[Macworld]

Post your comments for Chrome OS's impact? It's too early to tell here

[backtomacintosh]

Based on what is currently known, I bet netbooks running Chrome OS will be free.

[mdg1019]

Just another UI on top of Linux and this one sounds extremely limited in what it will be able to do. How many times are we going to have to see the next shiny new version of desktop Linux for people to realize that Desktop Linux = Epic Fail.
I have nothing personal against Linux, but let's face it, it's been a total failure in the desktop OS market. Google's name recognition may help this new Linux iteration a little, but it'll be doomed to failure in the end.
From what I've read about Chrome OS so far, it's going to turn a fully capable computer into nothing more than a web terminal. Why would any sane person want to do that? Is faster start up time really worth crippling what your computer can do so important?
I hope there's more to this picture than Google has revealed so far, because I really don't see people ditching Windows or OS X for this crazy concept anytime soon.

[jkahlon]

To be clear this is a huge threat to Microsoft and Apple and any company that is in the consumer computing space.
Unless the other companies can also provide the cloud model consumers will move away. Lower cost and functionality will help drive this.
Why does one need a loaded laptop if all the processing is taken care of in the cloud and can be accessed from anywhere in the world, backed up for safety and secured.
All you need is access to this and chrome OS will provide it through a thin terminal and later on possibly your TV set or through the iphone or other devices.
Expect commercial computing use to also follow this model.
It all depends on how quickly the home internet connections, wireless channels can grow thicker and that is around the corner.

[GregoriusM]

Think iPhone on Apple's "netbook" and Apple has little to worry about.
Also think iWork.com. Apple has not been sitting still.

[kriri]

I'm always wondering - hasn't Apple proven cloud computing a failure due to customer/developer rejection with the 1G iPhone? And not to forget that MacOS8 allowed for application sharing, kind of a mini cloud? Also gone. Maybe I'm just too old, still downloading my emails to my laptop, maybe it's a question of building a powerful enough infrastructure to provide a satisfying consumer experience?

[cv]

The gap between smartphones and notebook computers is shrinking every day. In the year that the App Store has been open, I've come to realize that a web browser is often not the best way to access data on the Internet, especially on these handheld devices. In addition to the pocketability of these little devices is one other aspect, one-handed operation. You can't hold and use a larger tablet computer or netbook with one hand.
I have a MacBook that has only left the house twice in the past year. My iPod touch is always in a pocket. I'm not even sure if my next computer is going to be notebook. The "thin client at home" thing may never come to reality. Some tasks aren't suited to web applications. I come home, plug in my HD camcorder and want to edit video. How long will that 6GB clip take to upload over a 256Kbps? Yeah, I thought so.
Let's face it. There's a use/desire for having your data local. All this talk about everything migrating to the "cloud" is ridiculous.

[mdg1019]

jkahlon wrote:Why does one need a loaded laptop if all the processing is taken care of in the cloud and can be accessed from anywhere in the world, backed up for safety and secured.

Ah, privacy is the first thing that comes to mind. Cloud computing certainly doesn't mean your data is more secure, if anything, it'll be less secure.

Next, execution speed and features. Even the best written web app is no match for an equivalent desktop app in either execution speed or features. At least in the US, execution speeds of web apps are seriously crippled due to the crappy internet infrastructure we have in this country. High network latency is all too common. Just try playing any multiplayer online game to see just how prevalent latency issues really are. Combine that with crappy uplink speeds that the current broadband models offer and your apps are going to be crawling if this really does become at all popular. It's just going to increase the load on an often times overloaded network as it is. So where is all of this new bandwidth going to come from to make cloud computing really practical if it does succeed?

Are Chrome OS computers going to be able to do anything at all when not connected to the Internet? Based on what I've read so far, the answer to that is either no or not much at all.

Oh, did I mention privacy? Are you really going to trust either your personal or business data to a companies like Google? Who is going to own the data stored in their cloud? I'd read any EULAs with a microscope, because most of the internet companies have shown time and again that they could care less about your privacy if they can make a buck off of your data.

[griffman]

Wake me when the cloud will handle the 150GB+ of music, photos, and video I have stored on my local drive. Oh yea, please don't wake me until it works at the same speed as it does my local hard drive. I figure we're at least 10 years away from such speed being widespread.
Until then, the cloud has a role to play, but it won't be a major role. I use cloud computing every day -- I back up my key (non-media) data files to it. I occasionally save files to MobileMe for editing elsewhere. But that's it. For everything else, I'll take the power and flexibility of a true desktop app, along with the speed of local storage.
Between Time Machine, SuperDuper, an offsite FireWire hard drive, and the mentioned online backup, I have no fears about the safety of my data.
-rob.

[flowney]

A follow-up article entitled, "Betting on the Cloud" would be timely and appropriate. Google is betting on something (the Cloud) that is controlled by forces beyond its reach. Very risky behavior.
The road to "the Cloud" has some serious pot holes such as asymmetrical DSL and Cable which militates against Web 2.0 and any other schemes that depend upon uploaded data. Additionally, not everyone can get on that road due to costs and availability, particularly in rural areas. Future technologies such as Wireless Wide Area Networks, WiMax and LTE for example, will only exacerbate the problem as the telecom industry tries to extract a return on their ballooning investments by avoiding rural deployment and charging more in urban areas.
Maybe Google is counting on some sort of government intervention that will result in actualizing the rhetoric of "the Cloud." I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen AND actually work.

[kresh]

I just don't get it. Apple stands on stage and smugly announces that you can run any application you want on the iPhone, so long as it is a web app, and the world goes bananas and screams for an SDK so they can have native apps.
Google announces a new operating system where the applications are web based and the world now goes gaga and gaps how Microsoft is doomed.
Oh yeah, Google Gears you say, it allows web apps to run offline on Chrome whereas on the iPhone they didn't. But these are still the same AJAX applications that the vast majority of users discovered were not as robust as native apps.

[Kennethfcooper]

The cloud is just one way of reducing the cost of the unit that people hold in their hands. Another is to reduce component costs. It is risky to base you future on merely reducing costs.
I once worked for a company that was reducing the cost of a communication product by using discrete components rather that expensive integrated components. It made sense at the time the idea was conceived, but by the time the product was designed and ready to ship, the exp expensive components had dropped in price so much that they could be used to build cheaper systems than the one the company build. The company is no longer in business.

[bousozoku]

mdg1019 said:

Just another UI on top of Linux and this one sounds extremely limited in what it will be able to do. How many times are we going to have to see the next shiny new version of desktop Linux for people to realize that Desktop Linux = Epic Fail.

I have nothing personal against Linux, but let's face it, it's been a total failure in the desktop OS market. Google's name recognition may help this new Linux iteration a little, but it'll be doomed to failure in the end.

From what I've read about Chrome OS so far, it's going to turn a fully capable computer into nothing more than a web terminal. Why would any sane person want to do that? Is faster start up time really worth crippling what your computer can do so important?

I hope there's more to this picture than Google has revealed so far, because I really don't see people ditching Windows or OS X for this crazy concept anytime soon.

Consider this as the origins of the Android platform. It's not much different than any other mobile-only platform. People get work done with a Blackberry in their hand, right? So, why not provide an easy-to-use platform for all those little things that people love? Asus used the horrible Xandros distribution to introduce their Eee line of computers and since then has embraced Windows. Chrome OS could give the lightweight feel of Linux to millions in a more carefree way. What's not being said is that Chrome OS puts Google's applications on the desktop for good with the storage only temporarily on the machine. Seamless, automatic back ups and sharing between office workers sounds like a great way to enable even small businesses to compute on the go.

[griffman]

Google's apps may be good for web apps, but compared to any desktop word processor, spreadsheet, or presentation app, I'll take the desktop. I can think of nothing less appealing than being forced to work with the horrid Google Docs UI on more than an occasional basis.

If Google wants to win the desktop, they need to create some true desktop apps to run on their shiny new OS. Google Earth is a good example of this: as nice as maps.google.com is, Google Earth is more powerful, easier to use, and comes with all the stuff one expects in a desktop app, such as a traditional menu bar.

-rob.