Chrome OS without Google

English: Main logo and icon for the open sourc...

I have spent a good deal of time with Chrome OS and the Chromebook. The one troubling thing about it is not that it is an operating system in a web browser. You know that going in. It is Google.

Recent events have made all of us a bit wary about Google Services, while still using them. When Google recently launched Google Keep, a decent service in its own right, no one trusted it. Before the Reader debacle, the Google enthusiasts would try it. Now, many are afraid to love a new service.

GigaOm picked up on a feature request for the Chromium OS, the Open-Source version of ChromeOS. The feature would establish an API to allow for extensions to integrate into the file manager, allowing cloud services other than Google Drive to act as ‘drives’ inside the file manager.

Elsewhere, in the Chromium Project, there is a reference to using Chromium without a Google login, but so far, even on the open-source project, you need Google. But, one can ask…if you are going to do Chrome without Google…what’s the point? You might as well run a full-fledged OS.

Years ago, computer design was based on ‘dumb terminals’ and powerful servers. Today’s computers are significantly more powerful than those ‘powerful’ servers. But the truth is that many of us now would rather be able to access identical experiences on multiple devices. But, products like Owncloud prove that while we may wish these things, we want more control and certainty about them. We want control.

Will be looking to see more in this direction. Free services versus Paid Services vs Self-Hosted services. Would welcome your thoughts on this, and what areas you think are worth exploring.

 

H264 vs WebM comes to a Head

HTML5 video icon
Image via Wikipedia

Last week, the Chromium blog announced that it was terminating support for the H.264 video standard in the HTML5 video tag in favor of the open WebM and Theora codecs, neither of which have seriously taken off yet.

There has been a lot of criticism of this move by the community. H.264 is used by a variety of different video streaming sites and this will drive people back to using Flash as a delivery system for H.264, which will not help the larger goal of replacing Flash with native browser video playback. On the other hand, Firefox will never support H.264, and Firefox has a large percentage of the overall browser market.  The people behind the Opera browser are defending the move as well.

The truth is that this may go down as a horrible decision by Google, or drawing a line in the sand that led to greater unity on the web. The biggest issue right now is hardware acceleration. A lot of hardware now has built in H.264 hardware acceleration, which is important for widespread adoption. However, the WebM hardware development team is hard at work on this, and the first commercial chips that support hardware acceleration should be out in the first quarter of this year.

Either way, the support for HTML5 video tag needs a lot of work before it is more universally used, much as we wish that day would come soon.