Google Watchers Strike Down Google Netbook Notion
Google Watch readers are surprisingly skeptical about the notion that Google will create a version of the Android mobile operating system for netbooks. But let us recall how Google's Android creators have said publicly that they expect Android to appear in devices other than mobile smartphones. Google has been anything but generous about its future plans for Android, but the belief is that Android will soon appear on set-top boxes, TVs and various other computing form factors. Now, I've already said I agreed with many who believe an Android netbook isn't farfetched. Linux distributions such as Xandros and Ubuntu have proliferated on netbooks, causing some folks to opine that 2009 could be the year we see a crack in Microsoft's Windows hegemony. Well, if Xandros and Ubuntu can make it on netbooks, why can't Android, as I asked Friday? Google Watchers have answered the call, doubting the appearance of Android on netbooks anytime soon. Performance and other limitations are the reasons, as Mike Jones rings in with this sage comment:
I'm very much looking forward to replacing my Symbian phone with an Android phone. But on netbooks, people want full browsers, word processing, and productivity applications. These exist and work great on Ubuntu; Android just doesn't have them. Furthermore, applications need to be designed very differently for netbook screens/keyboards and phones. What might make sense is to enable running Android apps on top of Ubuntu and other Linux distributions, kind of like applets. So, Android might become an add-on to desktop and netbook Linux versions, but it won't replace it. Nobody is saying Android will replace any Linux operating system for netbooks or anything else. The whole point of Linux is that all distributions have a fair shot at making it. If Android satisfies core requirements for operating systems, it will sell just like Ubuntu, Xandros and anything else. But, as TmoBin notes, Android has a ways to go before it gets there for PCs or laptops:
I would not want Android on a PC/Netbook. Android is designed for devices with much less processing power, graphics enhancements, and slower disk read speed; Not to mention such limited RAM. If it's "linux-based", i would just go with linux. As mentioned previously, running Android Apps on an emulator on Linux would probably work 10x better, although i don't know why you would want to. Isn't that like running Windows Mobile over Windows Vista. Well put, and that's probably great advice for the Android team. In fact, I have no doubt Google recognizes this, and I'm positive they're working on more robust iterations for devices that require better speed and performance. Doubters persist though, as John says:
There's no way I'm using a browser for an OS anytime soon, or Android on anything other than a phone until they can do with it what can be done with OS X, Ubuntu or Windows. However, on the phone side, Android has the most current potential IMO and if/when I get a new phone, I'll be looking at one. Herb adds another nail to the Android-on-netbook coffin: "Android is far too alpha to be taken seriously. It's barely an interesting brick (first gen). One year is a decade in computer years, but 2009 for gBooks would be a no go unless they were given away or $99." Yet despite the limitations of Android, others are hopeful for Android netbooks. Evan Schoepke writes:
Well, I for one see google going after the netbook market hard. I foresee double touch screen netbooks with android capability to be in the works soon (maybe even gesture enabled?) What hasn't google done, and given enough time, what hasn't google done well. Every IT person out there would be happy to see more linux penetration. One word, adaptability. Just look at what developers have done for android thus far and it's not even been unlocked for a year yet. Double touch-screen netbooks with Android?! OK, Evan is overly bullish but I like his can-do attitude. Let's put this into perspective; it's too early for such gadgets, but it's where Android is heading in a few years. Google has big plans for Android's future. In the meantime, I'll settle for a more powerful flavor of Android powering normal netbooks like the Asus EEE PC, or HP and Dell minis. I expect that to be the case in 2009, along with Android on a dozen other smartphones. So, what about the Chrome/Android netbook bundle? Eric Sermon weighs in:
I love Google, but everyone I know (myself included) has installed Google's Chrome browser only to uninstall it after a day or so. It's so lame. It's like a browser designed for preschoolers. We're all sticking with Firefox until Chrome is redesigned. Maybe then we'll give it another try. Does anyone really need to see thumbnail images of the web sites they visit most often? Ridiculous. Ouch. I disagree. For a first shot at a browser, Chrome isn't bad at all. And the speed! I haven't seen the likes of it. The V8 JavaScript engine alone is enough to keep me using it. I still use Firefox, too, for now, mostly because I'm so comfortable with it. Chrome needs more time in the oven before I switch for good, but will it get the chance? Eric Blair, who claims he is a Googler commenting from "inside," says Chrome is currently headed for disaster because it hasn't caught on. "They're now saying 'marketing' will revive it--we never used to advertise Google products, but now Chrome ads are being built into every toolbar, every Google page, every interaction. Getting tiresome," Blair writes. If you believe Blair, then we bloggers who love Chrome will see the new browser die a slow death for lack of adoption, which would be a rare failure on Google's part. That would be huge, meaning search must remain Google's window to the Web. That won't be enough to challenge Microsoft Windows. Indeed, I have no doubt that if Google fails to port Android to computers and Chrome doesn't gain more traction, Google's chances of cracking the Windows hegemony will fail. But you have to give both Android and Chrome time. Nothing in computing gets decided in a year's time, and both Android and Chrome have only been available for a few months. It's way too early to call this fight. Agree? Disagree? Tell me why. |
Comments (7)
You guys have it all wrong. Google doesn't need Android to be successful on every possible form factor. They just need open access and open standards to be successful. To that end, they could do more to further their cause by supporting existing Linux efforts on netbooks, laptops, etc. They don't care what OS you use, only that you use their services.
The mobile market is an anomoly. Extremely controlled and extremely closed. Google stepped in here and in the wireless spectrum because they needed to pry open a foothold for open access.
The set-top box market may be a need as well, but it seems to me the first place to strike there would be a high value, low cost partnership with existing manufacturers. If that doest work then they'd need to go after the cable companies to force them to allow 3rd party systems in a real way (the existing 'open' cable systems are a joke. How many cable cards do you see floating around?). That would be a long and expensive campaign.
I expect any work around the netbook market will be oriented at 'bundling' Googles services.
Dan
Posted by dan | December 28, 2008 11:37 PM
Google is good at thinking outside the box...as is Apple. It is this kind of thinking that re-invents industries.
There are always challenges and doubts, during a transition, but when you finally get there, you wonder how it could have been done any other way.
I applaud Google and Apple. The coming months and years are shaping up to be VERY exciting!
Posted by HereAndNow | December 29, 2008 3:13 AM
I love Chrome, it is indeed breezing fast, AND it went out of beta now fixing most of issues I've noticed. Wait to see Chrome OEMmed! People, geeks, that have FF might keep it due to plugins, but "normal" users will definitely prefer Chrome to IE. I believe Chrome in combination with Native Client has a lot of potential.
Andrid, however, I think is first way too young - in mobile you need some serious market activity to be even considered an option. For now it is a puny me-too product.
I think about having Android on a PC is NOT an option, nor it will be. Ever.
Android is efficient OS made explicitly for smartphones, its essence is in merging efficient OS, with great (touch) UI and supply of applications to go with. If you put android to a PC you loose the most of the above:
- the UI (the PC interface is just SO different from smartphone)
- you have to rewrite the OS for more powerful hardware
- the apps written specifically for the UI and power are not usable anymore.
For that matter, Google would have to write its own OS for PCs.
On the end, again, why bother with OS if you can easily surpass all the Cross-platform problems using something like Native client or even Gears.
d
Posted by container | December 29, 2008 4:53 AM
Clint,
I fully agree with your point of view: let us give time to Google Android and Chrome and we will see. But I am sure there are a lot of folks that do not sleep well in Seattle.
Just a some additional comments learning from the past:
1.- It took to MSFT more than 2 years to realize their wrong point of view on the importance of Internet and even reacting so late ... who remembers what happened to the leader ... Netscape. What was the MSFT strategy: to give for free what Netscape was selling ... Sounds familiar ?
2.- It is true that to migrate Android to PC-like platforms is a MUST, but why this should not happen: technological challenges are not such a big problem for Google ... In less than 10 years they have completely changed the way we think about scalability, reliability, flexibility ...
3.- We should not forget something that is key in all this game: Google generates revenues from ads (which is not one of the strong point of MSFT), while MSFT generates revenues form OS and Office (which Google can continue develope and give for free): Sounds familiar again ?
While GOOG will be able to hurt the MSFT revenues not been under the menace of MSFT doing the same I will continue thinking that MSFY got a problem difficult to solve. When they will buy YHOO ?
Posted by Gianfranco | December 29, 2008 2:17 PM
On MSFT and Windows: Agreed that OS will become a commodity, but most vendors charge for support/AMC and renewal. Just like anti-virus providers, real and Nero keep charging regularly for new versions/updates/maintenance. So MSFT will continue to receive revenue from OS but in a different form.
On Google\Android\Chrome: I feel it is inevitable that netbooks, nettops would eventually see android. I am even betting that the bios we see in most PCs might be replaced with Android or linux(proprietary customised for each hardware vendor). Only question is if it is Java or C++ that will win the day. If it is java then Android is on strong footing due to Java compatibility. If it c++ then Nokia is on strong footing due to QT/Trolltech acquisitions.
Future (ideal) is virtualisation where each pc will have multiple OS all free and based on the subscription model for support. hopefully .NET will die a slow death and java and c++ will rule.
Posted by marees | December 30, 2008 9:35 AM
Fully agree with Dan who said this:
"You guys have it all wrong. Google ... just need[s] open access and open standards to be successful."
This is what I have been thinking ever since I heard about Chrome and Android. Google wants to be everything to the user, *over the internet*, and it needs to map a path for consumers around current gatekeepers.
IMO, Google's strategic objective in creating Android is to move the whole head-space of the consumer; to build awareness and elation in the consumer ("Wow, it is possible!") about the future of an internet where you aren't held hostage by a small cabal of hardware/software/access providers who act like they're the boss of you, who spoon-feed you access, and who pretend it would be impossible to run their OS/software/hardware/network with anything but their device or suite of afterthought-ware.
This is about pushing the whole market and creating expectations the whole market will have to move to meet. The future of the internet is obviously mobile (see Japan: people don't buy desktop computers anymore, they get the latest phone). Mobile internet is closed and awful. Google needs to break that open.
Posted by John K. | December 30, 2008 9:19 PM
You are right...it is all about the advertising - since they are an advertising company. Google needs to deliver ads to customers using Maps / GPS on their phones. Only the iPhone allowed this. With the introduction of 4G / Wimax, mobile devices will take all kinds of forms. These will be perfect for Chrome, Goog Apps, Gmail, Gears and a small footprint OS or some kind of free application specific OS(s - to deliver more geo specific advertising. Google has said that they see mobile advertising as a much larger source of income than current fixed advertising.
Posted by pjeffy | December 31, 2008 1:05 AM