GoogleOS: What To Expect
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.
Possibilities
We see 3 scenarios for a GoogleOS:
- A web based desktop (i.e. operating system)
- A full featured Linux distribution
- A lightweight Linux distro and/or BIOS
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.
A Web Based Operating System
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.
A Full Featured Linux Distro
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 or BIOS
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.
Conclusion: GoogleOS will tackle Microsoft's Vista OS head on
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!
11 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2873
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
None of your 3 assumptions is true, but it's a sum up of it. Read here about what the googleOS really is
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14129
Posted by: anon | November 21, 2006 9:55 PM
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 PM
I 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 PM
What'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 AM
I 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 AM
Google 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"...
Here it is:
http://www.quazen.com/Computers/Internet/Web-3.0-%E2%80%93-The-Future-Is-Almost-Here.3775
Posted by: Letan | November 22, 2006 1:32 AM
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 AM
Folks, 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 AM
I 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 AM
Sorry. You are misinformend. Ubuntu is already fully free.
Posted by: wouter | November 22, 2006 3:30 AM
Not 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 AM
This was a good blog. What happened?
Posted by: Alen | November 22, 2006 3:45 AM
You 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 AM
Hey....
Nice cook up...But Google havnt released anything yet as so...
Posted by: Bala | November 22, 2006 4:40 AM
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.
Let google stick to what their good at.
Posted by: Razr | November 22, 2006 5:11 AM
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 AM
Well, 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 AM
There 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 AM
Linux 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 AM
One 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 AM
GoogleOS. 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 AM
I 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 AM
The 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 AM
What 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 AM
I 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.
Google 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.
Posted by: leto | November 22, 2006 7:51 AM
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 AM
Another approach might be a remote OS, from their Gmail drive.
They 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.
Posted by: Rene | November 22, 2006 7:54 AM
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 AM
i'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 AM
Great 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.
This is the future...Google + Firefox + Adobe= Functionality
Posted by: Lost Damery | November 22, 2006 8:26 AM
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 AM
What 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 AM
What 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 AM
If 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 AM
I 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 AM
I 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 AM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!! It's impossible for a web os!
An 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.
Posted by: Jackson | November 22, 2006 9:59 AM
@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 AM
If 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 AM
I'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 AM
Are you an idiot. Google OS. C'mon.
Posted by: GoogleAvenger | November 22, 2006 10:27 AM
I 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 AM
I 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 AM
Have 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 AM
1 2 3 Next