This Is Not The Google Operating System You Were Thinking Of

from the shifting-perspectives dept

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.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “This Is Not The Google Operating System You Were Thinking Of”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
25 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Lanter Bearer says:

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

CharlieHorse says:

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 …

CharlieHorse says:

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 …

Ignatius Killfile says:

Re: 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.

j03l says:

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 😉

Corey says:

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!

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Dosquatch says:

Re: 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

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...