Posted by Luciano Lima | Comments: (0)
In July Google announced the development of its Chrome operating system and created a great expectation in the world of technology. After five months of waiting, the company frustrated the expectation of those who waited and launched a beta code to developers only.
Randal C. Kennedy, InfoWorld columnist for North American and director of research at Competitive Analysis System, believes the course of history shows that Chrome will be a failure. He said no information about the system was very clear and its prerequisites depend on the hardware is lacking. Check out below, the arguments that Kennedy had in his last article.
Failure 1 - The base of Linux
Google uses Linux to build a lightweight desktop environment and web-oriented. But it is to inherit many of the problems of the open source system, such as poor compatibility for certain types of hardware.
Power management to monitor support, Linux has been a minefield of code full of flaws and poorly written drivers. Google recognizes this fact, but the solution was a disaster: the system will be distributed exclusively in a series of netbooks that are not yet on the market.
How Google can not establish a viable ecosystem of hardware and has a short time ahead (mid 2010), the company chose the easy way: instead of working hard on the equipment manufacturers and build a certification process, the company decided to determine which systems can run Chrome and then throw the responsibility for the rest of the ecosystem in the open source community.
Fault 2 - The user interface web
Google likes to see the world through the prism of a web page. It is therefore not surprising that the primary interface of the operating system is the Chrome browser Chrome. Unlike a traditional system, there is a desk. The applications that run under the Chrome are actually interactive web pages, with tabs of Chrome assisting in the separation of visual organization on the screen. The basic specifications such as Wi-Fi settings are made through a pop-up Chrome as a simple status bar at the top of the screen reports the status of connectivity, long battery life, etc..
None of this is original or generates some appeal. The tabbed interface and other elements of usability are derived from Mac OS X or Windows, as well as the status bar and application menu. Indeed, nothing in Chrome is innovative. It only replaces what we had in traditional operating system and adapts to equivalent web. In a first analysis, this action can be good. Web content is lighter and easier to isolate from the standpoint of safety. But it brings rigidity to the system. And the world will not surrender to an operating system inflexible.