Show me the Money $$$

The latest buzz is about Google and its foray into building an operating system for netbooks. Reporters love to report that Google is going after all of Microsoft's business. After all, people love any kind of competition and the news knows it (politics, legal battles, war). But no one in the press seems to be paying any attention to the fact that Google gives away all of its services that compete with Microsoft.

I have been arguing for years with people that free is not good for users in the long-term. When no one pays, there is no institutional commitment to the product. It's doubtful that Google is going to shelf Googledocs anytime soon. But if you build a business or an organizational process around Googledocs, what is the long-term commitment of Google if no one pays for the software?

Such is the question with a Chrome operating system. Google is absolutely correct that netbooks need a fast, clean, and fast-loading OS. But will people be able to use an OS that relys on bandwidth, which is how Chrome is supposedly built? I know I use my netbook for trips and traveling. I can think of many times I was at airports, beach vacations, and rural road trips where I had no bandwidth but still wanted to write, compose, work on a PowerPoint, or play a game.

More importantly, where is the revenue model for Chrome? Will Google finally leverage its brand and charge something for a product? Or will we be saddled with an OS that serves us ads while we're online? Or worse, a product which has no revenue stream at all.

Eventually, Google needs to grow beyond ads. The dent which the economy has had on advertising and the limitation for ad growth has turned Google into a mature company. While people consider them an innovator, I reserve judgement until they develop a product with an actual revenue model. Then we can call Google a competitor to MS.