Google at work on desktop Linux?
Reports that Google Inc. is experimenting in-house with the Linux incarnation Ubuntu have excited speculation that the Internet's most recognisable search tool may be considering an assault on the desktop operating system software market - in other words, on the Microsoft almost-opoly.
Google have denied the reports, claiming that Ubuntu is in "internal use" only, not part of any product development and not intended for distribution. They've also rubbished the 'Goobuntu' name that some articles have attached to the putative OS.
However, this has done little to stop the blog-driven spread of the rumour particularly down channels where the anti-Microsoft lobby are strongest. Is this the start of a new era of competition in the operating system market?
There's no doubt that Google is seen as a natural contender to take on the Microsoft juggernaut. In many ways its success parallels the earlier rise to prominence of Bill Gates' operating system giant: through luck and shrewd management be in the right place at the right time when a particular market sector explodes, then quickly rise to a visible pre-eminence which in both cases only represents the tip of a long list of alliances and cooperative ventures.
Moreover, in recent weeks Google has fallen foul of regulatory authority in a way that brings to mind Microsoft at its totalitarian height. Even their technical development shares parallels; both have gradually grown and added their own functionality until (in Windows' case) outgrowing their foundation platform and evolving into an OS in its own right. Google has yet to take the final step, but many see it as inevitable.
The more pragmatic souls in the online community point out that Microsoft has faced down such challenges before - from their early rivalry with OS2 to later scuffles with Linux-based operating systems from Corel, Sun and Novell among others.
Even the threat that Microsoft's left and right hands might be forced into competition with each other seems to have proved toothless. Given history, it's unlikely that many of the Redmond staffers are polishing their CVs today, fearing that Google's executives will be calling dibs on their office furniture any time soon.
Linux apologists point to a number of reasons why earlier efforts to dethrone DOS and Windows have failed, such as the company being already moribund when they ventured into the Linux market, or that they reached too far outside their specialist area without first putting in a supporting infrastructure, but even granting that Google learned from history, other obstacles to the development exist; the difficulty of implementing new and upgraded drivers on Linux systems given hardware vendors reluctance to release full specifications; support for the latest Digital Rights Management software for media downloads.
These are issues that help to decide the fundamental structure of a modern operating system, and Google would have to solve many more like them to make a contender's entrance into the market.
The crucial question is whether development into an OS would represent a win situation for Google and truthfully, it's hard to see that it would.
Google does very well out of the Windows OS; thorny issues of connectivity, presentation, hardware integration, memory management and all those other housekeeping chores are addressed, leaving Google to do what Google does best - and do it well, evidently, with Q4 2005 revenues up 86% on the same period in the previous year. A venture into OS-hood would be a continued great consumer of resources without the promise of a balancing income in the longer term; many feel that advertising, Google's principle money-spinner, has no place on their desktop.
All in all I believe it's safe for the moment to rely on three things; Microsoft will continue at the top of the OS pyramid; the search will go on for a viable Linux competitor; and that search? It'll use Google.
Google have denied the reports, claiming that Ubuntu is in "internal use" only, not part of any product development and not intended for distribution. They've also rubbished the 'Goobuntu' name that some articles have attached to the putative OS.
However, this has done little to stop the blog-driven spread of the rumour particularly down channels where the anti-Microsoft lobby are strongest. Is this the start of a new era of competition in the operating system market?
There's no doubt that Google is seen as a natural contender to take on the Microsoft juggernaut. In many ways its success parallels the earlier rise to prominence of Bill Gates' operating system giant: through luck and shrewd management be in the right place at the right time when a particular market sector explodes, then quickly rise to a visible pre-eminence which in both cases only represents the tip of a long list of alliances and cooperative ventures.
Moreover, in recent weeks Google has fallen foul of regulatory authority in a way that brings to mind Microsoft at its totalitarian height. Even their technical development shares parallels; both have gradually grown and added their own functionality until (in Windows' case) outgrowing their foundation platform and evolving into an OS in its own right. Google has yet to take the final step, but many see it as inevitable.
The more pragmatic souls in the online community point out that Microsoft has faced down such challenges before - from their early rivalry with OS2 to later scuffles with Linux-based operating systems from Corel, Sun and Novell among others.
Even the threat that Microsoft's left and right hands might be forced into competition with each other seems to have proved toothless. Given history, it's unlikely that many of the Redmond staffers are polishing their CVs today, fearing that Google's executives will be calling dibs on their office furniture any time soon.
Linux apologists point to a number of reasons why earlier efforts to dethrone DOS and Windows have failed, such as the company being already moribund when they ventured into the Linux market, or that they reached too far outside their specialist area without first putting in a supporting infrastructure, but even granting that Google learned from history, other obstacles to the development exist; the difficulty of implementing new and upgraded drivers on Linux systems given hardware vendors reluctance to release full specifications; support for the latest Digital Rights Management software for media downloads.
These are issues that help to decide the fundamental structure of a modern operating system, and Google would have to solve many more like them to make a contender's entrance into the market.
The crucial question is whether development into an OS would represent a win situation for Google and truthfully, it's hard to see that it would.
Google does very well out of the Windows OS; thorny issues of connectivity, presentation, hardware integration, memory management and all those other housekeeping chores are addressed, leaving Google to do what Google does best - and do it well, evidently, with Q4 2005 revenues up 86% on the same period in the previous year. A venture into OS-hood would be a continued great consumer of resources without the promise of a balancing income in the longer term; many feel that advertising, Google's principle money-spinner, has no place on their desktop.
All in all I believe it's safe for the moment to rely on three things; Microsoft will continue at the top of the OS pyramid; the search will go on for a viable Linux competitor; and that search? It'll use Google.
posted by vib @ 2:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home