Despite not being the real Steve Jobs, the fake Steve Jobs has garnered quite a following on the internet. Today, he weighs in on Google’s Chrome OS. He starts his post with the heading: “Let’s all take a deep breath and get some perspective”. From that point on, he really digs into the meat of how successful he thinks Chrome OS can be. He points out the following reasons for potential failure. I’ve included a rebuttal to each point.
1. It’s hard to make an Operating System.
This is true, it’s very difficult. But if any company has proven that they have the ability to tackle seemingly insurmountable software and computational problems, it’s Google. No one has been able to come close to touching the amount of data they store and search every day… they’ve got what probably amounts to the largest collection of bright engineers in the world. I think if Google puts it’s mind to something, they can accomplish this task. They certainly have enough cash flow to back it.
2. The world doesn’t need another Operating System.
I disagree with him wholeheartedly… just because we have serviceable solutions doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for something better. If we took this approach, we would never grow and improve as a species. In addition, this OS doesn’t need to tackle all the problems that other OS’s need to tackle. It’s meant to do one thing, and do it well. Act as a dumb “Internet Terminal” so to speak.
3. They’re aiming the OS at netbooks.
Sure, it’s a logical place to start. Paying for a $99 operating system on a $200 computer is a tough pill to swallow. You’ve got to start somewhere, why not start somewhere that you can make a real dent in the market? You can always grow it from there. There’s no reason this can’t develop into a full-fledged operating system.. but you have to learn to crawl before you can walk.
4. No one uses Chrome. Why would anyone use a Chrome OS?
The latest figures I have seen show Chrome has 6% market-share. Consider the fact that Chrome is really only available for Windows at this point (other implementations are buggy still) and that it’s been out for less then a year and 6% doesn’t seem too shabby. In addition, once HTML5 becomes the standard, I expect this to pick up significantly.
5. Google can’t concentrate on any one project.
Good companies throw many things at the wall and see what sticks. Too many businesses have failed simply because they’ve tried to ram down what they want and have developed down customers throats. Good products aren’t built overnight, give some of their projects time. Besides, you can fail 1000 times if you succeed like Google has succeeded only once. That’s all it takes… why not give a few things a shot.
6. It’s free, so why should Google bother.
Someone might have told you not to bother doing a search engine… you can’t monetize it. However, Google found a way. There’s probably a number of way’s to monetize an operating system. I can see ads on the desktop, built into the browser that comes with the OS, default search engine settings, etc. There’s a ton of ways you can monetize something if you control it… even if you give users an option to turn it off – many won’t. Get the market share and the money will flow later.
7. The only reason OEM’s support it is to try and beat MS down on the price of Windows.
I disagree… that may be a short term goal, however competition in the market is always good. It’s not just a short term situation. If they can clear an additional $10 profit on each machine since they don’t have to pay for an expensive OS, then that’s a compelling reason for them to hope that a free alternative can truly compete with Windows. Linux has proven it can be done, so there’s no reason to think that a Google modified and endorsed OS can’t do the same.
8. Google is evil.
Google certainly isn’t perfect… I’ve seen quite a few things that they’ve done that I did not agree with. However, they are a fry cry from evil. They have embraced open source wholeheartedly… they’ve contributed much to the free software world. Having them spearhead an OS that can be forked at any time can’t be a bad thing. Oracle/MySQL may find this out in the future… and I’m sure Google is already well aware of it.
With that said, you can view his whole piece here: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html
Tags: fake steve jobs, rebuttal, review
Looks like CrunchGear.com ran a similar article here:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/08/why-we-need-to-chill-about-chromeos/#comment-1052193
I’ve commented there as well.
FSJ’s post was clever, offensive and funny. Yours is sad, defensive and misspelled. You’re bright people over there at Google. I’m sure you’ll find the misspelling, too.
What, Google doesn’t have spell-check? Still in beta?
Which brings me to my question: For how long do you “bright” guys plan to keep this OS in beta?
Just please tell me not as long as gmail!
You really think M$ charges $99 for an OS from the Hardware manufacturers??? It’s between $10 and $30 depending on volume. FAIL
You are confused.
#1. What big “insurmountable problems” have Google solved? Making a server farm? They made a search engine algorithm, sold ads on the results pages, and made a boatload of cash. The majority their “free” stuff is designed to push more people to the search engine and its ads. The rest of the free stuff, like Google Earth, is designed to foster goodwill towards the brand. To think they are altruistic is naive. They aren’t a search engine company, they sell ads.
#2. You missed Steve’s point. The netbook market is tiny and going to stay that way. Handsets are the way of the future and, by the way, how is Google’s Android doing so far?
#3. Your math is inconsistent. You quote $99 for a netbook OS (presumably WinXP) then you quote a free OS option costs savings of $10 in #7. Huh? The netbook OS will run Google apps (read: “ads”) and that’s about it. That’s a long way from being even a stripped-down OS.
#4. Chrome is hovering below 2%, nowhere near the 6% you quoted. Search from google for “browser marketshare” and the first page has multiple links of reports of under 2%, and one of 6%. Guess you chose that one.
#5. Huh? What companies do that? Most don’t have the warchest Google does as they desperately search for an Act II that will make them money after their browser loses steam and ad revenue dries up.
#6. Ads on the desktop? That’ll be popular. Get marketshare and monetize? Sounds like a true Web 2.0 huckster to me. That only works if you sucker investors into funding your free pet projects. How much money does Twitter and Facebook make each year? And how much do they spend? Scary.
#7. Linux has proven it can be done? Have you seen the Linux marketshare for netbooks? And $10 makes a netbook m”ore expensive?” Where do you get this stuff?
#8. Truly compete with Windows? How exactly. It’s run the internet and push you to Google at every opportunity? How does that help the freetard community?
Google solved the search engine. That’s huge, no one else has come close.
Google solved an advertising problem. That’s huge, no one else has come close.
Google has the most successful email server/program/interface. (gmail)
Android is off to a decent start, but it does have great competition. They missed the boat there as the iPhone OS is fantastic.. but it does have it’s downsides.
Actually, I said if a manufacturer can make an extra $10 profit, thats huge. They don’t make $99 off of a sale of XP, they probably make around $10 off it… if anything. So if they can cut out the $99 price the customer pays and raise their price by $10 since the customer does not have to buy an OS, the customer still sees a cheaper price and the manufacturer makes more money.
Why would ad revenue dry up? Last time I checked, Google is getting stronger in the online advertising market… not weaker.
Ads on the web? There was a time when people thought text based content relevant ads were a fad as well. They don’t need to sucker investors, they’ve got the cash to sustain an money losing business for decades.
I dont even know what your talking about with #7 or #8.
You ignored most of my points and attacked the ones you thought you had traction on. My question is, if you are making assertions like this, back them up. Doubt any of mine? Google and see.
Google hasn’t “solved” any search engine problem. Before Google, people there were quite a few search engines already in existance. Nobody was saying “wow, seach sucks. I hope some company comes along and solves this.”
Same goes for advertising. Was around on the web before Google. If you look at Google’s history, they were late to implement PPC and they basically stole the Adwords idea from Idealab and had to settle in court to keep using it.
The netbook makes don’t make $10 off XP. They are charged (like @someone wrote) $10 to $30 per license for large volumes. People don’t necessarily care about the extra cost of XP. If you take a moment to look up the OS marketshare of Linux variants versus XP in the netbook market, you will find that most people are willing to pay for XP. That kind of kills your argument.
Why would ad revenue dry up? Ask newspapers, periodicals, etc. Nothing last forever.
“…they’ve got the cash to sustain an money losing business for decades.” My thoughts exactly. However, running an unprofitable business for the long term isn’t very smart.
Nobody wants ads on the desktop. Ask MyFreePC or whatever that company was. Gone, baby, gone.
El Hefe,
I’m going to respond to all of your points so you don’t try to cop out.
Point 1. You claim that google hasn’t “solved” the search engine problem. Funny, I would call owning >87% of the search engine market (and as you mention, it’s not like they were first to the game) pwning the search field. Not only did they take that market share, they killed almost every competitor on their way there. I’d call that solving the problem.
If people were so happy with search prior, they would have stuck with the services prior. They didn’t, Google won.
2. Advertising of course was around before Google. But Google pretty much invented in any real sense content-relevant text ads. Their main money maker. They tacked on other features and display ads, but the content relavent text ads is what broke em.
Google owns 69% of the online advertising market… if you look at the search advertising its even higher. Once again, they had to displace an existing set of players with new technology. Which they did, and they now dominate. Claiming they stole the idea from idealab is wrong.
3. You refuse to comprehend my statements regarding the price of Windows XP.
You have a netbook. Manufacturer pays $10 (or $30, whatever you say) for Windows XP.
Customer buys netbook at price $X+Retail price for XP ($99)
Net profit for manufacturer is $cost to produce+$xp profit (whatever there may be)
Now, present a real alternative that people want and instead of having to spend $10 or $30 on XP and marking it up for their customers… they now have a free operating system. This will knock $99 off the price of the netbook for the customer. The manufacturer now has $99 more wiggle room in their pricing. They can sell it cheaper, or keep the price the same and make a larger profit margin. Whichever they prefer.
The customer has a choice, the manufacturer has a choice and everyone wins. Except Microsoft… who only see’s diminished sales.
4. To say that people don’t care about the extra cost of XP is just a blatant lie. People always care about cost. If you are talking about a $300 netbook and you tack on an extra $99 for XP, you’ve just raised the price by 33%. I care about that, and I’m sure everyone else does.
5. Nobody wants ads on the desktop? I agree. I’ll also go one further… no one wants to pay for an operating system. They do it because they feel they have too, they have no alternative. There is no reason ads on the desktop are required… they are optional. This doesn’t have to be a money maker for Google… and it doesn’t have to be a money loser either. Their development costs will be very low.
Just my 2c. Hope this helps.
I’m a little late to the party here, but what the hell? Google didn’t invent search/contextual marketing, not even close. Overture beat them to the punch by years and ended up suing G for patent infringement years later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search_Marketing
One money quote:
Following Yahoo!’s acquisition of Overture, the lawsuit was settled with Google agreeing to issue 2.7 million shares of common stock to Yahoo! in exchange for a perpetual license.[10]
Also, Google doesn’t even have close to > 87% search market share.
If you’re going to be a Google groupie, at least be well informed.