Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.

Google OS is going to be built upon google chrome... and it is going to be a failure!

Google chrome is the fastest browser on the market, it makes an excellent secondary browser to use alongside a REAL browser. But it will never work by itself. Why?

Again and again I see often requested features for chrome rejected by google staff with the following:

"we have a strong design philosophy against options (even "hidden" options like about:config)

It took 5 versions before google FINALLY caved in and allowed people the CHOICE of having a home page.

I don't want one myself, I personally prefer the goole new window alternative, but some people don't, thats what choices are for.

Google is refusing to implement a sidebar for bookmarks, they are refusing to allow people to choose whether backspace is treated as a "page back" button. They don't want you choosing to change key bindings or turn them on or off... even if you want to, even if you are willing to edit configuration pages (aka "hidden choices").

If google is to be believed, then this isn't a case of "we can't justify the manpower for this"... but a case of "we don't BELIEVE in giving you the CHOICE". If all they said was "we can't justify the manpower" then it would be a sign to start raising awareness of the issue, maybe make a petition to prove enough people care about it... Or maybe even get someone to submit a patch (the source is available after all) which google might integrate into its code.

It leads to an acceptable product when google chrome is your secondary or even tertiary browser... Something limited and crippled by design, but much much faster at what it ALLOWS you to do.

but can you imagine an entire OS from a company who ADMITS to "have a strong design philosophy against options"? I can't. Making the fastest (and a fairly secure) browser or OS isn't enough... Heck, even the cheapest (theoretically free?)

Henry Ford used to say "they can have a car in any color they want, as long as it is black". People DEMANDED he allow them to buy cars in other colors, and he wouldn't budge. This left room for competitors who sold cars that were inferior in every way shape or form... but allowed you the choice of color. And pretty soon they weren't so inferior. It wasn't until they dropped down to 20% market share that he finally caved and allowed people to choose their car's color.

How long will it take google to learn that lesson? For how long would be amazed and surprise to see people will rather pay MS for windows then get google OS for free...


Comments (Page 1)
on Sep 29, 2010

reserved

on Sep 29, 2010

How long?  Until their market domination is threatened.  how long were we saddled with IE6?  Before MS finally decided tab browsing was not to bad?

on Sep 29, 2010

As long as there are alternatives, why does anyone care what Google does?

on Sep 29, 2010

Google Chrome is the best browser on the market.  Not as a so-called "secondary" browser but as a primary.  In fact, I use it as my primary browser and encourage everyone I see using a different browser to try out Chrome.  And I'm a web developer, who does pretty much everything on the web.  The only reason I ever switch back to Firefox (outside of general testing) is to use Firebug to debug Javascript (Firebug is still superior to Chrome's built-in dev tools, although they are catching up quickly).

As for Chrome OS... I agree that it would fail as a desktop OS.  But they aren't targeting desktops.  They are targeting netbooks and tablets.  While I have no interest in a Chrome OS netbook, I am VERY interested in a Chrome OS tablet.  Why?  Because it will be the only tablet that will make the web touch-friendly.  I don't just mean creating an app that you launch to get to the web, I'm talking about making the web the primary aspect of the device and making it easy to use using my fingers only.

Choice... well, on a desktop OS I would agree, choice is pretty much required.  But on a tablet or mobile OS?  Hmm... can we think of any other tablet out there that has very little choice but has been a major success?  The iPad of course.  Chrome OS is the next evolution of that.  With Chrome OS, you aren't just jumping into and out of apps to get things done.  The entire experience is built around the web, the web is always available, not just in tiny little packets in parts of the operating system.  And for a tablet OS, there doesn't need to be choice for it to be successful.

Even I, as a power user, don't really care about the fewer choices available to me in Chrome.  Why?  Because it is a superior experience than Firefox, Opera, Safari, or IE.  As a tablet OS, I feel it will be a superior experience than the iPad, Android, webOS, BlackBerry, or Windows 7.  All of those OS' have one thing in common: They are built around the "app" model, in that you have to jump into and out of an app to do what you want.  That's fine for phones, but I feel that's very limiting for a tablet.  With Chrome OS, there are no apps.  The apps are the websites you visit, which are superior to mobile apps in that they are faster, more powerful, easier to develop, and free.

I personally like that they have a strong design philosophy.  It means that we will have a consistent and good experience across the entire OS regardless of what we are doing, unlike say Windows 7.  If Chrome OS ends up being as good as Chrome, then we will have the best possible experience for a mobile device ever.  Choice or no choice, it will be superior to everything else out there (just like Chrome is superior to every other browser out there, despite only being in the market for a couple years).

Bara

on Sep 29, 2010

@GunslingerBara: what is wrong with windows 7?

And you can have a successful product despite making mistakes. IE6 dominated the market, the fort model T was the only car anyone would buy for some time. If you intentionally disallow choice because you believe your way is best, then people will leave you for alternatives as soon as alternatives show up.

The apple iPad is an apple product, apple fanatics would buy anything that steve jobs tells them to. Google doesn't have steve jobs.

on Sep 29, 2010

Google Chrome is the best browser on the market for me.  Not as a so-called "secondary" browser but as a primary.  

Why?  Because it is a superior experience for me than Firefox, Opera, Safari, or IE.  As a tablet OS, I feel it will be a superior experience for me than the iPad, Android, webOS, BlackBerry, or Windows 7.  

I took umbrage at your presumption and fixed it for you.  Utility, as ever, remains in the eyes of the user and the market to determine.  Personally, while I like the features that sell the browser for you, I so cannot stand the bookmark handling that it will not grace my PC or any hardware I own for the forseeable future.  It is fast.  It is well designed.  It is beautiful and minimal.  It also slows my workflow down such that it's a no-sale for me.  Saving 0.008 seconds of load time doesn't get back the seconds lost opening the flyout menu for each new webpage I want to open, sometimes numbering in the dozens when I'm busy researching.

on Sep 29, 2010

I'll add that it's not truly time lost against the time I waste on other things in my workflow, but that's my decision and something to work on as part of self-improvement.  Chrome just drives me up the wall.

on Sep 30, 2010

  How about an 'open source' Chromium' OS, that doesn't require you to 'login' to Google to connect and use the OS?

less Big Brother looking over our shoulder, and more choice for the user. 

Preferably i would rather have a Firefox OS, but since it already runs on almost every OS out there, it's almost an OS already. 

But my guess is we may all be running 'cloud' OS's in 5 years anyway, so by then we can take our pick, probably Google, Apple and MS, or maybe it will be Intel's little Meego and MS will be out of the running, they have been falling behind for several years now, and even their recent surges may not be enough to stem the tide. 

Anyway, just some thoughts,

As to Chrome OS?  I sorta really dislike having Google see 'everything' that i do, which isn't too wild or elaborate, but still, Google's apparent total 'Don't Get It' attitude about privacy makes me look at almost anything but Chrome.

Just my opinion though,

Happy Computing!!  

-Teal

 

 

 

on Sep 30, 2010

But my guess is we may all be running 'cloud' OS's in 5 years anyway

Every OS will have a cloud version in their newst itiration... but I wouldn't say most of us will be using it

Windows 7 and below don't magically poof out of existence when a cloud based windows 8 is released.

As to Chrome OS?  I sorta really dislike having Google see 'everything' that i do, which isn't too wild or elaborate, but still, Google's apparent total 'Don't Get It' attitude about privacy makes me look at almost anything but Chrome.

Oh yea... like when they auto subscribed you to buzz (and auto friended you with people from your contacts... so each of them could see anyone ELSE on your contacts who uses chrome and was thus also auto buzzed...), or when they decided to add new sync options to chrome beyond bookmarks, you get auto subscribed to those if you were already syncing it, or where google CEO said "well, privacy isn't a problem if you have nothing to hide" in reply to the ubrage people took at their buzz privacy issues. etc.

Just one more reason why chrome is a tertiary browser for me. I can deal with some lack of privacy though, I just keep in mind that google is always watching.

 

on Sep 30, 2010

SirBedwyr

I took umbrage at your presumption and fixed it for you.

You fixed nothing, since anything he posts is his opinion.

on Sep 30, 2010

 Okaaay...  I don't know how to respond to that Savyg.  Care to clarify?

on Sep 30, 2010

SirBedwyr
 Okaaay...  I don't know how to respond to that Savyg.  Care to clarify?

I'm just saying, claiming you fixed someones opinion is a bit...rubbish, to use Brit terminology.

Present your own, sure, but present in a way that doesn't diss someone elses.

on Sep 30, 2010

Of course it was rubbish.  To use another British term, I was being cheeky to get my point across: that the poster couched his opinion as settled fact and I disapproved.  Looking again, the hyperbole doesn't appear to be beyond the pale and I think I clarified my position quite thoroughly.  Sorry man.  I stand by what I said.

on Sep 30, 2010

I just get annoyed when people think 'fixed' is acceptable.  It's insulting.

Anyway, that's enough yapping from me. 

on Sep 30, 2010

Fair enough.

Meta
Views
» 5871
Comments
» 56
Sponsored Links