September 3, 2008 4:03 PM
- Text
Google Chrome Reminds -- There Is No One OS
(MoneyWatch)
Chrome, was guaranteed to become a hot topic in the business and tech circuits: Not only was it from Google, the current tech darling, but offered room to speculate whether the new browser would "kill" Internet Explorer or be the "operating system" for cloud computing. But who really cares? We left the world of the single operating system years ago, because that's not what is important to people. Interfaces are.
Chrome certainly like it's filled with a lot of nice features (including sandbox browsing to keep a system protected, which keeps explains why Google bought GreenBorder Technologies). Walt Mossberg saw Chrome as eventually capable of making Web use "faster, easier and less frustrating." It's a secret plan to remake the web. Chrome leaves your breath minty-fresh -- oh, sorry, I got carried away.
So did many other people, excited that browsers could become the next operating system as apps move to the web and we all indulge in cloud computing. Whether you call a browser an operating system or "the linchpin of Web activity -- the framework for our searching, reading, buying, banking, Facebooking, chatting, video watching, music appreciation, and porn consumption", there's the thought that something will finally shake loose the grip of the often-hated Microsoft.
However, wanting an end to the single operating system is a waste of time because that effectively happened years ago. Step a quarter mile outside of Silicon Valley, Redmond, or Manhattan's financial district and regular people simply don't care who's winning. They have already moved on. Non-industry people only want to get things done, perhaps with a dash of style.
The browser-OS war ended when Microsoft integrated a browser into Windows and started using it as the overall interface for doing virtually anything. Netscape "lost" because too many people didn't care which browser they used and so opted for the one close at hand. I think that's one reason that Apple has been able to make strides in gaining market share in the personal computing space. When software moves toward using a browser metaphor, making a jump becomes a lot easier for the end user. Browser are only vehicles, and people shift from one vehicle to another for a better experience.
There can be no single operating system any more than there can be a single device that can do all things for all people. What works splendidly under one set of conditions and constraints might be an utter waste in another setting. Notice that Apple didn't try to make the iPhone work like a Mac, or even like an iPod. The company focused on what might make users' lives easier in the available space.
PCs are only a portal to activities, such as writing a document, editing a photo, playing a game, or getting onto the Internet. Each activity needs its own type of interface, and the requirements change when the monitor gets smaller, or when you get rid of the keyboard. Why do you think Microsoft hasn't owned the mobile device market and others, like Apple, are taking over growing segments? Come up with a better interface for whatever customers need to do, whether make phone calls or play music, and you, too, can grab market share.
What makes competition among browsers interesting is that a PC is one of the few devices where it's possible to modify the user interface after the fact. Any application could dump the usual approach and do something different. Choose a different browser, and you may have new tools to manage what you want to do. That, in turn, may open new possibilities for applications and uses.
Using a different browser doesn't mean you've eliminated the need for an operating system. Something has to perform all the tasks that an operating system provides for the machine to run at all. You might as well say that adding a GPS-driven navigation system would eliminate the need for the engine. Those who think that Chrome will "beat" Windows are fooling themselves. It might help split the artificial association among device function and form, but there is no war. There's just whatever might work better for the user in this time and place.
Chrome image courtesy of Google.
Chrome, was guaranteed to become a hot topic in the business and tech circuits: Not only was it from Google, the current tech darling, but offered room to speculate whether the new browser would "kill" Internet Explorer or be the "operating system" for cloud computing. But who really cares? We left the world of the single operating system years ago, because that's not what is important to people. Interfaces are.Chrome certainly like it's filled with a lot of nice features (including sandbox browsing to keep a system protected, which keeps explains why Google bought GreenBorder Technologies). Walt Mossberg saw Chrome as eventually capable of making Web use "faster, easier and less frustrating." It's a secret plan to remake the web. Chrome leaves your breath minty-fresh -- oh, sorry, I got carried away.
So did many other people, excited that browsers could become the next operating system as apps move to the web and we all indulge in cloud computing. Whether you call a browser an operating system or "the linchpin of Web activity -- the framework for our searching, reading, buying, banking, Facebooking, chatting, video watching, music appreciation, and porn consumption", there's the thought that something will finally shake loose the grip of the often-hated Microsoft.
However, wanting an end to the single operating system is a waste of time because that effectively happened years ago. Step a quarter mile outside of Silicon Valley, Redmond, or Manhattan's financial district and regular people simply don't care who's winning. They have already moved on. Non-industry people only want to get things done, perhaps with a dash of style.
The browser-OS war ended when Microsoft integrated a browser into Windows and started using it as the overall interface for doing virtually anything. Netscape "lost" because too many people didn't care which browser they used and so opted for the one close at hand. I think that's one reason that Apple has been able to make strides in gaining market share in the personal computing space. When software moves toward using a browser metaphor, making a jump becomes a lot easier for the end user. Browser are only vehicles, and people shift from one vehicle to another for a better experience.
There can be no single operating system any more than there can be a single device that can do all things for all people. What works splendidly under one set of conditions and constraints might be an utter waste in another setting. Notice that Apple didn't try to make the iPhone work like a Mac, or even like an iPod. The company focused on what might make users' lives easier in the available space.
PCs are only a portal to activities, such as writing a document, editing a photo, playing a game, or getting onto the Internet. Each activity needs its own type of interface, and the requirements change when the monitor gets smaller, or when you get rid of the keyboard. Why do you think Microsoft hasn't owned the mobile device market and others, like Apple, are taking over growing segments? Come up with a better interface for whatever customers need to do, whether make phone calls or play music, and you, too, can grab market share.
What makes competition among browsers interesting is that a PC is one of the few devices where it's possible to modify the user interface after the fact. Any application could dump the usual approach and do something different. Choose a different browser, and you may have new tools to manage what you want to do. That, in turn, may open new possibilities for applications and uses.
Using a different browser doesn't mean you've eliminated the need for an operating system. Something has to perform all the tasks that an operating system provides for the machine to run at all. You might as well say that adding a GPS-driven navigation system would eliminate the need for the engine. Those who think that Chrome will "beat" Windows are fooling themselves. It might help split the artificial association among device function and form, but there is no war. There's just whatever might work better for the user in this time and place.
Chrome image courtesy of Google.
-
Erik Sherman Erik Sherman is a widely published writer and editor who also does select ghosting and corporate work. Follow him on Twitter at @ErikSherman or on Facebook.
Follow on Twitter »
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
- 6 things you should never share on Facebook
- Make moves now to increase financial aid
- Valentine's Day: 9 places to save
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Exhibit looks back at 50 years of American fashion
- Man pleads guilty in NYC to harassing Ivanka Trump
- Mortenson asks judge to toss 'Three Cups' lawsuit
- Naomi Watts to star in Princess Diana biopic
on Facebook
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Beyonce and Jay-Z post first photos of Blue Ivy Carter
on CBS News






