People seem more curious about the ambitions of Google and the costs involved. I also see revenue streams being added in as "considerations".
Here's the thing...you have to throw all that out the window. Just thinking in a business sense, Windows has cemented itself in the marketplace because of ubiquity and third party trust that the vast majority of users are going to be using it. Think of it this way. Windows was built around the PC hardware. This period of time is a critical turning point, because with Linux becoming a serious option to people, developing for hardware is not nearly as important as it used to be, because there are now multiple ways to approach how to speak with the hardware.
Microsoft is trying to do what it forgot to do years ago when Google snagged the foothold on Internet usability. Gmail was the killer. Microsoft had to play catchup and it took them years to do it. Google is working from the outside-in, and always has. Its focus has been on usability, and now it is just getting the hardware specs in place to cement it on a significant platform.
In basic, easy to understand terms for you tech bloggers/reporters/whatever, it goes like this:
Microsoft created the first viable OS. Apple tried to copy, Linux tried to copy, and the fact remains that a high percentage of users don't want to even bother with learning Linux no matter how easy you claim it to be. The average "Idiot's Guide To..." customer does not give the firmest of craps about how Linux can be learned. They want results, and quick. PC's have been around for God knows how long, and you'd think that Microsoft and Apple couldn't be the only answer to the average consumer. Seriously, "turn the power on and off" is STILL a commonly used tech support line. If that's the case, then when the hell is the "easy button" crowd going to bother with Linux?
So if Microsoft was really the only way to go, then who do you think nVidia is going to develop their drivers for? Who do you think Creative Labs is creating hardware for? What has every major PC game release been on and been on first? That's right. No matter what you say, Microsoft was king because it monopolised its Windows as being the only game in town. Everybody, and I mean everybody, has to follow if they are in the business for some revenue. Don't even bring up Apple because the fact is that they were able to pick and choose what hardware they went with almost every single time, so they can pay the money to get the support for what they decide they want to do since they didn't have to appease the entire industry to do it.
Google, on the other hand, did not have to go with hardware at all. Anything would bring up a Google page, so long as you had a dial up connection and a computer that ran anything other than MS-DOS. Now that Microsoft and the Linux community have done literally all the hardware work for them, its as easy as putting the idea out there and letting everyone come to them now that Microsoft is being challenged. Don't give me this "but Google Docs only does this..." crap. That does not matter. Gmail started as basic high-storage e-mail, and we've gained a lot more features since then. Click on the "more" part of the main Google page. How much of that was there ten years ago?
There are no "longterm viability" question. There are no "but Android" considerations. Google is not doing this because of Android. Did you ever suspect that maybe Google knows it is "Internet first" and it just going through the motions of building their way to the OS level? Hmm, first Internet, then phones, then netbooks...I wonder where they plan to go next?
They put the idea out there and they let it build over time. That's the way it has been. So for any of you wondering what Google's goal is, it's this: to compete with Microsoft on every level. That has always been the goal. A single marketplace cannot be dominated by one company forever. For every sector Microsoft has been a part of, Google has and will challenge every single piece of it go get a share of it. That's the goal, and it always has been.
No promises on it always being free, but for those of you actually believing they will charge $200 for the Chrome OS should straight up quit paying attention to tech news altogether because you simply don't get it.
All Google needs to do is provide the option. They've started low, and they'll build it from there. It's as simple as letting the idea marinate on people's netbooks for a while, then suddenly you'll wake up and realize that there is a full Google OS sitting there for download that everybody has access to for what's probably going to cost you nothing. Besides, revenue will be made mostly on the internet side of things in a few years anyway. The more Microsoft relies on products that are readily available for free online, the less they are selling, and that's the way the industry is shifting. Google is simply parking itself right at the shift.
A lot of entities are losing grip on their business because they haven't correctly adjusted for how content will be distrubuted in the future (see RIAA). Microsoft is potentially one of them, because Google will be sitting right at where Microsoft needs to be to make their money. Eventually, the standard OS will be available on the cheap or for free, and Google knows this. Microsoft doesn't. So what if Google doesn't make enough revenue right now? When the timecomes for Internet advertising to be dominant once and for all, it's Google that will be sitting there with an open bag just sitting there catching the bills.
Oh, and the Google OS will have an office suite. I think they'll call it OpenOffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment