Richard Stallman rages again; this time over Chrome OS

Richard Stallman has his sights set on a new rights related target. The outspoken founder of the FSF believes that Chrome OS and cloud computing are "worse than stupidity." Stallman also believes that Google's push into "careless computing" will result in the loss of rights for users.

Here we go again.

"In the US, you even lose legal rights if you store your data in a company's machines instead of your own, the police need to present you with a search warrant to get your data from you; but if they are stored in a company's server, the police can get it without showing you anything. They may not even have to give the company a search warrant."

Chrome OS shifts the traditional computing paradigm and moves all of the users data to the cloud. All applications are webapps and are run through the browser. Google has also recently released its CR-48 netbook to lucky testers, with a final version of the OS and hardware expected next year. Living in the cloud isn't the type of life Stallman is hoping for. He believes "cloud computing" is strictly marketing fluff targeted at convincing users that letting someone else control their data is a smart move.

"Let any Tom, Dick and Harry hold your data, let any Tom, Dick and Harry do your computing for you (and control it).' Perhaps the term 'careless computing' would suit it better."

Stallman even goes so far as to brand Chrome OS users and by extension cloud-adopters, suckers.

"I suppose many people will continue moving towards careless computing, because there's a sucker born every minute. The US government may try to encourage people to place their data where the US government can seize it without showing them a search warrant, rather than in their own property. However, as long as enough of us continue keeping our data under our own control, we can still do so. And we had better do so, or the option may disappear."

Although Stallman's typical demeanor often serves to invalidate and condemn his opinions, at least in this case what he is predicting could be partly right. For users to feel truly safe, Google will have to satisfy that their data is theirs: Private and under the same controls as data stored at home.

Img Credit: Cranky Matiu

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

WP7 updates "Mango" and "Apollo" detailed

Next Story

Daily Gaming: December 15, 2010

106 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Cloud computing can be good in a corporate setting, if each company has its own cloud, hence what is currently called their "intranet". But for individual users, it's a terrible idea, because people lose control over their data.

smooth_criminal1990 said,
Privacy issues asside, what happens when your internet connection drops out?
What happens when someone hacks the cloud and takes all your data?

smooth_criminal1990 said,
Privacy issues asside, what happens when your internet connection drops out?

Well Chrome apps function or will function off line. Moreover internet connections will become more and more reliable in the future. When the first modern car was invented there was no gaz pump everywhere. It does not mean, cars were a bad idea.

Voice of Buddy Christ said,
What happens when someone hacks the cloud and takes all your data?

Well somebody can come into your house and steal everything. Perhaps you should not have a house after all.... In the case of cloud computing though, chance is that you may have a good pro quality back up somewhere.

yes you should: get drunk and have fun one night.... two years after you complete University, apply for a job and... puff, here they have a picture of you drunk.
Just the first example that came in my mind......

Fritzly said,
yes you should: get drunk and have fun one night.... two years after you complete University, apply for a job and... puff, here they have a picture of you drunk.
Just the first example that came in my mind......

If a company can find a picture of you drunk on the internet it means that you can find it yourself. So just clean up a little bit, no big deal.

albucian said,
If a company can find a picture of you drunk on the internet it means that you can find it yourself. So just clean up a little bit, no big deal.
Except for the angry ex-girlfriend who publishes that picture and won't take it down.

Voice of Buddy Christ said,
Except for the angry ex-girlfriend who publishes that picture and won't take it down.

Well this angry ex girl friend could do a lot of other things against you and you would not be able to stop her. Everyday life is not designed to prevent any action from angry ex girl friends, why the internet should?

So this guy's argument is that I should be worried because the government and big corporations can read my emails easier, see what music I like, look at some drunk night out photos etc...?

Care?

hate it or not. That guy doesn't make thing up. You give data to google you need to be aware of the risk.

MLB killed off content that their customers paid real money for. MSN Music did the same thing to their paying customers. MSN Spaces is scheduled to die in a couple of months, taking all your blog posts with it. Did you have a Yahoo Briefcase? GOOG-411 shut down just a few days ago. Ever read the fine-print of some service that stated everything you uploaded to their service essentially belonged to them?

Although there have been quite a few paid services that stole people's money like this, there were far more free services that simply disappeared, taking your data or services you found of high value with it.

Oh sure, Big Brother getting to your data without your consent is important. But not quite as important as data loss. You're going to trust your data to a free service from Google?

[Seth & Amy] Really? [/Seth & Amy]

I think "the cloud" is just the latest fad, and it will pass like all other fads. But it will leave some useful things behind. One major issue is the fact that reliable internet access simply isn't ubiquitous, particularly on the go. Things like cell data networks are neat and work well enough for smartphones, but they are ultimately spotty, slow, expensive, and in most cases, data limited. Broadband penetration in the US is pathetic, and public wi-fi availability is basically non existent.

Yes, all of this could change in time, but until it does, any large scale shift from the desktop to the cloud can't and won't happen. And even if data access does become ubiquitous, I just don't see it taking off. Cloud makes a lot of sense for things like e-mail and calendar. And cloud SYNC is great for data. But beyond that, it simply leaves a lot to be desired.

I agree with him. Cloud based OS's and Programs have little benefit for the consumer and are more about software companies exerting heavy-handed control over their creations. These companies want everyone paying subscription fees to insure a steady stream of monthly income. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to be paid, there is something wrong with not being able to fully use what I paid for when my net connection goes down or I am forced to show my papers (validate) every 30 days. I'm not even going to bother to discuss my disgust with trusting my data to off-site 3rd party idiots that can't even secure their own stuff, let alone mine. One thing I find odd is that since these companies are so hell-bent on cloud computing, why are they not fighting metered billing concepts tooth and nail? After all, the more they demand use of the net to access their products, the more bandwidth Joe Sheep is going to consume. Joe Sheep can't do that if greedy, extorting, cheap-ass, double-dipping, money grabbing ISP is thumping at the door every month wanting paid $2 extra for every precious GB over his severely capped limit can he?

I swear, the **** that companies, lobbyists and politicians are shoving down our throats now makes me sick....

He's right, all that cloud and SaaS is taking the control and management of information property from companies/final users. Is like Apple with itunes, you don't own the physical media that holds the music that you can resell, lend, or keep for as long as the medium exists.

With the cloud, you don't know where the data is, is just in a "cloud" a server, virtual server, of in some other country or God knows where.

I guess he's right. But at the same time, its up to the users to decide what is and isnt acceptable use. I use things like Google Docs a lot, but I used it for sharing recipes, quick spreadsheets with no real importance, etc. I don't keep personal information available there. If the Google OS does not provide people with the option to store secure local files and off the cloud, well then I'd imagine it will be deemed unsafe and not used by the general populace. I honestly don't see that happening though...I still have some faith in humanity, and Google. It's all conjecture; time will tell.

To each his own.

I think Cloud Computing is going to change the playing field, and Google is leading the way. If one nut says a few things right for once, than so be it. Give everything time before just dismissing it off though. I see ChromeOS as the perfect solution for Netbooks though. Not full desktop computers.

I am not a massive fan of cloud computing but I will be buying one of these notebooks as I think there is no harm in trying the new Operating system. It might become big, you just do not know.

BTW, we have Dr. Richard Stallman now in Libya at the ACIT 2010 (just google it), and I've met him personally, as scientific man with a very interesting ideas, he's fantastic and out-of-the-box thinker... But as a person, his ego is above expectations and you can't ask him nor have a conversation with him without moving his attention to his netbook, leaving you "rudely" to wonder what was your mistake!
I'm not judging him, because our meeting didn't last more than 1.5 minutes (yes, I counted the seconds!) to have a photo with him and wanted to ask him about his opinions about Google Android as an open source software, but canceled the idea cause he returned to his netbook.
I think that was rude from him...

(About the Google OS thing, I'm sharing Dr. Stallman concerns about privacy, but I think the Google needs more time to prove their concept... I'm a big fan of them and their softwares.

zombieChan said,
You're the only person I know who calls him Dr. Richard Stallman.

This is what he has written at the registration forms (I was in the organizing committee)... Also if you check Wikipedia you will find that he has several Honorary doctorates, which I think assures him the Dr. title.

Ahmad M. R. said,

This is what he has written at the registration forms (I was in the organizing committee)... Also if you check Wikipedia you will find that he has several Honorary doctorates, which I think assures him the Dr. title.

Honorary doctorates mean nothing, nada, zilch in the real world... just because you did something bid to get a universities attention to have them give you one, doesn't mean you are a true doctorate

i think if you need to lease cpu time, go to the cloud - 90% of the time, i dont. i never need to lease storage - it is cheap. if i have to carry a laptop, i'm already carrying enough storage for more than i could ever want or use. other than services, the cloud is not the right solution to most problems.

I hate cloud computing because it places data out of the users' hands, he's right for once. Setting up your own server for the cloud makes some sense, especially in a corporate environment.

Angel Blue01 said,
I hate cloud computing because it places data out of the users' hands, he's right for once. Setting up your own server for the cloud makes some sense, especially in a corporate environment.

Totally. Many corporate infrastructures have been using stateless, disk-less network bootable workstation solutions for many many years already. Seems like a natural progression since most of that infrastructure is viewed through a web interface already.

Sad thing is people do this daily and as a ritual on Facebook. You know how much private data people post in status updates/tweets. Whats the difference here? This seems to be old news on a larger scale compared too Chrome OS as a specific outlet. You notice everyone's pushing the kind of DRM that requires a constant internet connection. This is just one more reason to require every living soul on the planet to be hooked into the "net". Its going to get so bad sooner or later your going to need an ISP to turn on certain house hold fans cause it'll query your local weather details to determine the proper RPM's the fan should spin based on heat index, humidity and over all temperature..

//FYI I'm filing a patent on that concept later this day

Wow, I must be the only one. In the Cloud means better backup and I don't need to worry about it. Sure there is a file with all my passwords that I keep locally but unless I am writing a book or something, I don't care where it is being stored. Oh boy, the police might check my pictures that I took? Better hide those pictures I took of me commuting crimes.

babyHacker said,
Wow, I must be the only one. In the Cloud means better backup and I don't need to worry about it. Sure there is a file with all my passwords that I keep locally but unless I am writing a book or something, I don't care where it is being stored. Oh boy, the police might check my pictures that I took? Better hide those pictures I took of me commuting crimes.

It's alright babyHacker, someday when you grow up and are l33tHacker, you will understand better and not try cheezy over-simplifications of a complicated topic.

Why does everything have to be done on the "cloud" or not? You can currently backup files online as well as having offline, physical choices. Cloud-computing should be integrated into services that we use presently and made optional, rather than envisaged as a complete replacement.

Also, it's not about having anything illegal to hide, it's about privacy. I'm surprised how someone could portray it as such a non-issue.

who ever thought this would last,is a sucker google is just ****ing me off because there trying too hard to be everything all at once, they should of stopped at andriod and thats it. No way in hell will i give all my public and personal data to a cloud, perfect target for leaking our info for hackers and possible identity theft, windows skydrive is just perfect, no forced use but there when you need it

I don't care about these things. Google do it for money in the end, yes, by selling info to advertisers to target their ads, yes. Now, what is the problem? I'd prefer targeted ads over non-targeted ads, that's for sure.

Northgrove said,
I don't care about these things. Google do it for money in the end, yes, by selling info to advertisers to target their ads, yes. Now, what is the problem? I'd prefer targeted ads over non-targeted ads, that's for sure.

, I'm speachless, you are the kind of person that is making privacy an outdated term

I think some will enjoy the cloud while others won't. For the average computer user cloud computing will probably be alright, I think it is a great way to add on to the success of Android and the iPhone. Those already use cloud computing in some way and users seem pretty cool with that. Cloud computing is not for everyone though. I mean for me I am on Photoshop, Indesign, and Solidworks a lot during the day, performance wise having local storage makes more sense. Just because you don't agree with cloud computing or won't use it doesn't mean its bad for the average users.

Don't have time for any detail, but I couldn't agree more. Sad thing was I never really thought about it....not considering doing that anytime soon so I guess thats why. I'm agreeing with the FSF...wow...first time for everything

I also don't trust placing my info on the cloud. Regardless of which company it is. Which is why i use bogus info on the internet. Another big concern i have is, even though i don't trust the cloud, what is stopping say your friends who uses some of googles or microsoft cloud services and places in your contact info. For example, i had a friend who added in his friends contact info while using the google maps services. He had input their name, addy, phone number, photo (if possible) etc, so he could quickly call up the directions. Now if you want to put your own info on the cloud go right ahead, but to be adding in other people's private data into the cloud is something i don't really agree with.

For neufuse:
Cloud computing means that the calculs are processed on a server and not on your computer.
Internet is just a network that link computers. Why would you compare these 2 things?

albucian said,
For neufuse:
Cloud computing means that the calculs are processed on a server and not on your computer.
Internet is just a network that link computers. Why would you compare these 2 things?

*slams head on desk* because Microsoft is the one confusing the terms, not me, gawd people read what I wrote

Too bad most of the people won't care about this, and Chrome OS will success in the market.. Of course power users will be aware but this kind of trends in the information age, can't be stopped tho.

Mocosoft said,
Too bad most of the people won't care about this, and Chrome OS will success in the market.. Of course power users will be aware but this kind of trends in the information age, can't be stopped tho.

If you use an ISP, you already let someone else see your data. Your mail will pass their mail server, and your information will be snoopable by doing traffic analysis. It's only your data when it's on your own computer, but everything you do online is already in other's hands. The stuff you post on Neowin, the games you play online, the searches you do are stored regardless if you use Google or Bing, the videos you watch on YouTube and the comments you make there, the news you read, and the cooking recipes you like are tracked.

Many people today already use their laptops much like a Cr-48, spending 90% of their time online. In that case, this new OS and this new laptop won't change much.

Northgrove said,

If you use an ISP, you already let someone else see your data. Your mail will pass their mail server, and your information will be snoopable by doing traffic analysis. It's only your data when it's on your own computer, but everything you do online is already in other's hands. The stuff you post on Neowin, the games you play online, the searches you do are stored regardless if you use Google or Bing, the videos you watch on YouTube and the comments you make there, the news you read, and the cooking recipes you like are tracked.

Many people today already use their laptops much like a Cr-48, spending 90% of their time online. In that case, this new OS and this new laptop won't change much.


Untrue. In cloud-computing, your web apps that replaces local software will have data going in and out of the internet, and worse, the apps will be processed by a foreign machine.

So while currently, whatever I do on the internet is definitely not as private as what we may wish, what I do on locally-installed software will still be private if I want it too. This option will not be available on ChromeOS.

When you drive your car, do you remove the license plates when you go to the strip club?
When you buy a porn magazine, do you use only cash?
When you go to the cinema to see a rated movie do you put a mask on your face?

Why things should be so much more private on your computer than in the rest of your life?

I suppose that for every progress there will be skeptics and diehards.
Cloud computing is an amazing opportunity for everybody in the world to access knowledge and computing power using cheaper equipments.
You guys want to trash that just to save your putative little privacy. Just unplug your computer and turn off you phone, you'll be fine.....

I wasn't sure if the above was a sarcastic post.

albucian said,
Cloud computing is an amazing opportunity for everybody in the world to access knowledge

No, the Internet is an amazing opportunity for everybody in the world to access knowledge.

albucian said,
... cheaper equipments

I'm pretty sure the current method is overall cheaper than cloud-computing.

albucian said,
Just unplug your computer and turn off you phone, you'll be fine.....

How does that apply to cloud-computing?

Dude if you cut half of my sentences what's the point. I said "knowledge and computing power". When you interrogate google maps for example you need computing power that is not just from your own computer. This is not just the web with hyperlinks....
The cheaper equipment I'm referring to are the laptops used by each individual not the servers.... When you only access the internet and use web "applications" you don't need a 1000$ laptop anymore.

albucian said,
Dude if you cut half of my sentences what's the point.

Dude, the last 3 words weren't half of the sentence or even half the point you were making.

albucian said,
When you interrogate google maps for example you need computing power that is not just from your own computer.

I don't have a problem with Google Maps as I'm not sharing or storing a significant amount of personal data on the Internet.

albucian said,
When you only access the internet and use web "applications" you don't need a 1000$ laptop anymore.

So will my current Internet connection be sufficient when I move to cloud-computing? I won't need to pay any more per month, will I?

Manish said,

Dude, the last 3 words weren't half of the sentence or even half the point you were making.

Well it was the 3 word making the difference between cloud computing and classic internet, so yes it was kind of relevant to my point.


Manish said,
I don't have a problem with Google Maps as I'm not sharing or storing a significant amount of personal data on the Internet.

So I suppose you are not using any advanced functionality of google maps involving the detection of your location or the creation of personal maps. A little sad.

Manish said,
So will my current Internet connection be sufficient when I move to cloud-computing? I won't need to pay any more per month, will I?

I don't get that. Why would you pay more?

This would explain why are all big players like Google or Microsoft moving to cloud. They want simply to control all users data and they does not care for their rights. It seems to be inevitable, but if you wanna protect your privacy only option in the future will be to use linux.

6205 said,
This would explain why are all big players like Google or Microsoft moving to cloud. They want simply to control all users data and they does not care for their rights. It seems to be inevitable, but if you wanna protect your privacy only option in the future will be to use linux.

except that chrome OS IS linux

XerXis said,

except that chrome OS IS linux

LOL i should write something like Ubuntu but then would other freetards attack me

6205 said,

LOL i should write something like Ubuntu but then would other freetards attack me

Not meant to be disrespectful, just saying that you can't generalize. Linux isn't the saviour of the world free world, there are many distro's

I also have to agree. Google has this 'all your data are belong to us' mindset and it's getting kind of old. I mean, my 82 year old Father who is already freaked out enough about ever purchasing anything online and having to hand over his CC# to a webform, definitely wouldn't be the target group for Chrome OS. I struggle to find what demographic they're after exactly, or if it's just anyone and everyone.

zkid2010 said,
I also have to agree. Google has this 'all your data are belong to us' mindset and it's getting kind of old. I mean, my 82 year old Father who is already freaked out enough about ever purchasing anything online and having to hand over his CC# to a webform, definitely wouldn't be the target group for Chrome OS. I struggle to find what demographic they're after exactly, or if it's just anyone and everyone.
Google is data mining company, they just want every piece of information they can get.

zkid2010 said,
I also have to agree. Google has this 'all your data are belong to us' mindset and it's getting kind of old. I mean, my 82 year old Father who is already freaked out enough about ever purchasing anything online and having to hand over his CC# to a webform, definitely wouldn't be the target group for Chrome OS. I struggle to find what demographic they're after exactly, or if it's just anyone and everyone.

+1, Well said!!!

the one thing I hate about "cloud computing" is the fact people are just using it as a replacement word for "on the internet" now... you get stupid stuff like "I'm going to post it to the cloud!" really? cant just say the internet anymore? (yes I know the universal symbol for the internet is a cloud) but we are just confusing people by calling it the cloud now...... to me a cloud is a distributed network of computers doing a task or running a program all over the world... not jus some website that is on a webfarm somewhere...

neufuse said,
the one thing I hate about "cloud computing" is the fact people are just using it as a replacement word for "on the internet" now... you get stupid stuff like "I'm going to post it to the cloud!" really? cant just say the internet anymore? (yes I know the universal symbol for the internet is a cloud) but we are just confusing people by calling it the cloud now...... to me a cloud is a distributed network of computers doing a task or running a program all over the world... not jus some website that is on a webfarm somewhere...

How about your "personal cloud" replacing intranet. Pretty lame.

Cloud computing means that the calculs are processed on a server and not on your computer.
Internet is just a network that link computers. Why would you compare these 2 things?

albucian said,
Cloud computing means that the calculs are processed on a server and not on your computer.
Internet is just a network that link computers. Why would you compare these 2 things?

Did you miss what I said? People are confusing the internet with a "cloud" I mean look at Microsoft's latest Live commercials, they keep saying "to the cloud!" to do something as simple as video confrencing or uploading images..... that gives people the impression the "cloud" is the internet.... nothing they show on those commercials are processed on distributed or networked computers external from your own, you are just pushing data to the "cloud"...

Glad to see others agree. Microsoft's latest "to the cloud" commercials are absolutely terrible! Non-techie people see those and ask "What's the $*&$&*( is "the cloud"?". And let me tell you, when they visit the website offered in the commerical it does nothing more than confuse them.

roadwarrior said,

You really don't get it do you? The reason that a cloud is the universal symbol for the internet is because in networking terms, that is exactly what it is. Perhaps you should read up on the subject some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

uh Cloud "computing" vs "Cloud" are two completely different things.... the internet isnt there as a "resource" that can be sold off like the old terminal days where you bought CPU time.... Cloud Computing is basically that, but CPU time on any number of distributed systems..... MS saying something is "in the cloud" just confuses people because they dont know the different between cloud and cloud computing..... if you would actually read and comprehend what I wrote you'd see exactly what I'm saying....

I'd love to see some references on his claims about search warrants for user data stored on Google's servers. Contrary to his statement, the police still need a search warrant (or permission from Google) to search Google's (or any other company for that matter) servers. His claim is equivalent to saying that the police don't need a search warrant to inspect the contents of a storage building that you leased.

roadwarrior said,
I'd love to see some references on his claims about search warrants for user data stored on Google's servers. Contrary to his statement, the police still need a search warrant (or permission from Google) to search Google's (or any other company for that matter) servers. His claim is equivalent to saying that the police don't need a search warrant to inspect the contents of a storage building that you leased.

Amazon and PayPal only needed a phone call from Us Gov. to end their services to WikiLeaks. You think Google will be on your side?

Glendi said,

Amazon and PayPal only needed a phone call from Us Gov. to end their services to WikiLeaks. You think Google will be on your side?

That is a great answer.

boumboqc said,

That is a great answer.


No, actually, it has very little to do with my statement. There is a huge legal difference between search warrants and requests for companies to deny services to someone.

roadwarrior said,

No, actually, it has very little to do with my statement. There is a huge legal difference between search warrants and requests for companies to deny services to someone.

Were you out of the Country when the story about AT&T and other carriers were spying their customers on behalf of the Bush Administration without any legal ground?

My data stay on premise; local storage is cheap while broadbandand related costs are and will keep going higher and higher.

ObiWanToby said,
^ I have to say, I am glad people here agree with him. I was afraid everyone was willing to go with the flow!

LOL Not all of us have drank the koolaid

ObiWanToby said,
^ I have to say, I am glad people here agree with him. I was afraid everyone was willing to go with the flow!

Been against it from day 1. I know what this means for our data and computing in general, and I don't like it.

I think he is largely right. This cloud computing stuff is pretty lame. Google's push towards doing everything in your browser just doesn't work for everyone. Their Google Talk client only seems to get updates on the web. Calling landlines only works in Gmail (with the installation of two browser plugins, flash and the google talk plugin). They canceled the Gizmo5 client

I just do not get it. In a time where caps could be placed on broadband, and local storage and power is quite powerful, why move everything away? Especially with all these hacks going on lately. Gawker, Ohio State, DeviantArt....

Honestly I like Microsoft's approach with real applications with services offered elsewhere. Google does this well with their "Google Apps". Outlook plugins, Word Plugins now ...

ObiWanToby said,
I think he is largely right. This cloud computing stuff is pretty lame. Google's push towards doing everything in your browser just doesn't work for everyone. Their Google Talk client only seems to get updates on the web. Calling landlines only works in Gmail (with the installation of two browser plugins, flash and the google talk plugin). They canceled the Gizmo5 client

I just do not get it. In a time where caps could be placed on broadband, and local storage and power is quite powerful, why move everything away? Especially with all these hacks going on lately. Gawker, Ohio State, DeviantArt....

Honestly I like Microsoft's approach with real applications with services offered elsewhere. Google does this well with their "Google Apps". Outlook plugins, Word Plugins now ...

He is not seeing the long term picture. We are probably about four years out from a version of Photoshop CS that runs in a browser (and no, not through remote desktop). Desktop applications will soon simply be legacy. People who are afraid of change will simply be pushed aside.

azure.sapphire said,

He is not seeing the long term picture. We are probably about four years out from a version of Photoshop CS that runs in a browser (and no, not through remote desktop). Desktop applications will soon simply be legacy. People who are afraid of change will simply be pushed aside.


I seriously doubt it. How many things promised to revolutionize everything and simply faded away? Hundreds, thousands. Maybe hundreds of thousands.

Conservationism is just too strong.

azure.sapphire said,

He is not seeing the long term picture. We are probably about four years out from a version of Photoshop CS that runs in a browser (and no, not through remote desktop). Desktop applications will soon simply be legacy. People who are afraid of change will simply be pushed aside.

That'll be one lame version of Photoshop.

I have my doubts about seeing a browser-equivalent (perhaps even a direct cloud-version) of Adobe Photoshop or Apple Final Cut Pro in 4 years' time. The sites posted above as examples may be impressive, but they're not in the same league.

As a corollary, I can't even see digital media overtaking physical media, such as Blu-Ray, in the UK in 4 years.

Glendi said,

Still lame. Where can I add my own set of brushes?


Oh **** off man, how can you call that lame? It's running in a browser ffs. Of all the technical wizardry taking place there, you pull out brush sets? How hard do you really think that would be to implement compared to the rest of the app? I'm sure they could manage it in 4 years.

DARKFiB3R said,

Oh **** off man, how can you call that lame? It's running in a browser ffs. Of all the technical wizardry taking place there, you pull out brush sets? How hard do you really think that would be to implement compared to the rest of the app? I'm sure they could manage it in 4 years.

Both of them have no use for me. They have no slicing tool to help me out slicing PSDs for converting to xHTML/CSS. So yeah, what they can manage in 4 years, Photoshop had it 10 years before. If you think those 2 apps are close to 10% of Photoshop's features, you're greatly mistaken.

Manish said,
I have my doubts about seeing a browser-equivalent (perhaps even a direct cloud-version) of Adobe Photoshop or Apple Final Cut Pro in 4 years' time. The sites posted above as examples may be impressive, but they're not in the same league.

I quoted myself as I wanted to add that the aforementioned pieces of software would also be 4 years more advanced. The browser-based versions need to match what these programs deliver by today's standards but we also need to take into consideration what 4 years worth of advancements will mean to the "offline" software. (I'm just using the "4 years", quoted above, as an example.)

Anyone who believes in an online version of Photoshop when most ISP *UPLOAD*speeds are limited to like 100kb/sec is believing in fairy tales...

treemonster said,
he brings up good points imho.

It simply will happen, because there are so many ways it will save time and money on almost every front. MS, Google, and Apple all know this. Each one is doing what they can to eather hang on, or grab their spot in cloud ownership. Admins, like myself, will not give up without being forced.

The next indicator will be the next version of server. What way will MS choose to deliver their content, before Google gets a WEB device into most everyone's hand?

People are fighting about end results, but the content "whatever it may be" is dependant on the delivery system. The OS, and providers. This will only be pushed faster if ISP's get their way.

careless computing..

Well, at this point somewhat. Honestly how secure do people think they are now? A program is a program on or off the cloud, depending on the delivery system. Is it somehow "more" difficult to break into a smaller set of computers, than a larger? If so ask yourself why? Also, if you never have the program code itself, unlimited access, unlimited usage, location restrictions, or anything not pre-determened by someone else, how is that for security?

Before things go any further into the cloud there needs to be new laws. There needs to be laws deviding "types" of intellectual properties in real ways. It is one thing to own a product, it's something else to have complete control and ownership of all conduits or tools to a set of products. As things are now, it's almost like saying "I made the first hammer, everyone who needs a hammer from now on will pay me".