Follow up to my post yesterday about the Google Chrome OS. First off, read the excellent Fake Steve Jobs post about the new OS and we agree on most points - he just presents in a much funnier, insightful, and entertaining manner.
Second, the rumblings are that Eric Schmidt needs to leave Apple's board because of potential competitive issues. He currently recuses himself from board meetings that deal with the iPhone due to Google competing Android product. Will he now recuse himself when there is talk of Mac OS? So pretty much he's just there to discuss iPods? Seems like a waste of space in my opinion. However, my prediction is that Schmidt does not leave Apple's board. This leads me to believe that the Google Chrome OS is not really going to be an OS in the traditional sense of the word which means it doesn't really compete with Mac OS and for that matter, Windows. Let's remember, it's basically Linux with the Chrome browser bolted on top. The real point of the Chrome OS is to push more Chrome installations and not to beat Windows. Believe me, it takes more than just having a superior OS to take significant market share away from Microsoft. Look at Mac OS and the ahead of its time BeOS. Both were better operating systems yet couldn't even make a dent in Windows. I hardly doubt ANOTHER Linux variant is going to fair any better.
Posts for Tag: google
The Google OS - It's big news, but not really that big
via techcrunch.com
I picked this post up from TechCrunch and though it definitely is a major step forward, let's not make it more than what it really is. Google Chrome, in its proposed incarnation, will never replace Windows (or Mac OS) as a legitimate desktop OS; just like Linux never replaced Windows as a consumer desktop OS. The web has become a major APPLICATION that we all use on a daily basis but there are many other applications that we use that don't require us to connect online. And before anyone starts talking about ZOHO or Google Apps, has anyone really tried using any of these online office applications? Frankly, they're not that useful beyond the bare basics of what a spreadsheet or word processing application should do. Can they get better, of course. Just not today or in my opinion the foreseeable future (next 1-3 years).
But lest I seem like I am in Microsoft's corner, this is a significant announcement. The real point is not for Google to overtake Microsoft in the OS world. It just needs to make a dent and I think it will. Microsoft's empire is one based on total domination. If it ceased to own more than the roughly 90% of the OS market it does today, that will be a major hit to its bottom line. Microsoft is a bloated organization with lots of people making lots of money (roughly 91K+). If Google was able to either take 5%-10% market share OR force Microsoft to significantly lower the price of a Windows license, it could make things difficult for them. In the end, that's all Google is aiming for. Make life difficult for Microsoft in its core product (desktop) so it doesn't concentrate on Google's core product (web).
Craigslist expects record revenue: $100 million
Defying its anti-commercial reputation, Craigslist is expected to rake in $100 million in revenue this year, the most ever for the classified advertising site, according to a new report.
via sfgate.com
This is crazy talk. Not because Craigslist isn't widely popular but because they generated $100 million with only 30 employees. That's $3.33 million of revenue per employee! How many companies with similar revenues are doing better? As a contrast, Google does about $21.8 billion in revenue with roughly 20,000 employees or a little under $1.1 million per employee.
Why Google Maps is the best online map service
A nice follow-up to my Microsoft Bing.com post earlier. Slowly and surely, Google Maps has become the best online map service to date. When they first started out, they were no better than MapQuest, Yahoo Maps, or even Microsoft's MapPoint. But just like the turtle, they've made slow and steady progress. Their latest addition is the "pancake" feature of the Street View tool which makes navigating through Street View so much easier.
I don't "root" for Google. I have no vested interest in whether they do well or not. In fact, I've argued that the overall web ecosystem would benefit from them losing a little search market share and Yahoo/Microsoft gaining a little more. However, it's tough to argue when one company is churning out great products while the other two flounder or put out irrelevant commercials.
What Bing.com failed to learn from Excite, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, etc.
What do Excite, Lycos, and Ask Jeeves have in common with the new Bing.com search engine? They all had flashy brand building commercials that tried to paint their search engines as more than just technology. They were supposed to be emotional, etherial, existential, plus any other "e" word you can think of. Remember Excite's "Have You Been Experienced" ads featuring Jimi Hendrix's song? Now what do Excite, Lyocs, and Ask Jeeves also have in common? As search engines, they're all garbage and except for Ask Jeeves, largely out of the search business (Ask Jeeves to follow shortly). How many television ads have you seen for Google? Maybe there's something to be said about concentrating your resources on building the best technology instead of hiring the best ad agency.
For those who don't know, Bing.com is Microsoft's newly launched search engine. I've tried it and it's not bad. It's not great, but it's far from the crappy search results that Live.com spit out. Plus they have some interesting features like the image search and video search. But Microsoft as of late seems to be all about the glitz and marketing as opposed to the real technology. With all the money at their disposal why not hire the best and the brightest engineers and have them build the best search engine possible? It makes me wonder whether all the money has made them complacent. It's always easier to throw money at an ad agency then to actually sit down and do the work.