Google Plans to Introduce a PC Operating System (for netbooks)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?hp

by aston • 17 years ago

72 49 17 years ago

nytimes.com

sfphotoarts• 17 years ago

"“Chrome is basically a modern operating system,” Mr. Andreessen said."

This is an odd comment to make coming from an ex coder.

mahmud2• 17 years ago

Founder of Netscape. He should know what a browser is, but maybe he knows a bit too much; maybe sees web apps, in that weird out-of-touch way that visionaries tend to "see" things, as a replacement to desktop apps.

wmf• 17 years ago

It's consistent with his statement 15 years ago that "Netscape will soon reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers."

(Except this time Chrome has reduced Linux to a well-debugged set of device drivers.)

sketerpot3• 17 years ago

It's not like they have a whole lot of devices to drive. They know up-front what small set of hardware platforms it will have to support. Handy, I'm sure, if they want things like hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding.

vaksel3• 17 years ago

so basically it'll be a custom version of linux, with Google tools like Chrome etc thrown into the mix

pufuwozu• 17 years ago

I feel that Linux can really work for the average user, it just needs some good branding and marketing.

Canonical has performed fairly well with Ubuntu but it'll be interesting to see if Google can "bring it to the masses".

vaksel3• 17 years ago

I don't think your average user really knows anything about the OSes. For most people, the only OS they know, is the one that came pre-installed by the computer manufacturer.

Instead of good branding/marketing, Linux needs a good sales team to pitch to manufacturers. Linux will continue losing, until the manufacturers add to their custom builds: Linux (-$100) or Microsoft Windows(+$100)

ErrantX• 17 years ago

where does it say they're using Linux as a base? Im not saying they aren't: it's just there is no suggestion they are. and, y'know the press release feels like a level shot at all modern OS's. Unless they've said otherwise I reckon were looking at something new (which is great IMO)

EDIT: bleh I read from the bottom up (in terms of the front page) so Google Blog was last :) I see the source.

gregparadee• 17 years ago

http://2ze.us/Y9

mahmud2• 17 years ago

That URL leads to here:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-ch...

eb• 17 years ago

This isn't twitter. You don't need to shorten URLs.

10ren3• 17 years ago

Interesting that the link text is fully black, and not faded out as normal text would be for "-7" worth of downvotes.

kirubakaran• 17 years ago

HN fades only non-link text. Example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=401885

derwiki• 17 years ago

This article is chock full of bad grammar. I've generally found NYTimes to be reputable, but this makes me question how hastily this was pushed out. Can anyone find another source corroborating this news?

Adrenalist• 17 years ago

Yeah - I noticed this too. It seems like they wanted to 'scoop' the story before Google announced it on their own blog perhaps? I'm not one to criticize another person's grammar or writing style, but it was unusually bad with this NY Times article.

lunchbox• 17 years ago

Announcement of Google Chrome OS: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-ch...

vaksel3• 17 years ago

the name is pretty crappy, Chrome means browser to everyone, what's the point of doubling it's meaning? Couldn't they come up with something unique like Google Doorway or Google Vents or Google Tunnel

if we use the Windows example, it'd go like:

Damn my windows just crashed.

The OS or the browser?

rms2• 17 years ago

I don't think Chrome has had enough penetration among the average consumer to mean anything yet. How many people use Chrome? It's just a word; apparently they are branding their consumer desktop platform as Chrome.

Chrome is a much better name than Doorway or Vents or Tunnel. It's different than Windows. It's fast and shiny.

netsp5• 17 years ago

I assume that is the point. Users unable to differentiate Browser from OS.

buugs• 17 years ago

If you look at the google video asking what a browser is chrome doesn't really mean browser to anyone... The main thing is that google means something to everyone and that is all that will end up mattering.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ (What is a Browser?)

dcminter• 17 years ago

Speaking as the owner of ChromeServer.com I just wish they'd stop naming their stuff after my stuff!

That aside I guess they're building a brand and want to populate it with some related products. I'm dubious about the value of that approach though; Sun's plastering of the "Java" brand onto on OS didn't do them much good. IBM's WebSphere overloading has caused me problems in the past. Microsoft turned ".NET" from a useful label into a meaningless one.

ZeroGravitas• 17 years ago

The name is both relevant and ironic.

They called the browser Chrome because part of the mission was to strip back the browser's chrome (i.e. its UI) and give prominence to the web content. This philosophy is likely to be applied to the OS too.

"The OS or the browser?"

The OS only exists to provide the browser, which in turn only exists to provide the web. As others have pointed out, no-one (non-geek) knows what a browser is, I doubt they'd do much better with questions about operating systems.

andeka• 17 years ago

I feel like this was Schmidt's dream with Sun in the 80s.

steveklabnik• 17 years ago

You're not the only one: http://deals.venturebeat.com/2009/07/08/how-googles-chrome-o...

chaosmachine• 17 years ago

x86 Android Live CDs and Chrome OS on the same day? Wow.

netsp5• 17 years ago

The time to do this was 2 years ago, when netbooks were desperately looking for an operating system.

Now they have adapted themselves (slightly higher cost/specs) to Windows XP, and people are fairly comfortable with that. The market is established & shaving an extra $50 off the price is not as much of an issue.

The near future will have Windows 7 netbooks & Ubuntu for netbook to provide some theoretical competition.

That doesn't mean this definitely won't take off, but a Google backed operating system made for small screens & cheap hardware could have been the default choice 2 years ago.

_cbsz2• 17 years ago

I have to disagree -- $50 is 20% of the price of the cheapest netbooks, and it's 10% of the price of relatively expensive $500 netbooks. The cheaper netbooks get, the more of an issue $50 is. The Eee PC was supposed to be the $200 laptop and we're still not there.

netsp5• 17 years ago

That is my point. For the theoretical $200 impulse buy EeePc, that $50 would have been a deal breaker. Armchair strategising would have led you to that conclusion. An OS that lowered costs by that much would have been an obvious choice. That's why they originally launched on Linux.

But over time, the specs drifted up. Consumers preferred XP. They were willing to pay for it. I don't know what the median price is, but I'm guessing around $400-$500. In other words, the market has moved towards Windows. Windows has also moved towards netbooks.

Google OS could have been the default choice for netbook manufacturers at the time when there were petitions going to keep XP alive. When this launches (2010?), Windows 7 netbooks will be the default choice.

That doesn't mean this won't work. maybe people will prefer Chrome OS to Windows 7 for netbooks. Maybe it will enable $200 netbooks, almost a distinct class. If that's the case, they still need to go through the market test. Do a lot of people really want a $200 netbook?

inerte• 17 years ago

Then MS will make it $40, $25, $5, $1.

Some people would say it's anti-competitive, but Google can only provide a free netbook OS because of its ads business.

sketerpot3• 17 years ago

They're not going to compete with Windows XP on number of features or software compatibility, but I think Chrome OS has a chance to carve out a niche for itself. It can focus on being absolutely the best gosh darn web browser available for a netbook: zippy, no performance degradation over time, booting up in seconds, reliable, and running on ARM processors. That could give better battery life and lower costs if they're careful about tweaking it.

For broader-purpose use, Android may catch on. Chrome OS is different, and I don't think it's supposed to compete directly with Windows XP.

TrevorJ• 17 years ago

It isn't so much about hardware. I think that Google is exploiting a relatively narrow trend with the netbook angle. Long run, I think they are banking on more and more of our apps moving to the cloud. This is an OS built from the ground up to run things in the cloud.

10ren3• 17 years ago

Web browsers will evolve until they are operating systems. Those that can't will be replaced by those that can.

Their aim seems to be instant web-access, which benefits google. Linux compatibility would seem secondary - and perhaps even deliberately omitted, as Google wants you to use web-apps, not desktop-apps. And if Google Chrome is fast enough, and offline operation is seamless enough, that might not be a problem at all.

This is the thing that Microsoft feared from Netscape and Java. It got away that time. Round 2: the game has changed, but the outcome, even if preordained, remains as yet unknown.

rjurney• 17 years ago

Super insightful +1 magic hat.

edw519• 17 years ago

"Round 2: the game has changed,"

I guess spending 10 years building infrastructure to support web apps had to happen first.

10ren3• 17 years ago

What are you thinking of as infrastructure? I suppose broadband is more widely available now (10 years ago I was on dialup at home, now my max is over 2MB/sec); PC hardware has become fast enough for Javascript/Flash/Java (and much improvement on their software implementation performance).

From the developer point of view, AJAX-style dynamic webapps have become easier, with browser-support, dev tools, and a trained workforce; ditto for the server (esp. ruby on rails, but it's across the language-board, and DB, OR mapping, XML, JSON); and cheaper servers (which are also much more powerful). OK, OK! You've convinced me.

andreyf• 17 years ago

One thing I don't understand: why pre-announce so early?

snprbob86• 17 years ago

They are probably bringing hardware partners into the fold. They need some lead time to do that. Partners are notoriously bad at keeping secrets. Just ask anyone who worked on a big secret project at a large company: leaks come from 3rd parties almost exclusively.

hs• 17 years ago

please don't repeat linux's mistake by allowing fsf to attach gnu/; gnu/chrome? yikes!

cpach2• 17 years ago

How could you stop them? Unless this OS is not built on the GNU toolchain.

sketerpot3• 17 years ago

If it uses the GNU userland, it still wouldn't be fit for a GNU/ name in the eyes of the FSF. Saying "GNU/Linux" means you're talking about a GNU system running on the Linux kernel. By that logic, this could be called Chrome/Linux. GNU doesn't figure into it significantly.

Tichy• 17 years ago

Why would that fare better on netbooks than Linux?

Google Plans to Introduce a PC Operating System (for netbooks)

Related Stories