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.
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.
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...
The new Genius Bar system allows you to make reservations further in advance than the old one, which was limited to just a few days. #gizmodoremainders
@yule-and-bellow: No - I mean if something initially costs $100 and someone says prices are cut by 50%, this means that the new price is $50. If they say prices are cut by 100%, this means the new price is zero. If you say the price is cut by 800%, this means the new price is -$700. #gizmodoremainders
I think thats right, you can tell me if I am or not because you're first comment flew right over my head, proving you have the superior mind of us two...or google is paying people massive amounts of money to have all the data in the world put in their cloud...further inching them closer to world domination
When/if this becomes standard practice, I imagine that the practice of torrenting cloud-stored files will co-opt the term "Cloud Seeding." A torrential downpour, indeed. #cloud
03:48 PM
11:20 AM
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
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
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
"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
11/11/09
11/11/09
Something is wrong with this sentence... #gizmodoremainders
11/11/09
Better? Worse? #gizmodoremainders
11/11/09
11/11/09
I think thats right, you can tell me if I am or not because you're first comment flew right over my head, proving you have the superior mind of us two...or google is paying people massive amounts of money to have all the data in the world put in their cloud...further inching them closer to world domination
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
- Of course, this all moot if you're not in EST. In which case, get your butt back to work. - #cloud
11/11/09
11/11/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Did we just find Giz's next Photoshop contest!? Dress Ballmer as a "mac"!!