Yesterday evening (yesterday afternoon in the USA) Google formally demonstrated Google Chrome OS to a throng of salivating journalists. It's been known about for a while, but this was the first time anyone was able to look at it working. Those cynical scribes, almost to a man and woman, hit Twitter and the blogs soon after with a general response that can be largely summed up as "so what?"... Of course, there were positive voices here and there but, on the whole, it feels like most commentators were competing to be the little boy who saw the Emperor naked.The criticism I'm seeing splits into two camps. The first is should the Windows/Apple hegemony be quaking? It's a moot question - because until cloud computing is powerful enough to replace Exchange, Office and the MS monopoly in business, there will be a need for traditional laptops running Windows. Specialist apps will need a local OS for the time-being. Graphic designers will still want Photoshop on their Mac Pros. Gamers will still want machines you can max out with RAM and fit with the latest graphics card.
The second lot of criticism seems to be - "HAHA it's not an operating system at all! I am clever and techy and it's just Linux on a ROM chip!". This says more about journalistic expectation than the apparent intention of Chrome OS. People expected an OS that fit their existing view of Windows, OS X and the *NIX family. Google's offering is something different. It's "just a browser". That's kind of the point.
Could it fail? Yes, it most certainly could. There's a history of thin client devices coming to market and being given a jolly good ignoring by the general public and business. Oracle and Sun invested heavily in them during the 90s for example, with very little take up.





