TR member dcolbert wants to know: "Do you think that yet another Linux distro, this one Google-branded, is a good thing, or do you think that Google may have lost its way?"
Read the original article:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tr-out-loud/?p=879
And then please share your thoughts in this discussion thread.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
dcolbert makes a fine defense of his position, but starts off from what I believe is a flawed assumption. That assumption is the belief that the OS still matters.
What is the impact of a new Linux distro on Linux? None.
dcolbert comments that Google's apps are in perpetual beta. IMHO the only difference between this and Microsoft is that Microsoft actually convinces us to pay for them.
This "perpetual beta" stage has an advantage. It slowly, but very effectively adapts product releases to customer needs(interests). On the other hand Microsoft releases this huge new version with what it considers relevant and then makes the customer adapt to its needs.
This takes me to the question I ask. Where is the cloud? Is cloud computing about a terminal and a big datacenter? That sounds like hurricane computing to me. All the action takes place in the eye of the datacenter and we get the wind and rain of the outskirts.
IMHO cloud computing is about scattered showers. Think bit torrents. Think for a moment on how Google managed to create its ad campaigns on everybody else's content. If one site they put ads on goes down nothing happens. It doesn't matter what browser you use you still see their ads.
So lets look at what an OS is. "OS is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer" (according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system and it sounds like a reasonable definition).
Based on that definition I'd define Chrome OS as "responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the network". The machine you hold in your hands becomes irrelevant. A temporary node with which you interact with the "computer" which is actually the network.
In cloud computing there is no privileged point of observation. No distinction between home PC, office PC, Smartphone, netbook, etc.
In this environment Linux as well as BSD (OS X) and UNIX are better fit. Designed from the ground up to be networked and multiuser. IMHO the choice of Linux as a base for Chrome OS is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. A bridge between your eyes and hands and the "computer" which is the network (aka the cloud).
What is the impact of a new Linux distro on Linux? None.
dcolbert comments that Google's apps are in perpetual beta. IMHO the only difference between this and Microsoft is that Microsoft actually convinces us to pay for them.
This "perpetual beta" stage has an advantage. It slowly, but very effectively adapts product releases to customer needs(interests). On the other hand Microsoft releases this huge new version with what it considers relevant and then makes the customer adapt to its needs.
This takes me to the question I ask. Where is the cloud? Is cloud computing about a terminal and a big datacenter? That sounds like hurricane computing to me. All the action takes place in the eye of the datacenter and we get the wind and rain of the outskirts.
IMHO cloud computing is about scattered showers. Think bit torrents. Think for a moment on how Google managed to create its ad campaigns on everybody else's content. If one site they put ads on goes down nothing happens. It doesn't matter what browser you use you still see their ads.
So lets look at what an OS is. "OS is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer" (according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system and it sounds like a reasonable definition).
Based on that definition I'd define Chrome OS as "responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the network". The machine you hold in your hands becomes irrelevant. A temporary node with which you interact with the "computer" which is actually the network.
In cloud computing there is no privileged point of observation. No distinction between home PC, office PC, Smartphone, netbook, etc.
In this environment Linux as well as BSD (OS X) and UNIX are better fit. Designed from the ground up to be networked and multiuser. IMHO the choice of Linux as a base for Chrome OS is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. A bridge between your eyes and hands and the "computer" which is the network (aka the cloud).
the dilution of LINUX right now is the only real problem "in the way".
Microsoft proved this with "Hasta La Vista", with the endless menu of alacarte solutions.
there can be different distros, but at the same time, the core needs to remain constant and stable across all releases.
Google in this case is pulling a Microsoft int hat they want to be everything".....well for Microsoft, everything could well mean nothing, if "the network is the computer" concept" is finally realized.
Microsoft has been fighting shared applications and application serving for years (decades actually) in that their "cash cow" is office.
LINUX needs to put together a standard "load" of software that is able to be loaded on ANY hardware platform and work and look the same.
When that occurs, Microsoft is "Hasta La Vista Baby".
THE KEY is distribution.
And NO, Google should stick to other "world domination tactics" and application development, not a distro of LINUX.
The waters are murky and shark infested enough already.
Take a lesson from Redhat and sit this one out.
Jim
Microsoft proved this with "Hasta La Vista", with the endless menu of alacarte solutions.
there can be different distros, but at the same time, the core needs to remain constant and stable across all releases.
Google in this case is pulling a Microsoft int hat they want to be everything".....well for Microsoft, everything could well mean nothing, if "the network is the computer" concept" is finally realized.
Microsoft has been fighting shared applications and application serving for years (decades actually) in that their "cash cow" is office.
LINUX needs to put together a standard "load" of software that is able to be loaded on ANY hardware platform and work and look the same.
When that occurs, Microsoft is "Hasta La Vista Baby".
THE KEY is distribution.
And NO, Google should stick to other "world domination tactics" and application development, not a distro of LINUX.
The waters are murky and shark infested enough already.
Take a lesson from Redhat and sit this one out.
Jim
Vista was a dozen different flavors from a single vendor with no clear difference between them. This would be like Red Hat pushing many different RHE flavors; Red Hat Home, Red Hat Home Pro, Red Hat Business, Red Hat Enterprise.
Different distributions are more like different major versions of Windows. If WinXP, Win Vista and Win7 where all released at the same time from different developer companies. WindowsXP, BlackXP and MiniXP if the later two where officially recognized.
The real confusing is saying "Linux" when one means a specific product that happens to use that building part. It's not "Linux", it's Debian, or RHE, or Suse. These are all very different products from different companies. They have different target markets, goals, benefits and limitations.
Unify all Linux related FOSS development under a single distribution. This would kill competition which drives software evolution. It would also result in the Windows mess where one fault effects many more systems due to such similar installs. It also cancels out one key right and advantage; anyone can try something new. Try a new distribution based on different goals and target market; maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Ubuntu wouldn't exist if it was one distribution only; no one would be allowed to try something new. We'd all be locked into the Linux kernel and GNU userland around it; same flaws, same limitations, same vulnerabilities and a gross lack of competition within the market segment most likely leading to stagnation of development.
Different distributions are more like different major versions of Windows. If WinXP, Win Vista and Win7 where all released at the same time from different developer companies. WindowsXP, BlackXP and MiniXP if the later two where officially recognized.
The real confusing is saying "Linux" when one means a specific product that happens to use that building part. It's not "Linux", it's Debian, or RHE, or Suse. These are all very different products from different companies. They have different target markets, goals, benefits and limitations.
Unify all Linux related FOSS development under a single distribution. This would kill competition which drives software evolution. It would also result in the Windows mess where one fault effects many more systems due to such similar installs. It also cancels out one key right and advantage; anyone can try something new. Try a new distribution based on different goals and target market; maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Ubuntu wouldn't exist if it was one distribution only; no one would be allowed to try something new. We'd all be locked into the Linux kernel and GNU userland around it; same flaws, same limitations, same vulnerabilities and a gross lack of competition within the market segment most likely leading to stagnation of development.
I have read that the Google OS is positioned to be a light weight operating system that can get you from power off to on the Internet in 6 seconds. I seem to spend most of my computer time on the Internet researching technical stuff, or checking my email. Most of my day to day creative projects are not constructed with anything Microsoft, except the OS to get to the Internet.
Think of it as pressing the power button and six seconds later your in a web browser; and that's it. Everything beyond the ability to connect your wifi and see web pages is provided by the webserver. Gmail, Google Apps, Google.com/local. What OS runs behind the browser doesn't matter; that's it, it's a tablet that views websites.
Worst part is, it's still one announcement from Google and mostly rumor. All this madness and discussion over the initial announcement that Google is looking at doing a website viewer tablet and that a few hardware companies are interested in using it. It's not even a Palm Pilot or WindowsCE PDA. It's not a full OS or even the amount of stuff included on the Windows install CD.
But that's why your getting instant on and instant off, it's a single user application running locally. It's Firefox or IE and nothing more.. ok, Google Chrome web browser but that's it.
Worst part is, it's still one announcement from Google and mostly rumor. All this madness and discussion over the initial announcement that Google is looking at doing a website viewer tablet and that a few hardware companies are interested in using it. It's not even a Palm Pilot or WindowsCE PDA. It's not a full OS or even the amount of stuff included on the Windows install CD.
But that's why your getting instant on and instant off, it's a single user application running locally. It's Firefox or IE and nothing more.. ok, Google Chrome web browser but that's it.
The prolem is, they are now spreading themselves too thin in an effort to cover every angle of the market. I wouldn't be surprised if Google started offering Google Branded PC's online like Gateways.
It seems they have lost focus, and as a result I am sure they will in turn lose business. I've been a BDM for enough years to see these patterns played out by companies of all sizes and it always ends with the same, head scratching result.
I rolled my eyes the first time I heard of Google chrome, then they were on abotu a whol enew OS, it's just grasping at straws. They had a big boom and tried to continue momentum while intriducing an entirely new product, which is hard enough itself, but to then try to diversify even more, especially considering the lack of Google Chrome adoption, I think they are just trying everything and anything they can to pull in a few bucks now.
It's sad, but companies do it all the time, greed leads them astray, they lose focus and their initial product, which actually got them there, seems to become neglected. This leaves room for other upcoming players to outshine them with some new tweak that changes the tides.
It's just the old 'look forward but don't forget to look back every now and then; issue that blinds so many companies and slows thier growth rate, drops market share, reduces stock value and eventually sees them fade away. Google's rowser won't go anywhere fast, but they weren't always teh preference and we all know that these things change.
It's like the super powers of the world, nobody stays there when they lose focus of what got them there to begin with.
It seems they have lost focus, and as a result I am sure they will in turn lose business. I've been a BDM for enough years to see these patterns played out by companies of all sizes and it always ends with the same, head scratching result.
I rolled my eyes the first time I heard of Google chrome, then they were on abotu a whol enew OS, it's just grasping at straws. They had a big boom and tried to continue momentum while intriducing an entirely new product, which is hard enough itself, but to then try to diversify even more, especially considering the lack of Google Chrome adoption, I think they are just trying everything and anything they can to pull in a few bucks now.
It's sad, but companies do it all the time, greed leads them astray, they lose focus and their initial product, which actually got them there, seems to become neglected. This leaves room for other upcoming players to outshine them with some new tweak that changes the tides.
It's just the old 'look forward but don't forget to look back every now and then; issue that blinds so many companies and slows thier growth rate, drops market share, reduces stock value and eventually sees them fade away. Google's rowser won't go anywhere fast, but they weren't always teh preference and we all know that these things change.
It's like the super powers of the world, nobody stays there when they lose focus of what got them there to begin with.
No reason to talk about it on desktops or laptops yet, since the initial goal is to get it on netbooks.
Quoting from Neon Samurai:
"This is the Amazon Book Reader for google services."
Quoting from Neon Samurai:
"This is the Amazon Book Reader for google services."
Is that they've already evolved beyond the "Netbook". They're more accurately "commodity micro notebooks".
The failure of Linux and the resulting adoption of XP Home on the Netbook market illustrates this. People want to, and are using Netbooks as far more than cloud based thin clients. This is no wonder, as they're far more powerful than necessary for this role alone.
The rub is, even if you go with a lot less horsepower, you don't see a huge savings in cost. Less powerful processors still cost about as much per unit in gross as the Atom - and the rest of the parts are the same. So the argument might be,
"If you could do something like the current ASUS, ACER, LENOVO, HP, and MSI netbooks, but at a price point of $99, without the Microsoft tax by running Chrome OS - you might have a new thin client cloud computing paradigm that could carve out a significant market".
But I don't think you can do that.
So, even on Netbooks, where does Chrome OS compete with XP or Windows 7 in a way that other Linux web-oriented distros haven't tried (and lost) already?
The only think I see Chrome OS bringing to the equation is the Google name. I'm not sure if there is value in that.
The failure of Linux and the resulting adoption of XP Home on the Netbook market illustrates this. People want to, and are using Netbooks as far more than cloud based thin clients. This is no wonder, as they're far more powerful than necessary for this role alone.
The rub is, even if you go with a lot less horsepower, you don't see a huge savings in cost. Less powerful processors still cost about as much per unit in gross as the Atom - and the rest of the parts are the same. So the argument might be,
"If you could do something like the current ASUS, ACER, LENOVO, HP, and MSI netbooks, but at a price point of $99, without the Microsoft tax by running Chrome OS - you might have a new thin client cloud computing paradigm that could carve out a significant market".
But I don't think you can do that.
So, even on Netbooks, where does Chrome OS compete with XP or Windows 7 in a way that other Linux web-oriented distros haven't tried (and lost) already?
The only think I see Chrome OS bringing to the equation is the Google name. I'm not sure if there is value in that.
1. Novartis AG (NVS) ... $42.20 a share.
2. Maalox ... $6.79 a bottle.
3. The look on Steve Ballmer's face ... Priceless.
2. Maalox ... $6.79 a bottle.
3. The look on Steve Ballmer's face ... Priceless.
Linux & Mac OS X are not getting traction. Microsoft is falling farther from their customers, while making support and security harder and in the wrong directions. Novel missed the opportunity to make a client. Soon Phone/Netbook and cloud are going to converge and if the file system is secure a browser (chrome is better and more secure than IE) Google can make that happen. Your job (and mine) may be Microsoft centric but Google is the only way to move away from the mess that windows has become.
There are many articles that at best rate chrome on par with IE and FF. I've read many reports about Chrome being LESS secure.
Just a couple days ago I read this: http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20090710/running-javascript-in-chrome-despite-view-source/
Enough with the fanboyish hype. Can we just agree to see how things go and form opinions and take action when its appropriate?
Just a couple days ago I read this: http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20090710/running-javascript-in-chrome-despite-view-source/
Enough with the fanboyish hype. Can we just agree to see how things go and form opinions and take action when its appropriate?
All Google products and services are there to track your usage for advertising purposes. No privacy = No security.
There is an open source implementation of Chrome (the browser) for those who like that type of browser. Why use Google's spyware version?
There is an open source implementation of Chrome (the browser) for those who like that type of browser. Why use Google's spyware version?
Windows 7 is currently free - with a deadline, but no real obligation on Microsoft to recognize that deadline when it arrives. People fall into this trap of believing that Microsoft *is* Windows. Microsoft is Xbox and XBox Live, Microsoft is Zune, Microsoft is Windows Mobile, Microsoft is keyboards, joysticks, and mice and other hardware accessories. Microsoft is Office, PowerPoint and thousands of other applications and platforms. Microsoft is bing, and a news site, and associated web advertising, and media content delivery. Microsoft doesn't WANT to give away Windows, but Microsoft could give it away if it wanted to, and continue to make boatloads of money and be a dominant force in the industry. Ask Netscape how it went for them when Microsoft decided to start giving away a competitive product. It is what, 8 years later, and we're just starting to see any real competition in the browser market again. The point is, if you could have Android or Chrome OS for free, or you could have Win 7 for free (or even a marginal charge), who are 90% of the traditional PC consumers out there going to choose? Assuming Microsoft moves quickly enough on meeting market resistance, forces and demands and adjusts their models aggressively enough, they've got all kinds of wiggle room as a company.
It hardly seems like Microsoft is in a very threatened position, or that Google is the most well positioned to threaten their dominance, to me. Microsoft's biggest threat is itself, in the form of an unwillingess to make major changes to their marketing model because "this is the way we've always done things". But, I think Microsoft might be bright enough with collective I.Q. to see and overcome that challenge.
It hardly seems like Microsoft is in a very threatened position, or that Google is the most well positioned to threaten their dominance, to me. Microsoft's biggest threat is itself, in the form of an unwillingess to make major changes to their marketing model because "this is the way we've always done things". But, I think Microsoft might be bright enough with collective I.Q. to see and overcome that challenge.
The reason why I quite using Netscape was Netscape 6. It was horrible, pages did not render correctly, it looked bad. I went with IE simply because it worked. From what I remember of the time, this held true for quite a few people.
Yeah, point taken. The fact that Netscape faltered badly *while* trying to charge $50 for something the other guy was giving away for free didn't help the situation at all. Navigator 6 was pretty bad, if memory serves me well. It wasn't just rendering, it was stability, too.
I wanted a web browser not integrated everything else including html editor. For me it was the last standalone version before looking at it again through Red Hat back in the day.
Either way though, they got beat up pretty bad when MS decided to include a browser. I believe the difference in IE rendering had to do with it also.
Either way though, they got beat up pretty bad when MS decided to include a browser. I believe the difference in IE rendering had to do with it also.
Google as a toddler was competing with Microsoft, Yahoo!, WebCrawler, AOL, ASK.com and a host of others. When Google search launched, it became the search engine of choice in a blink. There is only 1 reason for their domination: Superior Quality! I haven't seen too much of it since then.
Google created a search engine which gave results from the questions asked as opposed to throwing a dart and hopefully hitting a mark.
Over the years, Google has come out with several products (Reader, Shopping, Video, Blog, Book, News, SMS, Picasa, etc.) and has not made so much as a dent in their respective spaces. To attain the space, they seem to have bought the companies (a Microsoft and Intel strategy) to gain a foothold.
Look at social networking Google's Orkut, Facebook, MySpace, and MSN Pages. They were lost.
Looking at e-mail, Google seems to be right up, with Microsoft's Hotmail and Yahoo!, with it's GMail product.
Google as a great R&D entitiy. They have great ideas on how to improve on some product and market it as a Google product.
Google is a great cloud computing company. But, an OS for desktop just goes against the idea; doesn't it?
Google created a search engine which gave results from the questions asked as opposed to throwing a dart and hopefully hitting a mark.
Over the years, Google has come out with several products (Reader, Shopping, Video, Blog, Book, News, SMS, Picasa, etc.) and has not made so much as a dent in their respective spaces. To attain the space, they seem to have bought the companies (a Microsoft and Intel strategy) to gain a foothold.
Look at social networking Google's Orkut, Facebook, MySpace, and MSN Pages. They were lost.
Looking at e-mail, Google seems to be right up, with Microsoft's Hotmail and Yahoo!, with it's GMail product.
Google as a great R&D entitiy. They have great ideas on how to improve on some product and market it as a Google product.
Google is a great cloud computing company. But, an OS for desktop just goes against the idea; doesn't it?
Windows 7 is currently free - with a deadline, but no real obligation on Microsoft to recognize that deadline when it arrives.
Actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to return profit on the money they've invested in developing the product.
...and a news site...
Actually, Microsoft doesn't write their own news (other than their own press releases.
They get it from a wire, or NBC News (their media partner) writes it for them.
It is what, 8 years later, and we're just starting to see any real competition in the browser market again.
Actually, Firefox had already taken over 10 percent of IE's market 3 years ago. And in less than 5 years, Microsoft has lost about 25 percent of their userbase from Q4 2004.
So it didn't take 8 years.
The point is, if you could have Android or Chrome OS for free, or you could have Win 7 for free (or even a marginal charge), who are 90% of the traditional PC consumers out there going to choose?
Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want.
So the traditional user really doesn't "choose" an OS. They choose something that let's them play WoW, send emails and photos to the grandparents, etc.
BTW, I seriously doubt that MS is going to ever give one of their 3 largest profiting software packages go for free. That's too big of a revenue stream to replace overnight.
Assuming Microsoft moves quickly enough on meeting market resistance, forces and demands and adjusts their models aggressively enough, they've got all kinds of wiggle room as a company.
If laying off 5000 people in Redmond is indicative of their financial standing, I would not be too sure that Microsoft has that "wiggly room" to use that you assume they do.
Microsoft's biggest threat is itself, in the form of an unwillingess to make major changes to their marketing model because "this is the way we've always done things".
You are spot on there. And, Ballmer is now the driving force behind the closed-mindedness at Microsoft. He's even less likely to change things than Gates. In fact, he was preaching it in New Orleans when he said:
"Long-term, long-term, long-term.. We don?t go home. We just keep coming and coming and coming. Tenacious, tenacious, tenacious."
Well, even the biggest, fastest, strongest trains derail. And with him as the engineer, I think MS is heading for it.
Actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to return profit on the money they've invested in developing the product.
...and a news site...
Actually, Microsoft doesn't write their own news (other than their own press releases.
They get it from a wire, or NBC News (their media partner) writes it for them.
It is what, 8 years later, and we're just starting to see any real competition in the browser market again.
Actually, Firefox had already taken over 10 percent of IE's market 3 years ago. And in less than 5 years, Microsoft has lost about 25 percent of their userbase from Q4 2004.
So it didn't take 8 years.
The point is, if you could have Android or Chrome OS for free, or you could have Win 7 for free (or even a marginal charge), who are 90% of the traditional PC consumers out there going to choose?
Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want.
So the traditional user really doesn't "choose" an OS. They choose something that let's them play WoW, send emails and photos to the grandparents, etc.
BTW, I seriously doubt that MS is going to ever give one of their 3 largest profiting software packages go for free. That's too big of a revenue stream to replace overnight.
Assuming Microsoft moves quickly enough on meeting market resistance, forces and demands and adjusts their models aggressively enough, they've got all kinds of wiggle room as a company.
If laying off 5000 people in Redmond is indicative of their financial standing, I would not be too sure that Microsoft has that "wiggly room" to use that you assume they do.
Microsoft's biggest threat is itself, in the form of an unwillingess to make major changes to their marketing model because "this is the way we've always done things".
You are spot on there. And, Ballmer is now the driving force behind the closed-mindedness at Microsoft. He's even less likely to change things than Gates. In fact, he was preaching it in New Orleans when he said:
"Long-term, long-term, long-term.. We don?t go home. We just keep coming and coming and coming. Tenacious, tenacious, tenacious."
Well, even the biggest, fastest, strongest trains derail. And with him as the engineer, I think MS is heading for it.
"Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want."
Should read
KActually, Kthe Kend Kuser Kis Kgoing Kto Kgo Kwith Kwhatever Kis Kon Kthe KPC. KYou Kcan Kactually Kmake KDE 3.5 Klook Kjust Klike KWindows KVista. KI've Kseen Kdeployments. KMost Kpeople Kdon't Kgive Ka Ksquat Kwhat Kthe OS Kis Kas Klong Kas Kit Kdoes Kwhat Kthey Kwant.
Kalso, Kthey Koften Kdon't Kdo Kwhat Kpeople Kwant, Klike Kplay, Kgames. Kor krun Kthat Kneat CD Kthey Kgot Kfrom Ka Kcereal Kbox.
Should read
KActually, Kthe Kend Kuser Kis Kgoing Kto Kgo Kwith Kwhatever Kis Kon Kthe KPC. KYou Kcan Kactually Kmake KDE 3.5 Klook Kjust Klike KWindows KVista. KI've Kseen Kdeployments. KMost Kpeople Kdon't Kgive Ka Ksquat Kwhat Kthe OS Kis Kas Klong Kas Kit Kdoes Kwhat Kthey Kwant.
Kalso, Kthey Koften Kdon't Kdo Kwhat Kpeople Kwant, Klike Kplay, Kgames. Kor krun Kthat Kneat CD Kthey Kgot Kfrom Ka Kcereal Kbox.
Not sure the exact point of your comment. Are you focusing on the fact that programs are named differently with resulting icon labels? Is your concern over the modular design of KDE in the back end?
Is the program names in the start menu have got to be the hardest to read ever!
Most users in an office are going to click the "Internet" icon. Mind you, if an IT department is taking the time to make KDE look like Vista then renaming a few icons shouldn't be a great deal of concern.
Even with defaults, it shouldn't take a great deal of adjustment. KDE3.5 is my primary desktop which happens to be open beside me (morning updates and log check.. the joy of sys admin).
Under the program menu button:
Debian
Graphics
Internet
Multimedia
Office
Settings
System
Utilities
Under Internet:
[icon] Thunderbird - Mail Client
[icon] Firefox Web Browser
[icon] KMail - Mail Client
[icon] Konqueror - Web Browser
[icon] Pidgin Internet Messenger
Under Multimedia:
[icon] Amarok - Audio Player
[icon] K3b - Cd & DVD Burning
Under Office:
[icon] KAddressBook - Address Manager
[icon] KMail - Mail Client
[icon] KOrganizer - Personal Organizer
[icon] OpenOffice.org
[icon] OpenOffice.org Base - Database Development
[icon] OpenOffice.org Calc - Spreadsheet
[icon] OpenOffice.org Draw - Drawing Program
[icon] OpenOffice Impress - Presentation
[icon] OpenOffice.org Math - Formula Editor
[icon] OpenOffice.org Writer - Word Processor
This is how the program entry rows appear in the menu including the description following program name and icon. Between the three, it seems pretty clear what they do. Nothing is limiting the IT department from providing desktop icons or renaming the entries in the program menu though.
As with Windows, frequently used programs turn up in the menu root. Daily programs are going to be started from there if not from a desktop icon.
For user's learning; we added Firefox to the standard image and there was a week of "do I use the E thing or the Mozilla thing for internet?" After that it's been a non-issue. Learning a new icon to click or new program name is easily done. The users are more concerned with what the program does rather than what it's called. "You click here for this program to read your email" and it's done.
I can also accept that it is subjective as I don't prefer GNOME for my use and don't spend enough time on osX for it to be completely natural if the program isn't already on the launch bar.
Really though, for an IT department that was moving to KDE for the users, it's an IT tech issue not a user issue. As Asus use of Xandros and Microsoft's Ribbon shows, it's more about implementation and how your IT staff manage it.
Even with defaults, it shouldn't take a great deal of adjustment. KDE3.5 is my primary desktop which happens to be open beside me (morning updates and log check.. the joy of sys admin).
Under the program menu button:
Debian
Graphics
Internet
Multimedia
Office
Settings
System
Utilities
Under Internet:
[icon] Thunderbird - Mail Client
[icon] Firefox Web Browser
[icon] KMail - Mail Client
[icon] Konqueror - Web Browser
[icon] Pidgin Internet Messenger
Under Multimedia:
[icon] Amarok - Audio Player
[icon] K3b - Cd & DVD Burning
Under Office:
[icon] KAddressBook - Address Manager
[icon] KMail - Mail Client
[icon] KOrganizer - Personal Organizer
[icon] OpenOffice.org
[icon] OpenOffice.org Base - Database Development
[icon] OpenOffice.org Calc - Spreadsheet
[icon] OpenOffice.org Draw - Drawing Program
[icon] OpenOffice Impress - Presentation
[icon] OpenOffice.org Math - Formula Editor
[icon] OpenOffice.org Writer - Word Processor
This is how the program entry rows appear in the menu including the description following program name and icon. Between the three, it seems pretty clear what they do. Nothing is limiting the IT department from providing desktop icons or renaming the entries in the program menu though.
As with Windows, frequently used programs turn up in the menu root. Daily programs are going to be started from there if not from a desktop icon.
For user's learning; we added Firefox to the standard image and there was a week of "do I use the E thing or the Mozilla thing for internet?" After that it's been a non-issue. Learning a new icon to click or new program name is easily done. The users are more concerned with what the program does rather than what it's called. "You click here for this program to read your email" and it's done.
I can also accept that it is subjective as I don't prefer GNOME for my use and don't spend enough time on osX for it to be completely natural if the program isn't already on the launch bar.
Really though, for an IT department that was moving to KDE for the users, it's an IT tech issue not a user issue. As Asus use of Xandros and Microsoft's Ribbon shows, it's more about implementation and how your IT staff manage it.
Apple killed that too. It's the i-Life for Apple users. Ever seen a MAC full of i-proprietary i-software? ICK!
Where's Windows mail?
That's Outlook Express now.
Where's Outlook Express?
That's Windows mail now.
How many times has MS changed the name of their search engine?
The marketing dorks need to quit it with their i-, My-, Live- crap.
That's Outlook Express now.
Where's Outlook Express?
That's Windows mail now.
How many times has MS changed the name of their search engine?
The marketing dorks need to quit it with their i-, My-, Live- crap.
I think I clearly illustrate, profits on Microsoft Windows are not necessary to meet that shareholder obligation. As a matter of fact, the best strategy to meet obligations to shareholder profits could in fact be the counter-intuitive act of making Windows 7 free or dramatically reduced in price. Microsoft has enough market momentum and product diversity to sustain and win with such a strategy.
... and a news site... MSNBC... clearly a partnership - what is your point? Do you think Microsoft is *losing* money on their joint venture with NBC in online news? Your point is... well, pointless splitting of hairs. The point remains, Microsoft is a diversified corporation that has moved away from dependence on any one core product over the last 10 years. One could aruge this was a very foreward looking business strategy that should a prenatural understanding of the market direction, long before the competition caught on.
As for Firefox share, Firefox has faltered on execution over the last year or so. Everyone knows it. Firefox share growth probably has MORE to do with being the default browser bundled with Ubuntu (and other?) *nix Distros right now - but I'm not certain how sustainable that is. Reagardless, Microsoft retains nearly 70% of the global browswer market. While that might be cause for concern (good, innovation is nice, and keeping Redmond on it's toes is a universally acclaimed "Good Thing"... go Western Style capitalism!) for Microsoft, it is hardly the end of the world as Microsoft knows it. It means they're actually in a comfortable and sizable lead over the nearest competition (Firefox needs to watch out for Chrome and Safari, which are more likely to cannibalize Firefox's share than IEs). Although actually, I guess you are kind of right, 3 years ago, Firefox may have been a more credible threat to Microsoft IE dominance than it is today. So, it took -whatever, how ever many years for competition to arise again, and a couple of years later it looks like that competition is stalling out. Remember the CPU wars? Remember when AMD wiped out Motorola, Via, and the other comeptitors, and Intel kept the same kind of market share it had always had, give or take 10%-ish or so. Yup. Kind of like that, again? I dunno - this chapter isn't over yet, but my money is on the browser wars ending up kind of like the CPU wars before them. You see it happen enough in the tech sector, and it starts to look like a pattern.
*Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want.
Really? I hate to be smug, but... how did that turn out for Linux on Netbooks the LAST time around? Oh... lots of Linux netbooks got returned and lots of XP netbooks got sold. Ok... that was a little smug, sorry. LOOKING like Vista and ACTUALLY running all the same apps the same way as Vista are two different things - and it is clear, the numbers have spoken, on what end users want. They WON'T stick with what is preinstalled on the machine. That -is- the argument. It has already been tried, and has failed. "Most people do not give a squat what OS is installed"... *wrong*. Absolutely, totally, time-and-time again disproven, *wrong*. I realize you snuck a waffle world in there, "as long as it does what they want"... which translates into... "as long as it runs a Win32 OS". What does Chrome OS introduce to combat this that the bundled Eee PC 701 *nix Netbook OS didn't already have?
Nice try, there, though.
I think if it comes down to survival, they'll give it away (Windows OS) long enough to crush the ability of their competition to compete. Which would be a *heckuva* accomplishment for the Open Source movement, to cause SUCH a disruption to the Microsoft ecosystem. The Open Source/*nix community has been far too ambitious. The MOST it can hope to accomplish is very likely it's own destruction by causing Microsoft to collapse on their current market model in order to compete. It would be *huge*. It would probably also effectivley be the end of any long term asspirations for *nix. But, you've got to be careful what you wish for, sometimes. Again, we didn't say they HAVE to release for free. They could probably compete with Linux by reducing prices to $50... $25... and still generate profit on the Win32 platform - just not as much. But Microsoft is de-emphasizing the OS importance - they understand - which is what the whole rush to subscription based, cloud based, hosted based solutions is with Microsoft. They're moving to EOL the OS as a platform - they want to do it on THEIR time schedule, at their leisure, and to *their* benefit. I'd give them pretty high odds of being successful at this, too. But if someone or something (a Google OS for example) were to rush their hand, I don't think they wouldn't play their cards now, if they felt they had to.
Laying off 5000 employees is generally seen as a healthy sign for an organization Microsoft's size, and almost always results in a rise in their market share price. If anything, this is an indication that Microsoft is willing to move aggressively to protect their financial and economic position, and would tend to strengthen my arguments.
I don't think it is wise to underestimate Microsoft's tenacious, long-term strategies, which have been *highly* successful over the last 30 years.
I could be wrong, I may be completely off base. I'm not saying that you're *wrong*, just that I'm not certain I agree with you, either in full or in part. I think the mistake here is to turn this into a Microsoft-centric argument. This isn't about what is good or bad, on track or off track about Microsoft. It is about where Google is headed. The fact that any discussion of this nature MUST at least acknowledge Microsoft is really a testament to what a giant of the industry they are. I simply don't see this as a threat to Microsoft. Again, I'll defer to my Ross Perot/Ralph Nadar example - Google is most likely to simply split the vote, to the inccumbent's advantage.
Time will certainly tell.
... and a news site... MSNBC... clearly a partnership - what is your point? Do you think Microsoft is *losing* money on their joint venture with NBC in online news? Your point is... well, pointless splitting of hairs. The point remains, Microsoft is a diversified corporation that has moved away from dependence on any one core product over the last 10 years. One could aruge this was a very foreward looking business strategy that should a prenatural understanding of the market direction, long before the competition caught on.
As for Firefox share, Firefox has faltered on execution over the last year or so. Everyone knows it. Firefox share growth probably has MORE to do with being the default browser bundled with Ubuntu (and other?) *nix Distros right now - but I'm not certain how sustainable that is. Reagardless, Microsoft retains nearly 70% of the global browswer market. While that might be cause for concern (good, innovation is nice, and keeping Redmond on it's toes is a universally acclaimed "Good Thing"... go Western Style capitalism!) for Microsoft, it is hardly the end of the world as Microsoft knows it. It means they're actually in a comfortable and sizable lead over the nearest competition (Firefox needs to watch out for Chrome and Safari, which are more likely to cannibalize Firefox's share than IEs). Although actually, I guess you are kind of right, 3 years ago, Firefox may have been a more credible threat to Microsoft IE dominance than it is today. So, it took -whatever, how ever many years for competition to arise again, and a couple of years later it looks like that competition is stalling out. Remember the CPU wars? Remember when AMD wiped out Motorola, Via, and the other comeptitors, and Intel kept the same kind of market share it had always had, give or take 10%-ish or so. Yup. Kind of like that, again? I dunno - this chapter isn't over yet, but my money is on the browser wars ending up kind of like the CPU wars before them. You see it happen enough in the tech sector, and it starts to look like a pattern.
*Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want.
Really? I hate to be smug, but... how did that turn out for Linux on Netbooks the LAST time around? Oh... lots of Linux netbooks got returned and lots of XP netbooks got sold. Ok... that was a little smug, sorry. LOOKING like Vista and ACTUALLY running all the same apps the same way as Vista are two different things - and it is clear, the numbers have spoken, on what end users want. They WON'T stick with what is preinstalled on the machine. That -is- the argument. It has already been tried, and has failed. "Most people do not give a squat what OS is installed"... *wrong*. Absolutely, totally, time-and-time again disproven, *wrong*. I realize you snuck a waffle world in there, "as long as it does what they want"... which translates into... "as long as it runs a Win32 OS". What does Chrome OS introduce to combat this that the bundled Eee PC 701 *nix Netbook OS didn't already have?
Nice try, there, though.
I think if it comes down to survival, they'll give it away (Windows OS) long enough to crush the ability of their competition to compete. Which would be a *heckuva* accomplishment for the Open Source movement, to cause SUCH a disruption to the Microsoft ecosystem. The Open Source/*nix community has been far too ambitious. The MOST it can hope to accomplish is very likely it's own destruction by causing Microsoft to collapse on their current market model in order to compete. It would be *huge*. It would probably also effectivley be the end of any long term asspirations for *nix. But, you've got to be careful what you wish for, sometimes. Again, we didn't say they HAVE to release for free. They could probably compete with Linux by reducing prices to $50... $25... and still generate profit on the Win32 platform - just not as much. But Microsoft is de-emphasizing the OS importance - they understand - which is what the whole rush to subscription based, cloud based, hosted based solutions is with Microsoft. They're moving to EOL the OS as a platform - they want to do it on THEIR time schedule, at their leisure, and to *their* benefit. I'd give them pretty high odds of being successful at this, too. But if someone or something (a Google OS for example) were to rush their hand, I don't think they wouldn't play their cards now, if they felt they had to.
Laying off 5000 employees is generally seen as a healthy sign for an organization Microsoft's size, and almost always results in a rise in their market share price. If anything, this is an indication that Microsoft is willing to move aggressively to protect their financial and economic position, and would tend to strengthen my arguments.
I don't think it is wise to underestimate Microsoft's tenacious, long-term strategies, which have been *highly* successful over the last 30 years.
I could be wrong, I may be completely off base. I'm not saying that you're *wrong*, just that I'm not certain I agree with you, either in full or in part. I think the mistake here is to turn this into a Microsoft-centric argument. This isn't about what is good or bad, on track or off track about Microsoft. It is about where Google is headed. The fact that any discussion of this nature MUST at least acknowledge Microsoft is really a testament to what a giant of the industry they are. I simply don't see this as a threat to Microsoft. Again, I'll defer to my Ross Perot/Ralph Nadar example - Google is most likely to simply split the vote, to the inccumbent's advantage.
Time will certainly tell.
If I remember correctly, isn't MS selling both Windows and Office for incredibly low costs in China? If that is not an indication of MS could do if it found it necessary or desirable.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=525
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/update-microsoft-cuts-windows-vista-price-in-china-553
[added 2nd link]
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=525
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/update-microsoft-cuts-windows-vista-price-in-china-553
[added 2nd link]
Canadians pay less for their prescriptions than I do. The guy next door just bought a seat from Delta for $150 less than I paid.
This doesn't mean Microsoft, pharmaceuticals, or Delta can charge everyone those reduced rates and still make money. The profits they make off some of us are subsidizing the low rates paid by the others. I'm not saying this is right, just that it's the way businesses sell commodities.
This doesn't mean Microsoft, pharmaceuticals, or Delta can charge everyone those reduced rates and still make money. The profits they make off some of us are subsidizing the low rates paid by the others. I'm not saying this is right, just that it's the way businesses sell commodities.
Undercut your competition's retail price and take the loss on your own products until they get pushed back out of the market provided you can expense the loss that long. You don't even need to look as far as China or India for that one; Windows licensing cost on netbooks dropped pretty low when better distributions than Xandros started threatening MS dominance.
If you take a boat ride south you can also get medication at a more realistic price. For all it's faults, Cuba does have a better approach to health care. I think it's Cuba anyhow.
If you take a boat ride south you can also get medication at a more realistic price. For all it's faults, Cuba does have a better approach to health care. I think it's Cuba anyhow.
Isn't that my thesis, though. Microsoft can afford to subsidize Windows because they are well enough diversified that Windows is, in fact, not their core business or revenue generator at this point. The fact that Microsoft has been scrambling for years now to achieve this goal (which has been WELL documented in the tech and mainstream press, it isn't as if I'm pulling this theory out of thin air) may not be absolute proof of my position, but is certainly convincing argument.
An additional point - we're talking about the DESKTOP when we talk about Chrome OS, so we're only talking about Microsoft making their CONSUMER Win32 OS available free, most likely. Corporate customers would likely still pay the same kind of prices, including on the corporate desktop, for the foreseeable future.
A lot of companies, AVG, for example, already have this basic model. Entry level software application is free for HOME users. Corporate or Government users pay a fee, and enhanced versions of the application are charged a premium.
I think it is likely we'll see Win32 "subsidized" in this manner within the next 5 years.
An additional point - we're talking about the DESKTOP when we talk about Chrome OS, so we're only talking about Microsoft making their CONSUMER Win32 OS available free, most likely. Corporate customers would likely still pay the same kind of prices, including on the corporate desktop, for the foreseeable future.
A lot of companies, AVG, for example, already have this basic model. Entry level software application is free for HOME users. Corporate or Government users pay a fee, and enhanced versions of the application are charged a premium.
I think it is likely we'll see Win32 "subsidized" in this manner within the next 5 years.
"... we're talking about the DESKTOP when we talk about Chrome OS, ..."
We might be, but so far Google is only talking about netbooks. Until Google comes up with a full OS (supporting locally installed apps and local storage), there's no pressure on MS. No pressure, no price reductions or change in business model.
We might be, but so far Google is only talking about netbooks. Until Google comes up with a full OS (supporting locally installed apps and local storage), there's no pressure on MS. No pressure, no price reductions or change in business model.
Ok... you may have gotten me on a technical detail. So let me clarify.
We're talking about a "PC" OS, something we would commonly and traditionally refer to as the "desktop OS" space.
As opposed to a smaller device with an integrated, embedded OS - like what we would encounter on a phone, PDA or other similar device.
A Netbook clearly has more in common with the traditional "desktop" OS model than the embedded PDA/SmartPhone OS model.
I'd say that was an uncharacteristic attempt to split a hair, on your part, Palmetto.
I'm not sure if there is no pressure or not, though. If it erodes Microsoft's complete model as it currently exists, then there is potentially all KINDS of pressure, *regardless* of what we call Chrome as an "OS platform".
In that sense, I see the direction for which you chose to split that hair.
We're talking about a "PC" OS, something we would commonly and traditionally refer to as the "desktop OS" space.
As opposed to a smaller device with an integrated, embedded OS - like what we would encounter on a phone, PDA or other similar device.
A Netbook clearly has more in common with the traditional "desktop" OS model than the embedded PDA/SmartPhone OS model.
I'd say that was an uncharacteristic attempt to split a hair, on your part, Palmetto.
I'm not sure if there is no pressure or not, though. If it erodes Microsoft's complete model as it currently exists, then there is potentially all KINDS of pressure, *regardless* of what we call Chrome as an "OS platform".
In that sense, I see the direction for which you chose to split that hair.
I don't think it was as lopsided as you make it sound. Many netbooks got returned regardless of what OS was on them. Consumers thought they where getting a full notebook for a bargain price rather than a netbook device with limited intended functions. It was also not a simply Linux based vs Windows based comparison as Xandros was a bad choice for Asus and made worse by there limited repositories where other distributions preinstalled seem to be doing fine still. More a case of poor sales staff and unmanaged expectations of the devices in general.
This one has been well flogged by the entire tech industry. The consensus is, Linux BLEW the netbook market. No one is even really trying to spin it at this point. XP Home now dominates Netbook sales, netbook sales are an exploding segment of the market, and Linux has all but disappeared, currently from this segment.
So, initially, there may have been some XP netbooks being returned as well as Linux netbooks, for exactly the reason you mentioned above, but that argument just doesn't hold water in the market as it exists for netbooks today. Your claim was pretty well debunked 6 months ago.
Linux netbooks were returned in larger numbers, XP grew their Netbook segment, not because of poorly managed expecations and poorly trained sales staff, but because end users rejected Linux. It is too clear cut to deny. I think the Netbook fiasco was actually a wake-up call for many, long term, vocal Linux proponents. I've seen the tone change among many pro-Linux journalists since the arrival of the Netbook, and I am convinced it is directly related to the events that transpired because of that arrival.
So, initially, there may have been some XP netbooks being returned as well as Linux netbooks, for exactly the reason you mentioned above, but that argument just doesn't hold water in the market as it exists for netbooks today. Your claim was pretty well debunked 6 months ago.
Linux netbooks were returned in larger numbers, XP grew their Netbook segment, not because of poorly managed expecations and poorly trained sales staff, but because end users rejected Linux. It is too clear cut to deny. I think the Netbook fiasco was actually a wake-up call for many, long term, vocal Linux proponents. I've seen the tone change among many pro-Linux journalists since the arrival of the Netbook, and I am convinced it is directly related to the events that transpired because of that arrival.
I don't think it's as cut and clear. Linux didn't blow anything; the vendors who chose bad distributions and implemented them poorly could be said to have blown it though. By the time full distributions where preinstalled, the Windows momentum and brand recognition had already carried it through.
I still think it was unrealistic expectations from the beginning. Granted, I'm not in retail or market research and it's more a discussion for professionals in those areas. I am willing to look at return figures across the market though and compare percentages sold to returns.
I still think it was unrealistic expectations from the beginning. Granted, I'm not in retail or market research and it's more a discussion for professionals in those areas. I am willing to look at return figures across the market though and compare percentages sold to returns.
Everything I've found so far is from around April 2009 and questioning the claims that Linux based netbooks are showing higher returns along with it being due to faults of the OS platform.
It's got me curious though, anything more recent would be worth reading.
It's got me curious though, anything more recent would be worth reading.
I think you'll find that the manufacturers are being guarded about releasing figures. MSI perhaps was the most forthcoming with data, and even they seemed to not be disclosing enough information to draw any real meaningful conclusions from. So, a lot of what you'll hear in this space, both pro and against is conjecture and opinion.
But we'll go back to the argument of the "reality" of the situation versus the "perception". Lots of consumers were exposed, suddenly, to "Linux" when the Netbook arrived. Consumers who had little interaction with Linux previously. Consumers who do not understand Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, or other distros. Consumers who overwhelmingly seem to have walked away with the *perception*... "Linux sucks".
Ultimately, for Linux, as a community, I think that results in a net loss, in a huge setback. The *reality* may be that Xandros on EEE PC was a lame implementation - and geeks and propeller heads may understand it... but I'm not sure how the rest of the Linux community overcomes the negative experience. There isn't any collaborative group to put together a "Mojave Experiment" to clarify the public perception on Linux.
But we'll go back to the argument of the "reality" of the situation versus the "perception". Lots of consumers were exposed, suddenly, to "Linux" when the Netbook arrived. Consumers who had little interaction with Linux previously. Consumers who do not understand Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, or other distros. Consumers who overwhelmingly seem to have walked away with the *perception*... "Linux sucks".
Ultimately, for Linux, as a community, I think that results in a net loss, in a huge setback. The *reality* may be that Xandros on EEE PC was a lame implementation - and geeks and propeller heads may understand it... but I'm not sure how the rest of the Linux community overcomes the negative experience. There isn't any collaborative group to put together a "Mojave Experiment" to clarify the public perception on Linux.
IMHO, they are a fad...like Betamax video.
What are the practical uses of a netbook for business? Slideshow presentations?
What are the practical uses for personal use? An expensive DVD player/cheap game machine for your 12 year old on road trips?
They don't offer the same power or features as notebooks...most notably, smaller video size. What do you do when all the overheads are taken in the office? Crowd 10 people around a 10" screen?
As for why Linux didn't do so well on them?
a) It was reported a lot of the time sales people didn't tell people that Linux was on them. Consumers assumed it was Windows them and when they found it wasn't, they returned them. Consumers are known to not like having something given to them they didn't expect.
b) Sales and tech staff weren't trained on Linux, and couldn't answer questions and deal with issues as well. Need an example? Try to get your Linux-based box serviced at Best Buy's shop. Had friends who tried, and were told to call/send it to the manufacturer.
The industry tried pushing out a product they couldn't support, and tried doing it in a way that didn't disclose it openly to the consumer.
Two major fails on their part.
What are the practical uses of a netbook for business? Slideshow presentations?
What are the practical uses for personal use? An expensive DVD player/cheap game machine for your 12 year old on road trips?
They don't offer the same power or features as notebooks...most notably, smaller video size. What do you do when all the overheads are taken in the office? Crowd 10 people around a 10" screen?
As for why Linux didn't do so well on them?
a) It was reported a lot of the time sales people didn't tell people that Linux was on them. Consumers assumed it was Windows them and when they found it wasn't, they returned them. Consumers are known to not like having something given to them they didn't expect.
b) Sales and tech staff weren't trained on Linux, and couldn't answer questions and deal with issues as well. Need an example? Try to get your Linux-based box serviced at Best Buy's shop. Had friends who tried, and were told to call/send it to the manufacturer.
The industry tried pushing out a product they couldn't support, and tried doing it in a way that didn't disclose it openly to the consumer.
Two major fails on their part.
I think I clearly illustrate, profits on Microsoft Windows are not necessary to meet that shareholder obligation. As a matter of fact, the best strategy to meet obligations to shareholder profits could in fact be the counter-intuitive act of making Windows 7 free or dramatically reduced in price. Microsoft has enough market momentum and product diversity to sustain and win with such a strategy.
Actually, Microsoft doesn't really have momentum. They have sustained their home user market over the past half decade.
However, more and more enterprise and governmental operations have looked more to open source solutions because of cost-savings..especially in the web server and file server arenas. More places have realized that the cost of a Linux admin is about the same as a Microsoft admin. And, Linux servers and desktops are free to deploy and save money across the board.
And when you go to replace 500-2000 PCs, saving $800-1500 per PC is a large corporate savings.
Plus the learning curve is not much for the average business user. OpenOffice.org is enough like Office to make it an exercise in learning new steps and new venacular, rather than learning from scratch.
... and a news site... MSNBC... clearly a partnership - what is your point? Do you think Microsoft is *losing* money on their joint venture with NBC in online news? Your point is... well, pointless splitting of hairs. The point remains, Microsoft is a diversified corporation that has moved away from dependence on any one core product over the last 10 years. One could aruge this was a very foreward looking business strategy that should a prenatural understanding of the market direction, long before the competition caught on.
The point was...you said that Microsoft is this cross-sector corporation, and included the news business. Microsoft isn't a "news outlet"...they serve up other peoples' news items, rather than generating and researching stories of their own (save again..except their own press releases).
Saying MS is a news company because the media provides them news content is like saying Google is a diet drug company because of their ads for Slimfast.
As for Firefox share, Firefox has faltered on execution over the last year or so. Everyone knows it. Firefox share growth probably has MORE to do with being the default browser bundled with Ubuntu (and other?) *nix Distros right now - but I'm not certain how sustainable that is. Reagardless, Microsoft retains nearly 70% of the global browswer market. While that might be cause for concern (good, innovation is nice, and keeping Redmond on it's toes is a universally acclaimed "Good Thing"... go Western Style capitalism!) for Microsoft, it is hardly the end of the world as Microsoft knows it. It means they're actually in a comfortable and sizable lead over the nearest competition (Firefox needs to watch out for Chrome and Safari, which are more likely to cannibalize Firefox's share than IEs). Although actually, I guess you are kind of right, 3 years ago, Firefox may have been a more credible threat to Microsoft IE dominance than it is today. So, it took -whatever, how ever many years for competition to arise again, and a couple of years later it looks like that competition is stalling out. Remember the CPU wars? Remember when AMD wiped out Motorola, Via, and the other comeptitors, and Intel kept the same kind of market share it had always had, give or take 10%-ish or so. Yup. Kind of like that, again? I dunno - this chapter isn't over yet, but my money is on the browser wars ending up kind of like the CPU wars before them. You see it happen enough in the tech sector, and it starts to look like a pattern.
Actually, statistics show that Firefox is still slowly taking away IE's dominance.
And as for what would be success...remember...MS didn't start making OSes 10 years ago. They didn't get this big this quick.
Here's a usage bit of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
*Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want.*
Really? I hate to be smug, but... how did that turn out for Linux on Netbooks the LAST time around? Oh... lots of Linux netbooks got returned and lots of XP netbooks got sold. Ok... that was a little smug, sorry. LOOKING like Vista and ACTUALLY running all the same apps the same way as Vista are two different things - and it is clear, the numbers have spoken, on what end users want. They WON'T stick with what is preinstalled on the machine. That -is- the argument. It has already been tried, and has failed. "Most people do not give a squat what OS is installed"... *wrong*. Absolutely, totally, time-and-time again disproven, *wrong*. I realize you snuck a waffle world in there, "as long as it does what they want"... which translates into... "as long as it runs a Win32 OS". What does Chrome OS introduce to combat this that the bundled Eee PC 701 *nix Netbook OS didn't already have?
What does Chrome OS offer? Dunno...it's not out yet.
However, I'd venture one guess what they can offer: superior search capabilities to anything Microsoft has.
They implement their technology into file system searching, MS will have another pie in the face.
I think if it comes down to survival, they'll give it away (Windows OS) long enough to crush the ability of their competition to compete. Which would be a *heckuva* accomplishment for the Open Source movement, to cause SUCH a disruption to the Microsoft ecosystem. The Open Source/*nix community has been far too ambitious. The MOST it can hope to accomplish is very likely it's own destruction by causing Microsoft to collapse on their current market model in order to compete. It would be *huge*. It would probably also effectivley be the end of any long term asspirations for *nix. But, you've got to be careful what you wish for, sometimes. Again, we didn't say they HAVE to release for free. They could probably compete with Linux by reducing prices to $50... $25... and still generate profit on the Win32 platform - just not as much. But Microsoft is de-emphasizing the OS importance - they understand - which is what the whole rush to subscription based, cloud based, hosted based solutions is with Microsoft. They're moving to EOL the OS as a platform - they want to do it on THEIR time schedule, at their leisure, and to *their* benefit. I'd give them pretty high odds of being successful at this, too. But if someone or something (a Google OS for example) were to rush their hand, I don't think they wouldn't play their cards now, if they felt they had to.
Yeah I can see them giving it away to stay alive. However, it's not going to save the person buying the PC any real money anyways. What is it Dell pays MS right now? $14 per pre-install?
And Linux is already free.
Laying off 5000 employees is generally seen as a healthy sign for an organization Microsoft's size, and almost always results in a rise in their market share price. If anything, this is an indication that Microsoft is willing to move aggressively to protect their financial and economic position, and would tend to strengthen my arguments.
If laying off is a sign of corporate health, the AIG, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Goldman-Sachs and others have been real healthy lately.
I don't think it is wise to underestimate Microsoft's tenacious, long-term strategies, which have been *highly* successful over the last 30 years.
I could be wrong, I may be completely off base. I'm not saying that you're *wrong*, just that I'm not certain I agree with you, either in full or in part. I think the mistake here is to turn this into a Microsoft-centric argument. This isn't about what is good or bad, on track or off track about Microsoft. It is about where Google is headed. The fact that any discussion of this nature MUST at least acknowledge Microsoft is really a testament to what a giant of the industry they are. I simply don't see this as a threat to Microsoft. Again, I'll defer to my Ross Perot/Ralph Nadar example - Google is most likely to simply split the vote, to the inccumbent's advantage.
Time will certainly tell.
True...time will tell.
Actually, Microsoft doesn't really have momentum. They have sustained their home user market over the past half decade.
However, more and more enterprise and governmental operations have looked more to open source solutions because of cost-savings..especially in the web server and file server arenas. More places have realized that the cost of a Linux admin is about the same as a Microsoft admin. And, Linux servers and desktops are free to deploy and save money across the board.
And when you go to replace 500-2000 PCs, saving $800-1500 per PC is a large corporate savings.
Plus the learning curve is not much for the average business user. OpenOffice.org is enough like Office to make it an exercise in learning new steps and new venacular, rather than learning from scratch.
... and a news site... MSNBC... clearly a partnership - what is your point? Do you think Microsoft is *losing* money on their joint venture with NBC in online news? Your point is... well, pointless splitting of hairs. The point remains, Microsoft is a diversified corporation that has moved away from dependence on any one core product over the last 10 years. One could aruge this was a very foreward looking business strategy that should a prenatural understanding of the market direction, long before the competition caught on.
The point was...you said that Microsoft is this cross-sector corporation, and included the news business. Microsoft isn't a "news outlet"...they serve up other peoples' news items, rather than generating and researching stories of their own (save again..except their own press releases).
Saying MS is a news company because the media provides them news content is like saying Google is a diet drug company because of their ads for Slimfast.
As for Firefox share, Firefox has faltered on execution over the last year or so. Everyone knows it. Firefox share growth probably has MORE to do with being the default browser bundled with Ubuntu (and other?) *nix Distros right now - but I'm not certain how sustainable that is. Reagardless, Microsoft retains nearly 70% of the global browswer market. While that might be cause for concern (good, innovation is nice, and keeping Redmond on it's toes is a universally acclaimed "Good Thing"... go Western Style capitalism!) for Microsoft, it is hardly the end of the world as Microsoft knows it. It means they're actually in a comfortable and sizable lead over the nearest competition (Firefox needs to watch out for Chrome and Safari, which are more likely to cannibalize Firefox's share than IEs). Although actually, I guess you are kind of right, 3 years ago, Firefox may have been a more credible threat to Microsoft IE dominance than it is today. So, it took -whatever, how ever many years for competition to arise again, and a couple of years later it looks like that competition is stalling out. Remember the CPU wars? Remember when AMD wiped out Motorola, Via, and the other comeptitors, and Intel kept the same kind of market share it had always had, give or take 10%-ish or so. Yup. Kind of like that, again? I dunno - this chapter isn't over yet, but my money is on the browser wars ending up kind of like the CPU wars before them. You see it happen enough in the tech sector, and it starts to look like a pattern.
Actually, statistics show that Firefox is still slowly taking away IE's dominance.
And as for what would be success...remember...MS didn't start making OSes 10 years ago. They didn't get this big this quick.
Here's a usage bit of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
*Actually, the end user is going to go with whatever is on the PC. You can actually make KDE 3.5 look just like Windows Vista. I've seen deployments. Most people don't give a squat what the OS is as long as it does what they want.*
Really? I hate to be smug, but... how did that turn out for Linux on Netbooks the LAST time around? Oh... lots of Linux netbooks got returned and lots of XP netbooks got sold. Ok... that was a little smug, sorry. LOOKING like Vista and ACTUALLY running all the same apps the same way as Vista are two different things - and it is clear, the numbers have spoken, on what end users want. They WON'T stick with what is preinstalled on the machine. That -is- the argument. It has already been tried, and has failed. "Most people do not give a squat what OS is installed"... *wrong*. Absolutely, totally, time-and-time again disproven, *wrong*. I realize you snuck a waffle world in there, "as long as it does what they want"... which translates into... "as long as it runs a Win32 OS". What does Chrome OS introduce to combat this that the bundled Eee PC 701 *nix Netbook OS didn't already have?
What does Chrome OS offer? Dunno...it's not out yet.
However, I'd venture one guess what they can offer: superior search capabilities to anything Microsoft has.
They implement their technology into file system searching, MS will have another pie in the face.
I think if it comes down to survival, they'll give it away (Windows OS) long enough to crush the ability of their competition to compete. Which would be a *heckuva* accomplishment for the Open Source movement, to cause SUCH a disruption to the Microsoft ecosystem. The Open Source/*nix community has been far too ambitious. The MOST it can hope to accomplish is very likely it's own destruction by causing Microsoft to collapse on their current market model in order to compete. It would be *huge*. It would probably also effectivley be the end of any long term asspirations for *nix. But, you've got to be careful what you wish for, sometimes. Again, we didn't say they HAVE to release for free. They could probably compete with Linux by reducing prices to $50... $25... and still generate profit on the Win32 platform - just not as much. But Microsoft is de-emphasizing the OS importance - they understand - which is what the whole rush to subscription based, cloud based, hosted based solutions is with Microsoft. They're moving to EOL the OS as a platform - they want to do it on THEIR time schedule, at their leisure, and to *their* benefit. I'd give them pretty high odds of being successful at this, too. But if someone or something (a Google OS for example) were to rush their hand, I don't think they wouldn't play their cards now, if they felt they had to.
Yeah I can see them giving it away to stay alive. However, it's not going to save the person buying the PC any real money anyways. What is it Dell pays MS right now? $14 per pre-install?
And Linux is already free.
Laying off 5000 employees is generally seen as a healthy sign for an organization Microsoft's size, and almost always results in a rise in their market share price. If anything, this is an indication that Microsoft is willing to move aggressively to protect their financial and economic position, and would tend to strengthen my arguments.
If laying off is a sign of corporate health, the AIG, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Goldman-Sachs and others have been real healthy lately.
I don't think it is wise to underestimate Microsoft's tenacious, long-term strategies, which have been *highly* successful over the last 30 years.
I could be wrong, I may be completely off base. I'm not saying that you're *wrong*, just that I'm not certain I agree with you, either in full or in part. I think the mistake here is to turn this into a Microsoft-centric argument. This isn't about what is good or bad, on track or off track about Microsoft. It is about where Google is headed. The fact that any discussion of this nature MUST at least acknowledge Microsoft is really a testament to what a giant of the industry they are. I simply don't see this as a threat to Microsoft. Again, I'll defer to my Ross Perot/Ralph Nadar example - Google is most likely to simply split the vote, to the inccumbent's advantage.
Time will certainly tell.
True...time will tell.
"They have sustained their home user market over the past half decade.
However, more and more enterprise and governmental operations have looked more to open source solutions because of cost-savings..especially in the web server and file server arenas. More places have realized that the cost of a Linux admin is about the same as a Microsoft admin. And, Linux servers and desktops are free to deploy and save money across the board."
jck, we all know I completely disagree with this assessment, and why. I've documented my arguments against this time and time again. Common sense dictates Microsoft owns and dominates the corporate desktop, back office and datacenter. This is, IMHO, just so much Linux propoganda and disinformation. More importantly, they've lost a more significant portion of their home market, and in less than a decade, to a relative newcomer, OS X, which did in that decade period MORE damage to Win32 market share than Linux had done for the 25 years preceeding. Your pro-linux bias affects your perception on these points in an almost spiritual way that is fairly ineffective to argue with. But I see a lot of indications that more and more people are coming around on this.
"Saying MS is a news company because the media provides them news content is like saying Google is a diet drug company because of their ads for Slimfast."
Oh? So, I can type in http://slimoogle.com and get to a Slimfast/Google partner site?
No? So, then, it ISN'T like saying Google is a diet drug company because of their ADS for Slimfast. That would be more like seeing a Windows Ad on NBC.COM. MSNBC is a partnership with joint ownership between Microsoft and NBC, and their stories require disclosure on this fact. That certainly *is* a Microsoft diversifcation into news media. I'm not sure what your goal is in trying to deny this.
Statistics showed that the trendy shoes, "Crocs", were growing hugely, but they've lost as much money this year as they MADE last year. Firefox is headed the same way. Mark - my - words. Firefox has become much like Linux, stigmitized as the Browser that the anti-social ubernerds and your local community college witness fanatically for. Sorority girls and jocks are dumping it like hotcakes. They may not go back to IE (a lot of them are going to go to Safari, no doubt) - but the long term prospects for Firefox are market loss. I'm almost *never* wrong in predictions like this. Chrome is only going to hurt Firefox, also. Let me rephrase that. Firefox is not the only browser that will lose share to Chrome, but Firefox will be the biggest loser overall as Chrome splits the vote, especially with the chilled attitude that Firefox has received from "average" users over the last 2 years compared to the initial excitement it enjoyed (especially among high school and college demographcis, which are an important indicator).
Chrome may provide superior web based search capabilities to Bing - but Chrome isn't going to be a local OS, right... so there won't be anything to search for locally. In that aspect, there won't be any "value add/Feature enhance" on Google Chrome that a surfer using Ubuntu, OS X or Win32 doesn't already enjoy. So, therefore, I'll ask again... what does OS Chrome introduce that countless other platforms don't already offer, that would make a Linux paradigm any more attractive than it is now? Nothing. Exactly.
For "local file searching", Google already offers local search appliances to the corporate enterprise. I'm not sure how a desktop local file google search app would fair. It is an interesting proposal. Is there a market for aftermarket search applications for local files? Not really. I dunno if it would be a PIE in the face, or maybe more of an annoying fly buzzing around the head.
I'll tell you where free, downloadable Windows competes. Not on bundled OEM boxes (Microsoft already OWNS this segment, lock-stock and barrel. Aren't Linux dweebs always complaining about how if they buy an OEM box they're "forced" to pay the "Microsoft Tax")? Nope, on the DIY market where you're currently forced to pay retail or at least gray-market retail for a Win32 OS. Most of the Linux builds you'll encounter are on DIY machines. Some of these are by necessisty. I guarantee you, if Win32 was available free with no WGA hassles, some current Linux "die-hards" (and blow-hards, too) would sheepishly defect - because it really has been SOLELY about money for a lot of these people for awhile. They don't HAVE the extra $130-200 for an OS. They're barely scraping together what they have now. Give them Win32 free, and they would jump ship so fast it would break a penguin's icy little heart. It would MORE than keep Microsoft alive, it would HARM Linux significantly.
At Ford, at Intel, at other companies, yes, significant layoffs HAVE been perceived as the RIGHT thing to do with a positive reaction from shareholders and stock markets. Using examples like GM who got into far more serious trouble then simply having an overgrown workforce in a slowing economy, is not fair and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of corporate economics. I'm sorry, but you probably should have just ignored this point rather than trying to take it on. Poor rebuttal, at best.
Time will tell... and I think time has held out most of my arguments over the last 12 months on my posts here at TR. iPhone, Apple, Linux, Win32, Netbooks - I've been ahead of the curve and hitting line drives far more frequently then I've missed a swing. I'm not saying that my past predictions are any indicator of my future performance. I could be completely off base here.
But I don't *think* I am.
However, more and more enterprise and governmental operations have looked more to open source solutions because of cost-savings..especially in the web server and file server arenas. More places have realized that the cost of a Linux admin is about the same as a Microsoft admin. And, Linux servers and desktops are free to deploy and save money across the board."
jck, we all know I completely disagree with this assessment, and why. I've documented my arguments against this time and time again. Common sense dictates Microsoft owns and dominates the corporate desktop, back office and datacenter. This is, IMHO, just so much Linux propoganda and disinformation. More importantly, they've lost a more significant portion of their home market, and in less than a decade, to a relative newcomer, OS X, which did in that decade period MORE damage to Win32 market share than Linux had done for the 25 years preceeding. Your pro-linux bias affects your perception on these points in an almost spiritual way that is fairly ineffective to argue with. But I see a lot of indications that more and more people are coming around on this.
"Saying MS is a news company because the media provides them news content is like saying Google is a diet drug company because of their ads for Slimfast."
Oh? So, I can type in http://slimoogle.com and get to a Slimfast/Google partner site?
No? So, then, it ISN'T like saying Google is a diet drug company because of their ADS for Slimfast. That would be more like seeing a Windows Ad on NBC.COM. MSNBC is a partnership with joint ownership between Microsoft and NBC, and their stories require disclosure on this fact. That certainly *is* a Microsoft diversifcation into news media. I'm not sure what your goal is in trying to deny this.
Statistics showed that the trendy shoes, "Crocs", were growing hugely, but they've lost as much money this year as they MADE last year. Firefox is headed the same way. Mark - my - words. Firefox has become much like Linux, stigmitized as the Browser that the anti-social ubernerds and your local community college witness fanatically for. Sorority girls and jocks are dumping it like hotcakes. They may not go back to IE (a lot of them are going to go to Safari, no doubt) - but the long term prospects for Firefox are market loss. I'm almost *never* wrong in predictions like this. Chrome is only going to hurt Firefox, also. Let me rephrase that. Firefox is not the only browser that will lose share to Chrome, but Firefox will be the biggest loser overall as Chrome splits the vote, especially with the chilled attitude that Firefox has received from "average" users over the last 2 years compared to the initial excitement it enjoyed (especially among high school and college demographcis, which are an important indicator).
Chrome may provide superior web based search capabilities to Bing - but Chrome isn't going to be a local OS, right... so there won't be anything to search for locally. In that aspect, there won't be any "value add/Feature enhance" on Google Chrome that a surfer using Ubuntu, OS X or Win32 doesn't already enjoy. So, therefore, I'll ask again... what does OS Chrome introduce that countless other platforms don't already offer, that would make a Linux paradigm any more attractive than it is now? Nothing. Exactly.
For "local file searching", Google already offers local search appliances to the corporate enterprise. I'm not sure how a desktop local file google search app would fair. It is an interesting proposal. Is there a market for aftermarket search applications for local files? Not really. I dunno if it would be a PIE in the face, or maybe more of an annoying fly buzzing around the head.
I'll tell you where free, downloadable Windows competes. Not on bundled OEM boxes (Microsoft already OWNS this segment, lock-stock and barrel. Aren't Linux dweebs always complaining about how if they buy an OEM box they're "forced" to pay the "Microsoft Tax")? Nope, on the DIY market where you're currently forced to pay retail or at least gray-market retail for a Win32 OS. Most of the Linux builds you'll encounter are on DIY machines. Some of these are by necessisty. I guarantee you, if Win32 was available free with no WGA hassles, some current Linux "die-hards" (and blow-hards, too) would sheepishly defect - because it really has been SOLELY about money for a lot of these people for awhile. They don't HAVE the extra $130-200 for an OS. They're barely scraping together what they have now. Give them Win32 free, and they would jump ship so fast it would break a penguin's icy little heart. It would MORE than keep Microsoft alive, it would HARM Linux significantly.
At Ford, at Intel, at other companies, yes, significant layoffs HAVE been perceived as the RIGHT thing to do with a positive reaction from shareholders and stock markets. Using examples like GM who got into far more serious trouble then simply having an overgrown workforce in a slowing economy, is not fair and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of corporate economics. I'm sorry, but you probably should have just ignored this point rather than trying to take it on. Poor rebuttal, at best.
Time will tell... and I think time has held out most of my arguments over the last 12 months on my posts here at TR. iPhone, Apple, Linux, Win32, Netbooks - I've been ahead of the curve and hitting line drives far more frequently then I've missed a swing. I'm not saying that my past predictions are any indicator of my future performance. I could be completely off base here.
But I don't *think* I am.
I do intent to play with it a great deal but as a primary OS, I need an install that is modular enough to customize to each of my needs while including optional software for all my needs. Windows7 as a freeware download would be very nice if it happened beyond RC versions but that it needs to be modular and I still need all the apps that run on top of it.
What is supposed to be the final RTM - 7600.16385.090713_1255 is availale if you want to bypass the MS channels to get it. If MS sux so bad that shouldn't be an issue for most.
I've been playing with the various releases since thier first and I think they've got it running pretty tight now.
I've been playing with the various releases since thier first and I think they've got it running pretty tight now.
I've not been keeping up with updates but the RC image and initial updates. I like what I've seen at that level though.
I can't support bypassing the legal distributor to get hands on it though. It sucks when you can't afford the price of the software but you either go without or go with a more affordable alternative.
I can't support bypassing the legal distributor to get hands on it though. It sucks when you can't afford the price of the software but you either go without or go with a more affordable alternative.
I suggest you look up the quarter report at:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/aspx/secfilings.aspx
I'm basing this on Q-10 filed 4/23
Operating income (loss)
Client $2,351 $2,977
Server and Tools $1,284 $970
Online Services Business (582) (256)
Microsoft Business Div. $2,834 $3,082
Entertainment and
Devices Division (68) 67
Reconciling amounts (1,381) (2,550)
If Windows were given out for free. That would cut heavily on the Client income. Which BTW is less than last year's same quarter. Honestly don't think its going to happen.
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/aspx/secfilings.aspx
I'm basing this on Q-10 filed 4/23
Operating income (loss)
Client $2,351 $2,977
Server and Tools $1,284 $970
Online Services Business (582) (256)
Microsoft Business Div. $2,834 $3,082
Entertainment and
Devices Division (68) 67
Reconciling amounts (1,381) (2,550)
If Windows were given out for free. That would cut heavily on the Client income. Which BTW is less than last year's same quarter. Honestly don't think its going to happen.
What makes Google so special? Mandriva moved me away from Windows for all but video games already and Debian is posed to replace Mandriva on my systems. Mandriva may remain my primary desktop workstation OS but it's been replaced on notebooks and servers.
It's far easier to move away from Windows already. I don't see Google's webapp viewer being the secret sauce unless the evolve it into a full distribution, get hardware vendors to provide driver interface specs or outright support and the game developers follow. Not sure how they'd break the DirectX addiction for that to happen either though.
It's far easier to move away from Windows already. I don't see Google's webapp viewer being the secret sauce unless the evolve it into a full distribution, get hardware vendors to provide driver interface specs or outright support and the game developers follow. Not sure how they'd break the DirectX addiction for that to happen either though.
I'm not sure using the Android phones is a fully valid comparison point.
First, On the whole, people who use iPhones like them. People that use BlackBerrys like them. Whereas, people generally are either apathetic (it's what came on the PC, so it is what I'll use) towards Windows, begrudgingly accept Windows as part of life (helps pay the bills) or out and out loathe all things Redmond. So, the public sentiments in the markets are somewhat different. (Yes, I admit to painting with a broad brush, and that there are always exceptions)
Second, Joe Public can change the OS on the computer with relative ease. The same can't be said of cellphones.
Third, the price variances between phones using different operating systems is nominal due to provider subsidies and what not. However, the difference between a Linux system and Windows system of comparable builds is usually pretty substantial.
Fourth, the general populace doesn't pay attention to cellphone security. Of course, they tend not to with their home PCs, either. HOWEVER, as the one discussion thread (I'll come back and edit this to include the link) indicates, there may be growing sentiment to put the onus of net security onto the end users. Introduce a recognized brand backing a (presumably) cheaper OS that is touted (by the Google marketing gurus) as being safer; and you could have quite a bit of interest from consumers.
That all said, I still don't see how Chrome becomes more than a niche player, even in the netbook arena. People seem to get familiar with the operating systems to which they're exposed to early on in life (MSFT undercut Apple in the academic arena, and hasn't looked back since) or at work. I don't seem where Chrome would really address either area.
Of course, this is just all opinion. This and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at the local greasy spoon.
EDIT: As promised, here is the link to the thread detailing security: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12846-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=313139&start=0
First, On the whole, people who use iPhones like them. People that use BlackBerrys like them. Whereas, people generally are either apathetic (it's what came on the PC, so it is what I'll use) towards Windows, begrudgingly accept Windows as part of life (helps pay the bills) or out and out loathe all things Redmond. So, the public sentiments in the markets are somewhat different. (Yes, I admit to painting with a broad brush, and that there are always exceptions)
Second, Joe Public can change the OS on the computer with relative ease. The same can't be said of cellphones.
Third, the price variances between phones using different operating systems is nominal due to provider subsidies and what not. However, the difference between a Linux system and Windows system of comparable builds is usually pretty substantial.
Fourth, the general populace doesn't pay attention to cellphone security. Of course, they tend not to with their home PCs, either. HOWEVER, as the one discussion thread (I'll come back and edit this to include the link) indicates, there may be growing sentiment to put the onus of net security onto the end users. Introduce a recognized brand backing a (presumably) cheaper OS that is touted (by the Google marketing gurus) as being safer; and you could have quite a bit of interest from consumers.
That all said, I still don't see how Chrome becomes more than a niche player, even in the netbook arena. People seem to get familiar with the operating systems to which they're exposed to early on in life (MSFT undercut Apple in the academic arena, and hasn't looked back since) or at work. I don't seem where Chrome would really address either area.
Of course, this is just all opinion. This and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at the local greasy spoon.
EDIT: As promised, here is the link to the thread detailing security: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12846-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=313139&start=0
And I try to keep that in perspective.
*Third, the price variances between phones using different operating systems is nominal due to provider subsidies and what not. However, the difference between a Linux system and Windows system of comparable builds is usually pretty substantial.
I disagree with this point. The "Windows Tax" is a well debunked myth. On an OEM box, you don't pay full retail for a Win32 install. You pay a fraction of it, adding a marginal price to your box. The OEM may retail a Win32 machine at a higher price than an OS-less or an alternative OS system with similar specs to increase profits (if their licensing agreements allow them to), but the actual price increase caused by Win32 is not significant. On Netbooks, for example, you can expect to pay $50 maximum more for a Win XP netbook compared to a Linux netbook. The vast majority of Netbook consumers have eagerly "paid" this "outrageous" Microsoft Tax.
Your fourth proposition has a *lot* of speculation going on in it. The initial interest in Firefox might even support your claim. I saw Firefox catch on QUICKLY with high school and college age students sick of virus infections from surfing MySpace, on initial release. Then I saw this movement chill as interoperability issues made Firefox a hassle, and Firefox really became the defacto browser for *nix propeller-heads at that point. I could see the "Google Net Security" line having the same kind of arc, assuming it got off the ground at all.
I'm also seeing you paint consumer desire for Windows in 3 false paradigms (by the fact that you clearly omit a fourth alternative). There are people who are genuinely enthusiastic and excited about purchasing Microsoft based systems. They're just as passionate in their opinion as the next Apple or *nix fanboy. You've more than painted with broad strokes, you've painted false dichotomies by omission, either intentful or accidental.
But you are absolutely right that people generally don't pay attention to Cell Phone security. Yet... anyhow.
And your conclusion, I'm on the same page as you there, too. I just don't get it - it seems like a distraction. Maybe it is. Perhaps Google wants everyone looking in one direction while they're doing something else in a completely different direction, and this is simply a distraction.
*Third, the price variances between phones using different operating systems is nominal due to provider subsidies and what not. However, the difference between a Linux system and Windows system of comparable builds is usually pretty substantial.
I disagree with this point. The "Windows Tax" is a well debunked myth. On an OEM box, you don't pay full retail for a Win32 install. You pay a fraction of it, adding a marginal price to your box. The OEM may retail a Win32 machine at a higher price than an OS-less or an alternative OS system with similar specs to increase profits (if their licensing agreements allow them to), but the actual price increase caused by Win32 is not significant. On Netbooks, for example, you can expect to pay $50 maximum more for a Win XP netbook compared to a Linux netbook. The vast majority of Netbook consumers have eagerly "paid" this "outrageous" Microsoft Tax.
Your fourth proposition has a *lot* of speculation going on in it. The initial interest in Firefox might even support your claim. I saw Firefox catch on QUICKLY with high school and college age students sick of virus infections from surfing MySpace, on initial release. Then I saw this movement chill as interoperability issues made Firefox a hassle, and Firefox really became the defacto browser for *nix propeller-heads at that point. I could see the "Google Net Security" line having the same kind of arc, assuming it got off the ground at all.
I'm also seeing you paint consumer desire for Windows in 3 false paradigms (by the fact that you clearly omit a fourth alternative). There are people who are genuinely enthusiastic and excited about purchasing Microsoft based systems. They're just as passionate in their opinion as the next Apple or *nix fanboy. You've more than painted with broad strokes, you've painted false dichotomies by omission, either intentful or accidental.
But you are absolutely right that people generally don't pay attention to Cell Phone security. Yet... anyhow.
And your conclusion, I'm on the same page as you there, too. I just don't get it - it seems like a distraction. Maybe it is. Perhaps Google wants everyone looking in one direction while they're doing something else in a completely different direction, and this is simply a distraction.
This all seems like a great way for them to get Microsoft to look left, while they come in from the right with something. Especially considering that they really aren't (from what it seems) re-inventing the wheel; just modifying what already exists. So, it may not be a lot of $$$ to basically 'throw away' if it leads to a bigger gain elsewhere (why they have R&D budgets). Time will tell, I suppose.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
