Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

hellosorld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#11

Post by orangecat »

pvg wrote: post #4

The problem with this is the great deal of uncertainty about when (if ever) the 'optimal' outcome of the commitment will occur. It's not just a matter of application availability as the author seems to imply. Even if CloudPhotoShop and CloudEmacs materialized tomorrow, until there is ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity, most users will want to continue to make lots of fine-grained choices about what particular bit…

Exactly. I reject the entire premise that web apps are fundamentally "better for you". Yes, they have zero installation, and that's great. There are also a number of drawbacks that the author ignores or glosses over, such as requiring ubiquitous high speed (and often low latency) connections, having all your data in the hands of a third party, and apps being written for the lowest common denominator of HTML/CSS/Javascript rather than taking advantage of advanced OS functionality. Both web and local apps have their place, and there's no need for one type to dominate.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#12

Post by stanleydrew »

pvg wrote: post #4

The problem with this is the great deal of uncertainty about when (if ever) the 'optimal' outcome of the commitment will occur. It's not just a matter of application availability as the author seems to imply. Even if CloudPhotoShop and CloudEmacs materialized tomorrow, until there is ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity, most users will want to continue to make lots of fine-grained choices about what particular bit…

The uncertainty will surely mean that Chrome OS will remain a secondary OS for many people (including me) for awhile. But over time as you realize that 80%, then 90%, then 95% of what you actually use is available as a hosted app, Chrome OS (or the MS or Apple equivalent) becomes your primary OS.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#13

Post by stanleydrew »

ippisl wrote: post #5

The big problem with the cloud is that it moves power from the user of the software , to the cloud vendor. so google chrome might be a bad commitment. I believe we as users need to find a better way to get the benefits of the cloud(in maintenance and availability) ,without losing control of our software.

I don't see this as a big problem. There are bound to be many cloud vendors competing for our business, so we as consumers can demand data portability. And we can still have control of our software if we host it ourselves. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing an open-source gmail clone that we can all run on our own servers.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#14

Post by bitdiddle »

stanleydrew wrote: post #13
ippisl wrote: post #5

The big problem with the cloud is that it moves power from the user of the software , to the cloud vendor. so google chrome might be a bad commitment. I believe we as users need to find a better way to get the benefits of the cloud(in maintenance and availability) ,without losing control of our software.

I don't see this as a big problem. There are bound to be many cloud vendors competing for our business, so we as consumers can demand data portability. And we can still have control of our software if we host it ourselves. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing an open-source gmail clone that we can all run on our own servers.

So where do I store my tax return, Google Docs? Amazon? MS? I think not. Hard drives are not going away, "listen to me now and believe me later."

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#15

Post by GHFigs »

pvg wrote: post #4

The problem with this is the great deal of uncertainty about when (if ever) the 'optimal' outcome of the commitment will occur. It's not just a matter of application availability as the author seems to imply. Even if CloudPhotoShop and CloudEmacs materialized tomorrow, until there is ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity, most users will want to continue to make lots of fine-grained choices about what particular bit…

The lack of "ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity" is likewise a short-term cost, and may already be negligible depending on how ubiquitous you need it to be and how much bandwidth. It's already good enough for many if not most people, and the gaps are shrinking.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#16

Post by GHFigs »

orangecat wrote: post #11
pvg wrote: post #4

The problem with this is the great deal of uncertainty about when (if ever) the 'optimal' outcome of the commitment will occur. It's not just a matter of application availability as the author seems to imply. Even if CloudPhotoShop and CloudEmacs materialized tomorrow, until there is ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity, most users will want to continue to make lots of fine-grained choices about what particular bit…

Exactly. I reject the entire premise that web apps are fundamentally "better for you". Yes, they have zero installation, and that's great. There are also a number of drawbacks that the author ignores or glosses over, such as requiring ubiquitous high speed (and often low latency) connections, having all your data in the hands of a third party, and apps being written for the lowest common denominator of HTML/CSS/Javas…

I reject the entire premise that web apps are fundamentally "better for you".

You're inserting the word "fundamentally", but the author is not claiming they are fundamentally better than native applications at all. Not every article is "X vs Y".

His premise for talking about commitment mechanisms is that you've already decided that web applications are the long-term optimal choice for you. If it isn't the optimal choice for you, the commitment mechanism is meaningless.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#17

Post by lallysingh »

stanleydrew wrote: post #13
ippisl wrote: post #5

The big problem with the cloud is that it moves power from the user of the software , to the cloud vendor. so google chrome might be a bad commitment. I believe we as users need to find a better way to get the benefits of the cloud(in maintenance and availability) ,without losing control of our software.

I don't see this as a big problem. There are bound to be many cloud vendors competing for our business, so we as consumers can demand data portability. And we can still have control of our software if we host it ourselves. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing an open-source gmail clone that we can all run on our own servers.

Odd, b/c what we have now is a string of failures (cough rackspace cough) (cough DNS failures cough) (cough rackspace again cough), connected to quite a few companies that don't have good guidance on data protection or privacy control (facebook, microsoft/danger), bound up by an internet that isn't nearly as ubiquitous or reliable as we want (AT&T). Access to those services is still in question: net neutrality is still under debate, and I'm seeing services blocked at the employer (can't let corporate secrets get out via google docs!) and ISP (long story) level.

For what? 99% of what we want out of the cloud is solved by a good laptop and a reasonable backup system.

Ask me again in 5 years (and it'll actually be 5, not 1 or 3), but right now, the cloud isn't worth it.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#18

Post by stanleydrew »

lallysingh wrote: post #17
stanleydrew wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this as a big problem. There are bound to be many cloud vendors competing for our business, so we as consumers can demand data portability. And we can still have control of our software if we host it ourselves. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing an open-source gmail clone that we can all run on our own servers.

Odd, b/c what we have now is a string of failures ( cough rackspace cough ) ( cough DNS failures cough ) ( cough rackspace again cough ), connected to quite a few companies that don't have good guidance on data protection or privacy control (facebook, microsoft/danger), bound up by an internet that isn't nearly as ubiquitous or reliable as we want (AT&T). Access to those services is still in question: net neutrality…

I don't disagree that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome. I also don't disagree that 99% of what the cloud offers is solved by a good laptop with regular backups. But that's kind of like saying 99% of what twitter offers can be solved with public mailing lists and a character limit. That doesn't mean twitter isn't worth using or creating. (OK maybe not the best example since I don't use twitter myself but you get the idea.)

And what about this scenario, which isn't too far fetched in my opinion: your ISP provides you with private cloud storage, a software stack, and your own dns name for you to host your own private web-accessible applications, each installable with one click.

There is still the problem of reliable internet access, but in time I think we all know internet access will be as ubiquitous as electric power and we will trust our ISP just like we trust our power company: we completely ignore them until the power goes out for a day, we get really mad, wait for them to fix it, and then forget it ever happened.

Re: Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism

#19

Post by pvg »

GHFigs wrote: post #15
pvg wrote: post #4

The problem with this is the great deal of uncertainty about when (if ever) the 'optimal' outcome of the commitment will occur. It's not just a matter of application availability as the author seems to imply. Even if CloudPhotoShop and CloudEmacs materialized tomorrow, until there is ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity, most users will want to continue to make lots of fine-grained choices about what particular bit…

The lack of "ubiquitous high-bandwidth connectivity" is likewise a short-term cost, and may already be negligible depending on how ubiquitous you need it to be and how much bandwidth. It's already good enough for many if not most people, and the gaps are shrinking.

My point was users will always want the option of explicit storage control (which ChromeOS lacks) until local-to-cloud syncing is essentially transparent. This takes a a lot more bandwidth and ubiquity than is currently available.

A reasonable technical analogy is the use of overlays (user controlled) vs virtual memory (automatic) by programmers - until hardware support, memory and disk sizes and speeds were available, overlays were the practical and desired memory management technique. Similarly, the cloud has to be much closer in availability and access speed to local storage before users don't have to bother with much explicit control of data storage location. I think that's a lot further off than the author and you assume.

Post reply on HN