Four things holding back Chrome OS

The blogosphere has been speculating on the future of the “Google OS.” Many thought it would be based on Android, their open source telephone platform. When I read about Chrome’s protected memory spaces (via acquisition of GreenBorder in 2007 or so), I thought that it sounded more like an operating platform than a web browser.

Protection allows much more complex applications to run with lower risk of crashing or affecting other applications. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t had too many problems with this yet. But I guess Google thinks (probably rightly so) that it’s going to be an issue as applications move to the cloud.

By owning its own browser, Google can have much more influence on which features are built into browsers. I think it’s only a matter of time before Firefox and the other browsers include protected memory. And Chrome’s emphasis on fast javascript rendering is definitely creating a bit of a (great) arms race in that regard.

All of this dovetails with Google’s strategy of pushing toward browser based applications. Their Google Apps just came out of beta, and are making a good run at the enterprise… even threatening Outlook (long term). Google’s strategy is simple, and probably inexorable. They can provide high quality solutions for free because they make money from ancillary sources, e.g., advertising.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is building Office 2010 to include web-based versions of Word, Excel, etc. However, MS Office will cost money, and over time the feature discrepancies are likely to narrow. There’s also the issue of fundamental focus: Microsoft just doesn’t really seem to get it. Or at least they’re deeply afflicted with the innovator’s dilemma.

One way to look at this is fat client versus thin client. One complaint I have about Windows is that it has gotten very “fat.” Google’s Chrome OS is much thinner, but it’s not a true “thin client.” Google Chrome is based on a Linux kernel, but it’s ultra simplified. It sounds like just enough of Linux to run a web browser and little more. Instead of the heavy, feature-rich nature of Windows, Google is betting that users want fast, easy, and (mostly) free applications on the web.

So, are we all going to be using Chrome OS by this time next year? My guess is no. It will be popular, particularly on low-end netbooks. But there are 4 major limiting factors that I see:

BANDWIDTH:

Our network infrastructure renders certain applications (such as video) very hard to manipulate efficiently through a browser application. I don’t think video, image, or audio intensive applications are going to the web any time soon (at least for professional purposes). Maybe if we could improve our network to the levels they have in Japan, things will be different.

LATENCY:

When I click, how quickly does the server know it? And how quickly can it get the proper response back? Desktop apps still have browser apps beat when it comes to responsiveness. I’m an incredibly impatient user, and I brook no defiance from my (always too slow) computer. I think a lot of others users feel the same. When will this be fixed? I don’t know. Rich media interfaces can be optimized to reduce latency, but until we fundamentally improve the network infrastructure we will be dealing with this issue.

BROWSER LIMITATIONS:

Browsers have limitations in terms of the interfaces they can support, and security restrictions. Rich media solutions such as Flash can help interface a lot, but there are still issues remaining. Javascript is still too slow for highly complex interfaces. Big Flex apps still take too long to download. Of course, this is all improving rapidly, and I don’t think it will be a limiting factor for much longer.

USER HABITS:

Computer users are habituated to local applications. In particular, I think we are used to local storage. If Chrome OS permits only remote storage, users may be reluctant to use it. And until a broader array of web applications are available, many users may put off switching to Chrome OS for everyday computing.

Conclusion

I think many people will desire a Chrome OS – in addition to a desktop. A highly portable device dedicated to surfing the web? I want one. My iPhone is great, but it is just too small and too slow. I think the upcoming Crunchtablet will tap into this need. I want one, but only in addition to my desktop. For now.