Google’s Chrome Play

I’ve been watching Google as they’ve been developing their 3 Operating System products, and there’s one thing that strikes me about it. They all seem to be coming from the same place, and they all seem to be heading to the same destination. Albeit by different paths.

The Chrome Browser is their successful competitor to Firefox, IE, Opera et al. They had a series of goals at play when they released this. They wanted the market to start moving in a specific direction, one which suited them. For instance, having each tab run in a different process, sand-boxing, isolated failures, html5 support, lightweight browsing and so on. They had a number of key technologies and ideas that they wanted to push browser manufacturers, to use, mainly because they needed features like that for them to build their web based services and make them comparable to native alternatives. Google’s future is the web! Just look at their range of products, Google Docs, Wave, Gmail, Code etc, and they need an advanced, capable browser which allows them to develop alternatives to native applications that can actually compete. By releasing Chrome browser, they showed everyone how they wanted it to be, and by making it open source, they made it easy for people to emulate them. Because, in the long run, Google doesn’t really care what browser you’re running. As long as their Web Apps run well.

The Android OS, is Google’s foray into the mobile OS market. I think it’s pretty self evident why Google released a phone OS. In the future, the vast majority people accessing the internet will be from mobile devices, be they phones, tablet computers or netbooks. Just look at Asia and Africa. Mobile computing is now a large proportion of how people use computers, and its growing. Google wanted to get in early and put its stake in the ground. Much like Chrome browser, they wanted to show everyone else how Google saw it. Again I think they are getting involved so they can guide the market to where they want it to go. It is a means to an end, and the end is Googles services. The fact that they are providing a very good alternative to iPhone OS, Windows Phone 7, Blackberry and the recently bought Palm is just a plus for the rest of us.

The Chrome OS, which is slated for release later this year, is where people are getting confused, and its very understandable why. It seems like the 3rd wheel, the guy who meets a couple on a date and sits down with them. Chrome OS is just hanging around there in the background, with everybody wondering why he’s still there, and kind of wishing he’d just get the hint and leave already. They’ve already got an OS in Android, and a browser in Chrome. This just seems like the awkward offspring of the two. There is no real purpose of reason for it existing as the niche that it fills it already completely taken up by the other two. But this is the point where I disagree with people. I think that, like Chrome browser, this is Google play on showing people how they want it to be done. Google would love it if we just lived in the browser. In reality, nothing else is really necessary to access the products that Google provides. You only need a browser and a fast enough processor, and with everything else stripped away, that processor becomes more efficient, as it’s not being distracted by 20 different system services that you’re not using. It’s all focused on the browser.

(On a side note, I’ve been running the Chrome OS on my netbook for a few months now. I don’t use it alot, but I do try it out every so often if I want a browser and I want it now. I’ve used the hexxeh build.)

And thats where google is bringing everything together. Chrome browser now has extensions, it also has an app store, it’s lightening fast, and it supports html 5. Since Chrome browser and OS run off a shared code base, it isn’t a major task to bring those features to Chrome OS. So now Chrome OS is the perfect OS for Google. It’s fast, reliable, doesn’t crash (single tabs will crash and thus not bring down the entire system). It has extensions, it has an app store and it supports html5 (with offline data store). There are no distractions from other programs, the browser is the OS. This is the ideal client for Google’s cloud.

Now the question remains as to where Google will put Chrome OS? This is where, in my opinion, Google fell down. Back when they starting planning the trilogy, it was a different market. They thought there were three distinct markets they could enter. Android would take the mobile space, i.e. anything with a screen under 5” which can make calls. Chrome browser would reside on full OS’s like Windows, Linux or Mac and finally Chrome OS would be a netbook OS. It’s the perfect form factor, where speed and power is an issue, and you don’t want to do much more than check emails, browse a bit and maybe do a small bit of document work.

But what threw a spanner in the works is the new emergence of tablet computing. A couple of years ago, tablet computing was the realm of Windows and their crappy stylus based offering. The iPhone revolution was a phone exclusive revolution, and it didn’t show signs of switching to a larger form factor any time soon. I believe that Google wrote off the tablet space and didn’t really consider it as part of their plans. And this started the develop their trifecta of products, each one designed the complement each other and each one separated to fill it’s own specific niche.

Now with the emergence of the iPad and all the other touchscreen tablets coming a in a few months, Google has been a bit taken aback by the latest developments. I’m not saying Google didn’t spot the trend when it was beginning to arrive about a year ago. I’m saying that Google continued on regardless because they had seen the tablet space wax and wain over the years and decided not to pay any attention to it this time.

Now they’re finding themselves in a bit of a conundrum, they’ve got their 3 areas nicely covered, then another one pops up and they’re not quite sure what to do about it. Developers are starting to develop Android based tablet computers, but Google didn’t mean for Android to deal with such a large screen. Sure developers can change the look and layout and such, but they’ve designed their marketplace to cater to phone apps. Everything for Android has been designed for the group up for a mobile interface, and not the larger form factor tablet. Right now Chrome OS nobody wants to do a Chrome OS tablet, and I’d say that’s the right choice for the wrong reasons. Chrome OS is not built for touch or tablets, its for netbooks and as a result, Android would be the better choice for a tablet.

So thats my opinion on Google’s Chrome play. I think that they had a wonderful plan that’s mapped out rather nicely, but that it’s being marred at the last hurdle. They haven’t reacted quickly enough to changing trends and are, as a result, looking bad. I would say that, given a few months, they’ll redesign their current strategy into one that encompasses the tablet form-factor. But until then they’ll be seen to be making a misstep.

Let me know if I’ve got it completely bass-akwards. Theres the comment section below for that :)

Post a comment | Trackback URI
  • http://www.google.com/profiles/TimByr Keith

    You seem to be confused as to what the relation between Chrome OS and Chrome is. I see that you decided to view Chrome/Chromium as an OS. I don't feel you are entirely correct in that assumption.

    I think what Chrome does is form a powerful basis on the ideology behind the Chrome OS. A fast, light, web based computing experience.
    However there is a large difference between them. Their scope of use.
    Chrome OS is aimed at netbooks, with low power requirements and limited or low resources. To enact this they use the ideas of Web Apps and the Cloud, and the ability to support this is in a fast efficient lightweight browser.

    Now where Chrome OS falls down is when you want to bring the same access to your desktop or a different platform. That is where the standalone Chrome browser comes in. You get all the same functionality and use from the Cloud and Web Apps as you would from the Chrome OS, while retaining the functionality of your normal computing environment.

    I see this as a fundamental part of both projects. Ubiquity. Consistency. Portability. Reliability. No matter what system you go to, your net book, desktop, even another persons computer, you have the same access to the same environment and data. And the net book brings all this into the area of portability with the ease of use for daily tasks that a phone/tablet just can't match up to. And I do think there is a significant amount here.

    Now the point of Android is to bring all this to the realm of the mobile platform, and I do include tablets in this.
    Saying that Google didn't mean for Android to deal with such a large screen could be true assumption, but they do emphatically say to design apps for android that scale well for all screen types. To me this does cover the possibility of larger screens.

    In fact, the Android SDK allows you to develop applications for any size screen you wish at and density or quality.

    But the vast majority of applications released are from inexperienced developers and just don't have the same level of quality you would get from more professional developers, who I would hope in fact design their application in such a way that changing screen size would not have a large impact on any applications they create. But this means that quality of apps for larger screens falls to the developer, not Google.

    In fact I think they are creating the current trends. Android phones outsold iPhones in the US this Q1. Google Gears laid the foundation for HTML5, Chrome is constantly pushing what browsers are capable of achieving. Android is now helping with the first successful competitive tablet release, after now being becoming possibly the most popular smart phone OS.

    Is this comment to long to be accepted?

  • http://twitter.com/ChrisDuffin ChrisDuffin

    I would have agreed with a lot of this apart from one important factor. The fact that Google Chrome uses Webkit as it's rendering engine, suggests to me that the idea they want to enforce how the web looks is a wrong one. If they wanted to do so they would have written their own rendering engine rather than borrowing somebody elses. This to me would suggest that the browser was not the first thought to google's mind.

    I reckon that Chrome OS came before Chrome the browser. Much in the same way that iPhone OS was originally born on a tablet and repurposed for a phone, I reckon several concepts and technologies were born from Google's experiments in an OS. Having seen how these could then be applied to a browser I would suggest that Google decided to start on the Chrome Browser project.

    I also see a fundamental flaw in Android OS. I read an article the other day on how fragmentation is going to undermine Android in a big way. And I would agree with this. I think (and I can hear Keith screaming already) that Google should have followed a stance similar to Apple. One thing that Apple does really really well is keeping continuity across platforms whilst also allowing each platform to excel at it's aims. They acheive this be using a base (in this case OS X) and then building the devices software on top of this. Rather than trying to build an all encompassing OS they have created a base on which to build the right OS for the right devices. Googles lack of control over the finished product will also lead to poor fragmentation of the platform. I am surprised that Google has taken this route, I would have imagined Windows Mobile would be enough of a lesson for anybody.

    I might add more later, I'm starving so I'm gonna leave it there and come back.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/TimByr Keith

    Pretty much sums up why fragmentation really isn't an issue.

    http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/…

  • http://twitter.com/ChrisDuffin ChrisDuffin

    His argument for Android not having a problem with fragmentation is that no one has defined fragmentation?

    He sum's up the argument that fragmentation will be problem whilst trying to pretend it won't be

    “As a developer, you simply decide what features your app requires, and list them in your app’s AndroidManifest.xml.
    The Android compatibility program ensures that only compatible devices have access to Android Market.
    Android Market makes sure your app is only visible to those devices where it will run correctly, by filtering your app from devices which don’t have the features you listed.”

    So developers will have to choose what devices and what features too support. You want to support more features? You'll have to restrict the devices you can support. You want to support more devices? You have to restrict the features you support.

    That's the very fucking definition of Fragmentation and he's glossed over because he doesn't think a definition for Fragmentation exists!

    Your second link just proves my point about the “all encompassing OS”.

    They should have focused on making the bottom 2 layers universal and then allowing the top 2 layers to unique to the type of device. What works well for a phone doesn't necessarily work for a tablet.

    Again, I point to Windows Mobile for a perfect example of why this is a bad idea.

  • http://chris.salij.org Chris Salij

    I don’t think they want to enforce how the web works. My point was that they want the browsers to have a certain set of base features which will enable them to create more advanced Web Applications. I honostly think they’re happy with html5 which is why they went with webkit.

    I actually know one of the core developers who worked on Chrome OS and the Mac port of Chrome. He told me very little but what he did say was that they were all conceived of at the same time. Development was staggered as one had to be started before another could begin. But they were part of a single plan.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/TimByr Keith

    No his argument is that all these articles claiming there will be fragmentation have different ideas of what that fragmentation is.

    All Applications are forward compatible. So no fragmentation lies there.

    If an developer wants to use a feature in a newer release. It is the developers choice not to target lower version devices. Once again that isn't fragmentation. That is normal developmental progression.

    And developers don't have to choose what devices to support. They choose what their application requires, then only devices that support the application can download it.

    Why would a developer, whose application requires the use of a GPS device, want to provide an application to devices without GPS? It isn't fragmentation. Its all the one App Store. Just those particular devices without GPS won't see that particular app. And for a very good reason.

    And in fact the bottom two layers are universal with the exception of specific device drivers.

    The Android OS is not the iPhone. Nor will it ever be. It works well as it is. Its cycle of development is fast. Innovation and progress is at its core.

    I invite you to read the post from Dan Morrill again.

    “The choice is in app developers’ hands as to whether they want to live on the bleeding edge for the flashiest features, or stay on older versions for the largest possible audience. And in the long term, as the mobile industry gets more accustomed to the idea of upgradeable phone software, more and more devices will be be upgraded.”

    And yes something that works well for a phone can also work for more than tablets.
    http://wetab.mobi/en
    http://www.google.com/tv/

  • http://chris.salij.org Chris Salij

    I don't think they want to enforce how the web works. My point was that they want the browsers to have a certain set of base features which will enable them to create more advanced Web Applications. I honostly think they're happy with html5 which is why they went with webkit.

    I actually know one of the core developers who worked on Chrome OS and the Mac port of Chrome. He told me very little but what he did say was that they were all conceived of at the same time. Development was staggered as one had to be started before another could begin. But they were part of a single plan.

  • http://chris.salij.org Chris Salij

    I'm not sure if I got my point across as fully as I'd have hoped, but what you say in the second and third paragraphs of your comment are pretty much exactly what I said in my post. ChromeOS is for netbooks where there's certain restrictions (like power, speed etc). And Chrome browser would just be a program on on fully fledged OS's

    To quote myself directly
    “Chrome browser would reside on full OS’s like Windows, Linux or Mac and finally Chrome OS would be a netbook OS. It’s the perfect form factor, where speed and power is an issue…”

    Similarly with your third paragraph. Google is trying to get you into their cloud. You mentioned “Ubiquity. Consistency. Portability.” I'd fully agree with this, and it's a major undercurrent of my post. They're trying to give you the basic tools to always be connected (to google's cloud ideally).

    As for your point on Android, I stand by my original statement, that google didn't anticipate the tablet move. However they have designed a system that can cope well with different form factors, which will ease their transistion. I think that if they went with apple's model (as Chris Duffin suggested) they would have been left in a much worse position then they are now.

    But what do you say about these reports that all the Android tablets are not getting support from Google. That Phone makers are getting plenty of resources, but tablet makers are getting the cold shoulder more often than not… I don;t have links on hand, as I just sat down. But if you like I could dig them up…