Google to Develop Operating System?

[Nickdfresh]

NYT: Google to introduce PC operating system
Based on Chrome browser, it would directly challenge Microsoft
By MIGUEL HELFT and ASHLEE VANCE
The New York Times
updated 1:09 a.m. ET, Wed., July 8, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO - In a direct challenge to Microsoft, Google is expected to announce on Wednesday that it is developing an operating system for a personal computer based on its Chrome browser, according to two people briefed on Google’s plans.

The details of the technology could not be learned, but Google plans to make the announcement on a company blog on Wednesday afternoon, this person said.

Google did not immediately return calls and e-mail messages seeking comment.

The move would sharpen the already intense competition between Google and Microsoft, whose Windows operating system controls the basic functions of the vast majority of personal computers.

Google could well be hoping to capitalize on the rise of netbooks, the compact, low-cost computers that have turned the PC world on its head.

Google already has already developed an operating system called Android, that is used for mobile phones. The software is also being built into lightweight PCs called netbooks by several manufacturers.

Google has not encouraged netbook makers to use Android as an operating system, and the Chrome-based operating system appears to be the company’s preferred software for operating netbooks.

Google has also long promoted a vision of computing in which applications delivered over the Web play an increasingly central role, replacing software programs that run on the desktop. In that world, applications run directly inside an Internet browser, rather than atop an operating system, the traditional software that controls most of the operations of a PC.

Chrome browser first step
Last year, the company released the Chrome browser, which it described as a tool for users to interact with increasingly powerful Web programs, like Gmail, Google Docs and online applications created by other companies. Since then, Google has been adding capabilities to Chrome, like the ability to allow it to run applications even when a user is not connected to the Internet.

It is not clear how much work it would take for Google to turn Chrome into the central part of a full fledged operating system. But in a recent interview, Marc Andreessen, who developed the first commercial browser and co-founded Netscape, compared Chrome to an operating system.

“Chrome is basically a modern operating system,” Mr. Andreessen said.

Google has also long customized a version of the Linux operating system for use internally.

The rise of netbooks has started to challenge some of Microsoft’s dominance in personal computing software. The first wave of netbooks relied on various versions of the open-source Linux operating system, and major PC makers like Hewlett-Packard and Dell have backed the Linux software.

In an unusual move, Intel, the world’s largest chip maker, has worked on developing a Linux-based operating system called Moblin as well.

The company has aimed the software at netbooks and smart phones in a bid to spur interest for its mobile device chip sold under the Atom brand.

To combat these efforts, Microsoft began offering its older Windows XP operating system for use on netbooks at a low price. In addition, the company has vowed that is upcoming Windows 7 software, due out this fall, will run well on the tiny laptops.

Netbooks have stood out as the brightest part of the PC market during the global economic downturn. Overall, PC sales have plummeted, while netbooks sales have surged.

This article, "Google Plans to Introduce a PC Operating System," first appeared in The New York Times.

Copyright © 2009 The New York Times (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31791017/ns/technology_and_science-the_new_york_times/)

[sadaist]

I really don't want to learn new operating systems. I just want mine to be fixed by Microsoft so it works. I'm ok with updates and improvements now & then.

[Seshmeister]

Competition is a good thing.

Maybe Google have the power to compete where Apple have failed.

[letsrock]

They are hoping for it to be Open source like Linux and they think that people will add to it for free.

[standin]

I do not trust open source stuff.

[FORD]

Open source is good.... but Google needs to bring their browser up to proper standards before they attempt to replace Windows. Right now, they can't even replace Firefox, at least not until they give me an AdBlock Plus plug in.

[letsrock]

I do not trust open source stuff.

Its only as good as the intentions.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Was it just me, or did anyone else consider that Chrome browser a piece of shit ??

[letsrock]

Commentary: Google and Microsoft free-for-all

Chris Anderson says technology allows giants like Google to give away services.

(CNN) -- When Christine Varney was confirmed in May as the Obama administration's top antitrust cop, some of her words from last year sent a chill through the Googleplex, the search engine's headquarters in Silicon Valley.

During the waning days of the Bush administration, Varney worried that the government would not do enough about Google: "I think we're going to continually see a problem, potentially, with Google, who I think so far has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising lawfully."

Now she's in a position to do something about it.

Having a legally obtained monopoly is not a crime, but abusing it to gain unfair advantages in other markets can be.

The most recent landmark cases on this in technology have been the decade-long investigations and prosecutions on Microsoft's dominance of PC software.

In those cases, competitors complained that the software giant's near-monopoly on operating systems allowed it to get the upper hand in other markets, for example, by gaining an advantage on the Web through bundling Microsoft's Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows.

Now Google has Microsoft-like dominance in search and search advertising. What should it not be allowed to do?

Don't Miss
Fortune: Microsoft CEO: Open to Yahoo deal
In Depth: Commentaries
That question may come to define this era of antitrust law. When Varney was confirmed, she withdrew the Bush administration's report setting relatively conservative standards of antitrust enforcement and declared, "The Antitrust Division will be aggressively pursuing cases where monopolists try to use their dominance in the marketplace to stifle competition and harm consumers."

How might Google's dominance be harming consumers? Ask makers of such items as books and newspapers and advertisers and all will say they are concerned about Google's clout and ability to act unilaterally because of its dominance. Google, meanwhile, has been on a charm offensive for the past few weeks, emphasizing how easy it is for consumers to switch to other search engines and how small it is compared to other companies that have been in a similar position in the past, such as Microsoft, AT&T and IBM.

The Web is still a new territory, with the boundary lines of markets in flux. At least in the Microsoft case, we knew what an "operating system" and "Web browser" were. But on the Web, where software is a Web site, not something you buy in a box, and everything is just one click away from everything else, core antitrust concepts such as "lock-in" and "barriers to entry" will have to be redefined.

One of the most interesting issues that Varney will have to face is Google's use of free. This is not 20th Century "free," as in "buy one, get one free" or "free gift inside." Instead, it's really Free (let's dignify it with a capital F), something that's only possible in the digital age, where costs are close to zero.

Like many Web companies, Google gives away most of what it does. Its searches are free, as are its e-mail, maps, online word processor and spreadsheet, and nearly 300 other products, from directory assistance (GOOG411) to Google Earth.

This use of Free is part of its "max strategy" -- it uses Free to get its products in the hands of the greatest number of users, and then figures out some way to get money from them (mostly with ads, but sometimes with "pro" versions of the services, in which users can pay for more storage or features, using the "freemium" business model).

Google can give away so much because the incremental cost of serving one more Web page to one more user is almost nothing -- and falling as technology gets cheaper. This is the difference between the "bits economy" and the "atoms economy." The marginal cost of production for digital things is so low that Free becomes not just a marketing gimmick but the default price in most markets, driven by economic forces as real online as gravity is in the real world.

But companies still have to make money, so there are limits to how much they can provide free. Not a problem for Google. Its core advertising business is so powerful, dominant and profitable that it can subsidize almost everything else the company does, using Free to get customers in new markets.

Is that fair, when so many of its competitors don't have a similar golden goose at the core of their operations?

The analogy is something like the semiconductor battles of the 1980s, when Japanese companies were accused of "dumping" (selling for under cost) memory chips in the U.S. market to drive out U.S. competitors. Any time you are giving away a product, you are by definition selling it for less than cost (even if the cost is just a fraction of a cent).

Note that no court or regulator has yet suggested that there's anything remotely like this going on in the use of Free online. But when Varney starts looking at ways that Google is using its search dominance to win new markets, its use of Free is going to have to be one of the things she considers.

Could Free be OK for little companies, but not really big ones? How much market share would you have to have in one market to disallow you from using Free in another?

As she digs into this, she may find that it takes her back to Microsoft itself. As entrepreneur Alex Iskold has pointed out, Google is using the profits from its search advertising dominance to fund its competition with Microsoft in word processors and spreadsheets (Google Docs).

Microsoft, meanwhile, is doing just the opposite: using the profits from its dominance of word processors and spreadsheets (Microsoft Office) to subsidize its competition with Google in search (Microsoft Bing). In each case, the companies are using a highly profitable paid product to make another product free, on the hopes of gaining market share by taking price off the table.

The difference this time is that Google is the dominant player, and at least as far as search goes, Microsoft is a struggling upstart. Confused yet? Then spare a thought for Varney. She not only has to figure out what markets need protection, but also how to do that (to say nothing of the poignant irony of Microsoft complaining about unfair monopolies). Tough job. Who would have thought that there was anything not to like about Free?

[Nickdfresh]

I just figured out how to tweak my MS Windows XP so it doesn't run like an unwieldy piece of shit by optimizing the settings and preventing every single frigging program from starting up...

It's amazing how senseless a good deal of it is...

[standin]

Its only as good as the intentions.
Well, I do not trust unaccountable strangers with intentions I value.

[Seshmeister]

The thing is that now that hardware is getting so cheap the OS can make up 30% of the price of a laptop or whatever.

[standin]

Furthermore, I do not trust all accountable non-strangers.

[letsrock]

I just figured out how to tweak my MS Windows XP so it doesn't run like an unwieldy piece of shit by optimizing the settings and preventing every single frigging program from starting up...

It's amazing how senseless a good deal of it is...

msconfig

[FORD]

msconfig

Not even close.

[Kristy]

Was it just me, or did anyone else consider that Chrome browser a piece of shit ??

No, it's total shit.

[Anonymous]

If Google had managed to release a proper browser, I might be excited at these news. As it is, Chrome is shit. Way better than Internet Exploder, fer sure. Dunno if it's better than Firefux, as I use Opera. Nevertheless, a crappy browser.

I use Google everyday, all my internet is Google this and Google that, GMail, the works.

But an OS? Nope. If they can't make a decent browser, I highly doubt they'll make a decent OS.

True, though, it will keep Microsoft on their toes. Push them to do better than 7 (which is surprisingly very good).

Competition is ALWAYS a good thing. Bring it on.

Cheers! :bottle: