Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
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
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Or, in the immortal words of Reducto: "There is no government. There's only a few multinational corporations that own everything!" *Time Warner/AOL sign blinks on*
11/24/09
11/24/09
Thanks for at least pointing it out, but this isn't newsworthy.
11/24/09
11/24/09
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
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