IE, Safari and Chrome are proprietary software. Firefox is Google-affiliated. But nothing is “just a browser” any more. They’re also marketing tools. Google’s Chrome is seen as both a defence against Microsoft and a possible offense.
Meanwhile, the net continues to evolve. Net users suffering from Operating System Fatigue, Add-On Syndrome, Social Network Arthritis and Why Won’t Microsoft Updates Download on Firefox could be forgiven for some apathy about another browser. However, Google’s Chrome contains some things that could be very useful.
The New York Times:
The browser’s design underscores Google’s vision that in the next few years the digital lives of computer users will change significantly. Rather than rely on programs that run on personal computers, people will increasingly use software that is delivered over the Web from powerful data centers. They will store their data on remote servers and be able to access it wherever they are. This approach would make operating systems like Microsoft’s Windows much less important.
Brave words, but there’s an element of common sense, the sort that works with hindsight. Browsers are basically readers, but so are computers.
…By adding speed and new functions to the inner workings of the browser, Chrome will encourage software makers to create increasingly sophisticated programs that can run on the Web, Mr. Brin said.
“A lot of things are difficult to do on the Web,” he said. Chrome will allow developers to overcome those difficulties, he said, and “you will be able to do more and more online.”
A browser could operate like a computer, if it had enough grunt, which none of them have, yet. Microsoft doesn’t agree, but its own idea of cloud computing and online storage isn’t that far removed.
The problem with most operating systems is that consumer dependency is very high. The world now revolves around the computer. If it crashes, it takes your business with it, maybe for days, if you have to rescue data and deal with proprietary hardware. Hardware, generally, and What Will Run On What are just pains in the butt.
A common online operating system isn’t a bad idea, just in self defence. The idea of being able to run things when you want to run them, without having to jump through hoops, has a lot going for it.
Google deserves some credit for not sticking to the proprietary script. It really is a pain, and getting sick of downloading various bits and pieces just to run something isn’t at all hard to do. Reinstalling things that stop working for unknown reasons isn’t much of an inspiration, either. You won’t find too many people cheering the various software conflicts, either.
There’s a further, emerging, situation. Internet TV and high dataload streaming are not likely to be much enhanced with any number of incompatible platforms, operating systems, browser quirks and other antiquaria. Whatever's coming will also be produced on a menagerie of software.
In any practical commercial sense, anything browser-like which obstructs consumers could not be good business for anyone. This will be volumes of data which will make the current data loads look like confetti. Things that don't run are not likely to be appreciated by the net’s growing billions of users.
This is natural selection, for browsers and net applications.
That which survives will be that which can.
(Anyone got a spare robe and a beard....?)
The Pay To Run racket has been fun, but it’s time to go. Adding costs to running baseline products is just parasitism. If anyone does produce an all-purpose browser with enough power to run PC apps, which will run anything, game over.
The writing’s been on the wall for a while. Solid state computing, when available, could kill any disk operated system. It’s more efficient. Quad core is definitely coming, necessary because of the need to operate ever more complex software and simultaneous functions.
Online storage is a great idea but the security thing, rational or otherwise, is a real worry for users. Most people don’t know how much effort goes into creating secure systems, but it’s still a matter of Prove It, and the caution won’t be overcome too quickly.
This could, theoretically, create the No-Computer Computer. Add a touch capacity, accurate vocal transcription, and all you really need is a screen.
That won’t be the end of Microsoft or Apple. Their overheads will practically vanish, if anyone can produce a online operating system. It’ll be interesting to see if they can figure out how to take advantage of it.
