There's a rule that a new product needs to be 10 times as good as an old one to get people to change. And many more man-hours have gone into the high-end Windows apps over decades than into their linux counterparts, so it's no surprise that people aren't moving. If linux apps really were 10 times better, you'd have no problem finding PCs with linux pre-installed.

I see, so you're saying the linux apps are not as well designed and despite their low price point no one uses them, but other than that they're equivalent? And people pay hundreds of dollars more for the popular versions only because they're victims of a corporate conspiracy?

The reason Windows is popular is that it is what people are familiar with, and that it is practically impossible to find a PC with any Linux Distro pre-installed. Linux Apps have their quirks and so do Windows apps, the thing is people are generally familiar with the Window's quirks.

Having said all of this, I don't disagree with the point that Google has it's work cut out for it if it wants to get any real market share. When Asus started releasing Linux based netbooks, Microsoft put XP back on the market despite having taken it off a few month earlier.

Well, that's one theory. Another is that you get what you pay for, and that people are willing to pay more for polished apps.

…and that creating a commercially viable app platform is extremely hard. After decades of trawling the other-leading-OS waters, Apple can now boast a solid, mature OS, a polished UI, a respectable library of software, serious spending on marketing, a competitive price…..and market share still under 10%.

Maybe a Googleplex filled with no-longer-need-to-work-for-a-living engineers can succeed where Apple hasn't, with just a few years and a slick browser. Count me among the skeptics.

A quick browse through the umpteen-million titles on download.com gives a sense of the rich set of choices people enjoy today. They're not going to be giving those up anytime soon.

Linux software equivalent to Windows software

Other than games, I haven't found a windows application that does not have one or more linux equivalent, the GUI may not be as nice or as consistent but the applications do work, and generally the price is unbeatable.

Windows Vista $199.00
MS Office $299.00
Virus & Spyware Protection $80.00

Ubuntu – Free…
.

WOuld those be businesses who have:

(1) Have an installed base of hunders, thousands, and tens of thousand MS Office users?

(2) Have trained and dedicated IT support teams who know how to handle PC peripheral issues that involve Windows and not Linux?

(3) Run internal networks with mass storage that they would never give up to “cloud computing”?

BTW, I'm personally more of an “OS X” guy even though I work in IT doing SAP programming on a Windows network. It's OS X. As in “OS Ten”.

Seriously, for businesses who run any ERP system (like SAP) and extensively use MS Office to run their company – where's the reason to suddenly go to *any* kind of Linux OS?

Google has an uphill battle here. Even in the netbook niche. More users (by a large margin) prefer XP over Linux. WHat other market is Google after? Not smartphones. Not gaming devices. And no, not home consumers either.

Nothing to see here folks. Just another dot com company giving the geek bloggers something to drool about, a la Kindle. Move along now.

I hope it works out for Google. Chrome will be another tool in the box.

No question they're easier for corporate IT to manage, but they're not up to the challenge. Look at the fairly modest apps at popcap.com: you can play a bit online, but before you know it you're downloading and installing something. Or consider the state-of-the-art iPhone, which still uses a download-and-install model. The software clouds are still a long way from taking the world by storm.

And I doubt Google will be the company to change that. They don't have the attention span.

Cloud computing is reminds so much of the old mainframe/dumb terminal days (well some of those still are in existence). Some argue that is what cloud computing is with slick marketing. But the “mainframes” in cloud computing is many other computers/servers providing many applications. And the dumb terminals are not nearly as dumb as those Wyse green-screen blocks (UGH!).

I have some concerns about the feasibility for consumers (the internet infrastructure can barely handle current loads and this will triple them) — allow it's a no brainer for businesses — but it's what they are going to go for. It's also why Google was so adamant about trying to get some of the analog spectrum.

I see where your coming from. In my ideal OS world, you could run whatever OS you want on any platform due to an “OS skeleton” that provides the “basics”. Basically taking virtualization to the everyday user.

specially if they target the everyday user who doesn't need a big gaming rig or extreme workstation performance for CAD, design, etc

Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Mandriva have produced perfectly adequate distros that run Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird and pretty much all the software that an average user will ever need. It's practically impossible to find a pc/laptop with any of those distros preinstalled (Dell being the exception, they have an option to get Ubuntu preinstalled).

Until the Microsoft monopoly is broken by the government, Microsoft will continue to dominate the PC OS marketplace.

This is major news!