This Is Not The Google Operating System You Were Thinking Of

from the shifting-perspectives dept

Thu, Nov 9th 2006 10:11pm — Mike Masnick

For many years, people have suggested that Google was really building the operating system for the internet. It made for a really nice soundbite, but some of Google's actions have suggested that maybe others recognize the opportunity more than Google ever did. Now, however, Robert Young over at GigaOm is suggesting that Google is building a different kind of operating system: an operating system for advertising. That, again, makes for a nice soundbite and is a fun way of thinking about Google's activities -- but again, we're not sure it holds up under scrutiny. While they've obviously been quite successful at internet advertising, it still isn't at all clear what real value they add to other forms of advertising, no matter how many times they try to force themselves into other advertising markets. They have yet to prove the benefit they provide. Perhaps being a one-stop shop really will be what it takes, but it hasn't caught on yet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TacoJim, 9 Nov 2006 @ 11:10pm

Google OS
What ever happened to the much a do about nothing Goo-buntu or even.....dare i say... Goo-spire? hrm..... DO IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 2:13am

Maybe google is just a company trying to make money...anyone think of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 3:27am

The world needs another PC-compatible OS for M$ to compete with, yes, but should it be Google that provides it? Google has already provided a ton of stuff, so let them be and have someone else step up to the plate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 4:08am
  
  Re:
  OS options are bad, standardization is good. Competition with MS may save you a little money on your OS, but you'll pay much more for software that has to run on multiple OSes. Operating systems should be standard and the federal government should cap their cost to keep artificial monopolies from over-inflation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 5:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    That is the worst idea I have ever hear. Just what I need the governement dictating what my OS can and can not do. The would make DRM look tame.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    are you an idiot?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you think so, perhaps you should just say so. And mmmm maybe say why...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TriZz, 10 Nov 2006 @ 4:35am

hoowever
"Now, hoowever, Robert Young over..."

What's a who-weaver?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 10 Nov 2006 @ 5:01am
  
  Re: hoowever
  What's a who-weaver?
  
  Who-Weaver, Inc(r)(c)[tm], maker of fine Grinch Antagonists for over 50 years!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 5:55am
  
  Re: hoowever
  seariously? my gaw.d. le'ts attak each other's punktooashin an; speeling? Kan't wee lok at teh blawg insteead of powinting out teh earrors in teh spellaing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re: hoowever
    No, we should pick on spelling too.
    It is not that difficult to type your story or comment in Word, Open Office or whatever flavor word processor you like and cut/paste it in to a blog.
    I opt for the easy Firefox 2, with spell check, even easier.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
al, 10 Nov 2006 @ 6:15am

Re: hoowever
Sorry - I believe that should be 'who-wevver' - i.e., is it snowing or sunny in Whoville.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xxl3w, 10 Nov 2006 @ 6:44am

Wow
If you spellcheck your posts, you have serious problems. Are you that scared of someone making fun of me? I guess I might understand if it was a business blog and you were posting the article, but reply post. You sound like a winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xxl3w, 10 Nov 2006 @ 6:45am

oops
Are you that scared of someone making fun of me? 'oops... me = you. spellcheck didn't find that$@!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lanter Bearer, 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:00am

Google? Operating System?
I don't thinks so. The next great O/S will rise from feverish mind of some overactive, under achieving geekster who even now is putting it together in his cramped little notes and over clocked gamer machine.

MS and Google? Little or no innovation will rise from there again. It will be more of the same with committee and boardroom tweaks and patches.

LB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pope Ratzo, 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:04am

New OS? I wish..
If someone else came out with a PC-Compatible OS, that actually ran my programs, I'd convert right now. It would have to be really bad for me not to change from Windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Vick, 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:29am

Not at all
Are you that scared of someone making fun of me? Nope, not at all.... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CharlieHorse, 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:35am

yep - I agree with LanterBearer. M$'s recent, uhh, errr, "deal" with Novell 1. smells REALLY fishy and 2. is a very real acknowledgement on their part that they absolutely need the OpenSource community for real innovation to occur. (of course Ballmer and M$ apologists will never admit to that truth!)

So, that said - Google is in the business of making cashola. And man, do they do that well. They have successfully monetized the ad space on the internet - and while Google supports OpenSource very vocally and financially, I don't see them coming up with the "Ad OS."

Their forte is ad space on the internet and making and offering interesting gadgets to further their ad space on the internet. This is not to say that they couldn't throw down a few billion and get some of their brilliant minds to work up a new OS - but I don't see it. I mean, why? How would it work? And why would consumers buy it ? An ad-driven model perhaps - well, we all know how annoying and generally unsuccessful software has been that is free as long as you allow the ads. I have sampled ad supported software and have generally been so annoyed with the constant barrage of crap that I didn't care about that I swore never again to use it.

so, anyway ... la la la ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CharlieHorse, 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:36am

yep - I agree with LanterBearer. M$'s recent, uhh, errr, "deal" with Novell 1. smells REALLY fishy and 2. is a very real acknowledgement on their part that they absolutely need the OpenSource community for real innovation to occur. (of course Ballmer and M$ apologists will never admit to that truth!)

So, that said - Google is in the business of making cashola. And man, do they do that well. They have successfully monetized the ad space on the internet - and while Google supports OpenSource very vocally and financially, I don't see them coming up with the "Ad OS."

Their forte is ad space on the internet and making and offering interesting gadgets to further their ad space on the internet. This is not to say that they couldn't throw down a few billion and get some of their brilliant minds to work up a new OS - but I don't see it. I mean, why? How would it work? And why would consumers buy it ? An ad-driven model perhaps - well, we all know how annoying and generally unsuccessful software has been that is free as long as you allow the ads. I have sampled ad supported software and have generally been so annoyed with the constant barrage of crap that I didn't care about that I swore never again to use it.

so, anyway ... la la la ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ignatius Killfile, 10 Nov 2006 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  CharlieHorse wrote:
  yep - I agree with LanterBearer. M$'s recent, uhh, errr, "deal" with Novell 1. smells REALLY fishy and 2. is a very real acknowledgement on their part that they absolutely need the OpenSource community for real innovation to occur.
  I think the deal with Novell shows that the redmond camp is scared 'witless' by Open Source/Linux. They can't compete with 'Free' software, so they use their usual stratagie of extend, encompass & crush. The Novell deal will see SuSE using closed source APIs and protocols, slowly becoming dependant, like a hapless junkie.
  It will choke SuSE in a number of years.job done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CharlieHorse, 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:41am

crudinski - sorry about the double post. yeeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
j03l, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:20am

The Next OS....?
I don't think we need any MORE OS's.... There are enough out there to choke on and then some.. Even the ones that are pretty decent (e.g. linux, OsX*) come in so many varieties that the avg. joe is unable to discern between them and just takes whatever is loaded on the machine at the point of purchase. The next technology that I see making big waves is virtualization.. When you talk about standardizing the OS, what you're really asking for is a way to standardize the machine/software interface. The main variant in that dept. is the hardware. If you have an "API" that interfaces hardware (even specialized 3D graphics and audio,) then you can run whatever "OS" you feel like that day.

Right now, the drawback is performance as the "API" (e.g. vmware,etc...) doesn't efficiently transfer functionality from the hardware to software (especially for things like 3d/multimedia.) But like any software, that will improve over time.... I've always liked Linux' concept of switching desktops. I see a day coming when the OS will become the same trivial decision and one that can be changed on a whim. What if you could hit a hotkey and your view rotated from windows, to linux, to OSX, to say a MythTV dedicated install, or heck over to an AVID or SGI OS... With disk space, memory, and Ram going the way they are, what's the harm? Then when windows registry goes corrupt on you.... BAM you just copy a template image in its stead and log in... You don't even reboot... You manage your software installations from the VM level so that no matter what flavor you're running that day, the "OS" is the last thing inline..

What we really need is standardization of Filesystems and hardware interface........ So Google, there you go...embed your logo on a free VM variant, let any OS sit on top (with the obvious ability to have your functionality "bubble up to the surface",) and you have an advertising medium that can't be stopped....

*OSX is only cool cuz it's built on FreeBSD ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corey, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:44am

TCP anyone?
Is there not already an operating system for the Internet? From the article "For many years, people have suggested that Google was really building the operating system for the internet" sounds like a slick marketing ploy dreamt up by some sales monkey during a power meeting. I have an idea, stop trying to put a new spin on something old and actually innovate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2006 @ 11:32am

Its not your inability to spell that we object to, you bad-spelling morons. It is your rejection of intellectual self-improvement that infuriates those of us that invest significant time in learning. If you are not going to learn how to spell words, then dont even bother with spell check. Just post bad spelling and look like a moron and cope with getting flamed as one. Because you are a moron, albeit an honest one. But what we really want you to do is grab a dictionary and learn how to spell correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 10 Nov 2006 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re:
  you bad-spelling morons.
  - if you have to resort to insults, you've lost the argument
  - If you're not willing to put your name on your post, you've lost the argument
  - If you have to resort to spelling flames, you've lost the argument
  - If your spelling flame contains spelling, punctuation, and/or grammatical defects, you have not only lost the argument, you have jumped completely over to public self-flagellation
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]