Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
What is there not to get about cloud computing? Whether you like it or need it is of course, another topic.
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.
I don't use a netbook, but if I did, I feel like I would rather just use a small and netbook-designed Linux distro that still worked like a traditional OS than this thing. OK, so this boots lightning-fast, but how often are those few seconds going to make a difference, especially considering that, in Chrome's case, you'll still have to wait on your internet connection to actually do anything.
@Platypus Man: Dell mini 9....Windows 7....yadadamean. 7of9, going to go get a Jeri Ryan wallpaper now. I have 1% boot times as my 9 sleeps 99% of the time when I'm not using it.
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.
I see google dominating netbooks with light, battery efficient machines. Processor speed can go way down, hard drives are basically unneeded, and a lot of weight can be lost. Cheep, battery efficient little windows to the cloud.
meanwhile, ill keep a big fatty beast on my desk for doing the real work, basically anything besides on-the-go email and browsing.
@tylerbrainerd: I see it the same way. And the advantage of a ChromeOS based machine is you don't even need x86. Since software is all in JIT-compiled JavaScript and HTML5, it can be run on any low-power hardware (like ARM + Tegra or whatever the flavor of the month will be next year).
Personally, I have desktops for working on, and I also have a laptop for portable use. I could replace my laptop with a netbook, sure, but something like a tablet with ChromeOS (and the ecosystem that could develop around such a device) would suit me even better. Keeping stuff synchronized onto my laptop for occasional use is a pain.
@tylerbrainerd: Agreed. The promise of ChromeOS is to provide a full browsing experience - mouse, keyboard, full screen, etc - with little more than cellphone innards. Netbooks the thinness of the Adamo XPS can easily be made when cellphones are typically that thin, including a screen. All that Google needs to do is take the innards of a BlackBerry or iPhone, couple it with a Tegra or equivalent, and hook it up to a nice big fat honkin' 12" display, keyboard, trackpad, and 4-cell LiOn notebook battery - boom, 15 hour battery life easily if not more. By ditching Windows and the x86 architecture, significant power savings can be had with little reduction in end-user experience since traditional desktop applications are no longer part of the platform.
But at the same time, desktop apps exist for a reason. Although Google putting in a good OneNote competitor (and expanding Google Books to paid textbooks...) will do them wonders in the academic market, the fact is we consumers do play computer games, we do video editing/encoding, we do manage our photographs. We do need primary machines and this is not it - but we don't generally *need* to do these things in the office or on the go. What ChromeOS does is it cuts the fat off the sides of what the netbook in its current incarnation is supposed to do. It refines the platform in such a way that it could potentially revolutionize it, depending on how they handle cellular internet connections (see my previous post about that).
in addition, eventually they're going to be able to make machines even smaller then todays netbooks with more computing power then a full size laptop, which I'm sure will cause a resurgance of that style of computing for personal users.
but the mainstream market is quickly moving towards a big fatty work PC for heavy computing, and a crazy home media server for internet tv and media and photo management (which will likely be consul and touch and remote based, why not all three, i can set that up right now) and then a portable device that isn't so limiting on typing as a cellphone but isn't as difficult even as a netbook.
honestly, i don't even care for a smart phone. i bought the smallest dumbphone i could get and i have an ipod 2nd gen for pocket email (wi-fi saturated campus) and then a 13" beast with a core 2 duo 2.66 for everything else, 21" monitor in my room. i would love to just ditch the laptop for note taking in class and goofing off, as its battery is not the greatest. a Google designed device, light as crap and cheap as crap, would be perfect.
@jepzilla: i put a lot more in the other reply, but yeah, totally agree. i have no need to spend hundreds on a netbook to take the place of my perfectly good 13" laptop, which doubles as my heavy hitter desktop, but i would love a cheap, light, easy device to replace the laptop and the ipod touch for ease of use around campus.
I was actually looking forward to Chrome OS.....now after watching the live blog, not so much. Maybe for the average user. But for a company that uses netbooks? Basically it would be better served as a phone OS in my opinion.
@ripfire: Don't get me wrong being open source is a great way to go. But like some Linux distros, they are not quite there yet. I love Ubuntu but it's just missing something.
This is a brilliant move. Will it work? I don't know but Google needs to find some way to justify their absurd multiples. Meanwhile, they're throwing off bodacious cash flows and need to place some bets like this.
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.
@Alfisted: How does google have SO MUCH good will from the geek community. Are you really going to give up the computer you control for a dumb terminal run by a company that makes their money selling advertising? This is insane. Chrome OS is really just like any other Linux os, except they took all the features out. With a phone (like android) I can see not having a terminal, not being able write files and do whatever I want on the machine. But with a laptop? Why would I want that?
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
Google needs to make this available for all computers with a lightweight OS that goes on your computer. It would just get you online to access the cloud. Also, it would need to allow you to store things on your computer like pictures & files.
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.
I've got OS X running smoothly on my $200 netbook, why would I ever want to go with Chrome OS? I completely understand what they are trying to do here and it seems to just be an extension of what OnLive is doing with streaming video games, however, it seems to be executed poorly. People want a hybrid system where they can run programs and store data locally without needing to be online. While the Chrome OS will allow for incredibly small form factor computers with potentially longer battery lives, I can't see there being any reason to choose one instead of a netbook or laptop. Hell, I can create simple Excel or Word files on an iPhone, WinMo phone, or Blackberry, so getting a Chrome computer to do just that makes no sense.
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.
I could type forever, but will jump to the conclusion:
Today, the Chrome OS is built for Grandma to email and web browse.
Tomorrow, the Chrome OS may be operating our all-in-one phone, gps, mp3 player, video projector, gaming device, coffee maker, babysitter, teenager stalking devices. But, I doubt it. It is reliant on a network infrastructure and technology that just does not exist yet.
Who the hell knows. This is Google, after all, and this sucker may end up being the answer to every question we never asked. But, I doubt that, too.
I think that the secondary machines that they are saying it needs to run on will have access to cellphone 3g and 4g networks so that it can connect to the internet from almost anywhere. It'll probably be all paid for by google too, like say, the kindle is right now.
I think there's a lot of potential for an OS like this and i'm really looking forward to seeing how it does,
@Nick Johnson: Amazon is willing to pay for the Kindle because the bandwidth used is so small. I have a really hard time seeing Google doing that as the bandwidth being used would be much higher.
If you think about it, google has an extremely biased sense of thinking about the web. With this os they are basically saying "F all of you that don't have internet 24/7"
@MarcusMaximus: It's not do you have, it's do you need. I have three computers now, but, in actuality, I only really need one (though having a netbook and laptop is really nice).
@MarcusMaximus: "Have" 1 computer and "need" 1 computer are entirely different things. I own a desktop, a laptop, and a smartphone. And I've had more than that running before. Heck, with all the parts laying around right now, I could probably throw together a couple more functioning Linux machines in a weekend.
However, is it necessary for me to have a secondary computer? If I'm honest...no, not really.
No, I do not get it. Here's my question, the question Gizmodo should have been pounding on Google's front door:
"How do I do all the illegal stuff that I do (e.g., music pirating and movie storage) if data is stored in the cloud, and I don't have access to hardware storage?"
Because you'd be half-a-fool to store your pirated music and porn collection in public.
Now, I'm sure there will be a web-app to access my shared folders, NAS, etc., on my "primary" networked machine, so maybe this question is rhetorical. But maybe not.
@valkilmerisawful: Google's probably not going to be super willing to go out and tell people how to use their OS to illegally download copywrited software/songs/movies/etc.
@Hello Mister Walrus: Didn't they say that they would maybe support SSD, but not other drives? I'm sure one of the main intentions is to have a lightweight, e-book sized computer that lasts as long as my blackberry, so cut the HDD out of the picture. But I don't see how it would work easily without at least a desktop space for me to drag and drop files constantly in use. Maybe I should start thinking like it's 2050 and not 1995. Maybe someday I'll have kids and they can teach me how to use it.
@TJ: Uh ohh you are in more trouble than me! Well, I was still wondering where I'd be storing those bastard files of torrents, now that my whole life (theoretically) would be sent to me via the Google highway in the sky.
@MarcusMaximus: WELL! Then Google and I are on twoooo diferent-a wave-a-lengths! Kidding aside, I understand that, and I wouldn't want to make Lars Ulrich upset again...
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
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
11/19/09
meanwhile, ill keep a big fatty beast on my desk for doing the real work, basically anything besides on-the-go email and browsing.
11/19/09
Personally, I have desktops for working on, and I also have a laptop for portable use. I could replace my laptop with a netbook, sure, but something like a tablet with ChromeOS (and the ecosystem that could develop around such a device) would suit me even better. Keeping stuff synchronized onto my laptop for occasional use is a pain.
11/19/09
But at the same time, desktop apps exist for a reason. Although Google putting in a good OneNote competitor (and expanding Google Books to paid textbooks...) will do them wonders in the academic market, the fact is we consumers do play computer games, we do video editing/encoding, we do manage our photographs. We do need primary machines and this is not it - but we don't generally *need* to do these things in the office or on the go. What ChromeOS does is it cuts the fat off the sides of what the netbook in its current incarnation is supposed to do. It refines the platform in such a way that it could potentially revolutionize it, depending on how they handle cellular internet connections (see my previous post about that).
11/20/09
in addition, eventually they're going to be able to make machines even smaller then todays netbooks with more computing power then a full size laptop, which I'm sure will cause a resurgance of that style of computing for personal users.
but the mainstream market is quickly moving towards a big fatty work PC for heavy computing, and a crazy home media server for internet tv and media and photo management (which will likely be consul and touch and remote based, why not all three, i can set that up right now) and then a portable device that isn't so limiting on typing as a cellphone but isn't as difficult even as a netbook.
honestly, i don't even care for a smart phone. i bought the smallest dumbphone i could get and i have an ipod 2nd gen for pocket email (wi-fi saturated campus) and then a 13" beast with a core 2 duo 2.66 for everything else, 21" monitor in my room. i would love to just ditch the laptop for note taking in class and goofing off, as its battery is not the greatest. a Google designed device, light as crap and cheap as crap, would be perfect.
#tips
#tips
11/20/09
#tips
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
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
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 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.
11/19/09
Today, the Chrome OS is built for Grandma to email and web browse.
Tomorrow, the Chrome OS may be operating our all-in-one phone, gps, mp3 player, video projector, gaming device, coffee maker, babysitter, teenager stalking devices. But, I doubt it. It is reliant on a network infrastructure and technology that just does not exist yet.
Who the hell knows. This is Google, after all, and this sucker may end up being the answer to every question we never asked. But, I doubt that, too.
11/19/09
I think there's a lot of potential for an OS like this and i'm really looking forward to seeing how it does,
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
AND: Mobile computing often does not allow for internet connectivity.
THEN: Chrome OS with no connectivity fails.
11/19/09
IF: Chrome OS allows for offline work with a Gears like system
AND: Offline work can be synced to the cloud at the next hotspot
THEN: Chrome OS works with or without connecticvity, assuming connectivity will resume at some point.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
However, is it necessary for me to have a secondary computer? If I'm honest...no, not really.
11/19/09
"How do I do all the illegal stuff that I do (e.g., music pirating and movie storage) if data is stored in the cloud, and I don't have access to hardware storage?"
Because you'd be half-a-fool to store your pirated music and porn collection in public.
Now, I'm sure there will be a web-app to access my shared folders, NAS, etc., on my "primary" networked machine, so maybe this question is rhetorical. But maybe not.
11/19/09
11/19/09
www.kickasstorrents.com
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/20/09
#tips
11/19/09
11/19/09