“It’s pretty much a brick,” says Pawn Stars’ Rick Harrison as he rejects a Samsung Chromebook brought in by an actor playing a customer. Microsoft really doesn’t want you buying this thing.
But why? Just how big of a threat are Chromebooks, Google’s oft-ridiculed web-only laptops, to Microsoft’s core business?
I’m puzzled too. It doesn’t seem like Chromebooks are that big of a threat – why create terrible advertisements that only provide Google with free publicity?
Didn’t we just have this discussion a few days ago? Glitch in the Matrix?
Locked down machines that can be managed with limited capabilities and are cheap. Chromebooks are a threat for all the dumbest reasons.
And schools, because Google says they sell lots of Chromebooks to schools.
If this is true, this could influence a big part of the future adults.
One reason might be that on Amazon the #1 and #3 “laptops” being sold is a Samsung Chromebook and an Acer Chromebook.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/565108/ref=sr_bs_1
Another reason (jokingly) might be Microsoft gets a lot of royalties on patents in Android (in the order of $1 billion a year). Maybe Microsoft has royalties it can cash in on with Chromebooks as well. I mean… they make a lot of money and don’t have to support the product. What’s not to love?
Chrome is the gateway drug and Chromebooks are the full on addiction.
Google has successfully turned Chrome into a runtime environment and created an app ecosystem that is platform independent. Once people are using Chrome apps the obvious conclusion is to get rid of OS X or Windows and use an operating system dedicated to running Chrome.
Chrome was a great play, and Google has done a good job of looking where the others weren’t while hiding its hand. Mozilla had an inkling of this with Prism, but that was more about being a code base to build applications off of. Google Gears was a first tentative attempt at creating offline web applications, but it was always limited by being an add on. Chrome is about being everything to the application. Everyone else was looking at the web browser as being a portal to web apps running on servers, and Google was looking at erasing the line between the two by making Chrome a runtime environment.
Now that I think about it, this is very similar to what Palm did with the OS on the Pre. It would be interesting to know how much inspiration came from Palm, or if Google was already working independent of Palm.
Except that it is not platform independent, since it depends on Chrome. Is there even a version of Chrome on Windows Phone? Or Blackberry? Or FirefoxOS?
I think he means hardware platform. Chrome comes on ARM and Intel x86. Windows RT is tanking where as Chrome is doing better. And since Chrome is free, you can have a lower cost system. It also requires a hell of a lot less horsepower than Windows 8 for the x86.
Yeah… in the sense you are talking about Chrome Apps aren’t platform independent – because those platforms don’t run Chrome. But that is because the platforms Chrome doesn’t run on (iOS and Windows Phone) actively block any efforts to port to them. I guarantee you if Microsoft and Apple didn’t explicitly ban 3rd party browser engines on their platforms Chrome would already be ported to them*… Im leaving out FirefoxOS because it is essentially already capable of running the same apps as Chrome with only minors changes – and the APIs are rapidly converging.
As for Blackberry… They died, didn’t you hear
Anyway, Microsoft and Apple don’t even have to support porting Chrome to their platforms – they just have to support the rapidly solidifying W3C standards underlying packaged web apps (in their own browsers) and they could run them as well. They choose not to…
The point though is the platform is (or at least will be real soon) W3C standards – not Chrome. Chrome is just an implementation of the runtime for packaged apps – its not the implementation.
* footnote – I don’t count Chrome for iOS as a real port of Chrome, as it is nothing more than a thin veneer around the system provided UIWebView. Its not really a browser so much as an alternate skin for Safari.
Edited 2013-12-07 07:27 UTC
Most of what runs in Chrome is the same that runs on pretty much every modern webbrowser.
that is like bitching about Win32 or Cocoa not being platform indipendant
Um, no it isn’t, since nobody is claiming either of those are platform independent.
Some other posters claim that these apps will run without having to have Chrome installed. In which case, that’s fine. At least if it catches on like Flash does, when a new platform rolls around, we won’t have to sit and wait for Google to port Chrome over, before the platform is actually usable.
LOL @ Windows Phone. How do you even count that? BWAH HA HA HA!!!
Good post. It’s the same reason the destroyed Netscape!
Maybe it is just as simple as that:
“Microsoft appears to be wary of the Chrome OS’ threat to Office and their apps, a threat that could undermine one of Redmond^aEURTMs most important revenue streams.”
No offense but I think you are giving Google a little too much credit… Yes, Google is certainly the poster child for packaged web apps, and the first browser vendor to put a real marketing push behind them (i.e. Chrome Apps) – but Google isn’t the only cook in the kitchen.
http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=58119&public=1
There is a fairly diverse group of people working on this, Mozilla, Intel, Samsung, Adobe, etc. Its not just a Chrome thing, although at this point in time Chrome has the most complete implementation. Quite a bit of the foundation of what constitutes a “Chrome Apps” was designed and built by Mozilla…
Prism and Gears (and also WebOS) were not dead ends – those are the technologies that got Google from there to here… And I don’t think Google has been hiding their hand at all – they are very open about their goals.
Again, I think you have a very Google centric view of this… All the major browser vendors are trying to do this – and they are mostly working together to do it. Google is certainly a bit ahead and have built up the most infrastructure for exploiting it for their own use – but its not a “Google” thing.
…What is FirefoxOS? There are of course differences between it and ChromeOS, but not many. From the point of view of a developer, most of the differences boil down to hardware specific stuff (FirefoxOS is primarily about phones, ChromeOS is primarily about laptops). They both run what are essentially packaged apps, and their apis are more similar than different (and rapidly converging).
Just saying, Its not Google vs everyone else.
It’s really strange because Microsoft is now sort of acknowledging chrome OS as a serious competitor to Windows which is actually good marketing for chrome OS.
Especially since Microsoft does such a terrible job with ads (although it’s not as bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ“>as ).
Chromebooks directly threaten Microsoft’s “convert people to buying apps through the monopoly Windows Store” model of the Windows 8 & RT pairing.
Chrome OS has the same compatibility with Win32 applications as Windows RT does (almost none!), and have similar levels of availability of “native” packaged apps (kinda crappy). The only Win32 app for RT is Office, which is having its lunch eaten by Google Apps…
So both Windows RT and Chrome OS come down to glorified web browsers for getting anything done, and honestly who’s going to choose IE over Chrome?
That, and as much as I like my Surface as a tablet, even with the pretty keyboard attachment it’s just an awkward “laptop”, being as you really need to place it on a… surface… for that kickstand and keyboard to be useful.
Chromebooks come in the familiar laptop format, so they just blow past Windows RT entirely and compete directly with Windows 8 on low-end Intel hardware.
Chromebooks also annihilate Windows RT on the freedom front. Yes, they’re locked down by default, but they run Coreboot on x86 or uBoot on ARM (open source firmwares!), and the x86 ones are easily flashable to wide-open versions of Coreboot that chainload SeaBIOS to boot whatever OS you want, whether that’s ChromeOS, a more traditional *nix desktop, or even Haiku. ARM is a little trickier but that’s mostly due to the bad SoC choices (Exynos) in the Samsung and HP ARM variants. A single device that lets me put it in retard mode to give to an inept relative or employee, or hacker mode for my use? Yes please!
Contrast this to Windows RT badged devices which are required to have permanently locked bootloaders.
Edited 2013-12-08 03:04 UTC
“eaten”?
Microsoft are just scared in general. Microsoft spent years building a super defensive, and for a long time very effective, defensive business strategy designed to protect Window’s position on the desktop and Office’s role at work.
Twenty years of defensive culture about their most important products bred a deeply defensive corporate culture.
Then in a shockingly short time all that defensive work was rendered almost irrelevant, Microsoft were quite suddenly out flanked and now find themselves in the utterly alien position of playing desperate catch up in the fasted growing and arguably most important tech markets.
It’s like some who has always believed in imaginary conspiracies suddenly falling prey to a real conspiracy, their paranoia has exploded.
It must be a deeply disorientating and worrisome time at MS, the current CEO is a lame duck, no new CEO has been anointed and a company built on corporate career ladders and fiefdoms is turning its organisational structure upside down.
And the cash cow products are ailing.
No wonder they are worried.
Hmmm, interesting point. But do you really think that Microsoft’s dominance on the traditional desktop and school and business use is actually in jeopardy? I’m not arguing, I’m just genuinely not sure. I would be the first to rejoice if the desktop/business computing market became more diversified, but I don’t see Windows / Office really fading in the near future.
I don’t think either is going anywhere anytime soon. What we’re seeing at Microsoft is an interesting thing though, Microsoft’s service orientation inevitably will make them more platform agnostic.
Xbox Music/Video launched on multiple platforms
Skype on multiple platforms
Office on multiple platforms
.NET Framework licensing restrictions removed for Mono in many libraries
Outlook on multiple platforms
Microsoft’s entire Azure stack including the SDK are cross platform. Hell, there’s a node.js VS plugin. By Microsoft.
Hell hasn’t frozen over, Microsoft is going head first into services and its something to take note of because they are a very tenacious competitor.
Also the tunnel vision that caused them to miss the mobile boat isn’t guaranteed to be there come the next disruption. They’re already well positioned in the living room and in hybrids.
What happens once the money train dries up in mobile phones like it did for PCs? Who will have the most diversified business still standing?
“Hybrids”?
I’m sure someone said the same about WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 once.
I’m sure Microsoft keeps that in mind, but it’s worth pointing out that neither of those systems had anywhere close to the level of market penetration that the Office ecosystem does right now.
I take that you are young, probably around your early twenties?
Yes, there were significantly less computers and computer users around back then but believe me when I say that the mere thought of something taking either WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3 out of the top spot would be derided as much if not more than the idea of something displacing Microsoft Office today.
Not even close. I actually own real copies of Wordstar 7.0d (my favorite word processor) and WordPerfect 5,1 for DOS, to give you an idea of how old I am.
WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were dominant in their time, but there are two differences between them and Microsoft:
1) They were not dominant as long. I think WordPerfect saw less than 10 years at the top, 1986 to 1993 or so. Lotus had a bit longer, 1983 to about 1993 or so as well. Micrsoft has been on top since then in both areas, which is roughly 20 years now, in both the Mac and Windows markets. Over that time, businesses have become more and more entrenched as well, as technology has evolved. In the 80s, your word processor and spreadsheet applications were independent pieces of software, these days office applications are all integrated.
2) As badly managed as one could argue Microsoft as a whole has been run of late, in the Office arena none of these problems are occuring. Office 2013 has been pretty succesful, and Microsoft hasn’t hesitated to make major changes like the ribbon interface in 2007 in order to keep ahead of competitors.
I’m not saying Microsoft will always be the number one office suite, but there is nothing right now that looks to put it in danger.
And Turbo Pascal, DBase, CLIPPER, Netware, VAX, …
I didnt think much about it either until recently, when I saw pushes for schools to start putting Raspberry Pi’s in their classrooms. The education system is broken in many places and they are looking for things like Linux and new teaching technologies as a way of bolstering their offerings.
One of the problem with reducing something as complex as a giant corporation like Microsoft down to a soup opera, is that one runs the risk of missing the forest from the trees. Because you’re only focusing on an arbitrary subset of the company.
If you look at it from a more quantitativeish metric like profitability, a different image emerges. Because as it stands MS is still one of the most profitable operations in the world. And at the end of the day that’s what dictates success for a capitalist public corporation.
And I say this as a person who tends to have little use for Microsoft’s products or technologies.
I do think the long term blend of corporate culture and business strategy shapes a corporations decisions over time. There are reasons Windows 8 is as it is and it has almost nothing to do with what Microsoft’s customers actually wanted. Windows 8 is a defensive response to the rise of tablets, it is an attempt to defend Windows rather than, say, an attempt to build a great tablet OS and experience for the customer.
It is true that at the moment, and probably into the medium term, Microsoft remain very profitable and very large, but they must see the same trends we can. The centre of gravity of personal computing is shifting to mobile devices (and MS had almost no presence in mobile devices), software prices and margins are declining across the board (and MS makes most of it’s money from software) and PCs sales seem stuck in a long term pattern of decline (and MS makes most of it’s money from PC related products). So any prudent manager at the top of Microsoft must be concerned and they clearly are.
Until comparatively recently the PC and Windows was utterly hegemonic in the world of personal computing, to all intents and purposes there was no alternative to Wintel products. As a result Microsoft was very powerful, it could set the agenda for the tech world, it could squash things it didn’t like and promote things it liked. For almost two decades Microsoft was feared and it’s power was respected by all. Now in a space of a few years all of that has gone. Microsoft is not powerful anymore, it does not set the agenda, it is ignored by many large tech players, it is no longer feared by anyone (except by some of the almost dead PC OEMs).
This is a new and deeply unnerving world that Microsoft finds itself in and its super sensitive response to things like Chromebooks is a sign of it’s deep corporate anxiety.
The failure of Windows RT and the Surface adds injury to insult
Meanwhile, some people install Linux on their Chromebook:
http://lifehacker.com/how-to-install-linux-on-a-chromebook-and-unlo…
And all of this will help the Linux ecosystem and the creation of new compatible hardware.
Install linux on it and the commercial with the paw fool is void.
Today mobile phones and tablets have made people aware that they actually can get things done with far less feature complete tools than their desktop office suit. Chromebook will extend that awareness to the desktop, and when that happens nobody will care much if MS Office have x features more than e.g. Google docs and much of the reason people still buy MS-Office will be gone. This is why Microsoft is so scared
Google docs has a long way to go before it even comes close to convincing businesses they don’t need Microsoft Office.
My company with almost 500 employees has already made the switch from Office to Google Docs. Now to be fair maybe 20 people still need Office for some extra functionality but it is a sizable savings now that we don’t need an Enterprise license with Microsoft. To be balanced we tried Chromebooks and they are not something we are planning to roll out in their current state as we do have some other corporate apps that require local installs.
You’d have been better off to switch to LibreOffice or something along those lines. Giving internal documents to Google? Remind me never to deal with your company.
Why? Because ChromeOS is comparatively weaker and puts Windows 8/RT in good light. This is not that complicated.
No, ChromeOS isn’t a threat. NO, Office isn’t in jeopardy (seriously? LOL), but yes it makes perfectly good business sense to capitalize on that weakness in order to hit Google (which makes a mobile phone OS last I heard).
That doesn’t actually answer the question: if ChromeOS isn’t a threat, why go out of your way to make it look like one?
Will Microsoft launch their latest campaign comparing Windows Phone 8 to BlackBerry, next?
Because Microsoft is going to kill ChromeOS in the cradle like they did the Linux netbook initiative. That was never a serious threat either. Nothing is a threat, until it becomes one. Then you’ll wish you had taken it seriously.
Right now its just an easy opportunity to tarnish the Google and Chrome brand, and make Windows 8/RT seem strong.
This is more a Windows ad than anything.
They’re scared shitless after they completely, utterly, and wholly missed the boat in mobile. They laughed the iPhone away. They laughed the iPad away. Now they are nowhere in either the mobile phone or tablet market.
I don’t think they missed the boat, so much as got off the boat before they could switch from sails to steam. Windows Mobile 6.x and prior was actually a major player in the pre-iPhone smartphone world. It had its bugs but it was a great OS if you needed a pocketable computer. They simply waited way too long to come out with WP7; it should have been in the works the moment the iPhone rumors began in the mid 2000s. If it had been released to the public around 2008, it might have become a major competitor to Apple. Instead, they didn’t really get started working on it until the iPhone 3G and first Android devices were released, and continued to sell outdated and woefully unsupported WM 6.x in the meantime.
They are scared because there are millions of users that believe a computer equals internet access all other software you can have on Window these users have no use for it; they just want to browse, read Email and chat with their friends which chromebook does very well. Students with limited budget could do most of their work using Chromebook, with new features added on each update even power users like Chromebook.
Chromebooks are a threat to Microsoft simply because they provide with free technologies what Microsoft charges big bucks for. ChromeOS is a free ecosystem system built around other free tools such as Chrome, Google Documents, Gmail, Picassa and myriad other quality, stable technologies. It’s also free from malware and rooted in the rock stable Linux kernel.
With Microsoft’s technologies there are hefty licensing fees for Windows itself, which comes with basically nothing. Then you have to pay more for Office, Microsoft Money, etc., etc., etc. Plus you need anti-virus and anti-malware software which McAfee and Norton are only too willing to charge you for as well. Add something like PhotoShop and now we’re talking $1000 in software that you must pay every other year to upgrade. Users are forced to put up with bugs, or bonehead decisions like removing the Start button all because they’ve been brainwashed to think that higher price means higher quality. I haven’t used proprietary software in over a decade and there’s nothing I can’t do with my computers.
Or get Open/Libre Office for Windows, it’s the most popular variant.
Avast is a free anti-virus and anti-malware.
GIMP also works well and is better than anything Cchrome/Picasa offers (the latter also has a nice Windows app of course).
Like it or not, running Windows does give you the nicest all-around options, also free ones.
I think Microsoft is scared of losing it’s strongest and most profitable end-user product: Microsoft Office. With Chromebooks, more people will use Google Docs.
Microsoft is already seeing the dominance of Windows wane and I think they’re used to that idea after Mac and Linux have been eating away at Windows for decades. After all, they still have Office.
They are NOT used to the idea of Microsoft Office losing dominance and losing their last stronghold of dominance would be frightening as they’d would not dominate anything anymore. They are already working on bringing Office to Android and iOS as losing Windows’ dominance means they will have to increase platform support of Office in order for Office to retain its dominance.
A Chromebook is a double whammy to Microsoft. No Windows, no Office, no Microsoft at all. What will Microsoft do when it doesn’t dominate anywhere?
Microsoft’s best bet is to get Office working on Chromebooks ASAP and ensure it remains superior to Google Docs.
Office already works on Chromebooks via Office 365, which is putting serious hurt on GAFB.
It’s actually worse than that for Microsoft. Through bundling deals, and general market dominance, they’ve made sure that people think a computer means Windows. Apple’s had its own niche at the high end, but for the general public Macs were this weird special type of computer that doesn’t run anything.
Chromebooks make the case that you can have a computer that’s not running Windows and still do what you want, and they do it at a price point that makes the masses notice. Even if a non-tech user decides to get a Windows laptop anyway, they’ve had to think, “Well, I can get this Chromebook. It’s cheap, gets no viruses, and has great battery life. Ehh…but maybe I’ll want to pirate a game some day. I’ll get what I know.” Then when their computer stops working or runs really slow or they’re fighting with the Windows 8 interface on a non-touch-screen laptop, they’ll remember they had options. And puts a crack the dam around Microsoft’s laptop+desktop market dominance.
That’s what Microsoft is scared of.
Microsoft only has 2 profitable products. WIndows and Office. Those 2 prop up the entire company. For those who want to mention xbox, look at the reorganization of Microsoft products. Xbox is now in the same division as the patent holding fees. So while the division looks profitable, $2 Billion of that is from Android licensing and such. Take that away and the xbox isn’t really making much money. Now you have other companies starting to threaten the two golden geese. If I were a stock holder I would be extremely concerned. While Microsoft won’t lose all its business ever, what will a downward spiral do to stock prices and the companies future.
Well, that’s not completely correct. Their entire server line has actually been pretty good for several years. Active Directory, Microsoft SQL Server, and basic file and print all work well. They have their challenges (Exchange and Sharepoint, I’m looking at you!), but all in all they have a good story to tell to the enterprise.
Their development tools are also pretty decent. I hear developers raving about Visual Studio and Team Foundataion Server all the time. I never hear that about Eclipse, for example.
That said, however, it’s true that the really big moneymakers are Windows desktop licenses and Office. They also drive a lot of the server side purchasing decisions. As those dry up, the demand for their server products also drop. IMO this is what really has Microsoft running scared. If they ever see major penetration of alternative personal devices into the enterprise, then all that lovely revenue from server products and consulting work dries up really quickly.
If that does happen, what do they have to fall back on? XBox? The disastrous R&D and initial launch still haven’t been paid for yet. Even if they had finally paid off that technical and monetary debt, it’s an awfully small slice of Microsoft’s revenue. MS would be a much smaller company if that’s all they had left.
These days, everywhere Microsoft turns they face credible threats. For example, I’ve been watching what’s happening with SteamOS. Valve is working hard to sell the concept to a lot of AAA companies that are already doing cross platform development in the console/PC space. It’s a long shot, sure, but it drives right at the heart of Microsoft’s living room strategy.
Meanwhile, the Chromebook is apparently making headway in the personally owned laptop space, former Microsoft only OEMs are putting a lot of effort behind Android tablets, enterprises are looking at cloud based services and FOSS software in the server space…
If I were a truly talented CEO or CEO candidate I don’t know if I would want to throw my hat in the ring for Microsoft’s top job right now. Why go to work in a company with so many negatives and very little long term prospects?
Edited 2013-12-08 18:49 UTC
Google is creating an ever larger ecosystem on the Net. Android is huge and it is really just a device to deliver Google services. Chromebooks deliver those same services. If people are already committed to Google services on their phone, they might not really need anything more than a Chromebook. I think a lot of tech minded people fail to see how much the smartphone/tablet market is changing the way the majority of people use and interact with technology.
Microsoft and Google aren’t competitors any more than the US democrats and republicans are. They just want you to think they are. You guys are all playing right into their trick.
Microsoft are scared becuase many people will realise that a Chromebook is all they need to browse the web, talk to their freinds, do their facebook/twitter, tweak a few uploaded photos from their android phone, edit a document with sufficient features (bold, centre, underline, font, image, table…), video conference, … and more…
… without the need for an expensive overly complex operating system with buckets and buckets of years worth of unnecessary software.
Plus they go wrong less often. And don’t seem to need anti virus, nor a geeky neighbour/friend to “set things up” …
.. for most people you don’t need to worry if the device breaks, your emails, photos, documents are all safe somewhere else.
Most people don’t need 80% of the software installed with Windows (by byte volume).
This. Most of my non tech guys need a laptop to watch movies, browse, email and most important of all facebook
. Virus free is a big plus as well.
PNaCl is crossplatform, but developers will sit on the fence until it has market share. Once it has marketshare in terms of ChromeBooks it will take off on other OSes too and Windows risk fading away. So yes, Microsoft probably tries to give the platform a bad reputation to prevent it from taking off. If it takes of it will completely undercut Microsofts business model across the board. With OpenGL in browsers and near machine level IR representation for the code the possibilities are near limitless. Chrome is just a low overhead mediating layer between the program and the OS. Basically a compatibility layer. Why wouldn’t Microsoft fear this technology?
Actually I don’t think Microsoft should be scared of the new shiny VT100 terminals from Google.
They are giving them too much importance.
VT100? Please more like a VT05
Yes I’m old enough to have used one.
Not that old, but I did use green phosphor terminals connected to AS/400, Aix and DG/UX systems.
Edited 2013-12-09 07:45 UTC
My theory why Chromebooks bother Microsoft is that previously, when a computer was sold with Linux preinstalled, it was easy to claim for Microsoft proponents that Linux would just be replaced with a pirated copy of Windows.
Now the ARM Chromebooks cannot run Windows at all, while on the x86 Chromebooks installing Windows is only possible after flashing a BIOS.
Nelson,
Microsoft was able to kill the netbook because makers still had to ship Windows machines. What leverage does Microsoft have against Google? None. Google doesn’t need to also sell Windows machines. Samsung and Acer are big enough that they probably just don’t care what Microsoft thinks, since Microsoft would just be hurting themselves by going after large OEMs.
The landscape is a lot different than it was a couple years ago.
Edited 2013-12-08 04:39 UTC
I don’t think I implied they were the same beyond suggesting netbook Linux was a nascent threat like ChromeOS is.
If linux was such a nascent threat one can only wonder why it was nessesary to resurect xp in such a manner. And why they demanded that the netwooks should be even futher crippled…
Nomather how much time you spend on saying the opposite ms and their products are getting more and more irrelevant. They will have to start listening to the people who buys their products. The “we know it all” stategy wont work anymore. There are plenty of other options now that ms cant bully
That’s simple. Chromebooks are actual computers which come with reinstalled OS which is… not Windows! Barely you ever see more substantial Linux sold in regular stores, but Chromebooks on the other hand are quite widespread. It brings dread to Microsoft, since preventing alternative operating systems from reaching consumers through making twisted deals with common hardware manufacturers was their main tactic of retaining the sickening Windows monopoly.
I personally don’t see Chrome OS as something worthy of interest, but on the other hand it can be sufficient to some significant amount of people, and that already makes a dent in Windows domination.
Edited 2013-12-08 06:03 UTC
If PC sales are falling faster after the release of Windows 8 something needs to be blamed to save face.
Chromebooks are a semi-plausible excuse.
The problem is Microsoft has been historically anti-web/online.
If anyone remembers the pain of getting a PPP or SLIP connection in windows 3.1,
Than Microsoft had to concede to popular demand and gave easier network access in Windows 95… However IE at the time was very basic, enough to download Netscape. They were trying to push people using MSN.
MSN as an AOL replacement failed as people were really wanted to get onto the web. So They beefed up IE in Windows 98 and started the browser war. Microsoft Goal in this browser war was to take control of the standards, and force people on Windows particular controls such as Active X (which we are still suffering the consequences from).
Now Microsoft needs to be sure that they held onto their key advantage over their competition access to software. Sure you had some big titles for Apple, but most software was for Microsoft. And if a lot of these titles were moved to the web and accessible by anyone on any OS, they will loose market share.
Microsoft won the first browser war, however failed in its objectives, as it created a slue of security flaws that cause people to move to Firefox then to Chrome.
Now with Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Pushing hard to support the new HTML standards. Web Applications are far more robust and full feature then ever. There is less of a need for a full OS.
So I am not surprised that MS will push its few advantages over the Cloud based software.