While working at the credit union a few years ago, I stumbled upon an article about a person who made his living by owning an ATM and leasing space from a convenience store. Yes, a single ATM. One of those little gray things that sit harmlessly in the corner, waiting for an unsuspecting teenager or a person in dire need of cash at 2:00 AM and are willing to pay a $3.00 fee to get it. While stories abound of people getting scammed by ATM retailers, in some cases it truly does pay off. Can you get rich on the profits? No, you can’t. But can you make a little extra money for doing almost no work? Absolutely.
This is the story I think of when I read articles like this, along with the accompanying comments. In my opinion, the comments are more entertaining than the article itself. They’re filled with techies ranting and raving as profoundly as they can about why the article is wrong or why it’s right or why the person three comments up is an idiot. Every once in a while someone will claim to have some secret understanding that everyone else has missed, and you’ve even got one or two that make very valid and logical points that are promptly ignored by everyone around them, as if the truth of the matter isn’t what’s really important. Of course it’s not important. The whole thing is akin to furniture salesmen arguing about the latest advances in desk drawers. Does the average consumer really care?
However, since this blog is now my outlet for the rants that fill my head on a daily basis, I’m going to give my reasons for why I think this article, and nearly everyone who commented on it, is wrong. There was one person who got it right. About three-quarters of the way down, gmat says:
I always have a hard time understanding anyone who looks at every product as a “one size fits all”
This is the sentiment I’ve been preaching for years. Computers don’t have to be an either or, and new products are perfectly capable of standing on their own without needing to be compared to other products in the same category. Why is the Apple vs Microsoft fallacy so important to some people? Why do we, as the followers of tech news, have to immediately judge every new product that comes out as either a gift from the gods or completely unfit to even be spoken of? Why can’t I love my Apple iMac for the media powerhouse that it is, while at the same time enjoy the wonders of hard-core gaming on my Windows machine? Why are we forced to pick sides?!
Well I, for one, refuse to do so. I have yet to see a bit of mainstream technology, released by a reputable company, that didn’t have at least some practical use, and Google Chrome OS is no exception. When reading through the comments, I especially disliked those who insisted that it will be a failure simply because it caters to a niche market. I can easily see a Chrome-powered netbook sitting on my kitchen counter and functioning as a super-charged recipe book; one that allows me to easily share new recipes with friends, sync grocery lists with my phone, and display not only pictures of what the finished dish should look like, but also video of how to create it. That’s something that the giant 24 inch screen of my iMac couldn’t easily accomplish, and a niche that my Windows computer has far too many wires and components to adequately fill. And who says that Google’s goal isn’t to fill a niche? Who said that this OS is Google’s attempt to compete with Apple and Microsoft? In my limited observation, I’m of the opinion that Google doesn’t even want to be the next Apple or Microsoft.
Take the ATM story for example. Does the owner of a single ATM want to be the next Wells Fargo? Of course not. And just because they’re in the ATM market doesn’t mean that they’re trying to compete with a national bank. The fact that both own and operate something called an ATM doesn’t automatically create a direct link between the two. They each exist in the ATM world to cater to entirely different consumers. That’s exactly how I view Chrome OS. Just because it’s called an operating system, doesn’t mean that it’s designed to compete with Windows or OS X. Google has never been the type of company to look up at a giant like Microsoft and say, “What can we do to compete with them?” If that was the case then they’d be charging for their services and running commercials featuring celebrities spewing dialog like, “Hi, I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC, and I’m a Chrome OS netbook.” Instead, they look out at the world and say, “What can we do to make people’s lives simpler?” They’re not designing an operating system to replace the other operating systems in our homes. They’re designing it to compliment them. They’re saying, “This is what people already do with their computers, so let’s give them a computer that will help them do it better.” And that, to me, is why Chrome OS will be successful.
