Their aim seems to be instant web-access, which benefits google. Linux compatibility would seem secondary - and perhaps even deliberately omitted, as Google wants you to use web-apps, not desktop-apps. And if Google Chrome is fast enough, and offline operation is seamless enough, that might not be a problem at all.

This is the thing that Microsoft feared from Netscape and Java. It got away that time. Round 2: the game has changed, but the outcome, even if preordained, remains as yet unknown.

I guess spending 10 years building infrastructure to support web apps had to happen first.

From the developer point of view, AJAX-style dynamic webapps have become easier, with browser-support, dev tools, and a trained workforce; ditto for the server (esp. ruby on rails, but it's across the language-board, and DB, OR mapping, XML, JSON); and cheaper servers (which are also much more powerful). OK, OK! You've convinced me.

if we use the Windows example, it'd go like:

Damn my windows just crashed.

The OS or the browser?

Chrome is a much better name than Doorway or Vents or Tunnel. It's different than Windows. It's fast and shiny.

That aside I guess they're building a brand and want to populate it with some related products. I'm dubious about the value of that approach though; Sun's plastering of the "Java" brand onto on OS didn't do them much good. IBM's WebSphere overloading has caused me problems in the past. Microsoft turned ".NET" from a useful label into a meaningless one.

They called the browser Chrome because part of the mission was to strip back the browser's chrome (i.e. its UI) and give prominence to the web content. This philosophy is likely to be applied to the OS too.

"The OS or the browser?"

The OS only exists to provide the browser, which in turn only exists to provide the web. As others have pointed out, no-one (non-geek) knows what a browser is, I doubt they'd do much better with questions about operating systems.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ (What is a Browser?)

Now they have adapted themselves (slightly higher cost/specs) to Windows XP, and people are fairly comfortable with that. The market is established & shaving an extra $50 off the price is not as much of an issue.

The near future will have Windows 7 netbooks & Ubuntu for netbook to provide some theoretical competition.

That doesn't mean this definitely won't take off, but a Google backed operating system made for small screens & cheap hardware could have been the default choice 2 years ago.

But over time, the specs drifted up. Consumers preferred XP. They were willing to pay for it. I don't know what the median price is, but I'm guessing around $400-$500. In other words, the market has moved towards Windows. Windows has also moved towards netbooks.

Google OS could have been the default choice for netbook manufacturers at the time when there were petitions going to keep XP alive. When this launches (2010?), Windows 7 netbooks will be the default choice.

That doesn't mean this won't work. maybe people will prefer Chrome OS to Windows 7 for netbooks. Maybe it will enable $200 netbooks, almost a distinct class. If that's the case, they still need to go through the market test. Do a lot of people really want a $200 netbook?

These things don't compete on features, they compete on binary "good enough" and price. They're practically commodities, which is why the industry doesn't like them -- ECON 101 rules about efficiency apply.

Of course, you can still decorate the case to differentiate on fashion.

+ I don't have to maintain it. (Anti-malware, etc.)

+ Comes with the applications I want. (Wherever they are hosted -- local or on the net.)

Chrome might make the netbook into an (true) appliance. A lot of people would like that.

I think the killer feature for Google may be manipulable audio-visual. The ability to insert and control advertising in A/V media. There's a reason they continue to pour money into YouTube.

Since netbooks surfaced there has been feature creep and price creep.

Some people would say it's anti-competitive, but Google can only provide a free netbook OS because of its ads business.

For broader-purpose use, Android may catch on. Chrome OS is different, and I don't think it's supposed to compete directly with Windows XP.

This is an odd comment to make coming from an ex coder.

(Except this time Chrome has reduced Linux to a well-debugged set of device drivers.)

Canonical has performed fairly well with Ubuntu but it'll be interesting to see if Google can "bring it to the masses".

Instead of good branding/marketing, Linux needs a good sales team to pitch to manufacturers. Linux will continue losing, until the manufacturers add to their custom builds: Linux (-$100) or Microsoft Windows(+$100)

EDIT: bleh I read from the bottom up (in terms of the front page) so Google Blog was last :) I see the source.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-ch...