If we have to have corporate oversight to get a decent OS, then I'd rather one I pay (e.g. Apple for iOS) than one I don't (e.g. Google for Android/Chrome OS). I want to be the customer, not the product being sold. Even if that's not what you want, choice is still a good thing: without choice, we have vendor lock-in and stagnation of ideas.
To pick an example, I think the mobile ecosystem would be a lot better right now were WebOS still a viable alternative. Instead HP left it to rot. How much progress did we lose there?
> If we have to have corporate oversight to get a decent OS, then I'd rather one I pay (e.g. Apple for iOS) than one I don't (e.g. Google for Android/Chrome OS). I want to be the customer, not the product being sold.
For branded Android/ChromeOS, AFAIK, you are paying Google for it the same way you pay for prebundled Windows. Insofar as the OS cost is discounted because you are an advertising target for Google, that's not that different from Windows PCs where the OS cost is offset because you are crapware target for third-party business partners of the system vendor.
And advertising revenue, isn't, I think, the only motivation for the low cost of consumer ChromeOS; low-cost consumer ChromeOS is the lever for building acceptance, knowledge base, and build a base of apps to motivate institutional sales of ChromeOS (sort of the way that getting Apple computers into schools was always a way to build commercial consumer and business markets for them.)
>I want to be the customer, not the product being sold
Sorry but this is not either or anymore. They will take your money and you will still be a product being sold. Just because you paid money doesn't mean they won't try to squeeze an extra penny off of your information if they can get away with it.
Don't talk shit on Android. It is FOSS, therefore it respects your 4 freedoms, unlike iOS, which you cited.
Agreed on Chrome OS. I'll stay with my cheap old Linux Thinkpad. My remote services run on my server at home anyway and they're pretty close to what Google offers, minus the sleek look (who cares, I'm functional).
"Don't talk shit on Android. It is FOSS" - is it? did you ever commit code to it? did anyone outside of google and other corp ever committed code to it?
MacOS is pretty darn good. I'd like to see them own the high end, and devices like this own the low end, squeezing Windows out of my life entirely. For "low end", this is a pretty darn good machine. And it would mean that everything is a Unix.
Google isn't a shining beacon of hope, but I do delight in seeing hurt put on closed ecosystems.
The Apple app store is a flat-out threat to human freedom. I do not want to live in a world where the only software available is the software approved by Apple and the governments that have jurisdiction over it.
edit: Note that I take no warmth in it being Google. Yes, they are closed. The good news is that HP just offered up "Not Intel" and "Not Microsoft" preloaded in a laptop form factor. The hardware companies are retreating to neutral corners and leaving the OS vendors to duke it out on their own. This is good for free software and good for the web.
Apple's app store is closed, yes; to call it a "flat-out threat to human freedom" is a bit extreme. Restricting some bits isn't an issue of human freedom; buy into a different ecosystem.
Google is the greatest machine for data gathering and mining in the history of humanity. (Perhaps the NSA or other 3-letter agency eclipses them, but in the private sector, no one outdoes them) Google's entire purpose for all they do is to get more information so they can show you ads. They have the capability (not the desire, I believe) to censor the Internet in monumental ways. (Imagine shaping search results based on political leanings that my search history suggests) They have a dossier of info on me they can turn over to whom they wish. (Probably won't, but a few public statements doesn't disprove the possibility) Which company, at face value, is "a flat-out threat to human freedom".
ChromeOS is pretty much closed. You don't have a say on what goes in, you don't have a say on what they're going to do with it, you don't have a say if they want to fully close most of it.
In fact, you can only see the parts they let you see (in ChromiumOS), and that is the only difference with Apple or Microsoft (albeit arguyably, Apple also open sources it's kernel)
This is not true, there isn't much in ChromeOS that's not in ChromiumOS. You can file bugs on crbug.com and they are positive of most requests. And of course you can fork at any time; Chromium is developed in the open.
While most of Google's services (and most SaaS providers) are closed, the web does enable freedom, and is still generally more open than the proprietary binary blobs people install onto their computers. Chromium is open source, Firefox is open source, and as long as the web itself is being advanced, we are more 'free', not locked into MS Windows, OSX, or even Linux or BSD.
Lets give up our freedoms to install programs, modify operating systems, write native code, use a programming language of choice, freely deploy native apps to users to get the freedom to consume media inside a browser sandbox.
Does developer mode come with a c/c++ compiler ? can you change the boot loader ? how about install a new shell ? replace the browser ? lets say you come up with a cool hack while in developer mode do you have to convince your friends to run in developer mode too ?
Chrome OS uses Gentoo's Portage package manager. So to install say, emacs, you simply do # emerge emacs, or whatever you want to install.
Anyhow, there's also plenty of online instructions on how to use Crouton to install Ubuntu onto Chrome OS, the point is that Chrome OS is a full, real Linux distro.
If it was endorsed by Google, you would have a user friendly way of doing that with full documentation, instead of hacks having to be explained by users via YouTube videos.
What rights do you give up by using an OS that is almost entirely open source? (keep in mind Linux has closed source parts too, some drivers for example)
If you dislike the paradigm that's fine, but don't claim it's hurting your freedom when
a) it's open source and
b) you can modify it the way you see fit.
Heck, you can change the Chromium OS source, recompile it and throw it on a Chromebook if you want...
Please, there's web caching, app manifests, and all sorts of other ways and standards to create web apps which run 100% on the user's machine. Applications need not be behind an SaaS wall anymore than video games need online DRM....
And Chrome OS absolutely IS an OS. The fact that it's centred conceptually around the Chromium browser and Google's proprietary bits doesn't make this less true.
Reminder: by living The Google Lifestyle of Google Docs, Google Mail, Google Search History, Google Bookmarks, Google Social Network, Google Driving History, Google Location Tracking, Google Thought Interface, you allow all that to be nicely indexed for quick handoff to third parties (improperly motivated employees, NSLs, etc) without your consent.
I'm pretty sure if you say "google" and "freedom" in front of RMS you'll get your head chopped off.
iOS gives you direct hardware access to the device so you can do photo editing, video editing, music production, high resolution high frame rate gaming, and dozens of other device-local tasks. How does a series of glorified web browser Googlebooks compete with that?
No one has written the next Photoshop yet, but the apps that need NaCl are using it. The SSH client, for example, which works great and actually lets me get a lot of work done from my Chromebook without even turning on developer mode.
I think Apple could continue to lose a pretty good amount of iOS share still and remain profitable, as the margin on their products is pretty crazy. Windows, on the other hand, is hugely important to Microsoft's bottom line.
I hope the same thing is happening to Windows marketshare.
I hope the same thing is happening to iOS.
edit: Note that I said "marketshare." I'm not wishing bankruptcy on Apple and Microsoft. It would be a weird desire.