backtop

Print 43 comment(s) - last by overlandpark4m.. on Jul 16 at 11:51 PM

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer at a speech in New Orleans told Google to bring it on, laughing off the threat of the company's new Chrome OS. Ballmer had previously dismissed Apple's iPhone and Google's smart phone Android OS in previous speeches.  (Source: FarEast Gizmos)
Steve Ballmer has relatively gentle but condescending words about Google OS

Who thinks Google's new Chrome operating system could shake up the PC market?  Apparently, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer doesn’t see it happening.  The often outspoken and controversial Mr. Ballmer had a crowd at Microsoft's Worldwide Partners Conference (WWPC) in New Orleans rolling when he shared his thoughts on the new Linux-based OS.

He waxed, "I will be respectful... Who knows what this thing is? To me, the Chrome OS thing is highly interesting.  It won't happen for a year and a half and they already announced an operating system (Android OS)."

Mr. Ballmer did poke a bit of fun at Google for developing to separate consumer OS's -- Android and Chrome.  He stated, "I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems.  It's good to have one."

Steve Ballmer is famous for his criticism of competitors.  When Google's Android OS first came out, he welcomed it to "Microsoft's world", a curious proclamation, considering Windows Mobile trails Symbian OS.  He also remarked that the Apple's iPhone held "no chance" of gaining significant market share, which obviously turned out to be entirely wrong.

Even as Microsoft makes Google a bit nervous with a slightly reinvigorated Bing.com search engine, Google surely is making Microsoft even more nervous, even if it is feigning condescension.  In reality, Microsoft currently owns approximately 90 percent of the operating system market and its only real possibilities are to maintain, or to lose market share. 

Some Microsoft products such as Internet Explorer used to hold similar market share, only to see competitors steal as much as a third of the market away.  Microsoft desperately looks to prevent such slippage in the OS market.  Its more cohesive effort for Windows 7, lower pricing, and free online copies of Office 2010 are examples of the lengths it is willing to go to in order to safeguard its Windows fortress.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By h0kiez on 7/15/2009 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
...this reeks of what he said about the iPhone when it was launched.




By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 10:21:04 AM , Rating: 5
Not exactly the same market is it though. With a good product, any company can gain share in the cell phone market, the same cannot be said about the OS market. A OS is nothing without developer support, and devs will need a good reason to switch (or even support other) platforms, something which probably won't happen in the business market. Apple gets away with it by having a closed system and pushing their own hardware to curtail to their needs, Google will have no such advantage.


By crystal clear on 7/15/2009 10:41:22 AM , Rating: 4
An OS is nothing without security- M.S. has invested years of hardwork to make its O.S. secure as possible,does Google have the means to make its O.S. as secure as Win7 in such a short time.


By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 11:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, it is just another nix variant which can be very secure. (some would argue that it could potentially be more secure than NT based systems)


By crystal clear on 7/15/2009 1:02:06 PM , Rating: 3
From the Google Blog

as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.


http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing...

Google is promising something that it is NOT capapble of delivering or unachieveable.

Two of the top three security threats (SQL injection, browser vulnerability and rogue av) rely on software flaws.

It should just work.....is wishful thinking ,it took them more than 5 yrs to take gmail out of beta,so imagine an O.S. system just how long it will be in beta ?


By Calin on 7/16/2009 7:56:56 AM , Rating: 3
You are quite wrong with that.

Chrome OS has a single purpose: to run the Chrome browser. As such, it has little need for all the things that were proven to be security holes waiting to happen in Windows. With a properly secure browser, there is almost no way to attack the underlying platform (and if the browser runs properly sandboxed instances, an exploit in one instance should not influence other instances (or the underlying operating system).
If Chrome OS would be a full operating system, then yes, exploits could find many avenues of attack. Also, if Chrome OS would need to be compatible with Windows (or ActiveX), even more avenues of attack would appear.
So, SQL injection? not on a client, only on a server
browser vulnerability? certainly possible, although some browser functionality are less secure (see ActiveX)
rogue AV - this assumes you could be able to install software on the Chrome OS - it might be "signed software only" or "software from repositories only" or "no user software installable, only online applications".

As for Google Mail and beta status, from the start it was more solid than other similar, free email accounts - so that "beta" tag was more just to allow Google to do whatever change they want in the service, even changes that might not be liked by paying customers


By SublimeSimplicity on 7/15/2009 10:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has always been resistant to a web-centric way of doing things (its not their business model), while Google has always embraced it.

For Google to pull this off, they need to bring the population into their arena of battle (web-centric) and beat MS with experience. When you think about what you need out of a netbook, Google has good expertise.

Its actually not surprising that Ballmer doesn't see this coming, they've always been dragged kicking and screaming when its come to the internet.


By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 10:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
What you are describing is direct competition for Apple and not MS, Google will never greatly threaten MS with a Web Based OS, as this would never be acceptable in a corporate environment.


By SublimeSimplicity on 7/15/2009 11:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
In my corporate environment almost all our tools are web-based (intranet) and guess which browser isn't compatible with most of them?

Sure documents, presentations, etc are done with MS Office... that along with convincing mid-sized companies that corporate gmail is cheaper and more reliable in the long run are Google's biggest obstacles.


By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 11:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my corporate environment almost all our tools are web-based (intranet) and guess which browser isn't compatible with most of them?
I really hope you are not going to say IE.. as it is used far more than any other browser for in house web based apps.

Furthermore I think people are confused as to what market this OS is going to curtail too. Google is not attempting to replace Windows in the slightest, it is quite obviously going to be tuned for online services and what is essentially cloud computing. All of which fit perfectly into Googles current domain. No business in their right mind is ever going to trust an online service with their mission critical data, that includes using any piece of online software to make any kind of document that should not fall into the wrong hands.

Getting into the corp environment does not really help Google, and really I don't think they want to put the resources in to go head to head with MS. The way I see it, they are just using it as a portal to push their own products, and personally I think the home/casual market is a much better fit for them.

I could also potentially see it as being used a secondary OS. Mobo manufacturers like Asus already have special light weight linux products that can be started upon boot and take only a few seconds to get up and running. Say you want to get on the web super quick, Google OS would be a great option. I could see this kind of OS being implemented on anywhere from Home PC's to laptops to TV's.


By monomer on 7/15/2009 6:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
One huge market sector that people are seeing as a good candidate for Chrome OS are call centres, where employees aren't trusted with mission critical documents, and all they really need is some way to access the corporate database.


By HrilL on 7/16/2009 2:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
This can already be done with linux thin clients that network boot and load the call centers software. It is really simple. No need for any features that are not needed. This is already done at a few of them. Works really well with older machines too because they don't need any power.


By Calin on 7/16/2009 8:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
He wanted to say "Google Chrome", not IE.

As for cloud computing, a corporation would accept to run its applications into its own cloud. Big corporations (that pay for tens of thousands of licenses) might choose to go that route, at least for some of the software and some of the computers


By Calin on 7/16/2009 8:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
The Chrome OS could be the wet dream of a network administrator:
-no installable applications
-run ONLY web-based software
-access allowed only to the corporate web.

This would be perfect for at least 20% of the corporate computers, and that's a huge market share to take


By Mitch101 on 7/15/2009 10:27:03 AM , Rating: 3
Bill Gates summed it up right. This is another Linux Distro with a web browser nothing new.

Really do we need another Linux distro?


By Calin on 7/16/2009 8:06:22 AM , Rating: 2
Lets go back 5 (or so) years, and ask ourselves:
Do we need another Linux distro?

(that is before the launch of Ubuntu)

As long as this "Linux distribution" fills a role, then by all means we need it. The market will decide if it was needed or not.


By nosfe on 7/15/2009 10:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
what? he wasn't right when he said that a $500-600 iPhone won't sell? if he was so wrong then why did they reduce the price?


By dontangg on 7/15/2009 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
The price didn't change. AT&T is just paying most of it.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/money-money-money/apple...

Obviously, these numbers have changed since this article.


By mmntech on 7/15/2009 10:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Translating from Ballmerese to English, what he really said is "we're terrified of Google but if we show weakness we'll be eaten alive."

Google does have an up hill battle with Chrome OS. They need to get third party software support on board. Also, people like familiarity, which is why Linux was pushed aside on netbooks. I hope it succeeds because the OS market really does need more viable competition. For an intents and purposes, there really are only two major operating systems, and one is hardware specific. More competition is ultimately better for consumers because it encourages innovation.


By overlandpark4me on 7/16/2009 11:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thus, the statement in the article," Ballmer had previously dismissed Apple's iPhone and Google's smart phone Android OS in previous speeches".


Knee Jerk
By SiliconJon on 7/15/2009 9:33:34 AM , Rating: 3
My first reaction to such a statement is titanical - how often do such remarks turn out so ironical? But MS does have a pretty good stranglehold - it will be fantastic to see some real hammers swinging the Linux. I really think this necessary to get MS back on track with some competition. Without competition the strive for improvement takes a back seat to the strive for reaming any and all available.

Though may I quibble this : "you don't need two client operating systems"

Ha! Then where did XP go? To poor a comparison since XP is old tech, and we do indeed to move forward with entirely new compiled code? Then remind me how many versions there are of Vista? Oh, and how old is Vista, and when is 7 hitting shelves? And how many versions are there of 7? Oh, let’s play with our words and say the different versions of Vista & 7 are just minor feature sets, despite the huge price differences. ...end rant early.

Anyway, where do I get my zombie pills so I can finally partake in the profitable end of the Dilbert theorem?




RE: Knee Jerk
By MonkeyPaw on 7/15/2009 10:55:59 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, I thought that was a humorous comment too. Not because of XP versus Vista/7, but because of Windows Mobile versus Windows Desktop OSs, as they are indeed totally different. You could make a similar argument about Google, with Chrome versus Android. It appears as though these two Google's OS's are for completely different product segments.

That said, I think that so far Ballmer is right not to be too concerned. After all, it's cloud-based, which to me is still a severe limitation technically, and a negative concept to many. Also, it seems like Google doesn't have a problem with innovation--it's polish and refinement. Many of their apps, while free, never seem complete (or at least to leave Beta status).


RE: Knee Jerk
By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 11:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
Lets make it simple.

Windows Desktop OS's = 9x, NT, Etc etc.
Windows Embedded OS = Windows CE and all its variants

Android = not embedded
Google OS = not embedded

MS has two distinct platforms that curtail to two distinct markets, Google really does not, they just choose to use a Desktop capable OS for their mobile platform.


RE: Knee Jerk
By SiliconJon on 7/15/2009 1:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Even if they were both more similar than MS's variations of product offerings, I find it intriguing that they have two project teams on the matter. For one, they're new to the scene. With two teams competing with each other internally we could see some great innovations, so long as they don't become internally divided beyond collaboration of cooperation. This could also allow two very different directions rather than two parallel paths. We need more innovation in this realm, and if they accomplish this then I, and you, will win better products and prices.


RE: Knee Jerk
By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
I can't say I don't agree with you, just that traditionally this is how things work, thus Balmer's comments are actually based on something, unlike his usual rants.


ORLY?
By arazok on 7/15/2009 9:43:09 AM , Rating: 5
I love headlines like this. Of course he’s going to say he’s not concerned, and then pick apart it’s weaknesses.

What other answer do you expect?

Reporter: “Mr. Balmer, what is your reaction to the news of a Google OS”

Balmer: “OMG, we’re so toast! Have you seen what they were able to do with search engines?! We can’t compete with these people! I bet you they even give it away for free. WTF, who funds these people?! Effective today, I’m resigning as CEO, and cashing in my shares before Google mops the floor with us.”




RE: ORLY?
By crystal clear on 7/15/2009 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What other answer do you expect?


Looking for more answers heres one for you-

Read this somewhere-

Google just bolted a big ol’ bag of drivers (also known as the Linux kernel) to Chrome and are calling it the Google Chrome Operating System.

It’s going to be hard for people to continue to deny its operating systemness now.

The response he gets -

I'm sure that Linus is pleased to see that his decades of research into operating systems amounts to nothing more than a big ol' bag of drivers for getting people to Twitter faster.


Is it just me......
By RjBass on 7/15/2009 9:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
or does Balmer really look like Hitler in that pic? Maybe it's just the pose.




RE: Is it just me......
By BadAcid on 7/15/2009 11:31:33 AM , Rating: 3
I think he's doing more of a Mussolini hand gesture... wait a minute...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Oh, God! It is him!


RE: Is it just me......
By RjBass on 7/15/2009 12:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
lol, nice one.


and why should they worry?
By kattanna on 7/15/2009 9:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
the phone market it could be an issue for them, but the main desktop computer market? please, linux appears it will never be ready for the masses. when grandma and grandpa can use it without issue like they can windows..then.. then maybe. but the linux camp is so fractured, i dont ever see that day happening.




Unix will never be popular
By TA152H on 7/16/2009 5:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
Having been around computers for a long time, I constantly see some idiot or another come up with a Unix variety and think it will become popular, somehow, despite the fact Unix blows. Inevitably, it ends up a niche product, and then someone else makes yet another attempt to get it right. Needless to say, it's never been anything but a fringe operating system.

Why companies waste their money on creating yet another Linux OS is beyond me. Google has the money to develop something from scratch, and so does Intel, but they somehow think saving money and suffering from all the shortcomings of Unix is worth it. Why???? Do they really think they couldn't make it better? Clearly, with what is known now, rather than what was known in the 1960s, they could do a better job with a blank slate than with an operating system that has a proven track record of never breaking into the mainstream.

I'm not saying Windows NT is great, but, it is newer than Unix, and they did get to see Unix and took the good, and left out the bad. Google could do the same with NT. NT, particularly in the Vista form, could be improved and has a lot of legacy issues that could be avoided with a clean slate design. Why another Unix???? Let's create something even older than NT, with a proven track record of failure, and somehow think it will make it mainstream? Why?????? Unix was never intended to be mainstream!

I wouldn't lose sleep about this if I were Microsoft. Linux is a proven loser. Another iteration of it won't change anything. If it were going to topple Microsoft, it would have by now, especially with Vista being such a bomb. With Windows 7 being an improvement, and a big one, and with lower prices, another Linux distribution just won't do it. A clean slate design might. At least we can't be sure of failure like Unix.




it's google who should be worried
By superPC on 7/15/2009 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 1
with microsoft continued effort at 'one upping' whatever google does (search engine, maps, mail, and now free online office aps, ect), i think google should really watch out for microsoft (if they haven't)




two separate OSs..
By JoshuaBuss on 7/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: two separate OSs..
By Smilin on 7/15/2009 9:42:15 AM , Rating: 4
Windows and Windows mobile were not designed to run on the same platform. Chrome and Android are.

MS competes with itself to sell upgrades. Google is competing with itself due to a lack of direction.


RE: two separate OSs..
By callmeroy on 7/15/2009 9:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - it confuses me because isn't Android the OS for mobile devices while Chrome is supposed to be a laptop/desktop OS? So how is that different from Windows XP/Vista/7 for the desktop and Windows Mobile for smartphones? Unless i'm misunderstanding something there.

So that part of Ballmer's statement was ridiculous.

However, aside from that I wouldn't be that concerned either if I were an MS executive --- I agree the competition would be awesome, but even a behemoth company like Google has a massive undertaking to truly and significant make an OS that can be taken as a serious replacement for Windows.

I mean the EASY part of a Linux OS to be greeted with open arms by all users -- is a nice friendly GUI that looks "pretty" along with brain dead easy installation process. The hard part, and this IMO is the true stumbling block of any Linux system --- driver support and application support.

And I mean true error free non-memory hogging, no lock up support..not some cheesey emulation mode that "almost works" most of the time.

They also have the play the Microsoft card of a compatibility program with hardware vendors/software publishers....I buy a Nvidia 1000000TXTGVRSUPER PRO +++ Ultra card....I want the box to say "Verified Compatible by Chrome OS".

Same goes with applications....put the badge that its verified to work on Chrome on the box.

That's the level of assurance you need to have an OS replace Windows.

Basically a Linux OS has to beat Microsoft Windows at its own game.


RE: two separate OSs..
By mfed3 on 7/15/2009 9:56:33 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong, Microsoft has ONE OS per platform. Windows for x86/x64 (PC) and Windows CE for ARM / embedded systems. 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc do not count as different OSes, they are just different evolutions or versions of the same Windows OS platform.

Google, on the other hand, has Android and ChromeOS, TWO OSes, for the same x86 platform.


RE: two separate OSs..
By Trisagion on 7/15/2009 10:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
You're wrong too. Android is for ARM based smartphones while Chrome OS will be for x86 based netbooks. There are x86 Android hacks coming out now but both OSs are targeted at different platforms.


RE: two separate OSs..
By Belard on 7/15/2009 10:28:23 AM , Rating: 1
Er... you're wrong again, twice over even.

Windows CE has the "Windows" look, I worked with a few CE PDA and Cell phones. It sucked... but they were NOT a Windows OS.

Android is a mobile phone OS. Its very tiny and made for cell phones. Thats it. And playing with a G1, it's pretty amazing. Its more techie than the iPhone... both have their place.

The ChromeOS is NOT designed to work on a cellphone. But netbooks... but since most netbooks are using x86 class CPUs, it means it can just as EASILY work on a desktop computer... just like Apple OS-X can also work on a notebook like a Dell with some tools and a few hack tricks.

Android won't work on netbooks. Its GUI is opened to design by whoever puts it on a phone.

Chrome OS will have a standard interface and feature set that would be the same on any computer its installed on.


RE: two separate OSs..
By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 10:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think all you guys are missing the point here. Android is not an RTOS, it is not limited to embedded platforms which is Balmers point here. Essentially they will now have two desktop capable OS's in Google OS and Android. For comparison Apples iPhone OS is directly based off of OSX, so there are not two distinct OS branches, and while MS does have two completely different OS's, Windows Desktop and CE variants are also meant for two completely different platforms.

So please stop saying Android is a mobile/embedded OS, because in reality it is not, Google just chose to implement it that way. This is usually not a smart way to go, developing multiple platforms which can be used for the same thing does not make very much sense in my books.

This all being said, we have no idea what Google has up their sleeve, so who knows whether or not Balmer will be correct, although I personally feel that many people in the industry probably agree with him.


RE: two separate OSs..
By Belard on 7/16/2009 12:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Er... an OS is an OS.

You can run an AmigaOS on a OLPC. You can convert a C=64 Joystick console (like the Atari and Arcade joysticks that plug directly into your TV) - info a 90%+ Compatible fully functional Commdore64 computer (Add a keyboard, I/O connectors).

Hell.. people are able to run Windows95 on the iPhone. (not sure why)

You're not getting it. Android is tailored to work best on a mobile platform. Chrome OS is designed to work best on netbook or desktop that has hardware functions not on a phone and vise-versa.

Look, Microsoft makes 2.5 different word processors. Why? Because they are aimed at different markets and pricing.
MS-Word = flag ship. $200 by itself $100~600 in a suite.
MS-Works WP = Basic function word processor. Most likely equal to Word97 or 2000-lite by now. $15~100/retail OEM.
MS-Wordpad = Very light word processor, included with OS. $0

It doesn't matter that they don't share any code. They do function pretty much the same and do the same thing.

* You don't want to run Redhat or Ubuntu on a CellPhone! Besides tricky to get it to run. But Ubuntu and Chrome OS will run on a netbook/Desktop just fine.

* iPhone OS is not a full-blown OS-X. And so what? Making apps and tools, etc for the iPhone is easier for Mac programmers. Why write a complete OS from scratch?


RE: two separate OSs..
By omnicronx on 7/15/2009 10:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
Windows CE is not limited to ARM, it also runs on the x86 platform, its just meant specifically for embedded devices. Android on the other hand is still just linux at the core and was not specifically designed for embedded systems (although Google may claim otherwise). The rest of your statement is spot on though ;)


RE: two separate OSs..
By Belard on 7/16/2009 12:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
But due to the small foot-print, Linux has been used in embedded systems for years. Android runs very fast and very powerful as a smart-phone. Its abilities far exceed that of an iPhone. But the iPhone has more standards and will appeal to more people.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki