Quote: Original post by zedz
goober you say
'The "average user" may only be interested in surfing the net'
and then in the next paragraph
'So I'm not convinced the average user is a viable target just yet'

which is a contradiction, I do agree with what youre saying, google OS is not something for you or me (+ prolly >90% of the ppl here) but we're not average users, we know the difference between the internet + a browser for a start :)

my main worry about this OS is what Oluseyi mentioned how good is the application caching behaviour

What I mean isn't always as clear as I intend it to be.
I'm saying "Average user" as if "average user" were these every day people using systems they have in their home for which this idea is aimed at. It is in quotes because I'm not convinced these people exist in the numbers one might be tempted to believe they do. As if the painted picture of the "average user" is someone else's idea that fails to match my own. Therefore I doubt in the viability of much of a market based on what could be a rather small piece of pie. Those people that need internet support and never need anything else, which is good because you aren't going to get it.

I very well could be wrong as it is just my guess and it's early on in this thing. Seeing as how it sounds like they want it to be an OS OS I have to wonder how this could possibly be any different than what has failed to catch on so far. We already have linux based netbooks out there. Then again name brands sell. Yet if they aren't selling it then what's the point? What is the angle there? Its not going to be riddled with Google sponsors' ads is it?

Quote:
terms pc + internet synonymously

/zedz
probably 'terminal' or something like that will be used

Quote: It is in quotes because I'm not convinced these people exist in the numbers one might be tempted to believe they do.

the 9 out of 10 apps were internet based was the result of numbers from tracking application software, i.e. it monitors/spys on the persons usage, its not a survey.
A survey results would be something like

1/ office apps
2/ accounting
3/ little bit of browsing
4/ photo editing
etc

similar to what you get when ask what some ppl watch on tv + its documentaries,news,plays yet when theyre monitored its in fact, reality tv,jerry springer etc :)

2 mencken quotes spring to mind
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
"the common man is a fool"

Quote: I have to wonder how this could possibly be any different than what has failed to catch on so far. We already have linux based netbooks out there. Then again name brands sell.

I believe sun tried something similar (back in the days of dialup, so was doomed to failure)
Yes like you say its the name chiefly google as well as MS + apple are one of the 3 IT companies that automatically attract eyeballs (Would the iphone been the success it is without the label apple?)

Quote: Yet if they aren't selling it then what's the point? What is the angle there? Its not going to be riddled with Google sponsors' ads is it?

The internet is awash with things that dont make money, eg you could ask the same of youtube, which must lose google billion's a year.

>>probably 'terminal' or something like that will be used
terminal suggests the end of the road so they wouldnt use that, but youre right theyll rebrand it most likely with something that means the opposite eg 'gateway'

Quote: Original post by zedz

Quote: Yet if they aren't selling it then what's the point? What is the angle there? Its not going to be riddled with Google sponsors' ads is it?

The internet is awash with things that dont make money, eg you could ask the same of youtube, which must lose google billion's a year.

When Google decided to buy YouTube for $1.52 billion, do you think it was their intention for it never to make money, or do you think it's more a case of having been overly optimistic about the advertising potential (note that there are ads on YouTube now, which there weren't before Google)?

In other words, yes, lots of things on the internet don't make money, but the overwhelming majority of them hope to.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by zedz
The internet is awash with things that dont make money, eg you could ask the same of youtube, which must lose google billion's a year.

When Google decided to buy YouTube for $1.52 billion, do you think it was their intention for it never to make money, or do you think it's more a case of having been overly optimistic about the advertising potential (note that there are ads on YouTube now, which there weren't before Google)?

Google probably isn't losing as much as most people think on YouTube. Certainly not in the "billions" - perhaps the "hundreds of millions" - but it's definitely in google's interests to let the perception that YouTube is a financial flop perpetuate.

After all, it'd probably help them negotiate better licensing deals with TV and movie studios if everybody thinks YouTube is a big money loser.

In any case, the point about the internet being a awash with things that people "hope" would make money but don't is certainly true.

Quote: Original post by Codeka
... but it's definitely in google's interests to let the perception that YouTube is a financial flop perpetuate.

After all, it'd probably help them negotiate better licensing deals with TV and movie studios if everybody thinks YouTube is a big money loser.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Soz.

Firstly, Google is a public company, and what business on earth wishes to present continual losses to its members? None, that's what. Board members get replaced, CEOs get stood down (with massive remuneration packages), and potential investors get scared off. Secondly, any company that would have licensing deals with Google are going to be able to ask for or perform the correct set of figures, and any lying on Google's part counts as fraud. Yeesh. Edit: also, studios would be more willing to have their TV shows on a really successful web-platform which will be around for years, so that they don't have to spend millions upon millions of dollars renegotiating every time a YouTube declares bankruptcy.






Oh, and I believe they announced it at this point in time (I mean, it's not being released any time soon), because Microsoft is announcing its Web Office thingy tomorrow. Office.com and all that. Google's done this several times before, ey?

Quote: In other words, yes, lots of things on the internet don't make money, but the overwhelming majority of them hope to.

sorry perhaps I wasnt clear enuf, I was trying to say exactly that.
google OS is just like youtube(*) etc it hopes to turn a profit one day.

btw on a related note I saw this today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3D
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/

interesting days


(*)OK perhaps they dont loose billions, as I pulled that figure out of my ass, but Ild luv to know how much that actually7 costs them a year to run

Quote: Original post by _goat
Firstly, Google is a public company, and what business on earth wishes to present continual losses to its members? None, that's what. Board members get replaced, CEOs get stood down (with massive remuneration packages), and potential investors get scared off.

Google, overall, is massively profitable. Its shareholders are not seeing any losses, and as long as they continue to earn significant yields on their investments what the fuck do they care if a single business unit is unprofitable? Further, growing a business - or business segment - often requires enduring losses for a while, justified by the potential future profits the segment/business may bring. See Microsoft's Xbox for example.

Quote: Secondly, any company that would have licensing deals with Google are going to be able to ask for or perform the correct set of figures, and any lying on Google's part counts as fraud. Yeesh.

LOL. Google doesn't have to "lie." Google simply doesn't break out numbers for YouTube (go ahead, find a revenue line item for YouTube in the Q1 2009 earnings statement or form 10Q)- in the same way that Microsoft doesn't break Xbox numbers out of Entertainment and Devices (take a look).

Quote: Edit: also, studios would be more willing to have their TV shows on a really successful web-platform which will be around for years, so that they don't have to spend millions upon millions of dollars renegotiating every time a YouTube declares bankruptcy.

YouTube is a part of Google, and Google is making a lot of money. Even if YouTube as a division is losing money - which it probably is - it's not going anywhere since its corporate parent can afford to absorb the associated losses.

For someone who called someone else's statement "the dumbest he'd ever read," you sure don't know anything about business or large corporations.