7 Reasons Google OS Won't Be Revolutionary

An author insisted that Google OS is not a revolutionary product as many people buzzed out. When I read the article first, I couldn't agree with him because I thought Google OS, which simply changes a browser into a desktop, would allow more developers to create desktop application easily. However, now I am believing the opinion after I read another article. Here's the extract from the Japanese article.

I believe that Google OS will not be "Revolutionary OS" but be "Revolutionary faster OS", though. I mean, that OS will not cause innovation for users. Here's 7 reasons for that.

1. Google is not Apple.
Only "top-down" management can make UI revolutionary. Only the company which has a genius management like Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, and Shigeru Miyamoto, Senior Managing Director of Nintendo, can innovate the UI and the user experience from scratch.

2. This seems not "20% project".
Google's revolutionary idea always comes from "20% project". An unofficial project run by a few engineers become official, appreciated internally. This is the way Google launches a "revolutionary" project. In such a case, Google discloses many substances such as dynamic demos and technical documents right after the press release. See Google Wave. This time, Google doesn't have any evidences. That's because the project didn't come from "20% project" and started as "80% project" from the beginning.

3. Linux is already light enough and fast enough.
Some might not agree with my idea, but I believe current linux is already sufficient for Netbook. Slightly lighter is enough, Google could optimize the OS without rebuilding it totally.

4. No reference to native client.
Google has an ambitious project named native client. If Google really intended to create "revolutionary" OS, it would have referred to the project.

5. Google's "Revolutionary OS" will harm HTML5 agreement.
One of the most important missions for Google now is to establish HTML5 standard. So far Apple and major cell phone vendors have agreed to it, however, the agreement would collapse if Google released a revolutionary client OS. Google OS can't be more than HTML5.

6. Few can provide "Revolutionary OS" with the driver software.
Hardware vendors need to provide "revolutionary driver software" for "revolutionary OS" because of the totally different hardware architecture. There's not so many vendors which can develop such driver software.

7. "Revolutionary OS" that Microsoft can't follow will affect negative to Google.
The best scenario for Google is that Microsoft releases HTML5 compliant web browser. If Google OS is full of proprietary functions which Microsoft can never follow, Microsoft will turn to the different battlefield. As a result, Microsoft would have to go its own way. So, the most important function for Google OS is to be caught up by Microsoft within some years. This means that IE becomes HTML5 compliant and light browser, which reduces the workload of web developers in the world to the half. The lighter the burden becomes, the richer web develops. It's the most desirable future for Google.

Not all the bookmarkers agreed with him and I haven't yet approved the idea entirely, but it's an interesting opinion.