Sunbeltblog comments
I'm personally rather skeptical as to whether Google can dominate in Microsoft's domain the way it apparently hopes to. After all, Microsoft hasn't done well in the search engine market. Microsoft had to spend more money than you can possibly believe just on the rebranding of its search engine (Source: http://www.marketnewsvideo.com/?...GOOG070809&
mv=1 ) Doesn't exactly inspire confidence doesn't it?
I realize that Google may be more respected by certain types of people (open-source fans, Apple users, etc.) than Microsoft, but can Google really topple a brand name that has garnered such loyalty for decades?
If people didn't want Linux on netbooks why would they want Chrome OS?
http://blogs.pcmag.com/
securityw...s_the_revol.php
If the guy "flipping through a PDF" for a presentation was silly, then he wasn't doing it right. I've made a number of presentations using OpenOffice's presentation program and exported the results to PDF form. When giving the presentation, I have Adobe display the file in full screen. No one could tell the difference between my PDF slides and PowerPoint slides.
Porting 'nix applications? I thought the point with Chrome OS was that it would run only a single application: the Chrome browser, and that every other application would be AJAX stuff running in the browser.
Enterprise is the conservative, but lucrative, upmarket. It, and uses related to it is the last place something like this will succeed. If Chrome is going to succeed it is going to be some new market where price and lightweight are the most important factors and compatibility with the Microsoft aren't important. Africa maybe, or some other market I can't even fathom. From there it will then move upmarket and hit the enterprises a decade later.
The history of thin-clients is littered with the carcasses of the failures. But the availability of bandwidth and connections are constantly growing. At some point it is going to pass that magic threshold that makes thin-client computing make sense. The fact that everybody that has tried it thus far have failed is not an argument against it.
Mr. Alpha, Nah, they will never be able to make this a truly thin client. You always need _something_ on the client.
Maybe Google will be marketing genius enough to get this to work, but there's nothing in history to indicate that it will.
I think the real test comes from Windows 7: If it's well-received on netbooks, then Chrome OS is a dead letter. If not, then anything's possible I guess, because people won't (or at least shouldn't) be happy with XP forever.
Personally, I think Google OS will be similar to other Linux systems. Only the techies will try it.
Alex,
Great post!
Google has done an awesome job of rapidly bringing to market "shiny" pieces of software that generate phenomenal market buzz. No one does this better. However, a few things to know/remember about Google:
1. Google is not a software company. They're and ad company. Google software "products" are created as vehicles to deliver ads. That's the model. That said, a lot of us here at Microsoft have a deep respect for their software engineering ability.
2. Google doesn't "get" the Enterprise - yet. The enterprise values things like interoperability; predictable rhythms; meaningful SLAs; features that add real value; roadmaps; etc. A lot of these values are new or foreign to Google. Google values time to market above all else - including interoperability, feature completeness and yes, sometimes quality.
3. Microsoft "gets" the enterprise (often times much more than it "gets" consumers). Many of the franchise Microsoft products grew up in the enterprise (Office, Exchange, and even Windows). Products like Exchange are only recently being brought into the consumer space for the first time. Google software "products" grew up in the consumer space and are being retro-fitted for the enterprise. This is a really tough proposition (as Google is now finding out). I'm not saying they can't do it from a technical standpoint - the problem is that it will require a cultural shift within the company.
Just as it will be a cold day in hell before serious accountants, finance people, CFOs, CEOs give up Excel for Star Office Calc, I believe it will be some time before the enterprise is ready to trust the OS to anyone but Microsoft. Many of these reasons have very little to do with price.
Mathew Thomas
Microsoft
Disclaimer: Of course, all these opinions are my own and don't necessarily reflect that of Microsoft.
wao wao wao !!!
great
I don't think Google's new O.S. will be the Goliath killer either. But...
That Microsoft O.S. market is so big, if you keep chipping away at it, each chip has the potential to be a pretty big slice. I think that's why we have these cool Macs and Ubongos (I prefer SimplyMepis, myself).
The Tramp
Seems like many share my opinion which I just wrote about in my blog.
While Linux is one example, a better one is the OLPC project. Even the poor kids in 3rd world countries wanted an OS that was already accepted in the real world.
Bill
You guys really don't want to give anybody a chance, do you?
The turnaround on 7 shows just how untouchable Microsoft really are.
As for a trusted OS.... You're having a laugh.
It's a case of Enterprise digging themselves into a hole that's now too expensive to climb out of. It's nothing to do with trust, though Microsoft did provide the spade.
Microsoft Office can be installed under Linux using either the free Wine or the commercial Crossover Office.
Mike,
I would disagree. When it comes to selling software to the enterprise, trust is a huge part of the equation - perhaps the biggest factor depending on the size of the enterprise. I invite you to take a look at this very recent case study published by Intel.
http://www.intel.com/references/
...bucks_WS08_.pdf
Starbucks is a great example of a very large, tech savvy IT operation that has just recently decided expand its IT bet on the Microsoft stack. I invite you to take a close look at the reasons cited by their IT managers. Granted this is not concerning desktop OS, but I think a similar dynamic applies. If software vendors want to sell into modern, sophisticated IT shops, they need to understand what is of value to the enterprise. As Microsoft (and Sunbelt) has learned over the years, it isn't easy! (But they've both gotten pretty good at it!) New players in the enterprise space like Google are going to find that what made them successful in the consumer space won't necessarily close the deal in corporate IT - especially when it comes to core components such as desktop OS, email, Directory services, security, etc. (IMHO).
/Mathew Thomas
Microsoft
Thank you for the link, Mr Thomas. Both companies get a positive result, and even if it's small on a planetary scale, the resulting energy saving will indirectly provide benefits elsewhere.
As I stated earlier though, massive investment in existing installations of Microsoft product means no alternative. I see Starbucks taking advantage of what they already have, but tomorrow's enterprise won't have that investment and if there's more choice..... For all we know, Google's offering might be right up their street.
The comment by PhantomTramp is very pertinent here: "That Microsoft O.S. market is so big, if you keep chipping away at it, each chip has the potential to be a pretty big slice."
Microsoft have messed up recently, and didn't read, even enterprise very well, showing that they (MS) don't have it all their own way. If Google can pull something out of the hat in combination with the track record of Microsoft.....
While Ms has a long history, in the OS field, you don't need to be an expert to succeed. Windows itself proves that.
I don't trust Microsoft, nor do I trust Google, but I see the forthcoming OS as a means of showing just how trustworthy they can be.
I await it's arrival with relish.
Sorry to bring this up but it needs to be said:
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3..._3-
5065859.html
Sorry about the long link.
The Tramp
Now that's what I'm talking about!
It CAN be done!
Excellent link, Tramp.
Commenting by HaloScan
