Cloud Computing

There’s a lot more going on over at Google than them wanting to restart the browser wars.  Google’s Chrome walks like a browser and talks like a browser, but there’s much more of an agenda than taking browser market share away from Microsoft of Firefox.  In my opinion Google sees Chrome as a way to start tying up many loose ends they’ve already put into place that they cannot reliably tidy up without a browsing client of their own.  There’s two things that are front of mind: cloud computing and social networking.

Cloud Computing

Scott McNeally is likely somewhere in a padded room cursing the visions of the future he had in the 90’s.  McNeally told us “The Network [was] the Computer.”  Thin client and distributed computing was a good call, it was just ten or so years too early.  At the time McNeally was thinking about it, broadband wasn’t prevalent, and web browsers barely spoke the same language.  Times have changed, and both issues have largely evaporated.  Things evolved and a similar message is back: the Web is the operating system.

Add to the mix that the general populous is shedding their shyness about sharing personal information (and general concerns about privacy) and McNeally’s time has come.

Google?  Google is well invested in the cloud computing landscape.  A quick review of their business productivity initiatives online makes that clear: they’ve basically built Microsoft Office as a web-based solution.  Google’s Outlook is GMail and Google Calendar.  Google’s Word, Excel and PowerPoint are known as Google Docs.

And, Office-type business applications are just a few of the web-based applications Google has put in the cloud (for free).  They also have Google Notebook for organizing information found on the web, Google Sites to create web sites and secure wikis (collaboration), and they are at the forefront of online photography and video sharing with Picassa and YouTube.

So, you’re probably asking “what does that have to do with a web browser.”  Well, without controlling the web browser itself, these applications are (or I would argue will likely be) disjointed in feel to the end user.  And, their capabilities are stuck within the limitations provide by the user’s web browser of choice.  What could be gained by owning the browser they run in?

The disconnected experience for one. Cloud Computing sounds great, but the experience to the end-user needs to be seamless and smooth, and, it needs to work when the user is not on the Internet for wide adoption.  Chrome utilizes the Google Gears runtime. Gears is an open-source project which “let[s] web applications interact naturally with your desktop.” That is from the Google Gears home page.  It also mentions that you can store data locally.  That would allow utilization of Google applications (and what is created with them) when not connected to “the cloud.”  Gears allows it, but how that experience translates to the user is where Chrome will shine.  It’s something the other browser companies don’t have front-of-mind, nor do they have reason to.

What if you were using Google Docs and you had to run to a meeting and finish it at the other location where you didn’t have Internet connectivity.  If Firefox wasn’t locally storing a version of the document (and why would it), you simply couldn’t work with it offline.  Chrome could ensure that type of housekeeping was taking place.  Good experience and low price equals adoption.

Social Networking

Social networking is all the rage.  And, it provides incredible benefits to those who can control it.  User’s are providing generous amounts of public data for consumption by the social network sites. The social network sites in turn are collecting that data and, albeit clumsily at the moment, marketing back to them.  On the horizon is the ubiquity of social networks; a time when social networking won’t be going to a site.  Social networking will be transparent and prevalent in interacting with the web at first, and later with computing in general.

The social networking landscape can easily be divided up into two camps: Facebook and not Facebook.  The “not Facebook” camp has a more formal name.  It’s called Open Social.  Open Social is a group of social networking sites and development companies working together to create a social experience which can have continuity betweens social network sites (for a start).  It’s a great promise, a promise which Facebook has also made a commitment to, just oustside of Open Social.

Facebook has something called Facebook Connect.  What Connect allows is to allow for Facebook type interactions when away from the social network site.  Connect and Open Social both embrace data portability, and allowing interactions with user interaction beyond silo’d walled gardens. Why?  Facebook understands what Google does: the power of social networking largely likes in the data they are collecting, not in people poking each other and debating over if Scrabulous is better than ‘real’ Scrabble.  John Battelle calls what Google is actually building a “database of intentions.”  A way to know what people want and need before even they do.  The data being collected in the social landscape reveals a lot of very rich information. Information which can be monetized.

Currently Open Social is the underdog.  Facebook is ahead of the game, and implementing their strategies.  Open Social very much has an “under construction” sign on its door, and real-world examples are few and far between.

Arguably Google is looking down on its disparate group of applications and a disparate social web and looking for glue.  Open Social is glue.  A browser which streamlines the end-user experience and interaction with social networking is glue too.

What does Google have going for it in the new browser war (if we are to call it that)?

1. A good brand name. It is being questioned as of late, but my opinion is that is more by web scholars than by the public at large.  Generally, people trust Google.
2. Free. Google has a lot of web-based applications out there that are free.  Especially with those that work well, suggesting a download of Chrome to enhance the experience does have merit.
3. Understanding the end-user. Google is very adept at executing simple, easy-to-user applications.
4. New, relevant partners. Open Social has Google cavorting with some of the most influential social properties on the web.  Those companies have no interest in a browser war, and they very much can benefit from working with Google. Promoting a browser isn’t much to ask of them.

Challenges?

1. Is the public looking for new web brower? I currently don’t need a new web browser.  It took me quite awhile to download Firefox.  I was fine with Safari on the Mac and Internet Explorer on the PC.  Do users feel the need for a new browser?  If not, Google needs to create that need.
2. Can Google distribute software (well)? Google hasn’t been known to be adept at distributing software-not on this scale.
3. Is grass roots marketing going to cut it? Google traditionally relies on grass-roots tactics.  Will that work for Chrome?  Does the value proposition need to be put in front of the consumer more?  Lessons from Firefox would indicate that no, they don’t need to be.  But, Firefox has a place and a time, and security made it shine.  What will make Chrome shine?

{ 8 comments }