Google’s new Operating System explained

Very neat exposition. Just the right number of half-truths.

Google’s now saying that Chrome will be appearing on netbooks in the latter half of 2010. It’ll make waves.

UPDATE: Technology Review has a useful outline of the OS. It contains this interesting snippet:

The operating system won’t be available for download, however. Because of its tight integration between software and hardware, users will have to buy a Chrome device from one of Google’s partners in order to use it. Google plans to give partners strict hardware requirements for the devices, specifying particular wireless cards and other components.

The code is, however, open source and anyone can run it on a virtual machine.

The New York Times take on it is that this is a direct challenge to Microsoft:

“Hundreds of millions of users are living on the cloud,” said Sundar Pichai, a vice president for product management at Google in charge of Chrome. Every program that users enjoy on their PCs today, Mr. Pichai said, will soon be available as a Web application. “The trend is very, very clear,” he said.

While Microsoft and others say they believe that cloud-based programs will coexist with traditional PC software, Google has often said that Web applications will replace all desktop software, another area that Microsoft dominates. Machines running the Chrome operating system, which initially will be limited to lightweight, portable computers known as netbooks, will not run any desktop applications other than the Chrome browser.

But even Mr. Pichai said that devices on the Chrome operating system were likely to be used, at least at first, as a complement to users’ more powerful computers at home.

Analysts said that the Chrome operating system could pose a challenge to Microsoft over the long term but said that Microsoft was not sitting still.

In truth, this isn’t a paradigm shift. That happened ages ago with things like Hotmail and Gmail and Google Docs as the network supplanted the PC as the computer. The Chrome OS is just the first major operating system product built on the shift.

Cameronspeak

This is a wordcloud (generated using tagcrowd) from the text of a major speech made by the Tory Leader at the Open University on May 26 this year. Might be an interesting tool for tracking changes in rhetoric — and perhaps even policy.

Remembering Peter Drucker

I’ve always thought that Peter Drucker is the only writer one could legitimately call a “management guru” (though Charles Handy runs him close). So it’s nice to come on this essay in the current edition of the Economist. Excerpt:

The world’s great business schools have replaced Oxbridge as the nurseries of the global elite. The management-consulting industry will earn revenues of $300 billion this year. Management books regularly top the bestseller lists. Management gurus can command $60,000 a speech.

Yet the practitioners of this great industry continue to suffer from a severe case of status anxiety. This is partly because the management business has always been prey to fads and fraudsters. But it is also because the respectable end of the business seems to lack what Yorkshire folk call “bottom”. Consultants and business-school professors are forever discovering great ideas, like re-engineering, that turn to dust, and wonderful companies, like Enron, that burst into flames.

Peter Drucker is the perfect antidote to such anxiety. He was a genuine intellectual who, during his early years, rubbed shoulders with the likes of Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter. He illustrated his arguments with examples from medieval history or 18th-century English literature. He remained at the top of his game for more than 60 years, advising generations of bosses and avoiding being ensnared by fashion. He constantly tried to relate the day-to-day challenges of business to huge social and economic trends such as the rise of “knowledge workers” and the resurgence of Asia.

But Drucker was more than just an antidote to status anxiety. He was also an apostle for management. He argued that management is one of the most important engines of human progress: “the organ that converts a mob into an organisation and human effort into performance”.

Heroin Addicts to Obama: don’t pull out of Afghanistan; you’re doing fine

From The Onion.

LOS ANGELES—As the White House considers sweeping strategic shifts in the war in Afghanistan, heroin addicts across the nation called on President Obama Monday to stick with the current U.S. policy, which has flooded the world market with low-price narcotics. “There’s no need to change nothing, Joe Biden,” said addict Reginald ‘Bones’ Dillow, who, when conscious, is an outspoken proponent of the U.S. military strategy that has resulted in a nearly 40-fold increase in Afghan opium production since the end of Taliban rule in 2001. “Everything is so cheap—it’s all totally fine like it is, right? Over there, I mean. Why would you want to…do the…[garbled].” Obama is reportedly looking into economic incentives that would both persuade poor Afghans to cease opium cultivation and benefit chemically dependent Americans, the most promising of which involves constructing facilities in the war-torn country for the manufacture of methadone.

So what can we expect of a Tory digital Britain?

Nothing dramatic is the answer. Part of the problem is that they don’t understand a lot of the issues. See, for example, this sharp Media Blog account of last night’s Polis Seminar on Digital Britain.

Speakers at the event included Culture Secretary-in-waiting Jeremy Hunt. And what did we learn from the man who will surely assume control of the UK media following the next general election?

Well, we learned Hunt appears not to fully understand the controversial implications of "net neutrality", though he gamely attempted to answer a question from the floor which he thought was about illegal file sharing, defending in the process the rights of content owners who may ultimately feel the pinch of a tiered internet themselves (check out the BBC iPlayer effect to understand what first brought the net neutrality debate to the UK – clue: it’s nothing to do with file-sharing.)

Fantasy land: or the myth of the Digger’s omniscience

Jeff Jarvis has an interesting post about the

“swine flu of stupidity spreading about the Murdoch meme of blocking Google from indexing a site’s content (to which Google always replies that you’ve always been able to do that with robots.txt – so go ahead if you want). I love that The Reach Group (TRG), a German consulting company, has quantified just how damaging that would be to Google: hardly at all.”

The analysis is interesting — see Jeff’s post for the details. He’s also done a useful job of summarising some of the dafter ideas sparked by commentators’ awe of Rupert Murdoch. Sample:

Jason Calicanis fantasizes about Microsoft paying The New York Times to leave Google’s index for Bing. Let me explain why that would never happen. 1. The Times is not stupid. 2. Times subsidiary About.com – the only bright spot these days in the NYTimesCo’s P&L – gets 80% of its traffic and 50% of its revenue from Google. 3. See rule No. 1.

Michael Arrington then joined in the fantasy saying that News Corp. could change the balance by shifting to Bing, but ends his post with his own reality check: MySpace – increasingly a disaster in News Corp’s P&L – is attempting to negotiate its $300 million deal with Google.

Microsoft can suck up to European publishers all it wants – even adopting their ACAP “standard,” which no one in the search industry is saluting because, as Google often points out, it addresses the desires only of a small proportion of sites and it would end up aiding spammers – but it won’t make a damned bit of difference.

As Erick Schonfeld reports, also on TechCrunch, if WSJ.com turned off Google it would lose 25% of its web traffic. He quotes Hitwise, which says 15% comes from Google search, 12% from Google News – and 7% from Drudge (aggregator), and 2% from Real Clear Politics (aggregator).

It’s like I said:

The prevailing sentiment however can be summed up as a paradox: nobody thinks that a “screw-you-Google” strategy makes sense, but they assume that Murdoch knows something they don’t, and that the strategy will make sense when all is revealed. In that way, the Digger is rather like Warren Buffett: his past investment record is so good that people are wary of questioning his judgment.

That was the Media Week That Was

Talk about a sign of the times! Haymarket has just announced that the current issue of Media Week will be the last to appear in print. Excerpt:

Following the restructure, MediaWeek will no longer be published in print but will continue online under the control of a full-time editor and drawing on the resources of an enlarged Brand Republic news team. MediaWeek.co.uk has monthly traffic in excess of 80,000 unique users along with two daily email bulletins that are read by more than 25,000 commercial media professionals.

The successful MediaWeek Awards, annual Media 360 conference and other marketing communications events run under the MediaWeek brand continue unaffected.

Revolution will now be distributed as a quarterly supplement with Marketing magazine, and will be backed by a new blogging initiative in 2010…