Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Chrome OS security will make Google's ads inescapable
One feature of Chrome OS that has been praised is its "totally new" approach to security. Chrome OS is going to self-heal, we're told. If the OS detects something malicious, a reboot simply restores files to their previous state as if nothing ever happened.
Now, this raises an interesting point. It's Google's OS, so obviously they'll be making the call as to what is or isn't malicious. Suppose they decide that includes anything which interferes with the delivery of Google-powered content. Things like the AdBlock or AdSweep extensions for the Chrome browser, for example.
Heck, first they'd have to make it into Google's Extension Gallery - Google could decide that the Chrome OS variety of Chrome won't install extensions from an untrusted source. That could be a security risk too, right? Either way, there's every chance that Google simply won't allow AdSense to be circumvented on Chrome OS.
So why would they bother? At its core, Google is in the advertising business. Chrome OS will put them in the unique position of having complete control over the delivery platform its audience is using. That's a pretty major win for Google.
Will anyone care? Maybe not. Heck, if they plan on giving Chrome Netbooks away like Glyn Moody suggests (or at least subsidizing the everloving crap out of them), I doubt I'd be bothered. Unless they're working on something shifty like that stuff Apple just patented...
Comments
11
Subscribe to commentsSam JordanNov 25th 2009 9:19AM
Hmm, I got to say if Chrome has Ads all over it - I seriously won't be using it. I'm not all against advertsing, but if Google is creating a OS so it can make money out of advertsiing on it, I'll stick with Windows.
Daniel BloisNov 25th 2009 10:00AM
How do you think they plan on making money? it is always about advertising!
dennisNov 25th 2009 10:00AM
Google has already been on record promoting the idea that access to the internet can be subsidized by advertising. Everything they do is more or less driving towards that idea. A free OS that drives down the cost of devices and is subsidized by ads while guaranteeing full, fast access to internet is a move along those lines. Basically, all of Google's services are available to the public for free, while Google tries to make money in ways that are unobtrusive and possibly helpful. I personally find their overall philosophy and the consistency with which they apply themselves to be more interesting and significant than the driving force behind most technology companies. Where Google has not yet been successful is in producing the reality of free networking. While the concerns of data privacy and constant targeted advertising are inevitably raised, people like free, useful stuff. There is no bigger advocate in the U.S. political system for free-to-the-public networking than Google, while there are many large companies who are naturally opposed.
NicholasNov 25th 2009 10:06AM
I can't help but feel that this is somewhat of a straw man attack on Chrome OS. First, Google has never made any effort to fight such plugins in Firefox. They've never even complained about them. Further, they've made it clear that Chrome and Chrome OS isn't about making money. It's about making the internet more usable. Finally, remember that Chrome OS is open sourced. Google has repeatedly stated that if there's anything in it that someone doesn't like, they can change it.
cyurkoNov 25th 2009 2:04PM
Google doesn't care if you turn off the ads or not as long as they can get companies to continue to pay to place ads.
NickNov 25th 2009 11:43AM
Who cares? Chromium OS is opensource, so tinfoil hat people can always use one of it's yet-to-be-announced forks.
Also, be glad that Google's ads exist at the moment. If it didn't we would both have advertising (AdBlock won't work forever as HTML, DNS, proxy draft specs will eventually be to complex to filter) AND high priced operating systems.
SilverWaveNov 25th 2009 11:48AM
Just flip it to Developers mode.
You can self-sign your own kernel or just ignore any warnings.
You are always in charge.
Google wont piss off the geeks - we are them.
whipit82Nov 26th 2009 7:39AM
"obviously Google will be making the call as to what's malicious" -- says who? Like #6 said, it's open source. If they don't provide multiple sources for blacklisting/heuristics, the (almost certain to be more-successful) community driven fork will.
Lee MathewsNov 26th 2009 7:40AM
It's not open source. Chromium is, yes.
Just like with the browser, there is a partially closed source version (Chrome) and the open source base underneath (Chromium).
bdgbillNov 30th 2009 1:50PM
I have never really understood ad blocking software. It kind of made sense back in the days of dial up when you may have to sit there tapping your fingers while ads downloaded. How long does it take to download a 150x150 pixel ad over broadband? Why are a bunch of empty white boxes any better than ads?
I suspect that many people who use ad blocking software do so because they get a thrill out of breaking the system of free content in return for viewing ads.
I use a lot of the software that Google gives away for free. Google's ads are welcome on my system anytime.
gundlach.businessDec 11th 2009 1:25PM
I am the developer for Chrome AdBlock (http://bit.ly/ChromeAdBlock ). I have heard nothing from Google about preventing my extension from running in Chrome OS next year.
- Michael