Google can't limit development of drivers. It's running on the Linux kernel with a custom config that strips out most devices. Unless they went and manually trimmed the tree it's a compile away from supporting everything else.

Assuming the kernel on devices that come with ChromeOS can even be replaced.

Precisely, they don't care about controlling your computer they care about controlling your information and that is far, far more valuable.

I'm mainly interested because it's a new OS and one with pretty original take on what an OS should be.

It doesn't seem to fit my requirements for an OS that well so my interest in rather "academic".

trust me i undersand what you are saying. but 'simple and easy', IMO, can never replace 'complete'. but i suspect, as you suggest, it may have a larger audience who do care for 'complete'..

Quite right. I should have said "their development of drivers" not "the development of drivers" - it's not that drivers can't be programmed, just that Google has no intention of programming additional drivers themselves.

I don't even know if I'd agree with that, although it is closer than the idea that they want to control your computer.

Google wants to maximize the amount of time you spend on Google sites. The more time you spend, the more ads you see. The more ads you see, the more money Google makes.

An analogy would be a newspaper. Newspapers don't make their money from subscription fees, they make their money from ads. In essence, the entire content of the newspaper exists so that you will open the newspaper and see the page with a company's ad. Google's services exist so that you will be looking at the web page when they display a company's ad.

Google collects information about you for three reasons. First, they can use the demographics of their user base to sell their services to advertisers. Second, they can provide you with targeted advertising which makes it more likely that you will click through (and Google will get an additional fee). Third, they can provide you with a customized experience which will make it more likely that you will come back and spend more time on their sites.

Most people probably aren't going to agree with you, but I do see your point. I don't really want my apps or data on Google's or Microsoft's or any other company's servers.

But I do like to take advantage of access to my data from anywhere and keeping up with my own servers (which I do now) is a real pain.

I'm not sure how we get something that frees individuals from the headaches of software and hardware and gives them the freedom of access from anywhere without falling into corporate or government hands.

Maybe the next version of the open source movement needs to be about creating a community owned, free, secure cloud. Kind of like EC2 in the spirit of TOR... but that seems unlikely due to the costs...

It seems like a difficult challenge to me. But I do see how cloud computing could undermine (at least some of) the principles of open source.

That’s so true and also really scary. Imagine if fascists take control again. Who would like to see his live on a cloud.

I would not consider it original. Netscape tried to create a browser OS back in the 90s. And the thin client model goes way back.

I think there will be some interest in Chrome OS machines as secondary devices. But it will be a while before Google convinces the average computer user to abandon local applications altogether.

Always in for a fun discussion
---

Should the person who visits a forum about open source mobile software and business processes care about an operating system built using the same methodologies but without the care or attention to legacy issues? Yes.

Should a person who is looking at computing from the casual and very functional viewpoint of "what can this do for me better than my current setup does" care? Yes... but to a point it will be relevant.

Should a person who utilzies the breadth of online services to advance personal and professional aims care towards an OS-platform that seems tailor made to reduce some of the friction of being such a person care? Yep.
---

Now for the fun part. Operating systems are no longer key to platform survival. Its connectivity to the information that matters most. Whether its a business platform (Salesforce, SharePoint, etc.) or a personal one (Yahoo, Google, iTunes), the key is always reducing the friction. And while most companies will admit it in private, they will not publically say that most of the times, the complexities of maintaining OSes as part of their platform strategies presents a serious drain on resources (money, time, patience, and people).

So what's left? Take a few roads to simplify.
- open source the OS in order to cut out some of the overhead for long-term platform support
- utilize a services-oriented nature to get continued profits from the OS which no longer sits under their roof but presents an opportunity for good will and further engagement
- base the platform completely on services, dialing out the development tools and profit engines to those who are willing to put in the work (usually established encumbants), and creating your brand as a platform enabler
- or die and be remembered for how good you used to be

Nokia is doing #s 1 and 2 with Ovi and Maemo. The point for them is to thread the connections, using services and attention to needs thru their logisitcal network to meet trends as they hit the most profitable audiences. It doesn't need to innovate here, just needs to be relevant at ther right times.

Google and Palm are doing #3. They see the web as their ultimate branding engine, and are using the strength of the consumer to push incumbant brands into this space where they have less control over their consumers, but ultimately have to deal with the results of the experience of the consumer. Here, Palm and Google make the opportunity for their brands to become synmonous with the very fabric of web/internet innovation, and at the same time, unless they are careful, will move too far and there will be others - sometimes incumbants like RIM, Nokia, and Apple - who will move on top of their mistakes and not only take position, but branding and overall technology and social leadership.

By the way, MS is trying to be #3 while avoiding #4 like the plague.

---
So is it relevant? Yes. The way that computing is being done is changing towards something that isn't controlled directly by users or technologists. And at the same time, it will be the desire of technologists - such as many of us here at Maemo - to drive home the point that innovation only matters when technology's relevance is felt personally.

For many, an OS-platform that takes the thinking out of being connected is a very relevant answer. They will want the same on their mobile. This will shift perceptions.

For others it will be a blip towards a loss of what as control. They won't want it and develop/design different. Innovation moves in this fashion. Its always something worth caring about.

*Clicks imaginary "Thanks" button.*

No, its not that difficult of an idea at all actually. And Nokia is trying to pull it off - peep the 2015 video released about a week or so ago. That's what they are aiming for.

In this sense, the "cloud" would be a secondary enabler to local connectivity. Devices would all be servers, and 3rd party interactions would be facilitated only when needed - but be leveraged for shared intelligence, marketing, etc.

I personally try to live like this in repsect to using Nokia's Mobile Web Server on my mobile device. I don't store anything in the cloud, but use the mobile device and the information on it wherever that I have a browser. I then take advantage of the device's ability to connect with other objects (when possible and I can convince others to think/act that way) without using the web as an intermediary.

Its different, and enabling, and at the same time, not what many OSes propose to do. And at the same time, its the kind of non-cloud computing but cloud computing living that is possible when *not* going the Google/Palm route.