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...
This could save the desktop market...if you could have a laptop that synchs to the cloud and have the desktop synch also...man the possibilities are endless.
@Nathan Obbards: Same here, any product that could end up in the same data-loss brickitude as the Sidekick (as slim as those chances may be) is definately not on my shopping list.
@Skunky: That's every product currently made. If you're using your laptop with any other OS, the harddrive could fail, making the exact same thing happen(but with a much greater chance of actually happening)
@MarcusMaximus: I'd say the likelihood of having network problems is far higher than your hard drive or other crucial component suddenly dropping dead. Even with a robust router and high speed internet, I often see some big glitches because of Optimum Online doing service on the lines, or having service interruptions.
@Kaiser-Machead: Agreed, if possible, I'll be compiling this and installing it tonight, though the mention of custom firmware makes me a bit iffy on whether that's possible. I'm not sure what the implication is supposed to be there but it sounds like it can only run on specific chrome os machines.
@Skunky: +5Up to that! (although I think the lesson has been learned on that one, there's still the possibility for a mass data outage, which would affect people who need their computers for work. And, *gasp* how can I watch Hulu in that situation?)
@MarcusMaximus: I'm curious as to whether or not this can be achieved in a VM. If so that'd be awesome since I have both Parallels and VMware Fusion to play with.
UPDATE: well according to the liveblog, I'd have to buy a Chrome OS machine...whatever the heck that is.
This better make said device significantly cheaper.
@MarcusMaximus: You are certainly correct, but at the same time, _I'M_ the one in control over how bad the dataloss will be. I should backup important (or nostalgic) data on other HDD's and/or optical media. But with the Sidekicks there was no "local backup" option for ones own personal data and so when the whole thing went kerblooie, all users were totally screwed.
The cloud thing isn't a bad idea, i'm not saying that, but I don't think it's the best solution for non-business users.
Now if it gets a WoW port, that might be different, but now I'm just being silly.
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
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
''In Chrome OS, every application is a web application.''
''ALL data in Chrome OS is in the cloud.''
My biggest fear has been confirmed. No Chrome OS for me.
11/19/09
yeah i mean, cloud computing kinda means that your OS is just a glorified web browser.
no chrome for me either.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
In any case, I'm going to have to give this a whirl to see how it functions.
11/19/09
Or really, having it all sitting somewhere in Google's massive memory vaults.
I don't know which is scarier.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
UPDATE: well according to the liveblog, I'd have to buy a Chrome OS machine...whatever the heck that is.
This better make said device significantly cheaper.
11/19/09
The cloud thing isn't a bad idea, i'm not saying that, but I don't think it's the best solution for non-business users.
Now if it gets a WoW port, that might be different, but now I'm just being silly.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
Intellectual property rights with Chinese characteristics...