Written by Emre Sokullu and edited by Richard MacManus.
There's no such thing as the GoogleOS in reality - but despite that, it is one of the most talked about Web products. People can't stop discussing it - and even imagining screenshots for it! Seems like everyone expects Google to get into direct competition with Microsoft, by releasing an operating system. However Google refuses such claims and even makes fun of this kind of buzz. Nevertheless we decided to analyze where Google may be heading with their product strategy - and from that determine what are the chances of a GoogleOS.
We see 3 scenarios for a GoogleOS:
We'll try to explain each of these in detail - then in the conclusion, make our prediction. What's more, we think this could be less than 6 months away from happening.
If you asked "what will a GoogleOS look like?" - most people would answer that it'll be an AJAX-powered copy of the Windows desktop. In other words, a WebOS (aka webtop). To remind you of what a WebOS is, it is basically a virtual desktop on the web and has various built-in applications. Google already has a history of producing web-based products that mimic desktop apps - Gmail was the first desktop client like email reader, and now they have Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Calendar and other desktop-like products. Also note that Google's internal open sourced widget toolset, GWT, allows them to replicate any desktop capability.
On the other hand, a bunch of startups like YouOS , Goowy, DesktopTwo, Xin and open source eyeOS are already tackling this exact problem - and have been for a while now. So if Google engineers are not already working on their own webOS project, they may want to snap up one of these! AJAX powered YouOS, which is a yet another Paul Graham investment, seems like the most obvious choice at this time.
Screenshot from YouOS
Besides the startups we've already mentioned, there may be other surprises that Google looks at for WebOS purposes. Meebo, for instance, has created a very large user base with their web-based meta instant messaging product (it enables you to use multiple IM services on the same webpage). IM is a crucial application, because many people spend a lot of time on the computer IM'ing. So Meebo could use IM as a base - and utilize the empty spaces on their page for new applications.
Meebo OS with fictional Calculator application (taken from YouOS)
30 Boxes also has a webtop offering, but it looks less promising than their calendar. Start pages like NetVibes, PageFlakes and WebWag could also potentially enter the webos business.
Another possibility for Google is to create their own Linux-based operating system. The free license of Linux allows anyone to create their own version of Linux. Although Linux is the most popular operating system in the server market and it's free, it is still far behind Windows and MacOS in the desktop market. Some believe this may change with the latest enhancements to the Linux user interface.
This scenario is a more traditional model to replace Windows - with a direct competitor, instead of creating a web-based replacement. Indeed this has already been widely speculated - Ubuntu, a semi-free Linux derivative, was rumored to be acquired by Google.
If this scenario happened, Google may open up their operating system as a free download and promote it on their homepage - as they once did with Firefox. They could also make a networked file system the default, instead of the complex UNIX file hierarchy of Linux - which is another reason why Linux struggles in the mainstream desktop market.
A lightweight Linux distro is a possibility. For example an OS that simply booted up the computer, connected to the internet, and then opened Firefox. Then leave the rest to Google's web sites and apps. This is possibly the most logical strategy, because Google could then create a homepage that connects all their services and applications - and people will have the freedom to use other web sites and services as well.
Similar concepts already exist. For instance, Puppy and Damn Small are 2 credit card sized Linux distros. The good thing about these is that you can carry them everywhere you go - putting the credit card sized CD or the USB drive into your pocket and using your own operating system anywhere you go. Why? Because these distributions don't need to be installed and can work directly from the CD or the USB drive.
ByzantineOS, a dead project now, was doing exactly this. Its sole purpose was to boot up and open a Mozilla based window manager - but then you could not get out of your browser window!
A screenshot of ByzantineOS, showing the user stuck inside the browser
However, Google may be considering an even more radical solution and planning to replace BIOS with their own version. BIOS means 'basic input/output system' and it is the built-in software that determines what a computer can do - for example it controls the keyboard and display screen. Google's latest sponsorship of LinuxBIOS may be a step towards researching this. In that case, Google could agree with hardware vendors to pre-install Google's BIOS-based operating system.
We believe that everything will become much clearer in the following 6 months. Microsoft will put pressure on Google with its Vista OS, which will receive relatively high adoption just like any other new Windows release (although probably not as high as historically Microsoft has enjoyed!). As Vista's adoption increases, so will the adoption of its default search engine Live Search. From Microsoft's perspective, this will have a positive effect on all Live and MSN sites. What end users are looking for is ease-of-use and satisfactory experiences - which in a lot of cases starts from the Vista OS.
In that scenario, Google's usage rates may be negatively affected. So we predict at that point, Google will start a more punchy strategy - pushing Firefox and some form of Google OS. Yahoo! has already responded to the Microsoft threat in a friendly fashion, by offering a customized IE7 for its users. But we think Google will be more aggressive and competitive and will push their own OS. The GoogleOS may be a reality within 6 months!
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: GoogleOS: What To Expect.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2873
Read/Write Web has some rampant speculation up this morning on the potential for an operating system offering to come from Google. This isn't a particularly new thought. I think I agree with Scoble--clearly it's a slow news day; although the answer to Read More
I know, a predictable (almost tabloid-y) blog headline. But in this case, there really is some interesting back and forth going on between Microsoft and Google currently - especially with regards to office software. Firstly Google CEO Eric Schmidt... Read More
There has been quite some discussion going on over at my favourite blog Read/Write Web following Emre Sokullu's article GoogleOS: What to expect. I believe that, regardless of the much criticized misapprehension of Ubuntu's open source character, Emre'... Read More
Well our post this week about GoogleOS led to some vigorous and fascinating discussion in Read/WriteWeb. 87 mostly thoughtful comments were left here, plus many more on Slashdot and Digg. To get a final, more succinct, picture of whether R/WW... Read More
–ü–æ –º–Ω–µ–Ω–∏—é –∞–≤—Ç–æ—Ä–∞ —?—Ç–∞—Ç—å–∏ –Ω–∞—? –æ–∂–∏–¥–∞–µ—Ç –ø–æ—?–≤–ª–µ–Ω–∏–µ GoogleOS –≤ —Ç–æ–º –∏–ª–∏ –∏–Ω–æ–º –≤–∏–¥–µ –Ω–∞ –ø—Ä–æ—Ç—?–∂–µ–Ω–∏–∏ –±–ª–∏–∂–∞–π—à–∏—Ö 6 –º–µ—?—?—Ü–µ–≤. –ó–∞–æ–¥–Ω–æ –æ–ø–∏—?—ã–≤–∞—é—Ç—?—? —Ç—Ä–∏ –Ω–∞–∏–±–æ–ª–µ–µ ... Read More
But their big premise is that Google is centainly interested in OS. Do you think is it plausible for Google to develop and publish its own version of OS in 2007? Read More
I have been keeping an eye on Google from time to time, it's really one of the biggest players on the net. The idea of a GoogleOS has come up so many times, just saw another analysis on how it could... Read More
Spotted on the Google homepage today, using the IE browser, was this blazing advertisement for Firefox: (click image for full screenshot) While Google has advertised Firefox on its homepage before, it was a co-promotion of Firefox with the Google Toolb... Read More
Written by Richard MacManus, Ebrahim Ezzy, Emre Sokullu, Alex Iskold and Rudy De Waele. Also John Milan wanted to contribute, but unfortunately got caught up in the Seattle storm - so best wishes to John and all our Seattle readers.... Read More
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... Read More
It's a light posting week here on R/WW - but for those of you not out enjoying the xmas/new year break, here is a list of Read/WriteWeb's most popular posts in 2006. This is according to our server logs. But... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
None of your 3 assumptions is true, but it's a sum up of it. Read here about what the googleOS really is
Posted by: anon | November 21, 2006 9:55 PMhttp://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14129
Google OS for laptops or desktops? You are smoking good crack. What are they more likely going to do? I write that here: http://scobleizer.com/2006/11/21/what-to-do-when-youre-bored-talk-about-google-os/
Posted by: Robert Scoble | November 21, 2006 10:04 PMI wonder if Google will go with Linux because of all the political fuss kicked up by GPL. Why wouldn't it used one of the BSDs instead, which have far more free licenses? I mean, it worked for Apple...
The important thing here is to get hardware vendors aboard such an undertaking. You need a flexible license for that.
Posted by: Juha | November 21, 2006 10:31 PMWhat's the real legacy of windows? Confusing webtops with an OS. Of course, any OS needs an user interface. But if there will be such a thing as a Google Web OS, it's closest relative might be Amazon's Web Services: a framework for storing and shuffling data.
Posted by: hubert | November 22, 2006 12:10 AMI can't see any reason your average user would want to go with option 2 or 3 - i.e. replace their existing operating system, along with all their applications. This has always been the problem with Linux (most potential users already have a computer with Windows and Office, so a free version of Office isn't a killer move - at least until they upgrade).
If they could sell it on to hardware vendors, that would be another matter. Google have a brand with good reputation, that I expect that even lending the Google brand name to an existing Linux distribution would have value. (Consider a Dell consumer presented with options of Vista, Google OS, or Ubuntu - even if the last two are the same product).
I suspect they'll just carry on with their web apps, and perhaps open more APIs to let people develop on top of those. More of an SOA than an operating system.
Posted by: JulesLt | November 22, 2006 12:23 AMGoogle OS is indeed a part of the "Web 3.0" vision for many people. I'm sure that whatever direction it takes, it will revolutionize the OS industry. I've seen a post already calling the Google OS "Tabs", as a take-off on "Windows"...
Posted by: Letan | November 22, 2006 1:32 AMHere it is:
http://www.quazen.com/Computers/Internet/Web-3.0-%E2%80%93-The-Future-Is-Almost-Here.3775
The trick is in syncing the WebOS with local data. We at http://eyeOS.org are working on something on those lines, so in the future you should be able to type something in your laptop in a plane that automatically goes to your personal account in the servers once you are back to a connected PC.
Posted by: hombrelobo | November 22, 2006 1:36 AMFolks, please read one more time, I don't claim Google is preparing some sort of GoogleOS, I just try to analyze GoogleOS possibilities - this is something that everyone speculates.
And I finish up the article by expressing my opinion - which is: Vista will make too much pressure on Mountain View and Google will end up with a radical solution as always - a "BIOS-miniPortableLiveFirefoxLinuxOS" model that will be promoted on their homepage.
I can't understand how some of you can be so confident; none of us can know, unless he is actually Sergey Brin, Larry Page or any other Google executive :)
@Juha; BSD - GPL won't make any problem here, Google won't need to close source it, just dispatch Vista's pressure
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 2:35 AMI don't often flame but...
Your suggestion of a google bios brings into question your understanding of what a BIOS. You can learn all about them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS
Ubuntu is not semi free it is entirely free as is it's parent OS Debian and is run by a foundation not a company. It is possible you may be confusing it with other 'semi free' Linux variations such as Mandriva/SuSe/Red Hat.
The notion that desktop users choose an operating system based on it's filing system is ridicules also ext3 is easily of a much better design than ntfs. Also, not all distributions of Linux use the same filing system and there are many which use nfs etc as their default or only choice, this is the reason why we have some 300 Linux distributions.
Posted by: pikmin | November 22, 2006 3:27 AMSorry. You are misinformend. Ubuntu is already fully free.
Posted by: wouter | November 22, 2006 3:30 AMNot sure what you mean whan you say that Ubuntu is only semi-free... in my understanding, Ubuntu is a free distro, much like Fedora or Suse. It only includes non-free packages in a more transparent way than say ... Debian does.
See the recent debate in the Ubuntu community whether or not the Nvidia binaries should be included or not...
(note : I am not using Ubuntu but Fedora and Debian)
Posted by: Cyborg | November 22, 2006 3:33 AMThis was a good blog. What happened?
Posted by: Alen | November 22, 2006 3:45 AMYou are nuts. Google is not going to waste money doing that. They are expecting Ubuntu to do their dirty work. Google gives a lot of money to FLOSS, so I expect they continue to support it, but only that, cause Microsoft is not that big a threat for them.
Posted by: Markus Sorensson | November 22, 2006 4:33 AMHey....
Posted by: Bala | November 22, 2006 4:40 AMNice cook up...But Google havnt released anything yet as so...
Honestly, google does alot of applications. But none of these applications are big serious handles to be delt with. Competing with Microsoft in its homegrounds wouldn't be the smartest thing to do if you ask me.
Posted by: Razr | November 22, 2006 5:11 AMLet google stick to what their good at.
I don't see how you people go off saying this nonsense. There isn't even proof that there is a googleOS project even for testing purposes..
There are tons of companies out there with the resources to make an operating system. It's absurd and juvenile that these little kids keep going on the internet and posting this stuff. Go read a fucking book. Go to college. Talk about something you know instead of making these ridiculous hypothesis. Jesus christ.
Posted by: John Glasseur | November 22, 2006 5:27 AMWell, I've been working on my own online desktop for about 2 years now, it's very stable but I still have to market it.. I just hope that the googleOS won't kill the market :) Although, I am sure that even though the GWT makes a zillion lines of code and a lot of text to transfer, Google is going to make yet another good product...... perhaps an xml interface to access what is on each and everyone's desktop so you can display things from your desktop on your personal website ;-)
Posted by: David Coallier | November 22, 2006 5:33 AMThere is a 4th scenario...
An Xpcom/XULRunner based desktop that sits on top of an existing OS/window manager and is in between traditional desktop OS and pure web-based OS.
That can optionally bundled with a thin Linux base + X + window manager to create a full OS, but it can also work on any platform on which Firefox runs by either replacing the desktop environment or coexisting with it (simply managing googleOs apps). It is a light-weight combination that gives a lot of options.
In particular such OS will include a local webserver (and probably a web-framework), so that applications are XUL files generated by the local webserver and/or a remote webserver and/or a mix both. Information is synced between local and remote server so that bookmarks, emails, docs are stored locally as well as remotely and data can optionally be shared with other users.
This way you will be able to access your desktop from any PC with firefox/xulrunner or download. If there is no firefox you should be able to download a 15/20MB package and "install" the OS...
Posted by: Ago | November 22, 2006 6:01 AMLinux is far behind Mac OS in the desktop? Since when???
Take another look bud, last time I checked Ubuntu was waaaay ahead of OSX.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+osx&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
Sorry to tell all you Mac retards, but Mac is actually going down since the switch to Intel.
Posted by: Bill Smith | November 22, 2006 6:23 AMOne of the reasons why GoogleOS is rumoured is because Google modified a Linux distribution called Ubuntu for its internal company use. The modified form is known as Goobuntu and is not in any way meant for public distribution. Read all about it here:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-rpccJRUwda_TuU2Z4ujI0nb94g--?cq=1
Posted by: Anirudh Koul | November 22, 2006 6:51 AMGoogleOS. The idea has been around for a long while and it still hasn't happened.
http://webword.com/moving/googleclient.html (written over 5 years ago)
Posted by: Matthew Oliphant | November 22, 2006 7:00 AMI wonder why nobody mentioned Parakey yet. They are going to release such a webbased OS. And they are not some weirdos, 'cause Blake Ross is behind it. Read the interview in IEEE Spectrum: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov06/4696
Posted by: Martin Muehl | November 22, 2006 7:21 AMThe next big thing is a "data everywhere" environment... An environment that will allow you to seamlessly access data no matter which platform or device you are on... Kind of like an external HDD for all devices.
After that "phase" is complete, a user could theoretically install (or interact with) an OS onto that said platform. That OS would be capable of interacting with each and everyone of your devices, distributing applications and managing configurations (i.e. a social network built into your TiVo).
That could eventually lead to an "everything is connected" environment, where you can control everything from your coffee pot brewing schedule to your shopping lists generated by a refrigerator, to future iRobots that pull a config file 50 years down the road.
The next 10 years is going to be really interesting...
Posted by: Anon2 | November 22, 2006 7:34 AMWhat kind of nonsense are you sprouting, there been rumors yes, but why vista? I don't even think Google cares about vista why should they anyway?
It's still hard to imagine with screenshots or not.
Posted by: Allen | November 22, 2006 7:43 AM> Gmail was the first desktop client like email reader
Umm, hotmail was a desktop client like email reader and it came well before Gmail.:) A little research would be nice!
Posted by: Chris | November 22, 2006 7:47 AMI simply don't see GoogleOS in the near future. I think it is almost certain that Google Desktop for Vista will be a pretty amazing thing and it will remove any threat Live search could make to Google.
Posted by: leto | November 22, 2006 7:51 AMGoogle won't create a new OS because they don't want for people to get a bad impression from Google. Let's face it, if Windows was perfect people wouldn't hate microsoft. Linux and Mac OS aren't perfect either and you'll find people that hate them because they became frustrated by some stupid thing the OS did at some point.
The truth is that people love the google search engine and to some point gmail too. Google won't risk giving a bad image all its products because of some guys inside the company that don't like microsoft.
the interesting thing about this (however remote) possibility would be that they could, say, for instance, bundle an application for, oh, say.. donating a percentage of otherwise unused computer cycles and hard drive space. GOOGLE IS HUNGRY! FEED GOOGLE MORE FLOPS!!
Posted by: Leigh | November 22, 2006 7:51 AMAnother approach might be a remote OS, from their Gmail drive.
Posted by: Rene | November 22, 2006 7:54 AMThey build a new system (from linux?) and what the bootloader did was: Connecting to the Gmail drive, load the remote desktop and you have a local OS, on a remote drive.
But a few things that must be solved:
gmail space must be upgraded to insane amounts of diskspace.
You need very fast and reliable/stable connection, both download and upload.
You would need a extra secure tunneling and auth system to connect to the remoteOS.
This is just an idea you might be able to play around with, since they allready got the Gmail drive, you can upload to.
Leigh;
I've thought about that, but also including HDD storage. Basically, it's a grid that makes your data 100% accessible... You "share" as much as you "store", so you can't have people leaching. The files are broken up, encrypted in 128-bits, and distributed across all HDD's in the grid (with 10 to 20 failovers in case a HDD is down). If you have a grid of 1K people, a 500MB file would take up 5MB on each HDD (with 10 failovers). Since it's a give/take share structure, you would then be sharing 500MB of space on your HDD. The benefit is, your data is always "on" and it's free.
Rene;
That's another solution, but why limit it to just Gmail? What if I want it on Amazon, Streamload, LiveDrive? I don't like limiting my "hard drive" to just one company.
Posted by: Anon2 | November 22, 2006 8:03 AMi've been waiting (and called it) for a long time now. i think google is biding their time to create something both unique and enticing for people to use.
it will be a dagger in the heart of MS, for sure..
Posted by: aop | November 22, 2006 8:06 AMGreat Ideas but if you are really looking at the technology you have to look at the main problem. offline/online apps... if Google teams with firefox and adobe they can create flash apps that sync the online apps with offline apps/data. it is a win win win and loss for Windows. This will free you up to work on documents offline...email/blog/documents and then when you have internet access it will sync up and you can collaborate with others or publish your work. I have already seen a calendar app where you can update events offline and as soon as you log on you are synced up with the net version.
Posted by: Lost Damery | November 22, 2006 8:26 AMThis is the future...Google + Firefox + Adobe= Functionality
Honestly, I think this is 100% hype. While Google would like to turn the tide to a more open and free operating system such as Linux, they aren't going to be creating their own distro anytime soon. If you forget the simple idea that it takes years for this stuff to get off the ground, you still are left with a very faulty base. The idea of running an entire OS on the web is very stupid. Nobody likes waiting 2 seconds for their web search to finish, let alone when they are waiting for their GUI to respond w/ a simple calculator. There is a great waste in network usage when your sending an entire GUI as well as the data. Luckily, Google wouldn't be stupid enough to make the GUI on the webbrowser, such as their common AJAX apps. If GoogleOS were to have any chance, you would have to separate the GUI (client/user side) from the data (server/google side). Even though you could do just this without too much pain in Java, to really efficiently create an application you would need specially built libraries (a Google GUI API if you will) which would be a daunting task to create and take even more time... time that Google looks not to have.
I would not be the ltoo bit surprised if we saw a GoogleOS in the next 5-7 years, however I would bet on it being an OS for a mobile device such as a smart phone, and not as a full featured desktop. This would be much easier to develop, create and test, and while your resources are more constrained on a mobile device, so is your domain, which simplifies things greatly (such as your almost guaranteed a data connection now a days).
What google needs to do to promote Linux is specialize it. This would consist of developing apps for Linux first, and not last. This would promote the use of Linux, which would without a doubt help their own business. I would love for Google to prove me wrong and create an amazing GoogleOS, but I don't think it will happen, at least not anytime soon.
Posted by: Andrew Younge | November 22, 2006 8:53 AMWhat is the true benefit of a web-based operating system, in reality? Is it because it's "cross platform"? I don't know many people that are using multiple PC's and need cross-platform capability. Is it the fact that your data is on any system you utilize? Again, I don't know many nomad computer users that roam from PC to PC.
I think it boils down to having accessibility across many devices. People HAVE many devices and need to easily get data from one device to the other. Microsoft is seriously lacking in that department, because every device has to run Microsoft in order to work.
Posted by: Anon2 | November 22, 2006 8:59 AM@wouter, free as in beer, but still has tight commercial connections (with Mark Shuttleworth), not **as** independent as Debian for instance.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 9:07 AMWhat is the economic or functional problem that is driving the operating system off the desktop? I get the feeling that people think Ellison and McNealy were just ahead of their time; meanwhile all the stuff that supports the desktop O/S just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, while the costs of replicating what it does grow higher. The average consumer can get half a terabyte of disk for the cost of two fill-ups for the Escalade. Processor cycles and disk space are incredibly cheap at the consumer level, and getting cheaper. Given security concerns, the massive costs of replicating the whole code and support infrastructure from the BIOS up, and the fact that bandwidth is still far more limited outside the walls of my house than inside, what is driving the guts of the operating system off my desktop? The future answer may be mobility and small devices. But as long as there is a desktop at home to anchor everything we do, and there will be for a long time to come, then Windows remains the de facto standard. If web-delivered apps ever really threaten Microsoft's dominance they will give Office away free to every person on earth. They could do that tomorrow. The "network is the computer" was wrong ten years ago, and it's still wrong. The network is the wires. The computer is still the computer.
Posted by: Mark | November 22, 2006 9:16 AMIf the laptop.org sub $100 laptop becomes reality and could run some kind of lightweight os + firefox with google aps then a google OS would be interesting but a javascript heavy ajax/google ap requires a decent CPU and on more expensive hardware a free google OS cant compete that easily with MS.
Posted by: $100 laptop.org | November 22, 2006 9:25 AMI for one don't really care about Google OS. If Gtalk's interface is anything to go by... It's going to be crap.
I prefer Linux/Windows/OS X anyday, thank you.
Posted by: Ryan | November 22, 2006 9:30 AM@Cyborg, Debian belongs to non-profit Debian Foundation, similar to Eclipse, Mozilla etc... But Ubuntu is being developed by Mark Shuttleworth's Canonical Systems; in that sense, it's no different than OpenSuse or Fedora..
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 9:41 AMI don't know how many of your remember back in '99 there was a website called www.WebOS.com. The author since has sold his other creation hyperoffice, and they bought rights to this domain.
But I found a new group called Goowy.com which has created a nice interface. I honestly think it's a good foundation for a Google OS. Check it out some time.
Posted by: Zen | November 22, 2006 9:45 AM"Also note that Google's internal open sourced widget toolset, GWT, allows them to replicate any desktop capability."
Why would you write things like this? There are many things GWT can't 'replicate', and I doubt google has ever made a claim like yours. Your whole post kind of depends on what is possible and what google has the tech for, but at least for the web parts, I don't think you have a clue.
Posted by: drew | November 22, 2006 9:50 AMJESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!! It's impossible for a web os!
Posted by: Jackson | November 22, 2006 9:59 AMAn operating system manages hardware, and external devices. No matter how good your 'Ajax' skills are, you won't be able to do any of that. What is this .. ?! It's like in the future we'll all pay for the lisense for a microsoft web os, where all processing is offloaded to them. Eh, like we're going back to dumb-terminals.
@drew, so you mean GWT doesn't allow you to make desktop app like GUIs and functionalities, did you check the APIs really?
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 9:59 AMIf you look at the URL I posted (i.e. click my name) you can see an essay I wrote about the subject and the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. What are your thoughts on a web pad stile Google OS?
Posted by: ThoughtFix | November 22, 2006 10:05 AM:s/stile/style. Grr. you can tell it's the day before a long weekend.
Posted by: ThoughtFix | November 22, 2006 10:06 AMI'm not sure a WebOS is the best tactic for Google or any company at this point. US internet connectivity sucks balls. I don't know any CTOs for major companies that would even consider putting any of their workforce 'online' to get the job done.
Google has been a pioneer with online tools but a web based operating system just doesn't seem like a smart move to me.
Posted by: Ryan | November 22, 2006 10:23 AMAre you an idiot. Google OS. C'mon.
Posted by: GoogleAvenger | November 22, 2006 10:27 AMI wasn't going to jump in to this debate because people are obviously in a bad mood today, but let me make one quick point -- the trend these days has been verticals. The "everything to everyone" services are not succeeding, see yahoo's peanut butter memo. If I want a calculator, I won't go to Goowy or some other web os, I'll go to a calculator program/service. If I want email, I won't go to Zoho or some other web office suite, I'll go to an email program/service, etc. These things are neat to play with, but I find it hard to believe they will ever be "substitutes" in the economic sense of the word, because they are not centers of excellence for that specific need. I will always prefer the service that meets my needs, not the one that packages everything in one place.
Thus, Google won't make an OS because they don't need one. It gives them no competitive advantage over Microsoft to start managing drivers and crap, they could always make a program to run in windows that serves adsense if they wanted to.
Posted by: shadilac | November 22, 2006 10:35 AM@ "Bill Smith":
You're using bogus and irrelevant information to support a your claim.
Your information is irrelevent because you cannot measure which OS is ahead by simply looking at google search results. There is some correlation, but you are not measuring what you purport to be measuring.
Your information is bogus because you misspell "OS X", which deflates the results. It is interesting that it gets as many results as it does, which shows that a lot of people are misspelling it, but add to that "OS X" and you'll see the results more than double.
Just exactly how these results relate to position of the operating systems is a matter that could be debated, and the debate might be interesting, if not for the fact that you decide to tell all Mac users that they are retards. In other words, it might be worth discussing, if not for the fact that you are an ass.
That's you personally, not all Linux users, or all Windows users, or all VAX users, etc. Just you.
Posted by: Brandon Z | November 22, 2006 10:42 AMI think that what Google can do is to host some form of remote sessions with technology like Linux Terminal Server
or
remote OS build on top of VDI infrastructure
What do you think?
Posted by: aca | November 22, 2006 10:44 AMHave you forgotten about Google Desktop? It's called that for a reason. Google has released API's for Calendar, Docs & Spreadsheets. They also have released a mobile JAVA client for GMail. They're just a couple GD super-widgets away from supplanting MS Office and Vista built-in search with one program: Google Desktop.
Posted by: Brock | November 22, 2006 11:03 AMAs a developer of one of the first Web OS out there, its nice to know that people are considering a Web Based Operating System as a reality. But it also hurts to see why everyone thinks that it would be, or rather should be Google that takes it upon itself to bring out a Web OS to take on Microsoft Windows. When Sun came out with the punchline The Network is the Computer, did they think that people would expect Google to fulfill this, rather dramatic statement? No, because Google did not exist back then. So rather than Google, why can't it be a new entrant, that fulfills this prophecy? I will tell you why. Because Google is the Media Darling at the moment. Like Midas, everything it touches turns to gold. So everyone expects the Web OS revolution to be led by Google. But what if Google is simply not interested? Or what if there already are Web OSes out their worth their salt? What if the Network ALREADY is the computer?
I am sure Emre must have done a pretty good research before posting this blog. Maybe he read scores of articles, tested the existing Web OSes, and then decided to declare Google as the potential savior of them all. However, it escapes me, how he managed to overlook the Web OS that already encompasses most of his speculations about the GoogleOS. I am talking about ORCA Desktop. Agreed, I being one of the developers of the same, am bound to be prejudiced towards our product. That's why I have chosen to take your own speculations and compare them with our product.
Your scenarios:
1. A complete Web OS
I will just state the features of ORCA Desktop.
You can access your Personal Webtop from anything that has a browser. Be it windows, linux, mac or anything. If it can open websites, it can probably open your ORCA Desktop.
1) A web based desktop with Beta #1 ready at www.orcadesktop.com - with a Beta #2 soon to be launched
2) Applications like Meebo, Zoho Office, along with more than 30 games (Diablo, The lost vikings, Doom, Warcraft, Simcity and many more) are integrated in ORCA Desktop already.
3) Furthermore, at ORCA we are working with some brand new ideas:
- My ORCA
My ORCA will be an "overview" application, that will show you how many mails you have, what pages you last
visited, last opened documents, last search words, to do list, calendar overview etc.
- Communication system
It will work as a global communication system allowing people to communicate using ICQ, MSN etc.
- File Manager (front-end to File System)
- File system
API for connecting different kind of file systems together for storage, like pop3/imap/gmail/localfs/serverfs etc.
- Antivirus Handles mal-ware related issues, scanning of files etc.
But whatever I say here, will not change your mind if you already have formed an opinion about Web OS. For the open minded, here are a few screenshots taken recently. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.
http://www.orcawebos.com/shots/personal-interface-in-orcadesktop.com.jpg
http://www.orcawebos.com/shots/games-in-orcadesktop.com.jpg
http://www.orcawebos.com/shots/meebo-zoho-in-orcadesktop.com.jpg
2. & 3. A Linux Distro
You said it, we have it. Orczilla, our own Linux Distribution boots up into a web browser (Firefox) using which you can log onto your ORCA Desktop. So you don't even need an existing base system to access your online WebTop. Or if you prefer your existing OS to access the WebTop, that works fine too. Its just a matter of choice, and we strive to provide you a plenty of them.
So call it a Web OS, a WebTop, an online storage system, a geek toy, or anything else, the fact is that many ideas and speculations that you have about the GoogleOS are already a reality at ORCA.
To make my point more clear, to make this post I booted into the Orczilla Live CD, logged into my ORCA Desktop, composed this post using the ZOHO Writer and all the while chatting with my fellow developers over meebo, all within the ORCA Desktop. And there is no reason why you too, using a basic $100 PC can enjoy most, if not all the benefits of a complete Operating System. And someone a few comments back said that the Network will never be the computer. It already is.
Nipun Jain
Posted by: Nipun Jain | November 22, 2006 11:11 AMDeveloper, ORCA Desktop
http://orcadesktop.com
@aca, thanx for the nice proposition; that's what we tried to do exactly, investigating any GoogleOS possibilities..
I've found your idea brilliant; it's somehow similar to my 3rd proposition though. A lightweight OS, maybe even just a BIOS with a web tier. I didn't mention about the web tier in detail but with VMI, you enlighten it, thanx! Perhaps, Google may want acquire VMware for this, who knows..
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 11:56 AM@Nipu, sounds great! but please don't blame me, you should increase awareness of your product, I think. it's the first time I hear about it. Will definitely test it now..
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 12:24 PMYes, that's why we are starting here. Just wait for Beta #2. I bet you will be pleasantly delighted (psst...do a story on us...psst). I don't know where you got to know about the other Web OSes from, but if you look around, you might find a reference or two here and there. And if you compare with other products, well, lets just results speak for themselves.
Posted by: Nipun Jain | November 22, 2006 12:41 PMNipun,
But what are the core benefits of using a web-based operating system (or more correctly, "environment")? Why should I open up ORCA Desktop, login to Read/Write Web, and then author a post? Why not just open Firefox and go straight to Read/Write Web? Can you directly support my peripherals (mouse, keyboard, USB stick, etc.)? Can I install a game such as Far Cry?
Those are the questions that I am seeking answers to.
I just can't stress enough that I think the core problem trying to be solved with the Web OS movement is portability of data. If that truly *is* the problem, then I think a Web OS is far off the mark. I mean, why not just use a web-drive and then install an application into the said web-drive? That's portability at its most.
Posted by: Anon2 | November 22, 2006 1:40 PMNipun, why would I want to play a video game in my web browser? I must be missing something. That can't be the second best reason to use your service. A webOS is a neat toy, but I don't understand the value it adds for serious people. However my mind is open if Nipun can make a case.
Personally, I would rather just have bookmarks to best-in-breed services... I don't need some Web OS to load Zoho Office or any other web-based service. You know how I maintain portability today? I email myself stuff. I also just start using the notepad feature in Yahoo mail... Does Orca add any value greater then email and notepad?
Nipun, by the way, I've been trying to load your desktop demo and it just sits at the loading page forever. And it doesn't support Opera.
Posted by: shadilac | November 22, 2006 1:57 PMI've been using digg.com for a while, and I noticed that you allow your user's to 'digg' your article. I would like to introduce you to www.contentpop.com . contentpop allows users to create 'communities' enabling users to post several related topics under one heading. This makes social networking much easier and is a true breakthrough for Web 2.0. Come check out some of the content that the site offers and leave some feedback.
Posted by: GusterFan | November 22, 2006 2:01 PMYour article is full of inaccuracies and misunderstood technical facts such as:
"GWT, allows them to replicate any desktop capability."
Any desktop capability? come on! Mature toolkits such as Cocoa, Qt4, wxWidgets and many other can do things you can't dream doing within a browser. And for a reason... I wouldn't want a browser to take complete control of my machine. I want it to display document, using as less memory and cpu cycles as possible.
"Ubuntu, a semi-free Linux derivative, was rumored to be acquired by Google."
Ubuntu is completely free and cannot be acquired.
"They could also make a networked file system the default, instead of the complex UNIX file hierarchy of Linux"
Linux filesystem in itself is not more complex than any other OS. And idea of a "default networked filesystem" is total bullshit, what if the network is down? can you boot your computer or edit your freaking docs?
Please do not pollute the web with this kind of idiocy.
Posted by: Flavio | November 22, 2006 2:07 PM@Flavio
Wake up my friend, Mark Shuttleworth doesn't spend millions, send you free copies of Ubuntu for nothing, Ubuntu is not Mozilla, Eclipse or Gnome - where there are established non-profit foundations supported not just volunteers but also by several huge companies like IBM, Sun, Google.. You're acting like a fanboy. Mark Shuttleworth can sell Ubuntu - at least sell Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, and then you can see what remains after.. Debian..
As for GWT.. No one claims it's the same as Qt4 or Cocoa or whatever; but you can replicate the desktop capabilities and do whatever you want, right? Give it a try and see...
UNIX file hierarchy not more complex than any other OS? Then why Linux fails against Windows, you think.. It's perfect right, the only reason is that people are stupid! Wake up bro, don't be a zealot.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 2:38 PMWell, I don't think the FS has anything to do with the user adoption in the Linux world... I think it has more to do with limited choice and little compatibility. Questions my mom would ask;
1) Does it need to be installed (an OS)
2) Will my applications run on it?
3) How fast can I reverse to Windows if I don't like it?
Windows seems to answer all of those questions, which is how the barrier is formed. A quick and simple OS that's embedded on a USB drive or buffered from a web-based storage account knocks down two of those barriers. The compatibility issue is what we're left with.
I do agree though, that Windows and Linux both have crappy filesystem management. I would really like to see a database filesystem or something like the proposed WinFS that Microsoft scrapped.
Posted by: Anon2 | November 22, 2006 3:35 PMGoogle might want to offer a desktop for the same reason they offer a office suit - to cater to the notion that they are infact taking on a market section that previously belonged almost exclusivly to microsoft.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 22, 2006 4:48 PMPerception is everything!
Their shares are raking high right now, at the same time this blog is being published - not that there is a connection in the sense you might think, but the timing IS relevant.
Secondly, there are many good reasons why there should be a desktop(y) interface - namely for the exact same reasons it was introduced to begin with.
It's a design/interface decision.
It will make it easier for Google (and/or others) to offer a coherent overview of all their services on one page in a flexible and workable way, that expands on the old portal style solution that many feels is old news and which simply doesn't work as well any more.
Combining the above observation and solving Googles growing pains on how to best collect all their services on one page is something that might trigger this move.
"It will make it easier for Google (and/or others) to offer a coherent overview of all their services"
You mean a site map and a Google pack? What was that saying... Keep it simple...something...
"expands on the old portal style solution that many feels is old news and which simply doesn't work as well any more"
More of a bad thing doesn't make it good. The problem with the "old portal style solution" as you put it was not a lack of options, links and content.
Posted by: shadilac | November 22, 2006 5:10 PMWhy do so many folks think a place like Google would be wasting so much time trying to reinvent the wheel? Microsoft doesn't need any competitors to destroy them, they've been doing a pretty good job of that for decades now. This GoogleOS idea? LameOS indeed.
Posted by: Chirsten | November 22, 2006 5:44 PM"You mean a site map and a Google pack? What was that saying... "
No, that was not my point - it's an 'and' there that shouldn't be there :-) and that makes it less than simple.
No, I refer to the fact that you would want to drag'n drop data from one app to another, from one window/app/frame to another, which you cannot do today, and which makes the apps kinda sucky to many of us.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 22, 2006 5:47 PM"More of a bad thing doesn't make it good. The problem with the "old portal style solution" as you put it was not a lack of options, links and content."
Your own site, http://wwww.feedbite.com, feels a tad bit ironic considering the above comment too.. ;-)
"Why do so many folks think a place like Google would be wasting so much time trying to reinvent the wheel?"
Uhmm.. Unlike an online spreadsheet or an online word or an online email client or an online calendar or.. basically every app you'll find on a desktop..??
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 22, 2006 5:54 PMFor those interested, it's supposed to be http://www.feedbite.com , I just copied the link directly from the commenter himself without checking it, and he had added an extra 'w' to the 'www'.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 22, 2006 6:04 PM- It's a cool site though.(^-^)b
What is Google interested in? Advertising and data mining. Advertising everywhere: internet, print, mobile devices, radio, games, TV... Google will become the biggest advertising agency in the world.
Posted by: Dimitar Vesselinov | November 22, 2006 7:07 PMRemember years ago there was something out called WebOS...as well as a few other ones, so we'll see if we get to that point again as now DSL, etc are everywhere!
Posted by: WebOS | November 22, 2006 7:25 PMI consider buzz like this akin to the rumour that Paul McCartney had died and was replaced on the Sargent Peppers Album cover.
Of course Google has an operating system. Everybody knows that. It's called banks and banks of rack mounted datacenters with server-side web apps.
Why on earth would Google want to go into direct competition with Microsoft for a desktop OS? They are already making money hand over fist carving out their own empire with their online web operating system.
Then again we can always wish. But that is all it is - wishful thinking. Bill Gate's vision was a computer on every desktop with a copy of Windows on it. Google's vision is a web OS for everyone that has an internet connection.
It's pure genius.
Posted by: Blog Bloke | November 22, 2006 8:02 PMAs he's going "through the mill" right now, maybe McCartney wishes he had been "peppered out" way back. Will you still need me, will you still feed me when I'm 64?
Posted by: Kevin | November 22, 2006 8:16 PMEl Papa
Mikael Bergkvist -- Hey man, if you knew where we are going with feedbite I'm sure you would be trying to befriend me right now ;) I know it's all in good fun. But I digress, yes dragging and dropping is neat, but is it enough to justify developing a entire web based OS? I'm not sure about that.
By the way, I just took a look at xindesk, seems like we have a little conflict on interest here :) But seriously the screenshots look nice, good luck with it.
Posted by: shadilac | November 22, 2006 8:41 PM"is it (drag'n drop of data between apps) enough to justify developing a entire web based OS?"
That depends on what kind of apps we have running and how this feature is actually used, doesn't it?
It makes all the difference once you see it in action..
By the way, I've added feedbite to my favorites, I dont care if it is a 'conflict of interest', it's a really cool site you got there.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 22, 2006 9:31 PMMikael, in that case I'll keep an open mind. And thanks!
Posted by: shadilac | November 22, 2006 9:56 PMWhat about option 4 - web based os with desktop integration.
A hybrid solution of a full web based os services with lightweight tools running native on the desktop to make life easier seems to me as the best option as well as their direction.
This option means they won't try to replace the microsoft platform but rather perceive it as a commodity and by thinking this way they can provide everything over the web while giving the user the lacking smoothness of a locally installed product.
Dudu
Posted by: Dudu Mimran | November 22, 2006 11:19 PMI just posted this comment in scobleizer.com
A Google OS makes a lot of sense in the context of the seamless web - the web as a seamless online experience, including the servers, the content, the network, AND THE CLIENT MACHINES. As you can imagine, the possibilities are endless.
I think that in the emerging global scenario, if Google is to maintain their idea leadership, they need to adopt the peer-to-peer model built on the FREE Google OS mass distribution, to compliment their Data Centers.
That is the only way to ensure not only a seamless web, but also a redundant and terror-proof web.
http://ideaburger.blogspot.com/2006/11/making-google-better-2.html
jay, from Bangalore
Posted by: Jayakumar Hariharan | November 22, 2006 11:26 PM@Dudu, it sounds like the current solution with Google Homapage + Google Desktop, no?
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 22, 2006 11:42 PMWell as always there is a possiblity that google might be building an Operating system, but i would say it is very unlikely it will have a fedora, unbuntu ,SuSe OS, then they should just take up once of the project and support it that should be the best thing as we all are facing this issue, which OS should we show to new comers into free software ? should it be unbuntu ,should it be Suse or fedora. its just so much confusing and difficult, also if google is goiung ahead with a Web OS, I would say cool, they should do something like EyeOs, maybe buy them or just build something on top of it.
Raj
Posted by: Raj | November 23, 2006 1:04 AM"is it (drag'n drop of data between apps) enough to justify developing a entire web based OS?"
What about the concept of Live Clipboard depicted by Ray Ozzy here ?
I think that we will see more on this sooner.
Posted by: aca | November 23, 2006 1:07 AMBetween the alternative discussion about the feasibility of a Web OS and whether Google is coming out with one, I find myself defending the whole concept of a Web Based Operating System. This was not what I was here for. I wanted to just point out that what people are speculating about the GoogleOS is already a reality at a small startup. But since many of you are showing skepticism regarding whether a Web OS is a new technological revolution or just a tech gimmick, I think its pertinent for me to make a cause for the whole Web OS industry.
Computing revolves around data. This data might be a document or a spreadsheet you are working on. It might be your favorite song. It might be your vacation photos. But in essence, everything in computers revolves around data. With the emergence of internet, started the holy grail of data sharing. Starting with email to share thoughts, ideas, and coming onto flickr, skype, youtube etc to share images, videos, have audio chat etc. Its a basic need of every netizen to have their data available when they want it, wherever they want it.
My point in making my first post using ORCA Desktop was not say that you don't want to use Firefox to do the same. The idea was to show the level of sophistication the Web OS sector has come to. No, you as someone who has spent a lot of time (and probably money) to set up your work / home computer just the way you want. You have loaded it with your favorite OS, you have loaded browsers, chat clients, anti virus software, office suites and what not to make it do everything you want it to. And you religiously update every software to keep everything secure.
But what happens when you are away from your computer? What happens when you are traveling and your boss wants you to work on that presentation? Sure, as you said you can always mail over stuff to yourself, but did you know before hand that you would need a document from your work pc while traveling? Does the internet cafe you are checking your mails at have an Office Suit installed. Does it have the necessary software installed for you to communicate with your colleagues?
But if your data was on your personal web top, then all you have to do is to login to that from any part of the world and get that work done. You don't have to worry about mailing yourself stuff to have it available when you want it. You don't have to update the software. You don't have to worry about an office suite available at the computer you are working at.
Consider working on the same document with a team of people. Currently you have to mail the document to everyone, wait for them to work on it and mail it back, so that you make changes to it. But what if someone else is working on the same at the same time as you are? But what if there is a single copy of your document that everyone can edit, using the same tools, just using their browser. It doesn't matter what base system they are running as long as they can access the web.
Some of you expect a Web OS to be everything a desktop OS is. Calling a web top a Web OS is not right in the strictest sense. Some might even say that its a misnomer. A Web Top will not be a complete OS in the truest sense ever. Period. The reason is that one of the jobs of the OS is to handle your peripherals, your device drivers and such, and that is something a Web OS could never do. What a Web OS / Web Top is essentially a framework. A framework that sits on top of a base system. That base system might be a full fledged OS like windows or linux, or that might be a basic os, such as orczilla, that just provides you base to handle your hardware, to get you online so that you can connect to your Web OS.
So in short, no, a Web OS is NOT going to replace your existing OS. Both are going to co exist. You might do away with your current OS if you choose to adopt the base systems such as orczilla, but having windows is just good enough. A Web OS is not going to compete with Windows / Linux / Mac. Its going to provide another layer on the top of it so that people can collaborate better. As Mr Friedman likes to call it in The World is Flat, this is Convergence, at its best.
And finally to those who couldn't get ORCA Desktop to work with Opera or Firefox, then I am sorry to say that beta 1 that is currently available to public works in IE only. But beta 2 is going to work across a plethora of browsers. This problem has already been addresses in the forums at our site.
Nipun Jain
Posted by: Nipun Jain | November 23, 2006 1:24 AMDeveloper, ORCA Desktop
http://orcadesktop.com
Check out the Global Hosted Operating SysTem - G.ho.st.
We certainly believe that a Web OS can add deep value in areas including
- GUI look&feel standards
- Single sign-up, single sign-in
- A single consistent virtual file system
- Sharing data between applications
G.ho.st is just a POC right now but a lot more is coming soon...
Zvi Schreiber, CEO
Posted by: Zvi Schreiber | November 23, 2006 2:14 AM"What about the concept of Live Clipboard depicted by Ray Ozzy"
We actually use that, but you still can't cut and paste the data inbetween different webapps - back and forth - as easily as you can between different windowed apps on a desktop.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 23, 2006 2:33 AMThere's the difference right there.
Nipun, thanks for that explanation. You make some interesting points in there. Do you consider remote desktop sharing and applications like pcAnywhere to be competition? Is it safe to assume you will have your own version of the rumored gDrive? There is definitely a concept in there that could be useful, but I wonder if time is against you, as more applications move to the web (office 2.0) the dependency on installed applications diminishes... Just wondering what your thoughts were on that.
Posted by: shadilac | November 23, 2006 8:03 AMI am glad that you see the idea behind a Web OS.
Regarding remote desktop sharing applications, I don't think they aim at the same market as we do. For remote sharing desktop sharing, you still need to install software on both the PCs. I doubt if installing remote access software on every PC you access to be able to have your documents available everywhere is an easier option compared carrying a portable hard disk around. In other words, its not meant for the purpose a Web OS would exist.
Funny your mentioning the move of software moving from desktop to the web, as this is exactly the thing that will fuel the growth of the Web OS Sector. With an installed application, you are tied to the base OS, but with a web based app, that problem disappears. And integration of a web based application to a web top makes a lot more sense than trying to port the traditional desktop apps. If you signed up for an account at ORCA, you will see how well Meebo integrates with this concept.
And lastly, I wouldn't like to comment on the possibility of a gDrive. Somethings are better kept in the dark.
Posted by: Nipun Jain | November 23, 2006 9:42 AMI see GDrive and web-based storage as being a pretty good option - having your data available everywhere (and on every device) can provide the ubiquitous computing that is desired and it integrates with your existing OS.
One problem I see (as I said earlier) is that there is no central platform for such ubiquitous storage. You will need a GDrive application for GDrive, and a LiveDrive application for LiveDrive. Instead, there needs to be a platform that connects to each storage service. A good analogy is the browser - you don't need a browser for every website, you need one browser that connects to ALL websites.
Posted by: Robert Dewey | November 23, 2006 10:00 AMWhat would ultimately motivate an average user from choosing Google's web-based apps over Microsoft's Office Live? None that I can think of. On the other hand, chances are that an average user interested in free office apps will give Office Live a try. Why? Answer: 1) the "Microsoft Office" brand recognition, 2) better integration with and leveraging of the desktop Office and 3) greater exposure thanks to other MS products (Windows OS, Office and IE). One might argue that "Google" is a powerful brand name too. Undoubtedly true. However, to the average user, they are mostly and only known for web search and, to a lesser extent, web advertisement -- not productivity apps.
Also, strictly in terms of quality of the product, I bet Microsoft can enhance its Office Live better and quicker than Google could, thanks to its 20+ years of experience with productivity apps development.
Furthermore, Google web-based productivity apps will potentially attract only a relatively small portion of the total users population anyway. Users concerned with the cost of MS Office wouldn't have bought it in the first place and they have other options (e.g. OpenOffice.org, Corel, pirated copy of Office). Business users will not migrate to web-based apps. So, all in all, web-based app will have little impact on the MS Office business.
And oh, funny that people speculate about Google OS. It proves how little rational goes into most speculations. A Google OS would be Google's biggest mistake! First of all, they keep saying that the software dynamics are moving from the desktop OS to the web. So why the heck would they venture into the desktop OS arena?! Ridiculous. Second, developing an OS requires HUGE amount of resources and time that even Almighty Google would find it hard to manage. And they can't just make another Linux distro, release it into the Internet and expect it to make significant penetration in the market. They need customer support, packaging, a sales force and so many other infrastructural components to support such endeavor. This is all so "new" to Google, it is not easy feat, far from it. And even if the OS is a great piece of software in its own right, it does not mean instant success. OS adoption cycle is very long, very very long -- for a web company such as Google, it is almost an eternity. Can Google afford to make a huge investment in an OS venture and wait for 10 years before reaping any significant benefits (and that's assuming an OS of its own will give Google some worthy benefits)? Even if they could be that patient, its investors wouldn't wait that long. Finally, if the GoogleOS will be nothing more than a web-based desktop (more likely scenario), then what's the big deal? There are already at least half a dozen of such services on the Web now. A "Google Desktop" would be a laughable and futile competition to Vista.
Posted by: Dyson Lu | November 23, 2006 10:39 AMSee I was more under the impression that google was trying to setup an advertising OS. There is no chance at this present moment that they are going to be able to directly compete against local based apps like office. Their light weights apps like google docs is a great idea of collaboration and on the go workers. But in terms of features they just will not be able to compete. On the other hand they already have a niche setup in the advertising industry and have gained market dominance. What I see is a full featured OS for advertisers. But thats just me. What do you guys think?
Posted by: David Coleman | November 23, 2006 2:04 PMEssentially, google will take a close look at what drives the shares, and that's the asumption that they will take on microsoft somehow and succeed.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 23, 2006 3:38 PMThat's the bottomline here.
@Mikael Bergkvist, succeed? don't be so sure :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 23, 2006 10:56 PMI said that this is the current market assumption, which shows very clearly in google's current market value, which is skyhigh.
- I didn't say it was MY assumption.
And to be perfectly honest, microsoft aren't impressing anyone right now, to put it mildly..
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | November 24, 2006 12:05 AM@Emre, in terms of their current capabilities they are very strong on the browser arena with their toolbar for web+desktop based operations. Their google desktop is their foothold for deep desktop integration and their homepage is of course their window to their capabilities. I don't see them trying to fight head to head with Microsoft on the desktop asset, especially considering the fact Microsoft is propietary on wintel platforms and Google does not have any competitive edge within this spectrum.
If I were google's competitive edge definer then I would enhance the functionality available over the web (as they do with their daily new application launch), provide tools for windows users to enjoy these capabilities and then start creating tools for tranfering current users data into their application set (office documents mostly).
Although google is kind of building an alternative for a productivity based desktop secretly I think they are doing wrong with not stating their intentions. I think that if Google would go and tell everyone they are in the direction of providing an alternative for costly windows then their burst of diverse applications would make much more sense.
Dudu
Posted by: Dudu Mimran | November 24, 2006 11:55 PM@Dudu,I say this fight can take place with the sole purpose of protecting their web properties against Live.com integration of Vista. Not to make a real rival to Windows. You're right; I agree that their current "friendly" strategy in Windows desktops has gone successful so far.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 25, 2006 8:42 AMThe challenge with the Google Web OS model has nothing IMHO to do with the technical merits or demerits of whatever approach Google takes. To me Google's biggest challenge in the next few years is the nasty combination of Google's and the U.S. Government's policies.
Google says: "We never forget and we never erase (your data or the records of your access to it)". The US government increasingly says to Google (privately and beyond our purview) "Cough up the search (and now speadsheet, word processing, etc.) records or else." With Google gagged from telling us as long as the government says so.
As long as there's a "war on terror" and powers such as warrantless wire tapping and the like, Google is going to be a govt. feast market for all the personal data (from Americans and so many others around the world) that Google never erases and the government always wants more of. I think, over time, this will come into play when people think about where they store their data when thinking of the Net.
I know a lot of people will argue "I've nothing to hide so I don't care, and why should you?" but it's a grave error to equate "nothing to hide" with "nothing to fear" (from the govt. of the day), as well as to forget that it's a psychologically normal part of being a healthy human (and all "higher" critters) to operate a sphere with a degree of privacy. When children start to do that it marks an important and healthy step in their neuro- and psychological growth. "Nothing to hide" is no excuse for "no privacy" or anonymity, and no privacy is too expensive a price to pay for total surveillance.
And Google's embrace, extend, expose (never forget and can't deny [the gov.]) position will not be healthy over the longer term, especially as their dominance (i.e. information volume grows). Just like 3-lettered agencies like NSA have a permanent legal backdoor into the phone and Net systems ("Google 'CALEA' "), they will or might already have a backdoor into the digital records of service providers like Google, MS, and Yahoo (big enough to be useful).
Posted by: Kyle | November 25, 2006 12:12 PM@Emre,
For me Live.com is just the same as windows (look and feel) with one difference of being downloaded from the web. I think people had enough with the windows look and feel (at least me) especially when they are aware to the other options available via the web. And I also think that Microsoft is not so far (again) from making Live.com superior by propietary integration with Vista, a trick that once worked for them with Netscape but I'm not sure will sustain nowadays. I believe users today are much more aware to what they can get from the web and I don't see people settling on a windowish version of the web, again.
Of course, it all depends whether users will know that someone (such as google) is going to take a leader responsibility and will address their basic needs as a whole and not under a rather sporadic umbrella of features and applications.
Dudu
Posted by: Dudu Mimran | November 26, 2006 4:45 AM@Dudu, we'll see, it's hard to predict how users will respond to Vista and Live.com; but our past experiences say that they'll stick with what is given as default. I think Live.com and Vista interfaces are very nice and consistent, this is a big advantage for them.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 26, 2006 6:16 AM@Emre,
I agree the interface is matter of personal preference though I think the web 2.0 applications wave created a set of new conceptual interfaces (such as google clearness as a concept) that I feel live.com tries to enforce windows like UI patterns . I rather see new UI concepts evolve then staying for another decade with MS like interfaces, which are good but...
Dudu
Posted by: Dudu Mimran | November 26, 2006 10:39 AMGoogle's killer app is an "everywhere filesystem" not a WebOS - i.e. Gdrive. Google's Linux/Mac integration has lagged sadly behind their Windows offerings. Why? The existing market share of Windows and grabbing as much of its mindshare as possible in as short a time as possible.
All Google has to do to become (even more) ubiquitous is to make apps/drivers for all the major OSes to enable them to see a Gdrive as if it was a local drive - let people choose what OS they prefer, what apps they prefer, and give (or sell) them ubiquitous data storage. Even better, let them store their data locally and transparently replicate it to their Gdrive for access-anywhere benefits.
Oh, and of course Gdrive will be distributed encrypted storage. Gdrive accelerator (pipelined encryption) appliances will be a nice incremental source of revenue... :-)
Posted by: crystalsinger | November 29, 2006 6:40 AM@crystalsinger: there are already many unofficial Gmail based GDrives around: for linux, mac and windows.. Yes, i think it would be a good idea to make it official. And if Google had no intention on GDrive, they would send cease & desist to these projects, I think.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | November 29, 2006 12:27 PM