COMMENT
Do CIOs want or need another OS? And from Google? Naked CIO remains sceptical.
While I am no great fan of Microsoft or Apple - and have expressed rather opinionated views on the total cost of ownership of Linux environments - I have been recently perplexed by Google's decision to enter the operating system market.
While not a lot is known about the nature of the Chrome OS - it could very well just be a new form of Linux - I have given some thought to its practicality as a standalone OS in a corporate setting.
At this time much of my argument is speculation, but really, do we need yet another OS to worry about?
I am speaking purely from a CIO perspective where compatibility, reliability and usability are the three pillars of any stable and effective working environment in a corporate setting.
The technocratic elite can discuss the existential meanderings of what a new OS means from purely a technology view - and I am sure there will be those who will feel the need to further a purely academic view as well.
Essentially even though Vista has its problems, Apple is vogue but not very user friendly and Linux is imperfect in many ways, I cannot see how any respectable CIO would gladly pursue a Google-based OS in a corporate environment.
I realise Google is putting a great deal of money and effort into developing corporate alternatives to what has been the mainstay of corporate computing for some time and they will likely make inroads in this area.
However, OSes are a very different animal. Consider internal development, integrated applications, testing and vetting yet another OS and having all your proprietary vendors certify their software on this system. This will not happen - at least not in the next few years.
Google will likely go the route of Apple in that it will appeal to a select consumer base and then through trying to innovate grow that consumer base until these converts start to complain, beg and plead for a Google OS in the working environment.
This will take a decade and even then will never penetrate the market share of Windows. There are just too many variables that would need to be managed in organisations that are steadfast and anchored down.
The only way Google can be successful in the enterprise market is if they sell a full suite of OS and corporate applications. But even this will only be for a select group, considering the effort involved in internal software development and the size of many computing estates within large business.
Cloud computing might be an interesting model for many things Google does - but how will it work for an OS? I am still very sceptical of how Google can tie in a web-based model on computers that run mixed and multiple applications.
I know there are many that see this as a refreshing change to the stresses and challenges we have faced over the last decade. But while the idea might be great water-cooler chit-chat, the practicality of it having any impact on corporate IT within the next decade is very low.
Comments
There are 5 comments. Join the discussion
1. Ant Evans
Chrome and Android are intended as consumer products. That was all Windows was good for in 1990. It was pretty and had a funny name, but it was rubbish. People will try the darndest things.
Well, this time they have help. Consider that there is a swelling army of VARs who are aiming to plug the SLA-shaped gap between SMEs and server-side apps like Google's. MS will probably get Live Office right themselves on the second or third attempt, despite themselves. This means cloud apps will get more credible, even with infuriating limitations built in. That may eventually give corporates a choice of services they can grasp and use at scale. Meanwhile, someone has noticed that when you take the client-side apps away and use the OS just to host a browser, the browser matters more than the OS. For some reason, no-one has done it. Chrome won’t be the last attempt. It isn’t necessarily very easy. If it works, the value of Chrome or its successors won't be in building a better OS, but in taking the heat out of the OS decision. The test of success is that standards will matter more than platforms. To quote Lance Armstrong, it’s not about the bike.
2. Charles Smith
I can remember saying:
What is this UNIX, C & Oracle nonsense!
Token Ring is much better than TCP/IP!
You should not run that service on LINUX!
Now that Google OS is declared dead, I'd best sign up for it.
3. Ben Rickards
You MAY be right, but do't count on it. If Chrome is low cost, fires up quickly and connects to corporate or at least SME strength Office-like cloud applications I suspect you may find yourself with the taste of hat in your mouth.
YOur comments remind me of my marketing director who declared in 1995 'the internet will never be a serious channel for insurance quotations'.
4. anonymous
I tend to agree with the other posters here. The fact that the cloud has and will be embraced by prosumers and technical idealists, will surely amount to significant pressure on the other vendors.
Perhaps this time however, the main vendors have not been caught napping and the battle will be cloud dominance. Private clouds are already forming, as these mature with external service offerings, more and more computing will be carried out in the cloud and not at the client device. It is up to the entrenched vendors to scupper the cloud as to prevent the decay of the existing vendor tie in. Silver lining is here.
5. John Douglas
I believe the Google OS is aimed at providing only sufficient functionality to access "the cloud" via a browser - thereby eliminating many security vulnerabilities and administrative tasks. A minimal Linux kernel + Chrome will be highly attractive proposition for cost effective computing. It will sit alongside a significantly reduced number of "fat" workstations (Windows 7). If it arrives on time, then it will probably be considered as part of the migration to Windows 7 desktop project.