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.
Although Google Apps alone may not have convinced the public of the benefits of cloud computing, the introduction of $100 and $200 "netbooks" like the Asus Eee and Dell Mini 9 liberated users from the myth that owning more computer was somehow better than owning less. Miniature keyboards notwithstanding, netbooks could as easily be "net desktops," running nimbly on bloatware-free Linux operating systems.
With Google now building a Linux-based netbook OS of its own, those last barriers to entry will be removed. People who want to spend less, work less, and get more, will have an option. Instead of figuring out how to hack their netbooks to run illegal copies of the Mac OS X, people will be clicking a button to install a free, legal, and streamlined Google OS Chrome. (Mac OS X is actually bigger than the whole hard drive on my current netbook, anyway.)
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.
And luckily for us (if not the company's shareholders), Google tends to do things because they're neat, and worry about business models later. While it may imagine its OS will provide new opportunities to sell advertising space, chances are Google is hoping to benefit purely from the increased Internet traffic catalyzed by an always-on, always-connected, and always-collaborating network of users. In the Chrome universe, a piece of software will not be a disk you buy, own, and are stuck with, but a place you go. So if Google ends up turning its networked programs into advertising platforms, we'll be freer than we were before to do our computing elsewhere.
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 Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Murdoch to Google: Search This
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.
Google Declares War on Facebook
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.
Google's Velvet Rope
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.
Thank God! Its about time! It will be like George Jetson finally getting off the dog-walking treadmill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is a good point.
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.
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.
Yeah. I hear you. It's just a matter of whose firewall you trust. You running Windows?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Honestly, just get Ubuntu. The forums explain pretty much everything you need to know.
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?
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.
"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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Open Office - rivals Office Suite
Great stuff, but it only takes one critical app to foil this idea. If I want to have two PC's, then one can run Googos, but the other has to run Windoze to run my engineering software. I already have dual boot linux, and have been using it for several years, but lately, it just became too much hassle when I bought new hardware, so I'm mostly back in Win.
For most people, Googos might be fine, but the fringe isn't always at the bleeding edge. Sometimes there's an important fringe trailing behind everyone else because they had work to do while the crowd was partying on the 'net.
Douglas: The book is great stuff, by the way. Some assertions could have been fleshed out differently (Operation Paperclip note perhaps?), but nothing too bothersome. Thanks for putting into words what has been in a few paragraphs of outline for a long time. I would rather read it than write it.
Can I leave a comment without it being struck down? It is not about your beloved Sarah Palin.
"(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.)"
...this is brilliant.
Google has now officially jumped the shark.
The sheer hubris required to
What do people really use computers for?
At home:
(1) Video Games = highly graphics and cpu intensive => distributed hardware = fail
(2) Watching pr0n = highly storage intensive => non local storage = fail
At work:
(1) Email = ok I'll give you that one, but without a sophisticated backup system under control of the company's IT department, this is also fail
(2) Excel = Google spreadsheet sucks donkey doo doo compared to Excel. Visual Basic is actually very powerful = fail
Wow only 0.5 out of 4 for Google.
Sorry kids, go back to your graduate school thesis search engine.
They are actually looking into distributed gaming- I think I saw it on Engadget. It needs some serious bandwidth which might b only possible in South Korea now.
There seems to a misunderstanding about Google centralizing data: The Chrome OS is essentially a browser meaning that you will be running websites and webapps from all different companies, not just Google. Sure, you might run Gmail and Google Docs, but you will also be surifng normal websites like this one and you'll be running other website-based applications from other companies. You can probably bet that Microsoft at this very moment is working on a web-centric Office suite.
So, no, Google won't be a centralized storage for all data.
As for how much this will cost, I'm assuming Chrome OS will be free because it's the content and the webapps that you will pay for. I'm guessing software developers will offer software on a subscription basis. So, company ABC offers an app XYZ for $99/year. Each year, if you wish to continue to use the application, just like a magazine or newspaper, you will have to pony-up a renewal fee.
Instead of paying "large" amounts every few years to upgrade your desktop software, you'll be paying smaller frees yearly. It'll probably equal out.
That pricing model seems to make the most sense to me.
OMG! Did this article in a small way, insinuate that Steve Jobs stole the idea of a graphical user interface and the mouse from Xerox PARC. I am aghast to such revelations.
My fanboys Apple friends are constantly educating me to the fact that Steve jobs invented the very electrons that went onto the MAC. After Apple, Jobs (ummm integrated BSD) under license of course, to power the Next OS. When he returned form the wastelands to reinvent Apple, Jobs, of course used BSD Unix to power OS X. Now there my friend is real innovation. Use the solid foundation built by others programmers, pretty up the interface, and release it to the public at grossly inflated prices. What a great business plan. Use the hard work from those who preceded you, make a fortune from it and never utter a word of thanks to anyone else. The robber barons would be so proud.
And Xerox PARC in turn cadged the concept of the mouse from Doug Englebart, who invented the device while at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI).
Wow! Back to the future. This is only the latest effort to return us to the pre-PC era when big mainframes were linked by data lines to remote "dumb terminals" or even small a "mini-computer" supplied a bunch of desktop computers in an office. (See "Wang" or "Digital Equipment Corp." for examples of those). 25 years ago, most people voted with their dollars to get off those systems (which is why if you're under 35, you've never heard of "Wang"). The PC (or Mac) platform gives the user the ability to access and pay for the apps that he/she wants, whether that's business apps like word processing or spreadsheet, or games, or photo editing, or CAD, or video editing and so on. Is Google going to supply all of that? Secondly, in order for this to work, there has to be a much more ubiquitous high-capacity data pipe than currently exists. If I'm not mistaken, Sun Microsystems was proposing the same idea about 15 years ago, using its Java software, and for the same reasons offered today in support of Google's effort. We know how that turned out. Admittedly, the infrastructure for the inexpensive transmission of large volumes of data is much more developed now than it was then, but will that make all of the difference? And why is it that this system would be any less vulnerable to hacking than the current one? The reason that Windows is vulnerable to hacking isn't because it sucks, it's because its ubiquitous. Therefore, the rewards for hacking into it are much greater than the rewards for hacking into Apple's OS or Linux. Give people equal incentives, and they'll hack any OS . . . or do you really believe that Google can write a hack-proof OS?
You've got it all backwards. The computers at PARC were designed explicitly to get away from the previous model of one giant Big Brother computer that everyone depended on. For the first time, people had real computing power on their desks. They were the first true *personal* computers. There were no "compute servers" there. The only thing shared at PARC was file servers (mostly because personal disks were horrendously expensive then) and laser printers (ditto).I know. I was there.
Google is attempting to recreate the Bad Old Days in which you are beholden to someone else to provide you with the services you want and need. If you really really think that this is a good idea, that what's free now won't suddenly incur a subscription charge one day, that the network will always be up when you need it, or that your data is secure floating around the net on someone's server, you're either incredibly naive, a dreamer, or have a short memory.
The breakthrough technology that the articles should be written about isn't something Google invented -- Google's is just the first *announcement* of HTML 5.0's use ya'll.
HTML 5.0 is the big news here -- it essentially allows the browser to be the OS with greater access and control over the hardware. The whole industry is working on this.
From reading their announcement Chrome OS is not even a designed product and Google doesn't have a great history of designing great products. When people don't like what they release: "You just don't get our brilliance yet, keep on playing with it until you get it".
Check out the actual adoption of Google products compared to their competition, the numbers aren't strong.
CNET's fanboy positive review of Google's other OS, Android, ended warning consumers to stay away from it for the time being -- still too klunky to use well. Why give it the same amount of 'stars' they gave iPhone? The possibility of what someday all those open source developers *might do* with Android.
I'd argue Microsoft's Azure Mesh strategy and whatever they do with a 5.0 browser (and Silverlight) is the one to contend with. They have the customer base, the developer base and this strategy is off the (MS) hook -- Live is agnostic to OS.
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.
Please log in to leave comments.