbersome experience of surfing the web from a mobile handset."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1973885,00.html
HTC UMPC revealed on web
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/21/htc_athena_revealed_on_web/
Posted by: Michael Molin | December 21, 2006 9:43 AMOn the contrary, there is every doubt that operating systems have become little more than a commodity in today's world. Your entire argument hinges on a generalization from server operating systems to desktop operating systems that is not a valid generalization:
Server OS != Desktop OS
While any operating system can support a browser, Microsoft controls the desktop hardware ecosystem in ways that are even more profound than their control of the productivity application market. Unless Google was able to convert and able to successfuly support the driver development of thousands of third party hardware manufacturers (including legacy hardware) from Windows to a Google OS, than the chances of Google providing a viable desktop alternative to Windows are nonexistent. Even Linux itself has made little progress converting this ecosystem.
Posted by: Jonathan Tregear | December 21, 2006 10:16 AMNice article. But I don't think Google would do this on a desktop, they would much rather tap the mobile device market with the thin-client OS that you speak of. And if that were something Java or even mobile-Linux based, Google would have a heck of an ace in the hole to supplant MS not on the desktop side of things (where presence is nice, but not king) but on the mobile side of things that is much more profitable, and much easier to lock folks in if done with cooperative carriers.
Posted by: Antoine of MMM | December 21, 2006 1:09 PMI think they will bring out an OS, I personally would have thought they would head in the direction of a web OS first, but maybe im wrong.
I honestly cant see them asking people to install a full operating system on their PC straight out, this is a hugh move for any average internet user, and would cause the world war 3 as far as microsoft are concerned.
I bet that if they come up with a full OS to install, they will slip in into the market slowly through PC distributers. Like that plan to built the $100 laptop for instance, and then move onto bigger fish such as dell etc, and have it as an option when you purchase a pc to get google/linux os for free or pay for windows. I think they will take a slow approach to this. You can never smoke too much crack I guess.
Posted by: Lenny | December 21, 2006 2:10 PMIn the 3rd part, we'll release the Google OS by ourselves :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 21, 2006 5:20 PMIf you must to fight vs M$, is not mandatory to fight vs. Windows. OS are almost irrelevant. Appications are the target as Google did with gmail. Make great apps and distribute for free is what Google is doing and will do.
Use more power of Internet, more global networking apps and Google will take an advantage. After all, M$ must spend resources developing Windows while Google don't.
On the other side, the revenue for M$ comes from sell apps. Fill the niche with really good, competitive and free software (as speech and as beer), and you cut it's air.
My bet is office tools (Google is doing that rigth now, no news here), and games, because almost every ppl use them but with heavy enphasis in Internet.
Pietro
Posted by: Better Net Applications is the answers | December 21, 2006 6:10 PMSure, Google won't build a public OS.
Posted by: cktesqo | December 21, 2006 6:42 PMAnd if with a 0.001% of chance it could be occur, it won't be based on linux. Rather an OS with native java support.
@cktesqo, Linux has native Java support since kernel 2.6.x; I mean it supports NPTL threads which make Java very efficient on Linux.. but if you mean a truly Java operating system, there's only one - in very early phase: JNode http://jnode.org
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 21, 2006 7:39 PMHmm... what you guys wrote make sense but I feel that for Google to come up with a OS on its own is still too far-fetching. I think that a tie-up between Google and a Linux distribution that isn't really strong in the desktop marketing , unlike Ubuntu or Suse, is a more likely scenario. I really would like to see Google comes up with a simple desktop similar to their search interface that is lightweight and friendly on internet-enabled portable devices. This is a better preposition.
Posted by: James | December 21, 2006 8:12 PM@Alex: Actually I was heavily influenced by Google's Firefox strategies while writing this Google article. Google loves to hide behind non-profits, because you can more easily promote them on your pages under the Google AdSense program.. For instance, if you are a non-profit web site, you can still promote Firefox, Linux or Wikipedia, but promoting.. say Windows or any other commercial product would not look honest, and people would not click that much..
And you, what do you think?
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 21, 2006 9:30 PM@Alex: Actually I was heavily influenced by Google's Firefox strategies while writing this Google article. Google loves to hide behind non-profits, because you can more easily promote them on your pages under the Google AdSense program.. For instance, if you are a non-profit web site, you can still promote Firefox, Linux or Wikipedia, but promoting.. say Windows or any other commercial product would not look honest, and people would not click that much..
And you, what do you think?
But this is actually a very large topic, we can make an article out of this :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 21, 2006 9:31 PMWe don't need a new OS from Google. What we need is fresh, new thinking about how a future desktop environment (which is what modern operating systems are) can support the kinds of things that folks spend time on these days: collaboration, people, finding information, getting news, entertaining themselves and being entertained. Microsoft claimed they were doing this with Vista, but I don't see it in the results. It's just a bunch of flashy graphics, none of the next-generation file system or people-integrated stuff they talked about in the press in the early 2000s.
The future won't be the same tired old battle of desktop versus browser, it will be something vastly more interesting and new that takes things in an orthogonal direction that wasn't expected. What this is I don't know, but I know it's out there ;)
Knowing Google, they might be able to do this. The problem is that there is a deep skill division; Apple deeply understands how to make world class OSes/desktop apps, but they have no understanding of the Web; Google is the opposite, they can make great web apps but their desktop apps stink and feel creaky. What we need is someone who understands both and can think beyond both.... Macromedia has this, but since being bought out by Adobe I think this has been watered down.
What will be the next big thing, just like the Web Browser knocked the Desktop from left-field in the early 90s, or the PC knocked the mainframe out in the early 80s... whatever it is, we won't be expecting it. I can't wait :)
Best,
Posted by: Brad Neuberg | December 21, 2006 9:43 PMBrad Neuberg
@shadilac: :) c'mon, it's pretty well feasible, see ByzantineOS
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 21, 2006 10:07 PMNice Article.
Goobuntu? may be, but limited edition only part of the SDK.
OS will thin down to an abstract layer (like BIOS) to make space to a virtualisation layer who will run the most appropriate gizmo layer for the (web)Application layer.
Applications like Firewall, anti-virus, print-manager would run at the OS layer (only if required)
I see more application ported to the web like G-mail and G-office, perhaps G-mount, G-clam, G-wall, even a new and improved G-earth which make uses of the GPS in your phone.
Merry New Year
Posted by: francois | December 22, 2006 6:02 AMWonderful post. Let's hope your prediction comes true!
Posted by: Fantababy | December 27, 2006 1:39 AM