Adding to the cloud.

I like the Register. I like the cynical attitude they take to tech news, and the way they mix up news and opinion and fiction. I even like the way they sometimes throw stupid commentary in - it means I can never read it uncritically because I never know when someone's going to deny global warming or something.

Cade Metz's piece: Google Chrome OS - do we want another monoculture? isn't so bad, if you ignore the headline. He doesn't talk in the article about how Google Chrome will take over the world so I have to assume the headline was added by someone else.

The problem I do find with the article is that in his quest to come off all cynical and negative about his subject, he makes a few crazy statements.

But the ultimate irony is that after years of criticizing Microsoft for bundling its OS with its browser, Google has nearly made them one and the same.

Wait, what? Is Metz confusing Google with Netscape here? I'm sure Google hasn't had anything complementary to say about MS's browser bundling. But most of what I remember Google saying about IE, is that its a really crap browser, and that they had to write Chrome to save us all from it.

The realisation that anything you want to do, you can do in a browser isn't all that new either. Mozilla's been threatening to do it for years - its about time someone really tried it.

Then he takes this:

"We're going to be working with our key partners very hard to make sure you see lightly larger netbooks, essentially netbooks that can accommodate a full-sized keyboard and a much more comfortable touchpad. We care about the displays. We care about the resolutions people get on these displays. And those will all be part of the specified reference hardware."

and identifies it as Apple-like. Bashing Apple is one of the Registers favourite things (after bashing MS). But really, does Apple provide reference hardware? No. That's Microsoft. Apple makes their own hardware, and sues manufactures who try an run OS X on PC hardware.

Then, Metz misunderstands, or deliberately fudges over the nature of open source:

And, yes, the ban extends to third-party browsers. Chrome OS is limited to Chrome. Naturally. The only way to run the OS with a third-party browser, Pichai said, is to grab the open source code and do your own surgery.

Well yes. Of course, the ability to do your own surgery is what open source is all about. And once you've done it, you can make it available to others who don't want to do surgery. Similarly the fact that Chrome OS does not support current hardware is something that can be quickly corrected - if enough people like the OS.

Lastly, there's a difference between how MS pushes its applications on to you and how Google does. MS makes you buy an operating system by being the only one. Then it gives its own applications a head start with private APIs. Then it makes sure that only its applications can read documents created with other MS applications. Or at least that's how it used to work.

Google makes you use its applications by having them be the best, and free. It uses open standards so you don't get locked in. It doesn't have to lock you in - as long as its applications are the best and free, then they have you. The only question is "Is this application the best one?" if the answer is yes, for you, then Google has you.

As long as Google's dominance is dependant on them releasing software that people like, for free, we don't have anything to worry about.