Comments

1

This is obviously a step towards cloud computing. C'mon, don't you read the papers?
2
Well, I think you've rather hit the nail on the head in terms of the prospective users: people who don't know (or care to know) very much about how computers work, find installing applications only slightly more difficult than programming their VCR, and who just want to be able to play Farmville and email pictures of Cousin Nellie's new baby or some dumb email LOL they got from Aunt Virginia to everybody they know.

In other words, most of my entire family...
3
"The principle behind ChromeOS is most users are too dim and foolish to be trusted with vetting applications before installing them."

So, the same as iPhone OS. Or whatever the fuck.
4
I someone forcing someone? It seems like iPhone to me - you're welcome to use it, if you're the sort of person who's willing to abide by the creator's heavy restrictions.

It doesn't appeal to me, but I can see how there'd be enough of a market to justify the expense of putting it out there.
5
Update: nevermind.

There's a 'jailbreak' switch on the official notebook.
http://chromestory.com/2010/12/rooting-o…

6
I remember when 'cloud computing' like this was called mainframes with VT100 dumb terminals. It sucked then, too.

Cloud computing + thick client? Almost magically wonderful. Cloud computing + thin client? A shitty end user experience.

Microsoft's approach, so far as I can surmise, it so provide cloud-like features backed with a full-featured OS. If they can pull it off, I think it will be a superior experience.
7
Google can bit my shiny S-100 bus butt.
8
Google can byte my shiny S-100 bus butt.
9
Jonathan, you sound rather ill-informed about the user experience and how hackable the hardware is, but that isn't surprising since you haven't actually used the device. For a proper review check out http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/09/googl…, and keep in mind that the laptop is in beta and should not be considered anything close to a finished product. Anyway, ours just arrived today (courtesy of a friend at Google) so if you have any specific questions about it's form and/or function feel free to email me.
10
"The principle behind ChromeOS is most users are too dim and foolish to be trusted..."

So it's like a mac?
11
The browser is the UI.

The "app" can be as complicated as a JBoss application server (or equiv) can be built.

It's called Web Development.
12
@Henry. I fully admit that I have not seen or tried the hardware yet. I hear it's quite good. I'm sure it is.

It's still not clear to me that the combo of javascript + HTML5 + Flash can approximate the quality of a native productivity application. We all bitch about Word / Powerpoint / Excel et al, but they really do work better than Google's online variants--including the versions integral to ChromeOS. It'll be interesting to see if Google can pull this off.
13
How embarrassing for you.
14
@10 - have you used a Mac in the past decade?

15
@10 actually, no, they're saying that they can neither trust the apps themselves nor the users understanding of what the apps are supposed to be able to do.

This is why I run ring 0.
16
I don't think ChromeOS is the end result, but it's an experiment in how much computer use we can migrate onto the web and I'm eager to try it out.

We're dragging our feet when it comes to cloud computing. People want possessions even they're just harddrives and data. I don't want to possess music, I want to have access to listen to my favorite music anywhere... Same for movies, "apps" and other media: it's silly that we're buying more and more storage space to keep identical files... and that storage space is very vulnerable to loss or damage.

Second is licensing... I want to be able to *do* the same stuff on my powerful desktop, my portable laptop/tablet, and my ultraportable smartphone without having to pay for 3 different licenses or think about different platforms. It can actually take some power/money out of the business of being proprietary.
17
Is there really a Chrome OS VM available? I haven't been able to find it. If not, than what Jonathan is running is Chromium OS, which doesn't appear to be the same thing, strictly speaking.

As Jonathan mentions, Chromium OS is open source. He may not like the user experience, but this is not a completely proprietary, locked-down OS in the way that the iPhone/iPad OS is.

Limited OSes like Chrome OS aren't just for people who can't manage their own computers. A lot of the people using iPhones, iPads, and other closed devices are technical people. I can see Chrome OS doing well with these same people.
18
@16 you pay for that? really? there are torrents for that stuff ...
19
"@16 you pay for that? really? there are torrents for that stuff ..."

And that's why the companies have been putting a big push on for this type of computing. So they can regain control of your consuming habits and have you return to being good little shoppers.
20
This just seems like google is trying to be AOL and track your every move.
21
What are you a doctor of again? Certainly not computer science...
22
While google is correct 110%, their product is still shit.
23
SHUT UP GOLOB.
24
My brother was using this for a little bit and actually /did/ start tearing out his hair in frustration. He couldn't get rid of it fast enough. I don't even consider myself good with computers and that sounds intensely annoying.
25
Even if I thought your assessments were 100% correct (I don't), I still think your conclusions are bogus.

For example, your headline, "Google Thinks You Are an Idiot, Not to be Trusted with a Computer" could also be stated "Google thinks there's a market for appliance-style computing". If you're interested in somebody who agrees with them, check out Paul Constant's Slog posts about the iPad and other gadgets.

Surely you can understand the appeal of streamlined user experiences to the majority of consumers, who aren't and don't have time to become tech-savvy. The iPhone alone is testament to that appeal.

Just because you don't like a product doesn't mean that Google hates its customers or thinks they're all morons. It just means it wasn't designed for you. Surely you can understand that.

It's still not clear to me that the combo of javascript + HTML5 + Flash can approximate the quality of a native productivity application.


Google is principally a web apps company. Are you expecting them to invent an OS and a robust suite of native apps out of whole cloth for their initial product? Seems a bit ambitious, even for somebody who seems not to understand software and software development.

We all bitch about Word / Powerpoint / Excel et al, but they really do work better than Google's online variants


I haven't used Google's version in recent memory, but this seems like a loaded comparison. Office is insanely feature-rich/bloated. It's the poster boy for the idea that 95% of the features are used by only 5% of the users. That's the highest bar for a web app to clear if what you're measuring is equivalency. If you're saying that there are core functions you can't perform, then that's definitely on Google. On the other hand, Google's other products are far more compelling than their thick client versions, so I think you're cherry picking your examples, here.

But enough about your conclusions, let's take your premise:

With the package comes aggressive blockade against anything resembling jailbreaking, side-loading of applications or rooting of the device.


Given the course of Android development, I'm very skeptical of this conclusion, especially based as it is on a virtual machine variant. I'll wait for a review of an actual product before buying it.

I remember when 'cloud computing' like this was called mainframes with VT100 dumb terminals. It sucked then, too.


Once again, even if I agreed with your premise, your conclusions are bogus. VT100s provided cheap access for many people to really powerful mainframe computing in a much leaner and more powerful form than its predecessors. It wasn't competing with PCs (my PC at the time I was using VT100s was a 486). You used your PC for word processing and other Office-style apps, for graphical games, and whatever specialty apps you had installed. You used the VT100 for writing and executing code on a machine that was far more powerful than your little PC, for internet access (especially true in the days before Mosaic made the internet a visual medium), for communicating with other people on your local network (remember ntalk and ytalk? aww), and for text-based games. Internet-wise, the PC was a poor substitute for a VT100 for a long time, due to slow speeds (you were lucky if the modem bank you called into supported 4800 baud connections), poor interface (WinSocks, really lame terminal emulators and telnet programs, no or swilly email clients, the inherent limitations of Windows 3.1), and comparitively weak processor speeds and low amounts of memory.

It's easy to forget in today's mature PC market, but the VT100 and PCs of the day served different purposes. The PC was exactly that: personal computing. VT100s represented connected computing. And everybody, from the savvy CS students to the non-savvy Pacific Islander girls who filled the Seattle U computer labs at all hours, using the VT100s to chat in IRC channels with their friends and family back home and across the world, understood that difference. I bet you did, too.
26
Mike @25: "If you're interested in somebody who agrees with them, check out Paul Constant's Slog posts about the iPad and other gadgets."

Way to read the post 4 up from this one, dumbass!
27
lol cutting edge tech commentary from the stranger. It's why I come here.

No, really. Why do I cme here?

i'll gt back to you.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.