Wednesday, November 25, 2009
My impressions on Chrome OS
I have been curious to check Chrome OS since I first heard of it. It is mobile open source, after all, so it fits well with my blog. But my curiosity really stems from the confusion in my brain about the Google OS strategy between Android and Chrome OS.Android is a full OS for a mobile device. It is getting better by the day (bringing supercool apps with it: I drove with the new Google Maps Navigation tool to work yesterday and it is WOW). Android is going upstream. I am betting we will see a in-car navigation device on it very soon. We are seeing eBook readers already and netbooks. If you look at it, you would assume Google strategy is to kill Microsoft from the bottom: kill Windows Mobile and move up, slowly killing Windows. There are already way more mobile devices than desktops...
Chrome OS is an OS in a browser. A purest form of business model for Google, since it forces everything on the cloud, where they make money. I followed the easy instructions and I quickly built an image on a USB key. I booted my laptop and boom, in 10 seconds I had the OS up and running.
Excluding Wi-fi and audio not working, everything else pretty much worked as expected. Not very fast, I have to say. But I was not looking for that. I was looking for a use case.
I could not find it...
If the OS selling point is that it boots fast, then who cares? My laptop (Mac) boots a little slower but I close the lid and it goes on standby. I open it and it is there. Not in 10 seconds, in 2. Unless the OS crashes or I have to reboot for an upgrade (no more than once a week), I could not care less about the booting time.
Then what? Maybe an uncluttered UI. Yes, that is nice. But the compromise is big. The little windows (e.g. the calculator) open up in the bottom right and they stay there iconized. That is a menu bar, like in every other OS. However it is confusing, because they are trying to stretch a browser to resemble a desktop environment. Chrome OS is something you need to get used to, unlike Android that is immediate.
Aside from some very specialized devices, where you might need just a browser (kiosks?) I do not get it. Maybe I am dense, but I see two paradigm that fits usability patterns:
- A full desktop interface, with multiple windows and spaces. A menu bar. Multiple apps running at the same time in different areas of the screen (not tabs). Mouse and maybe touchscreen as a nice to have for presentations. Keyboard. The full enchilada. Power to the user. Not a cramped UI.
- A home screen with icons to launch single apps. You click one, it opens, you do something, you close it (or leave it open if it really makes sense). One-click to the task you have in mind.
The home screen interface can scale up, maybe even to desktops. I do not see a reason for Android not to make it up there. Maybe it won't happen because we are all so used to what we have, but there is a chance. At the end of the day, it is a Linux distro and it is proving useful, with lots of apps. I see a future where it could eat in the Windows and Mac OS plate.
However, I can't see it with Chrome OS. On a desktop, it is too limiting. On a mobile device, it is not usable (it is clearly designed for interaction with a mouse). Unless there is a category in the middle where it will fit, I do not get it.
And products in search of a problem are not usually best-sellers. You need a problem to solve first. I understand why a world in the cloud helps Google business, but they are better off going the Android route. There, they solved a problem - and a broken business model.
Posted by Fabrizio at 18:58
5 Comments:
Clark said...
Fabrizio,
I fully agree. I think the quick bottom up rise of Android is by all means a Windows mobile killer, while the OS is more of an experiment "because I can". All the elements for an OS were there and you can tell how good your fully integrated mobile-desktop widgets MAC experience is with respect to the piece-meal Windows.
So, given their business model based on a huge number of minute transactions rather than less bigger ones (i.e. give out the SW for free and get the subscriber info to be there when a paid need occurs), it makes sense for them to start as usual with the technology and then figure out the fully fledged business model details...
I am sure we will hear more from this initiative, but unlike Android, it's not ready for prime time yet. Let's see what the developers' community builds on it....
Ciao
Clark
Comment Posted at 07:29
Davide said...
Fabrizio,
the use case is a computer for our parents. Have you ever struggled to "fix" your mom's computer? I have, several times, from the other side of the ocean (where I live now). Gmail in the browser helped a lot, and Google OS promises to go one step further and be the "completely-administrator-free" computer, that just work, safe enough for her to do online banking. And if it will be much cheaper than her current laptop, like it seems, then it will be a best seller.
Yes, we geeks will not use it, at least not yet for ourselves.
Ciao
Davide
Comment Posted at 12:13
Josh said...
I was interested enough in the concept of Chrome to give it a try...in a virtual machine of course
I posted a screen cast of Chrome OS on my site if anyone is interested in experiencing the OS first hand. You can find it here:
http://thetechguyblog.com
Comment Posted at 21:49
guy_hal said...
Interesting analysis.
I think there is a use case:
IF Google succeeds in reducing HW costs to allow truly cheap devices that are also subsidized by operators than it can be the best cost effective laptop around. In that case the comparison with Mac is (high end expensive device) is not too relevant. Using Google docs, G-drive, and other apps instead of Windows will be good enough for many students, and browsing centric users.
Guy
Comment Posted at 04:15
bertnic said...
The use case is the 0 maintenance PC. I've been looking for this since 'epoch', especially when I was IT Manager. It's the internet terminal and it's a perfect match for a cloud based IT. OK it's too early but it's the future. NB
