Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Personally I don't see a need for cloud computing since I use a remote desktop connection and have access to all my apps and data from outside the home.
I also prefer to have all my data on my own hard disks.
(I don't use online email for anything serious, I don't use online photo or data sharing services, I don't social networks.)
I also prefer to minimize the ability of big business to monitor my habits (yes I know I can't eliminate data mining about me completely).
By moving fully to cloud computing you are laying your entire method of working, socializing, buying and communicating bare.
You are basically increasing the ability of corporations to analyse you even more than with "traditional" computing, because you are basically uploading just about everything to their servers.
So while cloud computing may have it's benefits, I think it should not be made to kill traditional computing.
11/20/09
11/20/09
What they have right now is very rough and basic - essentially just a Chrome browser for Linux - but I can see what they want to do and it's very promising.
11/20/09
[lifehacker.com]
11/20/09
11/20/09
(I <3 the poster though)
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
[gdgt.com]
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
But yeah, with what I've heard with netbooks running Windows 7 well (which I think is what you're saying?), you have another good, normal-OS option that seems to make this Chrome OS make even less sense.
11/19/09
11/19/09
Oh, I know how. Ads. Your computer will not have to have an adblocker. Your computer will boot up and shut down the latest deals from Foot Locker. In the middle of writing a paper? A pop up will remind you to get a new McCafe since you have been working really hard.
I see people saying someone wants to own their own media, I think there are people who like owning their own software, so to speak.
I was so in favor of the Chrome OS till I read the news and drew my own conclusions. Back to Ubunt-land I go.
11/19/09
When you look at Chrome as a tool that empowers Google Apps, this makes a lot of sense. From the end user's perspective, why not get all this crap off my machine, put in in the cloud and stop writing checks to Redmond? Well, security is one reason. Lack of ubiquitous connectivity is another, but that is rapidly disappearing.
A widely publicized intrusion is one way to crush Google's nascient efforts.
Bottom line is, Google doesn't need to recruit all of us, just enough of us to attract someone who will pay for our attention.
11/19/09
11/19/09
I'm not going to do any of these things. I think netbooks are stupid. I believe it is foolish to put senstive data in Google's cloud. About the closest I will get to Google is carry an Android device, and run several of the awesome and powerful apps that are available for it.
I was merely evaluating what Google is attempting to do with Chrome. I think they have a good chance at being at least partially successful, but not on my back.
Also, I am not a geek. I am here on a visitor's pass from Jalopnik.
#tips
11/19/09
But, personally I believe this kind of misses the point. I don't think the initiative of Chrome OS is to simply move everything to the web. I mean, take video editing for example. Why? Video editing isn't typically a very "portable" task. Either a video edit is a big project that could use a dedicated workstation (or an internal local network, as in a small production house), where uploading hundreds of gigabytes of data would be a waste of time, or it's a live, happening-now kind of video taken from a phone where maybe some basic trimming tasks would be done real quick then uploaded. I'm open to suggestions, but I can't think of a video editing job where you would benefit from uploading video to a server then editing it from any and all computers you could log into. It's just unnecessary.
Honestly, I really don't think Chrome OS is intended to be the game-changing replacement OS people were expecting it to be. Much like the netbooks themselves. When I first heard of a laptop without an optical drive and minimal (comparatively) amounts of storage space, I laughed. But they caught on, and for good reason. Namely, they were targeted devices that didn't aim to do everything, but what it does do, it does well. And cheaply.
Chrome OS, from what we've seen today, flat out does not have what it takes to dethrone Windows, OS X, or any Linux flavor as a desktop OS. And I doubt it ever will. But given the right amount of support from web app developers (because really, it's mostly in their hands), Chrome OS has everything it takes to make one kick ass netbook. For some people.
11/20/09
They don't particularly want to use it, but if they threaten MS with it, well, MS'll have to drop it's prices, they'll switch back, and everyone is happy.
11/20/09
If they were to switch over to a product they thought was good, that'd be one thing. Folks start buying non-Windows computers, MS loses money, then they start getting more competitive with their prices. But if device manufacturers start putting an OS they have zero confidence in, MS would be all "Good luck, suckers!"
You actually can compete with free. And if free sucked, if free didn't move computers off the shelves, MS prices would stay right where they are.
Free may be a helpful motivating factor, but it is not the only reason manufacturers would consider supporting it.
11/19/09
Make the OS lightweight enough that it could go on just about any machine.
This way a person could buy a computer without the Microsoft tax (operating system stuffed with things most people never, ever use), which adds a lot of cost to buying a computer.
11/19/09
I am. and the bandwidth caps and overage charges living in the 'cloud' will bring.
not everyone is lucky enough to get unlimited internet.
the choice for this house is cable, with a bandwidth cap, or dial up at 56k. thats it. and no moving is not an option.
11/19/09
I think the biggest problem, however, is the lack of supporting infrastructure. I don't think people are going to pay to use a product that only works where there is free internet. Or, if it has built in WiMax, Verizon, or AT&T wireless, I don't think people will be willing to spend the $100 a month it will cost minimum to use the device anywhere.
Lastly, I doubt people will pay subscription costs to use software. If they made a hybrid where you could use an online and offline version, people might.
All in all, it's a highly problematic idea that faces some major hurdles if it's actually going to take off. The only place I could really see it working is on Android phones.