Google: Jumping the Shark

Yesterday, Google announced its plans to release its own operating system, named Chrome. Based on this action, it is safe to say that Google has lost its way as a company. Rather than signaling itself as a frenetic innovator, the introduction of a Google OS is tantamount to a cake-handed reach for whatever the company doesn’t do at this point. The most innovative thing about Google right now is that it's name does not spell M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T. Google is trying to be everything for everyone…and therein lays its glaring lack of leadership. Do we really need another operating system with all its requisite care and feeding?

For all the company’s exposition about cloud computing and on-demand applications, a Google OS at this point in time is the sign of a wildly successful internet company flailing wildly. YouTube, a recent acquisition by Google, has an estimated burn rate of over $1.2 million per day. Shareholders should be sickened by this, but are not. One could only imagine the burn rate of a major, enterprise-ready operating system (assuming the Google OS is offered free, which is likely). Yet, Google's pronouncement is met with such hype (“Google drops a nuclear bomb on Microsoft”, and “Clash of the Titans”) it’s obvious that Google is not the only one that has lost its way; so have we.

No doubt Google’s OS will be shiny, sexy, embedded with all sorts of stuff we really don’t need, and loaded with incredibly innovative solutions for no recognizable problems. Chrome, Google’s recently introduced internet browser, is entirely underwhelming, with it’s most remarkable “innovation” being automatic patching updates every 5 hours. This hardly bodes well for a Google operating system.

Google should not name its OS “Chrome.” A better name might be "Fonzie."

Comments

[Obi]

I feel I need to correct a few significant inaccuracies in your article.

"No doubt Google’s OS will by shiny, sexy, embedded with all sorts of stuff we really don’t need, and loaded with incredibly innovative solutions for no recognizable problems."

Not to be rude but did you actually read the announcement? Because the "innovation" with Google Chrome is to keep the OS simple and remove bloat so people can focus on what matters - Getting work done. This is the opposite to what you assert.

"Chrome, Google’s recently introduced internet browser, is entirely underwhelming, with it’s most remarkable “innovation” being automatic patching updates every 5 hours. This hardly bodes well for a Google operating system."

Again I would like to correct you here. Chrome has many innovations. Most of them under the covers allowing it to, for example, recover more gracefully if a plugin fails (like Flash) or multitask between windows and have more windows open or class leading security and again a simplified window "chrome" (hence the name) so that it can get out of the way and let the user browse.

There is a lot of material on the net about Chrome so you may want to look in to it before your next article on the subject. Hope this helps.

:-)

[David Rice]

>> Response to Obi
Obi, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your candor.

Yes, indeed, I did read the annoucement. But an announcement by Google about *intending* to be "simple" is far different than the *reality* of being simple. For example, the iPhone OS is "simple" compared to other OSes (especially desktop OSes), but nonetheless the iPhone is chocked full of features with more being added every release. Additionally, by my rough count, Apple has had to release at least 50 vulnerability fixes, for this "simple" OS...and it's still not enterprise-ready. While this is an imperfect comparison, a netbook OS by Google promises much of the same. The reality about simplicity is there is little of it when it comes to operating systems.

I know plenty of development teams that started out with good intentions about their project regarding quallity, security, simplicity...and so on, only to find the reality starkly different.

Regarding Chrome's (the browser) innvoations, I'm fully versed in them...and I'm still underwhelmed. I tip my hat to you that this is more a subjective analysis on my part, but boundary separation in memory is not exactly an innovation at this point (considering it was introduced at least 10 years ago or more). Enabling boundary separation in a browser is certainly neat, but I would argue, far from innovative.