Source: http://scobleizer.com/2009... - DeWitt Clinton

@Maxamad - Robert was talking about the applications he saw demoed at the TechCrunch Real Time Crunchup. I don't believe anyone demoed photoshop there. - DeWitt Clinton

@Maxamad - My coffee maker makes a lousy panini press, too, but I still use it every morning. Likewise, my smartphone doesn't run photoshop, but I'm on it a lot more than my iMac, which does. Your point? - DeWitt Clinton

Fair enough. Personally I'd love an inexpensive fast portable device with a decent keyboard that lets me do even 80% of what I need to do (the 80% that's already online). If Chrome OS happens to be the best platform in the world for that, then I'd say it was a pretty big win for everyone. - DeWitt Clinton

and even if everything ran on it, what's the point of it? There are already better implementations of these kind of features. I guess it might be a less-open-and-free linux for the masses who havent heard of linux yet, and that is not to be sneered at, Google can push it into manufacturers etc. Let's not forget their goal: everything through them - Joelle Nebbe (iphigenie)

@Joelle - In 4 years at Google I've never once heard a single person at any level of the company articulate "everything through Google" as a goal. Literally not once. Quite the contrary, I've heard (and said myself) hundreds or thousands of times that it is an explicit anti-goal. - DeWitt Clinton

@Maxamad webGL exposes OpenGL pixel shaders to Javascript, this means a lot of photoshop style filters can be offloaded directly to hardware from Javascript. For iPhoto-like photo editing (fix exposure, contrast, etc) you can definitely do it. You could even do it in pure JS, especially with server-help to send you previews. Netbooks are not graphic workstations, so I don't see a need for professionals to want to run Adobe CS on them. - Ray Cromwell

DeWitt - I am not as paranoid about Google as I perhaps sound at times, but I find it strange that there is such disconnect between the rank and file at google (all smart guys with a tad of idealism) and what I have heard in business conferences where I have heard executives define Google as "the dominant advertising company" (not how they describe themselves in a tech or user conference, but I heard it twice at business focused events in the UK so it's not a glitch). I totally see a that Google is mostly making sure it does not get locked out of anything in the face of a market more and more moving to small pocket devices which could be locked and proprietary, and I applaud that - it makes sense. And the Google OS is as a counterweight to Apple and MS, not in competition with other open solutions. And clearly Google would have been trounced had they chosen to use ANY existing open OS... So they have no choice, I admit that. But on the other hand there is a whole stack being built which could put Google in control of way to much for the average user, and I dont like that from any company... In the end I wish people would not just blindly cry "genius" whenever Google does anything (gmail an example - it's fine and I have recommended it in many cases, but it's not that special...) so I end up in the Devil's Advocate seat a lot... - Joelle Nebbe (iphigenie)

@Joelle: w.r.t. "Google in control of way too much": I just don't understand how building a free OS in the open, on a Linux base, open-source, with no proprietary APIs qualifies as "in control". This is a machine I desperately want to be able to give to my mom and my in-laws, because it will be so much simpler than the mess they have now, and does everything they need it to. But if any other company (or individual) wants to start with the same base, they're free and welcome to do so. Try that with Windows or OSX sometime. - Joel Webber

@Joelle: Seems to me there are many more people blindly crying "nothing new here, move along" or "ooh, scary Google" than there are people blindly crying "genius." I used to be upset about this, but now I realize it's a huge competitive advantage for Google when a lot of people who might otherwise be competitors simply have no clue what the good ideas are behind what we're doing. It would be a huge disadvantage if a lot of people who might otherwise leverage those good ideas were unable to do so, but it looks like the people who really _need_ to understand generally do eventually. But that doesn't just happen by magic; communication from folks like @dewitt is why that process works. Regarding comments by ads sales execs in the UK, do you really think they have special insight into "what Google really is like" that the rank and file don't? Google is only to a limited extent run by its execs -- while that's true of every company, it should be pretty clear from the press that it's more true for Google. I assure you that, though our ads sales execs are overall great people, very talented, and critical to Google's success, they don't run the company. I think it's pretty obvious that you wouldn't have Google if they did. You'd have a more profitable company in 2010, but you wouldn't have Google. - Daniel Dulitz

@Joel: this is why I called it a "kiosk" OS - it will be far easier to use for people who just want a machine to communicate and do the occasional letter (via webapps). And yes, for that usage it is far better than the closed options. No discussion there. And indeed Google could not work on an existing full Linux project, because every other distro would have called foul. And since the other guys are working on closed stacks that could lock Google out, it totally makes sense. What I dont get is very technical people writing about it as if it was the OS to end all OSes - through no fault of Google, true, except perhaps being so important people dont want to antagonise it. But re-read the original post "not seen anything demonstrated on stage that wouldnt run" you'd hope so, wouldnt you, in an OS presentation, that what they demonstrate works, right? hardly that revolutionary... sentences like this wind me up when i see them... - Joelle Nebbe (iphigenie)

@Daniel - [slightly rejigged to make it shorter] these weren't sales execs, these were officer level, first time was 2003... But it doesn't matter really. But come on, being such a successful company with lots of talent, and so dominant in the market, a near monopoly in some areas, we are allowed to be a bit wary as users. Especially since most the products are free and there is no accountability or guarantees apart from those you choose yourself and can change at any time (thankfully usually with plenty of notice, unlike other services). And the money does come from advertising and profiling. So perhaps many people have a positive bias and others, me included, have a bit of a negative one, because I mistrust anything so large it cannot be held accountable. (the idea of people using a X OS to access the web through X's browser seeing what the X search engine shows them reading blogs on X's platform, news on X's portal, music on X's site, using X's apps to write all their documents, X's apps for their email, X's apps for their voice and chat, and a phone powered by X too - seems to be to be an undesirable situation no matter who X is - MS, Apple or Google). But I did not say it fairly, and I should have checked whose stream I commented in before doing a slightly uninformed one liner, I totally admit - it was a bit childish and I really didnt mean to diss or rain on anyone's parade. Google OS seems totally right for its aim, and hits the target nicely for that aim. But it is a Google focused platform and to think someone did not think about Google's business model within the Chrome universe would be naive. This is clearly a move that is in Google's interest. Whether it is also in other people's interests? It certainly could be, time will tell PS: the coffee maker analogy was great - Joelle Nebbe (iphigenie)

I realise this all made me sound far more anti Google than I am :( I'm not, really. This is a move by Google to anticipate where things are going, and point them in a direction that protects Google's business model (i.e. stay in the browser instead of using apps and clients for specific purposes ala adobe AIR or iphone), via a return to the thin client. And that is totally a fair business move, and clever I think, but I am annoyed to read analysts claiming it is some wonderful humanitarian gesture for the goodness of mankind, and so innovative. It might also turn out to be a great OS for simple devices which allow people to do things without having to mess with too much, without having to micromanage every step of the experience, safe and comfortable and inobtrusive. I'd be delighted if it did. But I won't write a blank cheque just yet. Fair? PS: "try that with windows or osx sometimes" - true, but open source OSes aren't new, and I guess part of me was a bit miffed to see media write as if Google had invented it - not your fault but it was probably part of the annoyance that prompted the original remark. I hadn't even seen the original presentation, I just reacted to the hype everywhere - and that was not right of me. Now I will stop polluting that thread. Good night :) - Joelle Nebbe (iphigenie)

@Joelle, do be wary. But companies without lock-in have continuous accountability. I respect people who say, "I don't use Google (or a specific Google product) because Google did Y, and that's over the line for me." That's accountability. But "I don't use/engage with G (or specific G product) because G is big and scary" is harder for me to understand, because that treats G as though it has already broken trust. That's ANTI-accountability. Regarding "no matter who X is," I disagree strongly. I'm not saying "just trust the G" -- I'm saying do a real power/dependence analysis. Take email and chat. If you buy a domain and point it to Google Apps, you can anytime seamlessly switch away to another service of your choice. That's very different from coercion. If you apply your understanding and decide that X=Google is not a good situation, I get that. But if everyone says "it doesn't matter what X is," then it will become true, because coercive and noncoercive relationships will be equally rewarded. - Daniel Dulitz

@Joelle, also, my group is a central contact point for monetization models at Google. Typically months or years after a product launches, its team contacts us to discuss whether and how to monetize. I remember only one team ever coming to us before launch, and it wasn't Chrome. Thinking about revenue and profiling and so on matters most if you have small ideas. If you have big ideas, any revenue or business model would be a fantasy. If you change the world, you don't know much what the world will look like afterwards. HTML5/Gears, NaCl, Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, etc. are all about making the web freakin' useful and ubiquitous. Shaving an OS licensing fee off of each small device sold moves those devices to a different price point, so there are a lot more of them, so there are a lot more searches. That's about all anyone can say with confidence about a world in which Chrome OS is successful, but that -- plus the fact that the underlying idea is elegant and useful -- is plenty to justify our working on it. And now I return you to your regularly scheduled weekend. ;-) - Daniel Dulitz

Just enjoying the discussion in the comments. :) - Matt Cutts from iPhone

FWIW, I feel like anyone saying "wow, how innovative -- those guys are geniuses" about Chrome OS itself is being a bit silly. In essence it's actually kind of a simple thing, and one that is a recognition of the fact that the web is finally coming into its own as a platform. Arguably Chrome OS *isn't* a platform -- it's just a way of getting everything else out of the way and concentrating on the web. It's also worth reiterating the fact that it doesn't run anything that's not available elsewhere, and that's the essence of openness. - Joel Webber

Meh. You have to realize Scoble is a cheerleader for this stuff. He will come out with another blog about the negatives in a few weeks. Not trying to take a shot or anything, but that's what he does. Chrome OS isn't going to take over much, especially if people have to buy new hardware just to run an enhanced browser. - Spencer

The way I see it is this, there is a segment of population, namely tweens and teens, who spend most of the computer use online and not running desktop applications, who could use an ultraportable $150 netbook that powers on instantly and has awesome battery life, and is good enough for their communication needs as well as the needs of school. Do these people need Windows 7? I don't think so. - Ray Cromwell

I have a $600 HP laptop and I run nothing but chrome 95% of the time. I also run Pidgin and VirtualBox every so often but mostly it's just Chrome. I would be happy to do this on a smaller/cheaper machine. - Daniel J. Pritchett

@Daniel - I like the vision you describe. No doubt I can align with that. It's also a very good point you made about coercive versus uncoercive. If too many people mix them up there will be no reward for being uncoercive. Guilty as charged (I'm irrationally anti hype - hype triggers me in silly ways -because typically it unustly ignores other products and prior art etc. - I'm sure you have seen this xkcd http://xkcd.com/386/ - this is me, except the line would say "someone is hyping on the internet". Foolish... I did go at it with a hatchet.) Too much exposure to lock-ins make me a bit wary. Google is not coercive, Google's business model is smarter, Google aligns its benefits with that of its many many many users. Google's "currency" is into information, not selling licenses. Google doesn't need lock in, it doesn't need to control the information, it just needs hooks somewhere in the workflow we use in order to access and index information. But there is no opt out. I can ditch windows for linux but I still need to send to people with a gmail address, read rss feeds powered by feedburner, go on blogs which might have youtube videos embedded, or analytics, or adsense. I can't really "abstain" from it. Yes, I get huge value from all of the above, but I am also giving something for it, in ways not always clarified. Can make us nervous. Google has incredible amounts of data on every one of us users, and incredible amounts of influence on what is seen, found, and discovered on the web. I have to trust Google do the right thing, and I have to trust Google will still do the right thing in 2, 5, 10 years. Right now Google do, because the other model emerging, the one of proprietary lock-in across devices, with walled-garden sites, with apps and gadgets bypassing the traditional internet going straight to data - that model is not friendly to Google's business model. Google's own self interest lies into an open and diverse web, with distributed (but interoperating)... more... - Joelle Nebbe (iphigenie)

@Joelle, that makes sense to me. If you block third-party cookies like I do, I think G has far less data about you as a passive surfer (e.g. AdSense) than many other parties do. Sadly, there's no way to turn off passive ISP tracking like you can choose to turn off passive Google tracking. Anyway, I don't think you need to choose now on the basis of whether you can trust G in 10 years; you can choose now on the basis of now, keep your data backed up via Data Portability, and choose differently later if you lose trust. (Key point: Don't wait for G to go evil before you start using the Data Portability features. Use those features now and if G turns them off, choose a different provider.) Ah yes, ChromeOS. :-) Definitely a reinvention of a thin client. But unlike old-style thin clients, this one runs untrusted native code locally (via NaCl) and operates offline (via HTML5/Gears). Will it work? I dunno, but I can't wait to find out. :-) What I'm most excited about is the capability-based permission model plus transparent cloud syncing. No applications are trusted, device data persistence isn't trusted -- only the user, the server, and the device's keyboard/screen are trusted. It's not clear yet what ChromeOS won't be able to do; everyone says "photo editing" but that's not true, it can do offline photo editing just fine. We'll all just have to wait and see. :-) - Daniel Dulitz

@Maxamad Photoshop: https://www.photoshop.com/ (although I prefer http://www.picnik.com/), SSH: http://www.gotossh.com/, FTP: http://www.net2ftp.com/, Code Editor: https://bespin.mozilla.com/. All browser based, and it's only the photo editors that need Flash. If you think Flash kills the deal, then http://editor.pixastic.com/ is pretty good too. - Nick Lothian

Yeah, I think the whole side-computer thing is a big deal. I use an Ubuntu netbook a lot, and the only thing I have on that which won't work as well under ChromeOS is Dropbox. - Nick Lothian

Great thread. I picked it up again here: http://friendfeed.com/dewitt... - DeWitt Clinton