

Google's Chrome OS is a Commitment Mechanism - stanleydrew
http://hellosorld.com/google/tech/2009/12/26/googles-chrome-os-is-a-commitment-mechanism.html

======
ippisl
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.

~~~
stanleydrew
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.

~~~
lallysingh
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.

~~~
stanleydrew
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.

------
pvg
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 bits of their data
they want stored locally, remotely, remotely-with-local-cache, etc. There's no
way for my CloudApps to know in advance that tomorrow I'll be on a 15 hour
flight so I'd like to have these 2 movies, 10 playlists and the latest
versions of a couple of Cloudocuments I last edited from a different machine
in my local storage before I lose connectivity.

~~~
orangecat
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.

~~~
GHFigs
_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.

------
zyb09
Don't be too short sighted! Cloud hosted version of Grand Theft Auto running
in your Webbrowser on Chrome OS coming within the next 5 years!

~~~
kristiandupont
It's in beta: <http://www.onlive.com/>

------
oliveoil
The most useful piece of information in this article, to me, was the concept
of 'commitment mechanism'.

------
brianherman
[http://www.itvt.com/story/5733/cloud-based-games-company-
onl...](http://www.itvt.com/story/5733/cloud-based-games-company-onlive-nabs-
funding-att-lauder-warner-autodesk-maverick)

------
jsz0
Is anyone actually willing to make that commitment right now?

~~~
wmf
A few bloggers have already done the "use only Web apps for a month" thing and
written about it.

------
norswap
"Let's use only web applications so that we don't waste time on desktop
application !"

Really ?

