Much has been written about Google Chrome OS, and whether it will change the traditional business and consumer PC OS marketplaces. I reckon we are missing the point.
I don't believe Google are aiming to usurp Microsoft from these established marketplaces. Instead, Google are busy creating a whole new multi-billion dollar marketplace (and one where they will be the de facto leader) by redefining how we access the web in our daily lives.
To understand this conclusion, we need to analyse the current market drivers and trends:
Devaluation of the OS.
The OS, as we know it today, is losing (financial) value. Microsoft and Apple both see declining ARPUs for pure OS sales, and concentrate instead on the application stacks they sell on top (MS Office, Exchange, iWorks, iLife, etc.) or in other marketplaces completely (Xbox, Bing, iPod, iPhone, etc.).
In the mobile phone world, Symbian and Windows Mobile are being quietly dropped for Google Android and LiMo. The main exception being Apple's iPhone, with it's cut-down version of OS/X, but this forms part of Apple's so-far-consistent integrated hardware and software approach.
Why the devaluation? It is tempting to suggest that minimum cost, even freeware, alternatives already exist for all major hardware systems, whether it's a mobile phone, a desktop or laptop PC, or a corporate server. Often, the replacement adds functionality and performance not available in the original, costlier OS (Android and Symbian, for example).
However, the reality is not that straightforward. We also have to recognise that OS vendors are victims of their past successes.
Microsoft was well-recognised for it's seemingly endless ability to concoct new, incompatible Office document or spreadsheet formats, forcing upgrades to the latest version of Office (and hence Windows) onto their customers. This proved to be a major revenue source, but has been curtailed by anti-monopoly action by the US Govt and European Union.
Apple, conversely, needs to have a lower price point to encourage their customers to upgrade to the latest OS, simply because the previous version worked pretty well and there are very few new major features that can be introduced to their current OS.
The OS is maturing, and with that, we can expect to see the base cost of the OS declining. What little money there is in the OS, is in the GUI. (In a proper OS, this should even be separate from the underlying OS, but that's another article...)
In Google's case, the OS is minimalist. It is there just to support the browser application and is tightly restricted on the hardware front. This is not where the value is.
Platforms
So if the OS is devaluing so much, why am I excited by Google Chrome?
Well, it's the apps, stupid.
The current trend is to call the hardware, software and application library combination a 'platform'. Call it what you will, Apple got it spot on with iPhone. A stable OS and a nice GUI with wonderful UI innovations is great. A locked-in application delivery mechanism (the App Store) is pure genius.
As developers rushed in to the new marketplace that Apple created, they created more and more reasons for a user to switch to, or remain with, the iPhone. At the moment, any iPhone-wannabe competitor has a tremendous barrier to entry to break through. Actually, 100,000+ of them.
Google are in the perfect position to supply initial web applications for Chrome users (search, mail, calendar, documents, spreadsheets, maps, blogs, photos, and many more...), plus they have the Google Checkout experience to allow them to easily create their own Google-approved application portal for each user. True, they might not want (need?) to control the experience as much as Apple can, but if they wanted to, they most certainly could.
And that's certainly where the money could be (along with the traditional Google online advertising).
Cloud computing
However, these are not stand-alone applications in the traditional sense. Google Chrome OS is unlikely to allow many applications to run on the device itself. This would lead to performance, security and manageability issues that Google would find hard and expensive to resolve.
Much easier to only allow web-applications then, the so-called 'cloud computing' we see so often in the media today. Much has been written about the security and risk management challenges these pose to larger organisations, but the truth of the matter is that the security of a web service back-end is likely to be much higher than that found at your average consumer or small- and medium-sized business.
In other words, moving to cloud computing is not only often cheaper, but is likely to be more secure for most purposes and customers too. If you're still not convinced by that argument, consider back-ups. How many home PCs are currently backed-up properly? Google's back-up arrangements are infinitely better (I don't claim fool-proof, just less risky).
Mobility
Unfortunately - because this affects me too - we live in an increasingly globally competitive economy. Since the move to worldwide email coverage and business transactions, I am not just competing against someone living in the same village, town or even country - I am competing with everyone worldwide. Just because it is 8am on Sunday morning in Cambridge, UK doesn't mean to say I can relax. It's 10am in Israel, and they've already started their week. Friday evening is no better, as the US are busy at work then too.
Our global 24/7 society is pushing us for ever greater employee flexibility and mobility, so we need tools to allow us to phone and email on the go.
And yet, Google Chrome is not currently about external mobility (no 3G or GPRS plans, combined with a lack of standalone apps) so you always need a WiFi 'tether'. This is not necessarily a major issue. The majority of browsing I conduct is at home or in the office, not when I'm driving, flying or otherwise travelling.
Always on/Instant on
The true beauty of Google Chrome may well be it's boot speed. Estimates of seven (7!!) seconds or less would make this faster than most mobile phones, and pretty much all desktops and laptops on the market.
When the system is ready for use that quickly, it's used more often, even for small inconsequential queries: a film on TV you've never heard of before? IMDb; A puzzling issue you want to check? Wikipedia; Advert break in your favourite show? check my email.
I find myself using the iPhone in this way more and more often. It's fun, it's rewarding, and it allows me to keep on top of more things in my life.
Which brings me to the conclusion. Chrome OS allows Google to address the casual browsing needs of domestic consumers. This is not an iPhone/iPod browsing replacement, nor a laptop/netbook replacement, but a completely new way of delivering casual and highly mobile (at least within the house) computing.
This doesn't compete directly with the traditional desktop or laptop PC, and won't make a dent in the sales of traditional OSes either, but it does compete with the devices as domestic browsing platforms. Here, in the home, traditional PCs will be switched on fewer times, and for less each time, as this new instant-on, casual browsing and computing takes over.
It's greener, it's cheaper, and it's faster. Much, much faster.
The main risk for Google is whether they can deliver a compelling end-to-end user experience when not fully controlling the hardware. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment