After a surprisingly successful build of Google's new operating system, named Chromium O.S, I have yet to be convinced that the web is capable of supporting the high quality services we know and love. Instant messaging, video conferencing as well as office applications within the cloud seem less than satisfactory compared to the high standard we expect from desktop applications on our office computer.
Since Google released the code three days ago developers have got busy trying out the unstable code as to be the first to experience the new sleek operating system due to be released next year. The operating system, marketed on its fast and secure design, was designed for web users by removing what Google considered unnecessary code to enable the computer to launch straight into a web environment. The concept seemed futuristic but relies to heavily on futuristic web technologies which have not been fully, drafted, developed or tested by the mass computer consumer.Over the last few years Google has been focusing on its efforts to provide a complete range of desktop applications via the cloud. These highly surfisticated web applications, such as Google Docs, allowed users to no longer be confined by the constraints of the creation location of the documents, but instead allowed users to save to the internet, making them virtually accessible from any computer with an internet connection. In terms to web technology applications such as Google Docs are some of the most complex widely available applications on the internet. However compared to its desktop counterparts these systems have a long way before matching up to the standard we expect.
One of the most noticeable things when you first start to use Google Docs is its simplicity. For the very mundane tasks of producing single column, un-styled documents the system provides a reliable interface to work on, with abilities to add document structure via headings, as well as insert simple tables. This allowed the basic user to have a very productive, easy to use environment in which to work. However, for the users requiring advanced styling, with a structure associated more with desktop publishing the platform is not capable of delivering to the standard of a pre-installed package such as OpenOffice.
Within the web development industry there are two main barriers to the creation of good quality applications such as document editing, these being the lack of well implemented, stable cross browser technology on which to base the application, and the ability to entice enough users to get enough feedback to truly offer the application to the entire user base for which it was designed.
The first of these problems, the barrier of well implemented technologies, Google has recently tried to combat by using the new web specification drafted by the World Wide Web Consortium, known as HTML 5. This new language, upgrading the now outdated HTML 4.01 recommended at the end of 1999, has been widely embraced throughout the web community as a tangable future for the web. Browsers have already started adding functionality and are fully committed to bringing the specification to become a standard in all browsers. Due to the open source nature and the wide range of uses WebKit, the underlying software responsible for displaying web pages in browsers such as Firefox, Opera and Chrome, has been one of the fastest at implementing this technology. Many features such as workers, style sheet features, and offline storage have already been built into the engine and are being tested.
However, as with all new software software developers have to think carefully about the requirements they put on their users, and nowhere more so than on the web. With so many different solutions available web developers are keen to ensure that the software they produce is compatible with as many browsers as possible, which is difficult where software from rival companies, such as Internet Explorer and Google Chrome, take a different perspective of the web.
With the launch of this new operating system having so much with the reliance on such a new web standard, developers are slow on the uptake of the new features which are vital for the Chromium OS system to be a success. As the system is entirely designed to work within the web browser, careful thought has to go into the fact that sometimes a web connection will not be able to be established, such as on flights. This means that the web applications running on this platform have to be able to cope with the potential loss of connectivity using offline storage to cache fundamental files required for running the system at a stripped down level, as well as the ability to store users documents and sync them when a connection returns. Although all of these are available within the key system, developers have to think hard before developing applications, as to ensure their applications do not require them to run, should a user not have them. Today it is estimated 10.6% of users still use Internet Explorer 6, which is an annoyance for developers wishing to use new technology but having to keep it compatible. By not being able to build a system around these new technologies, and instead having to sideline them as "extras", web development is extremely slow.
The second problem, a small user-base, is a very simple problem. The underlying issue is that until a system has been developed which rivals that of a desktop system, users will not move from the utilities they are used to. On the flip side of the coin, from a developer's perspective until users move they cannot create better apps as they don't have the feedback from a wide enough range of people. By releasing this operating system into the void of a struggling sector of the web, which the average user does not find enticing, Google is adding to the gap between the standard user, and the advanced user who already utilises the technology.
Finally, after testing out the system, I believe Google is failing to market this correctly. Throughout its recent news conference to the development community its product hard into two areas to which the Operating System falls weakness. First of all, the fact that the system is designed to be the "primary operating system", pre installed as the only system, and also the fact that it will not be able to run any native applications. The developers of the system were constantly grilled throughout the conference on whether Android applications and other such frameworks would work on its operating system, the again and again the developers pushed that this was not the case, and also they had no plans for it to be. This seemed to shock the technical world, and after testing a short test of the system you find their comments well founded. One of the most common phrases is "you don't truly know the value of what you have got, until you no longer have it" - and no more so than for for Chromium OS. Even in the release of new standards the web has not got the ability to natively work with hardware, such as webcams, microphones and printers. The web was never designed to directly interact with these devices, and therefore web developers allowed the operating system to control such devices, with only very limited access via third party plugins.
As from a marketing point of view the hope is Google will see very quickly the market for this system, which is either a platform on which native applications can be installed, or a "fast boot" boot option for simple, spontaneous internet tasks, where the user does not want to wait ages for a full operating system to load. With the small code base the system could run off a partition on a nominal proportion of a modern hard drive.
Altogether the concern is that, in terms of this product, Google is not listening to its users already at this early stage of development. Its technology will released amongst much hype before the web technologies it relies on is fully implemented into the heart of the internet, and for which the operating system bases its core features on, is fully implemented. Furthermore this leads to a situation where Google may have to re-launch its technology a few years down the line, when the hype is over, and the system will be considered "old". With the constraints of today I think the question Google should be asking is, is this the right think now? Personally I think Google is trying to step on the heels of Microsoft too quickly, trying to pull users to a system which is not yet fit for all-purpose use, something that could damage the reputation of Google and put users off trying again in the future, when the technology and vision are both in line with each other.
Comments