Google’s Chromebooks risk repeating the same mistakes made by many failed predecessors, which could leave the door hanging open for Windows 8 to swoop in and dominate the cloud.

It is funny how often it generally takes for a new idea to stick in the market. We first started messing around with tablets in the early 90s. Now, nearly 20 years later, only one vendor has made a successful one: the Apple iPad.

Google’s new Chromebooks are essentially thin clients — lightweight computers dependent on servers (the cloud in this case) which have terminals as their distant ancestors. Sun and Oracle tried to bring the thin client concept to market 20 years ago and failed miserably. Their efforts continued on as products from Wyse and HP, but never became the PC alternatives Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison’s envisioned them as.

Still, as with tablets, the second time could be a charm. Google is hell bent on proving that ChromeOS can be what Larry and Scott hoped: a true replacement for the PC. In their favor, a lot of the negatives that nearly killed the initiative last time have disappeared. Working against them, Windows 7 is vastly superior, and the iPad already serves as a better PC alternative than ChromeOS can ever be. What we know of Windows 8 suggests it blends ChromeOS and iPad concepts into Windows. If Google misses its shot, Microsoft likely benefits. Let’s explore this.

Sun Ray oneThe birth and near death of thin clients

There was a lot of hope in the Windows wannabe camp back in 1993, when Larry Ellison first talked about thin clients, and Sun later embraced the ideal to create the Sun Ray one. A few years later, I hosted a bunch of CIOs in Europe at a desktop conference, and their reaction kind of summed up the problem. In the meeting there were (and this was unusual) a group of Sun executives who were listening in. They were supposed to act like well-behaved kids — seen and not heard. Unfortunately, they evidently missed that memo and started dumping on Windows. At the time, Windows NT was in its infancy, and folks weren’t that happy with how Windows 95 had turned out.

To my surprise, the CIOs and IT folks in the room tore into the Sun execs, explaining in great detail why the Sun Ray 1 thin client was brain dead stupid. It was a lock-in product that forced them to buy from Sun for all future upgrades (they preferred pitting vendors against each other). It was horribly expensive to implement. It had severe problems running current PC code. The migration costs were massive. Basically, they told Sun to take a hike because they weren’t about to trade some annoying problems for some catastrophic ones. The Sun execs looked like they had been hit by a bus.

Larry got that thin clients had to be cheap, and understood that they would likely play best in places like schools, where the security features inherent in them (it was really hard to mess them up compared to PCs) would be valued. However, he picked what appeared to be a girlfriend to run the independent company. Showcasing why executives shouldn’t think with their little heads, the effort failed.

Since then, we have seen some innovative alternatives from companies like Clear Cube, which did remote PCs, and full on thin clients from Wyse and HP, but these mostly went places where data entry was king, serving as replacements for terminals. PCs running Windows are so inexpensive and entrenched that thin clients just don’t seem to have any traction. But, then again, no one has really made a major push in this space for years either. And while mobile is huge in the PC space, it is more of an afterthought in thin clients. At least until now.

ChromeOS

Back in the 90s, we thought of ISDN as broadband and hadn’t even really learned to spell Wi-Fi, let alone had a clue what 3G or 4G were. With 4G and current generation Wi-Fi, we have access to bandwidth that seemed impossible two decades ago, and netbooks showcased that we could actually build some interesting laptops for under $400. While they didn’t run Windows very well, they sure could run a thin operating system, and the iPad demonstrated that a well-tuned OS running on reasonably priced hardware could do amazing things.

So the potential is here to revisit thin clients successfully. There are, however some big issues.

The first is that netbooks largely failed in market, demonstrating that people just didn’t want to buy cheap crap. The iPad was successful largely because people didn’t see it as a cheap, limited laptop without a keyboard, which it actually kind of is. They saw it as something different thanks to its slate form factor and touchscreen. Don’t forget Steve Jobs himself introduced both the first and second generations of the iPad, and Apple wrapped it with a massive marketing campaign in order for folks to see the iPad as something magical rather than a crippled notebook. A lot of hard work went in to setting the proper perception.

Samsung Series 5 Chromebook

The Chromebook looks like a laptop, making it much harder for buyers to see it as anything else. As for marketing, to say that Google has no concept of executing a marketing campaign at Apple’s level would be making a vast understatement. Google appears to have both an inadequate skill set and marketing budget. Add to this the distinct lack of success of Android Tablets, which should have been able to better draft in the iPad’s success, and you start to get worried. Add one more fact, that the Chromebook will be released before the offline capability is available, and you have the potential for a Xoom-like problem (the Xoom was released without 4G or Flash support, its two biggest features, and failed).

Why Google’s Chromebook sets the stage for Windows 8

It isn’t that Google’s Chromebooks are not potentially compelling; they actually look kind of interesting. The problem is that the netbook, Android Tablet and particularly the Xoom experience showcase what not to do, yet Google appears to be repeating all of these mistakes with the Chromebook. I actually think the product has promise, but that the company needs to channel Apple to make the concept work. Chromebooks need to appear less like cheap crippled laptops and more like something, well, iPad-like.

The technology is close to being where it needs it to be, but the Steve-Jobs-like marketing vision is missing. When you are trying for something disruptive like this, it is marketing, not engineering, that has to take the lead. Unfortunately, Google’s historic marketing weakness will doom this product unless the company addresses it. However there is little doubt that the Chromebook will set the stage for something else that may truly capture our imagination. Ironically, Google’s execution makes it likely that this future product will be Windows 8. The entrenched vendor, and that would be Microsoft, always has the home advantage, particularly when the challenger screws up.

According to the book “In the Plex,” Jobs mentored the Google founders, who then ripped off his iPhone ideas. Evidently, they didn’t understand or stay long enough to get the lesson on marketing. That’ll cost them.

Showing 29 comments

  1. centralizedcomputing at 6:57am 13th May 2011 Your statement regarding ClearCube is inaccurate. ClearCube blade workstations are computing solutions for power users in command and control, trading floor and CAD environments. ClearCube zero clients connecting to virtual desktops support task and knowledge workers for data entry.
  2. itrainng at 5:30pm 12th May 2011 This is one of the very few times I have to agree with Enderle. (I am a Linux guy he is a Microsoft shill) Chrome OS is a flop even before it hits the shelf. Nobody I know wants to be 100% dependent on an internet connection. What Google needs is a device that runs all android applications locally yet is able to function as a full fledged laptop or tablet. The royal geeknesses of Google are wasting a perfectly good opportunity to leverage the ubiquity of Android onto a majority of all computing devices on the face of the earth.
  3. unscum at 5:05pm 12th May 2011 My work laptop contains a half a terrabyte of stuff on it's harddisk not to mention many of my file sizes are north of 1 gig. Hmm, do I want to upgrade to a cloud computer, I think not. Any successful implementation of cloud computing will have to be a combination conventional computing with computing over the Internet. I guess, if Microsoft doesn't screw up, Windows 8 will be that?
  4. Rich Hansell at 11:57pm 12th May 2011 Until there is truly an ubiquitous wireless net connection I don't see these things taking off. Unless they build in fairly significant offline capabilities that is..
  5. unscum at 4:56pm 12th May 2011 Very nice article, I like the historical perspective. I'm wondering if the problem is that companies like Google, RIM, Oracle and the now defunct Sun have allowed their engineers to not only run their companies but also run their product marketing campaigns. To a techy, 'cool' or 'coolness factor' for a product has an entirely different connotation than it would for the vast majority of people upon which the product is targeted. As a longtime critic of Apple I must say they have a kind of artistic flair in the way they develop and market their products, not to mention, they innovate, innovate and innovate.
  6. aaaaaaaaa at 4:51pm 12th May 2011 I believe that Web apps are clearly the future... which theoretically, could be run on any browser in the future. And I believe that Google is trying to get huge a head start on capitalizing Web apps, much at the dismay of Mozilla who believes that Web apps should be royalty-free. We'll see how it goes.
  7. Jimmy Flip at 4:49pm 12th May 2011 I like this, "Add to this the distinct lack of success of Android Tablets". I consider that Android tablets have been around since February. Android tablets before this were oversized phones running a phone OS. So the only real tablet that's been out for any reasonable amount of time is the Xoom. Yes, the Xoom is a failure. Now other tablets have hit the market like the Asus Transformer which is sold out everywhere. To say that Android tablets have had " a distinct lack of success" based on one example from one company is simply not justifiable.
  8. ramboo at 4:48pm 12th May 2011 Apple fan. Future will show things to you. Remember the Android story first.
  9. Don Berghoff at 4:47pm 12th May 2011 I agree with the general assessment of adaptation of the technology, however, from the perspective of a business that is build on a framework of accessing data in a cloud environment, this is clearly the next step in the evolution of matching our hardware with our content. All we need is high processing RAM, good bandwidth, with little need for hard disk storage. Apple's MacAir is more productive than the iPad for this reason and whereas the iPad is a content reader, we see the Chromebook as a framework for competing with the MacAir.
  10. Jeffrey Henry at 4:42pm 12th May 2011 The only thing I see lacking is a peel....(appeal like Apple). I don't think it's just the marketing that sells Apples. I think the majority of it is its looks. The ipod, ipad and iphone look fantastic! They look thin, shiny, and full of chrome. Speaking of chrome, I don't see any chrome on these netbooks.... just cheap black plastic.
  11. Zack Juhasz at 4:41pm 12th May 2011 I'm going to have to assume this is another anti-google plant by Facebook unless someone can show me otherwise. Facebook has admitted to doing this BTW look it up if you don't believe me.
  12. michaelfromseattle at 4:38pm 12th May 2011 Most computer users, including myself, have no desire to replace our computers with cloud terminals (that's what they are). We want the software at our end, not in some corporate cloud. What Google is tinkering with will fail because most customers want to be able to fully utilize their software whether or not they are connected to the Internet. This is stupid, and is being undertaken without studying the market. Secondly, there are privacy issues, and anyone who would entrust their personal data to GOOGLE is living in a sea shell - like Larry Page is.
    1. Jimmy Flip at 4:55pm 12th May 2011 I think this has the potential to be very big in schools and enterprise, especially when paired with Citrix services. The TCO is low when you take into account savings through free hardware upgrades, software licensing, etc. Google doesn't need to get any more of the market than these sectors. And of course, if they do get this part of the market, why would people feel the need to spring a few hundred for Microsoft Office at home when they are using Google Apps at work? Compared to Google's enormous budget, this is a low-cost experiment in getting more people using Google Apps. You think it's not thought through, I think it is.
      1. John w at 5:28pm 12th May 2011 Now only if schools had money and their was a desire to change.... It will fail
        1. Jimmy Flip at 5:41pm 12th May 2011 The point is that it's much cheaper for schools. Pay Microsoft Office licensing fees or get Google apps for $4? License and maintain an Exchange server or use Gmail? No Windows licensing fees, etc, etc.
          1. John w at 5:54pm 12th May 2011 The capital investment and risk of having a system that is not used in industry is too high for the reward. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea I just don’t think that it will be adopted until it is integrated in industry first and I don’t think that will happen.
  13. PeepingTom at 4:34pm 12th May 2011 So long is the story of technically superior products that have bit the dust over the years due to lack of marketing finesse, and you are probably correct that the Chromebook will be the next. So sad to see yet another potentially promising product rushed to market without the full set of features of which it is capable yet sorely needed to compete with iPad, et al. I must disagree with you on your point about the iPad where you say, "...people didn’t see it as a cheap, limited laptop without a keyboard, which it actually kind of is." People see it as an EXPENSIVE, cheap, limited laptop without a keyboard, and all of the limitations what can be run on the platform as divined by Apple. No, thank you.
  14. Seph Crow at 11:24pm 12th May 2011 i think this time around is different, because the one pushing for it is google..
  15. Geoffrey Shauger at 11:24pm 12th May 2011 Sun Ray is a bad comparison...Sun never had the name recognition of Google or Chrome. With the proliferation of their search engine, the android platform and the Chrome browser, Google is in a much better position than Sun ever was to sell hardware to mainstream users.
  16. honkj at 4:20pm 12th May 2011 ---------- Steve-Jobs-like marketing vision is missing. -----. Unfortunately, Google’s historic marketing weakness will doom thi----- you are so off base that you'd be standing near left field... Apple didn't have a "massive" marketing campaign, to say so is disrespecting any sort of truth. what they had was a TOUCH SCREEN that actually is magical to use. this is a ground up word of mouth success. it has nothing to do with marketing, I saw 50 times more commercials for the Xoom than i did an iPad, as a matter of fact if seen exactly one commercial for the iPad2.... the reason the chrome OS netbooks will fail is because thin clients are a stupid idea, I long ago stopped using a VT100 terminal because they are hooked to a machine that i can not control. nobody thinks it is a burden to run around with an actual computer under their arm, Google is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.... all they have to do is morph Android into a true OS, and that would compete against Windows effectively, because it could be supported by many apps. why Google is doing this is because they are filling their ranks with tech geeks who think the cloud is cool, the only problem is that the consumer doesn't think the cloud is cool... just useful as something TO ADD to their current computer type. so basically you have got the whole story wrong. completely wrong.
  17. ObjectiveNYC at 4:19pm 12th May 2011 Sir, your I love iOS tattoo is showing. Constant references to the ipad have no relevance to a story about chrome OS. Yes the malleable mind of the masses has been wrapped around the ipad and therefore it's success has been outstanding but what many fail to realize is that the general tablets that ipad is compared to are froyo smart phone OS iterations baked into a tablet with meak hardware. These are devices that neither does google condone nor support. And the failure to deliver a full functional xoom is the failure of motorola and not google. But back to the comparison. Chrome OS is competing against the current windows netbooks and smaller mac books. The concept is smaller devices with cloud storage. If it offers a simple ubuntu like interface, those of us not buying the apple hype will be on board. You are speaking on behalf of apple addicts and your article is not an objective critique. Like I started with, your apple heart tattoo is showing. Oh, and I own several devices including the ipad 2 so I know how to be objective.
    1. Blodwyn at 4:37pm 12th May 2011 Like you I also have an iPad. As far as I can see a Chrome netbook is significantly less functional than a tablet. At least a tablet can run local apps and store local data. I can connect a keyboard if I want, and have all the security and instant-on benefits too. I can see a case for business users, but I think your average personal user would be better off with a tablet. A side-by-side comparison of what a tablet and a Chrome netbook can do would be revealing.
    2. Doc at 6:13pm 12th May 2011 "Yes the malleable mind of the masses has been wrapped around the ipad and therefore it's success has been outstanding" Yeah keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. We are all so dumb. You are so much smarter than everyone. You are so superior.
  18. Avi Ùd at 11:05pm 12th May 2011 Tht was pretty biased article..
  19. Larry Brown at 11:05pm 12th May 2011 Its not about hardware.
  20. Nathan Clarke at 11:04pm 12th May 2011 Seeing as Chrome OS should be much lighter on resources than an app driven OS like Android there is potential win in the idea. If people just needed to surf the web and web apps and it were thinner than anything out there there could be a market for it. It may also be a very popular appliance at web cafe's etc.
  21. Angus Fox at 4:03pm 12th May 2011 I think you are spot on, although these rushed out net books are just the first devices so are not the full picture. Although they met on a plane, I don't think she was his girlfriend or wholly to blame. NC Inc was a 'B' Arc filled with uselesss people who then floated away as it failed. My first tablet was a GO running PenPoint. circa 1990. It sucked. my iPad is lovely and what I am writing this on End of.
  22. Reason To Live at 10:48pm 12th May 2011 Failbook?
  23. Devan Thayer Lund at 10:41pm 12th May 2011 I seriously doubt the abilities of a company that's so far focused entirely on app and search engines (and recently, an OS) to be able to create decent hardware the first time out of the gate.
Close Suggestion The music industry reacts to Google Music
View Article