Month: November 2009 (Page 3 of 9)

What Chrome OS means for Microsoft

Chrome OS.Seems like every time Steve Ballmer has appeared for a Q&A over the past four months he’s been asked about Chrome OS at least once. His usual response is something like “Ah…erm…uh…well…WHY DO YOU NEED TWO OPERATING SYSTEMS?!?” Now that we know why Google wants two operating systems, and now that we see where Chrome OS fits in the OS marketplace, it’s easier to understand Ballmer’s, ah, consternation. Chrome OS is all about being fast and light, basically everything Windows isn’t, which makes it perfect for your everyday user. That could be really bad for Microsoft, considering the hordes of people who are unhappy with Windows but unwilling to pay for a Mac or bother with Linux.

But Google is only releasing Chrome on pre-selected hardware devices. There will be no download for your current netbook. There will be no install disc. If you want Chrome, you’ll have to buy a new machine. I was surprised to see Google take this path because it really limits the initial install base. I know a lot of people who would love to drop Chrome on a separate partition, if only to give it a shot. Those same people are highly unlikely to buy a new machine for the OS, though. The only way the hardware limitation makes sense is that it controls the Chrome experience for users in the same way Apple controls the OS X experience. Approved hardware should ensure a positive initial experience for every user, giving Chrome the kind of word-of-mouth power it needs behind the marketing.

Now obviously the most appropriate place for Chrome is the netbook market, where computers are designed with basic tasks in mind. By stripping down the specs, manufacturers are able to offer netbooks at unprecedented prices, something consumers have really loved. I’ll avoid extended discussion about the sole merit of netbooks being price, because I think that should be clear to everyone at this point (laptops at the netbook price sell just as well as netbooks these days). Chrome allows manufacturers to drive costs even lower because there is no “Microsoft Tax.” Imagine a netbook plunging to $199 (ignore Black Friday deals for a moment). You wouldn’t be able to keep those things on the shelf. Hell, I’d get one just to stream content to my TV. At that price point, more consumers would likely be willing to give the new operating system a try, especially if it sports the Google brand.

Google isn’t aiming for an overnight coup with Chrome, just a nice, slow bleed. By slowly turning money-conscious consumers toward a simpler operating system, Google can leech people away from Microsoft from the bottom up. Granted, Chrome isn’t going to replace Windows for the people who want to play Modern Warfare 2, at least not on their gaming rig. But even those guys need a laptop, and $199 looks a lot better than anything running Windows.

Chrome OS is all about the web

Google Chrome OS screenshots.Google had its official Chrome OS reveal today, finally giving us some screenshots and a whole lot of Q&A to dig through over the coming weeks. YouTube is flooded with new footage of the OS in action, so I’ll leave you to watch it while I cover the more general details here.

First and foremost, Chrome OS is about speed. “We want Google Chrome OS to be blazingly fast,” said Sundar Pichai, Google’s VP of product management. It should be so fast that it will be able “to boot up like a TV,” according to Pichai. If you’re trying to figure out whether or not your TV has a boot time, just think of the time it takes for the screen to warm up to fully vibrant color. That’s how quickly Chrome will go from pressing the power button to ready to check email. About 7 seconds. Now that’s fast.

Most of that speed comes from the shift to web applications from traditional local applications. Everything in Chrome OS will be managed on the web, even Photoshop-like functionality (though that will come at a later date). For consumers it means no more software updates or hardware backups. The first will be nice, but I’m sure people will have trouble getting used to trusting their data to Google (let’s just avoid the discussion of how that’s already the case, shall we?).

A lot of people wondered why Google would need two operating systems. The company says that Chrome OS is all about the web, while Android is more app-oriented. Chrome, much to my surprise, won’t support any Android apps. Pichai and Sergei Brin were pretty clear about the intentions for Chrome – that it’s all web, all the time – and that it won’t share in Android’s Marketplace.

Check the gallery at Gizmodo for some official screenshots.

AT&T “responds” to Verizon ads

What do you do when you’re getting crushed by clever advertising? That’s right. You bring in Luke Wilson. That’s AT&T’s strategy, anyway. Big Blue hasn’t taken well to Verizon’s recent string of “map for that” ads. It even turned to the law for help, but since that’s playing out like a high school homecoming rivalry, AT&T decided to “respond.” I guess that’s what you’d call it.

You can watch the ad below, but I think it’s safe to say that when your punch line is “doesn’t start with the letter V,” you should head back to the ol’ drawing board. Really there’s nothing in the ad to get remotely worked up about. Two of the little digs AT&T tries to get in are actually about the iPhone, which could very shortly end up on other networks. The whole thing is just another reminder that AT&T spends its money in all the wrong places, like buying up celebrity airtime instead of improving its infrastructure. Well done, fellas. Well done.

The Google Phone is coming

Google logo.Yesterday I wrote a post about the Android explosion and the problems facing developers because there are so many different Android phones. Basically there is so much different hardware out there that developers have to spend time debugging instead of creating new features/apps. Today brings news of the one phone to rule them all, one phone to find them, one phone to bring them all, and crush their pathetic features under the full weight of Google R&D.

I’m talking about the Google phone, a phone that has been rumored for months. Really, Android has been waiting for a flagship device. I thought the Droid was it at first, but pointless features like that crap keyboard made me think otherwise. Michael Arrington and the crew at TechCrunch seem to have the inside scoop on the phone, and they’ve been kind enough to share.

The phone is basically Google’s vision of the perfect Android phone. As for features, there’s really not much to say other than that. From the sound of things it’s coming soon – think early 2010 – and will be sold both directly and through retailers. From the sound of things, it’ll be built by either Samsung or LG, though Arrington thinks it’ll be LG because Samsung already makes parts for the iPhone.

The phone would bring up the issue of competing with customers for Google. Making its own phone means other manufacturers will be going head-to-head with the company that makes the software. A recent update suggests the Google phone might be designed for data-only voice connections, which might assuage some of those concerns. It would still require a carrier – TechCrunch’s source says Google is considering AT&T for now – but calls would only be made over a data connection.

If nothing else, I’d be interested to see what Google considers the ideal Android phone. The Droid was good, but too many features felt like an afterthought.

Source: TechCrunch (first article / second article)

Will the Android explosion scare away developers?

The robots will kill us all.For the most part I’m still comfortable saying that Android growth is a good thing. The platform still needs to expand its app offering to be able to effectively compete with the iPhone. But while most would consider the number of devices sporting Android these days a good thing, it could drive developers crazy.

Android’s adaptability is one of its best features, but it’s a bit of a nightmare for developers. It means making sure apps work on all kinds of hardware, while iPhone developers have just one handset to worry about. For big developers its less of a problem, but for the small guys it means spending time debugging instead of updating apps and releasing new features. “You may build an app that works perfectly with all three firmwares, but then when you run it on carriers’ ROMs it completely blows up,” said Chris Fagan, co-founder of the Android development house Froogloid. “So we find ourselves having to create apps that are compatible with multiple firmwares, multiple ROMs and multiple devices with different hardware.”

Obviously this could cause some problems for carriers as well. As newer versions of the OS are released, older handsets might be left with out-of-date applications that no longer receive support from developers. Even though Android’s open-source platform means it can be hacked onto older devices, some of the features won’t work, like multi-touch from 2.0 on the original HTC G1.

Unfortunately that’s probably just what will happen. Developers will decide who they want to target and just support a set of devices. Everyone else will be stuck wishing they’d paid the extra benjy for the next phone up.

Source: Wired

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Gadget Teaser

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑