Blogs and Stories
Google's War on the PC
)
Jose Luis Roca, AFP / Getty Images
The Web giant's new operating system, revealed overnight, will make sharing programs and data easier, and Douglas Rushkoff thinks it will change the entire technology industry—for the better.
As the GoogleApps suite of programs finally graduated from its "beta" status this week, Google also announced its plans to release an operating system on which to run them. Google Chrome, based on the company's new browser, will invite us all to spend a lot less time, energy, and money on our computers—and in the process, it may force the technology industry to consider how to make money after people no longer require expensive machines and software to do their work.
In a sense, Google is just bringing computing back to the way it was supposed to be.
When Steve Jobs toured Xerox PARC and saw computers running the first operating system that used Windows and a mouse, he assumed he was looking at a new way to work a personal computer. He brought the concept back to Cupertino and created the Mac, then Bill Gates followed suit, and the rest is history.
Technology has moved away from sharing and toward ownership. This suits software and hardware companies just fine: They create new, bloated programs that require more disk space and processing power. We buy bigger, faster computers, which then require more complex operating systems, and so on.
What Jobs didn't happen to notice was that the computer operating system he witnessed and copied wasn't meant as a way to organize the software and data on a single machine—it was actually a way for computers on a network to share resources. Not only files, but the software to work with them. The computers themselves were to be just dummies—terminals from which to run software and access files that were stored on someone else's expensive computer.
Instead, our operating systems have moved away from sharing and toward ownership. We buy a big powerful machine and do everything on it ourselves. This suits software and hardware companies just fine: They create new, bloated programs that require more disk space and processing power. We buy bigger, faster computers, which then require more complex operating systems, and so on. (It's as if the car companies and asphalt industry worked together, building roads that required new kinds of cars, and then cars that required new kinds of roads.)
But, as more computer users are coming to realize, owning hardware and software is actually more of a liability than an asset. Whether it's watching a $4,000 laptop fall off the conveyor belt at airport security, contending with a software conflict that corrupted your file management system, or begging your family to stop opening those virus-carrying "greeting cards" attached to emails, all computer owners are highly leveraged and highly vulnerable technology investors.
While there have been "cloud computing" efforts before, they always ran up against people's (false) notions of computer privacy, virus contagion, and fear of dependence. While sporting a new super laptop felt like driving a Porsche, using a shared application felt more like taking the bus.
Google Apps helped retrain us to work in a networked fashion. Instead of opening a word-processing program on our own computers, we used a browser to open Google's word processor. No updates to worry about, no new versions, no file compatibility—or even file storage. It's all someone else's problem. Meanwhile, the Net-based applications are much more biased toward collaboration and sharing than stuff stored on our laptop. While any file can be kept viewable or changeable by only you, it can also be shared with whomever you choose to invite. For those temporarily offline, Google provided a small application through which people could still work on their files remotely before reconnecting to the network.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Apple's Mac Killer Unveiled
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
The Great Google Coverup?
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
The Internet Mob's Porn Bomb
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
Granite
Thank God! Its about time! It will be like George Jetson finally getting off the dog-walking treadmill.
rickjr82
Good article, i'm excited about how this can progress.I just have a few comments.
Bringing computing back to the way it was supposed to be? I can agree with wanting to avoid the hardware problem (which was the reason behind terminals), but whenever you are dealing with the cloud you will be held back by your bandwidth and be at the mercy of your internet connection. This will be on ongoing cycle until the end of time (who could ever use more than 640k of memory?).
For most this might not be an issue, but alot of technology is driven by those at the cutting edge. The cloud is a great product, but it won't be everything to everyone.
As far as cost being a barrier to entry, there are plenty of easy to use linux alternatives out there, Google is just coming up with a more trusted flavor.
Advertising is just another way to pay for these apps, some people would rather just pay and others would still want it for free without the ads.
Someone's bloat is someone else's favorite feature. How many essential features have started as "bloat"?
Google apps aren't really coming out of beta(they mostly weren't really in beta either), its mostly a rebranding to make them more comfortable for business users. You know this, but some readers may not.
neandrothal
In principle, I do like the idea of cloud computing. There are several important drawbacks, though. My company uses Google Apps and hosted Gmail, and the IT guys are always complaining about not being able to backup important information, which, as we rely more and more on Google to collaborate, gets posted to Google Sites.
Also, Google Spreadsheets absolutely bites compared to Excel or Numbers. And there is no equivalent of Microsoft Project or other project management software.
al-nafs
I think the benefit here isn't really in hosting more specialized products like project management software. Its just that building an operating system or word processing software isn't a big secret anymore. It's something that has become so easy to do, that it is the common case. My grandmother and my real estate agent do not need project management software, but the project managers I work with do. There will always be a need for specialized software. Operating systems, word processors, email, and spreadsheets are not special anymore.
flerlerp
Google's OS popularizes a paradigm shift that I may not be comfortable with. For one, Microsoft gave me control of my programs and data and (most importantly) computing power. Google's idea takes that away by encouraging me to purchase a low-power appliance (like a toaster) which has no power to compute on its own and puts my programs and data somewhere out in the internet 'cloud'. Google's idea is catchy, but I don't trust them to take from me the power I now have.
wiseone
If getting software by clicking instead of going to the store, that's a savings in gas and time. My question is do you use your credit card every time you do it? I'm sure it's not free. Usually simpler methods are more expensive, so expect a high price. I'll just wait and see, it may be worth it.
exploora
That is a good point.
thenanyu
It's free. Free as in beer, meaning you pay no money, and free as in speech meaning you get to view, modify an redistribute, even sell Google's source code.
exploora
ok then what about privacy, when you use the product, is it being tracked? Sooner or later I think it would have to be. I like my privacy, my independence.
rushkoff
Yeah. I hear you. It's just a matter of whose firewall you trust. You running Windows?
mikeytwice
I am not so certain that this will happen. I think there may be divergent trends at best, with netbooks going the route that you outline. Given the unreliability of internet connections in a place as populated and advanced as NYC, whether at work, wirelessly, or at home, I have reservations about the idea of hosting everything remotely. What's more, I think that this just won't work for certain programs... Google apps is never going to include something akin to Photoshop or Final Cut Pro.
al-nafs
Many large companies already do this internally. Google is enabling anyone, whether private individual, small business or online university to do much the same thing.
exploora
Losing independence usually costs something.
I prefer decentralization to central control.
I think I just saw that google mapping car, it had a big camera on its roof. I sort of like those maps, though I can see how they could be dangerous.
rickjr82
So is it better to be told you are being monitored or to be told you are not but not trust the source? It all comes down to trust.
Open source software at least gives you the ability to find out what is going on.
NDSquid25
That settles it, I'm going to learn Linux. Does anyone have any good suggestions (books/websites/etc) where a nube like myself can learn the basics?
rushkoff
Honestly, just get Ubuntu. The forums explain pretty much everything you need to know.
gshifrin
People forget - we had centralized computing with dumb terminals 30-40 years ago. They were slow, clumsy, and outrageously expensive. How do we know Google will be able to keep up when they are supporting millions and millions of users? Also, what happens when some hack attack goes after Google and shuts down their servers - how will we get to our data then?
sweetmoses
Go to www.google.com.
Realize that everybody else in the world is on the same page as you.
Ask yourself...how slow is this process?
How often does Google get hacked?
Take a deep breath. Look at the calendar. It's 2009. Not 1970. Now exhale.
dansmind
"The most legitimate concern, of course, is whether a Google OS will end up centralizing control of software and data in a previously decentralized universe. I'd have to say no. Being essentially forced to use Microsoft Word by a Windows-addicted industrial complex is no better; worse, in fact, because I have to pay for the bloated program. By taking away our need to own software individually, Google is not taking away the equivalent of our right to bear arms; it is simply exposing how little agency all of our store-bought software packages afforded us in the first place."
As I understand it, the difference between centralized vs. decentralized is where the data is stored.
Google can comb through all emails in Gmail inboxes. If you use a private email server no one company can analyze all of your email. Even if you email people who use Gmail frequently, Google can only analyze a percentage of your emails.
The real treasure is in analyzing all of this information and using it to reverse engineer consumers' actions.
Google is not taking away our right to bear arms, but they are looking more and more deeply into what makes us tick. Which is a more efficient tool for (possible) coercion?
Anyone who has two minutes and cares about privacy should listen to this NYU Law professor: http://www.dansmind.com/?p=250 It's very good and part of a larger lecture.
maxiepad
wasn't Oracle supposed to destroy the PC like a decade ago with its "network computers", failing miserably in the process?
microsoft is just too entrenched at this point in time, and introducing a new operational system seems a tad hubristic to me, but hey, it might be amusing to see google try (especially while burning through billions)
mmm, i suddenly feel the urge to try microsoft's bing engine
rickjr82
New operating systems are comig out all of the time(even from microsoft).
Read Neal Stephenson's "In the beginning was the command line" - a free essay from a great author.
http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html
maxiepad
i insist, windows (which is continually evolving and which i have been using for 25 years) is simply too entrenched to be replaced, just look at apple and its lovely OS: they remain (somewhat) niche-ish, even today in the post ipod/iphone era
NYUKULELE
Very interesting article. As someone who writes scripts for production, I'd be curious to read the TOS as regards copyright ownership. (I know it's passe to be concerned about copyright -- but that viewpoint is usually held by those who are not originators/creators.) And then there's the question of backing up.
Just out of curiosity, how does Google make money on this? Would I be forced to view advertising while writing?
I first began working on a computer in 1969 in the Air Force (a Univac). Needless to say, the advances since then are mind boggling. (Spell check doesn't even recognize the word Univac, and the majority who read this probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Ever here of a keypunch operator?.) And I've gone thru all sorts of units since those early days. Anybody remember the Kaypro II, first portable computer?
For the record, I now do my creative writing on a PC that is not hooked up to the internet. I save it on a jump drive and upload it to a computer with internet access when I'm ready to submit it somewhere via email. It takes a few extra minutes, but I don't mind. All I have to do is remember the Univac and I'm happy.
This new approach does seem to present a lot of advantages. Hopefully, they far outweigh the disadvantages that sometimes seem to arise as a result of corporate greed. Google does allow a lot of free usage -- search engine, YouTube -- but how long can they keep it up.
decodent
Google Docs rocks. But give your life to Google?
I've been using it for over a year now. I also use Google Calendar, Gmail, and - soon - Google Voice.
It is so GREAT (as well as cheaper) to be free of Word, Excel, Outlook, etc.
It's true that Google docs are not as powerful as the Office Suite. But I find they cover 90% of my needs. If I've got a sophisticated doc, xls, or ppt, then - yeah - I'm back to Office (esp. PowerPoint).
But really, 95% of the time, Google docs will do the trick. Adding offline capabilities with Google Gears helps.
What I am hoping - and waiting for - is that the new Android phones will tap into all of this seamlessly, and that Verizon (are you listening Verizon? your smart phones suck) will make it available on their network WITH wifi.
All of this brings the whole concept of "all the info, all the time, on all devices" a step closer to reality.
Google may ultimately cross over onto the Dark Side, but Microsoft has PROVEN they're untrustable - again and again and again.
I'll root for the Silicon Valley gang, and gladly watch the Redmond carcass turn and rot in the sun - well, I guess up there it would be under cloud cover.
tommyflorida
1. I recall the same things being exclaimed by Linux looneys.
2. Google will have to shed significant blood to attempt this grandiose vision.
3. Google will be hated the more they succeed (for no apparent reason - as the psychotic MSFT haters do so well - get help dude!).
4. Ideas are everywhere - execution is where the tears fall. Google is search...not an OS.
5. As much as some don't want to believe it, Google has to deal with gravity too, lmao, as we all do.
EtienneEtoile
Open Office - rivals Office Suite
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.