Harvard Business Publishing

This is all well and good for your average computer user. There is an open-source alternative to virtually every MS application that you can think of. This is also great for business user as we all know how much MS licensing can cost.

The problem with this, for me, is that I'm a PC gamer. I've tried different OS's before, but the problem is a great majority of the games I play are incompatible with anything not windows (or Mac, but that is not an option for me because I hate them irrationally). Also, having to find alternate drivers for modern, bleeding edge hardware can be very frustrating. Sometimes you'll find a driver that is just functional, and other times the drivers offer inferior performance.

I hate Microsoft, and their policies and ethics, as much as the next guy, but I am not willing to jump through that many hoops just to play the games I love. Until the open source community gets some sort of conventions that developers will actually support, I'm am going to be forced to use MS Windows.

Trust me, if I could get a superior open source OS for free, that would support all the software I use - without having to jump through a series of hoops, I would take everything Microsoft I own out to the shooting range and blow the shit out of it.

Jrad is right; Chrome is offering an alternative to the two party system (Mozilla and IE). Chromes functionality has gone through some early testing with regard to speed, and it looks like Chrome outshines IE and Firefox with flying colors. Sure, customization hasn't arrived yet, but it's still in Beta.

Still too early to tell, google items can hit or miss and takes time to tell.

I applaud the eagerness of Google in producing a more efficient browser in hopes to gain more business. They, like many browser developers, are always seeking ways of making money by providing customers with a better browsing experience.

Regularly using several different browsers myself, I compare different features and benefits of each of them. Having tested Google’s Chrome beta browser, I believe that they still have a way to go to differentiate themselves. Google is smart in making their program easily compatible with third-party developers, because who knows what Web surfers want better than those who actually surf.

Now, if Google could improve their Google docs and make them more efficient, they will really be onto something.

Love the "open" based,but they will follow every movement you make.

I can’t see the ‘disruption’ in Chrome. It is competing along the same dimensions as IE and other browsers(performance, functionality, stability etc), it does not expand the market (all web-users have a browser or can get one for free already) and it is not cheaper than existing offerings, which to my knowledge are free anyway, and there are Open browser’s already available? Yes it may take market-share from IE and Microsoft but I am missing the significant disruptive element. I think Chrome is just another step in the Google march on Microsoft and an essential component to own if they are to succeed with their ‘disruptive’ advertising-led business model. Comments?

From it's compact look and feel, and o.k performance as a first version compared with other browsers, Chrome might be a promising product.

Microsoft used far more than the "power of integration" to crush Netscape. Microsoft threatened companies with multi-million-dollar financial penalties unless they broke working products' compatibility with Netscape's browser and pulled their advertising from Netscape's website. And that's only one of the competitors for the title of "the worst of it".

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

The article does not seem to take into account the organization of Google and its poor track record in follow-up. Gmail is still "Beta" and it can't even sort mail by sender - you can search for the sender, but it is not an easy sort like on Yahoo or even old clunky AOL. Chrome is great, and much faster, and I love using it. But it won't have much follow-up. There is no money in it for Google. The software as an internet service idea has been around for a very long time and is not of interest to most people.

I wish there were a list of Chrome-compatible applications. Adobe Buzzword will not work with Chrome. Also, the godaddy email word-processor has problems with Chrome.

While Chrome may intend to be disruptive, I don't think it truly is. Google is making a few tactical errors. First, if Google wants to disrupt the MSFT monopoly, then they should make the Chrome browser run on something other a Windows client. Chrome is not available on Mac or Linux, so Google is essentially fighting a war on MSFT's home turf -- the desktop operating system. No one buys an operating system for the sake of an operating system -- they buy it for the applications that run on it. And right now, Windows has more apps than Linux and Mac combined.

If Google wanted to be truly disruptive, then they would release their browser on a Mac or Linux platform and make it better than the Windows version. This would give people a reason to migrate to those alternative desktops -- to get the Chrome features. (Not to mention avoid all those expensive Windows licenses!) Once the end user had left the Windows desktop behind, they would be more open to using the Google applications (word processing, e-mail, Office replacement applications). But as long as the user has a reason to be on the Windows desktop, they will use the Windows applications, and the Microsoft monopoly will continue.

But right now, Google has released a browser that works better than IE in some regards, but worse than IE in other areas. And the price point for both browsers to the end user is exactly the same -- free, because MSFT bundles its browser with its OS. As long as those are the terms of the debate, Google is going to lose to MSFT's homefield advantage.

Actually, I think that Chrome is a highly disruptive development. But, not because everyone will choose it. Microsoft and Mozilla will almost certainly adopt its most important capabilities asap. But I think that Google will achieve its purpose just as effectively if Microsoft adopts the key new capabilities of Chrome into Internet Explorer. This is because Google's purpose is not to build a better browser, or compete in a new 'browser war'. The purpose is to leap browser technology forward so that Google (and others) can achieve their vision of making the browser the de-facto operating system for the new generation of web-based applications. This is exactly why Chrome is a threat to Microsoft. Not because it might displace or become more popular than IE, but because it will force IE and Firefox and all the others to play nicely with Google's applications. Once that happens, the traditional OS will fade into the background. The purpose is to displace Windows. It doesn't matter if its clunky, or rough around the edges, it will lead to key changes that are fundamental to the maturation of the web-based computing model. Microsoft beware - disruption has arrived.

I disagree that Chrome is a disruptive technology at all. The concept of the browser replacing the operating system has been around for a number of years, and is the reason that IE exists today.

The definition of disruption from http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology:

“Disruptive technology (or disruptive innovation) is a term proposed by Clayton M. Christensen to describe a new technology that unexpectedly displaces an established technology. This is contrasted with sustaining technology, which is viewed as incrementally improving or evolving technology.”

Based on this definition, Chrome is more of a sustaining technology that is trying to improve the existing browser technology that exists today.

Does Microsoft have to worry about the new model of delivering applications on a browser instead of an OS? Absolutely. They have been worrying about this for a number of years now. The advent of Chrome does not change this.