In contrast to that minimal experience, Google was seemingly working to bring the full might of Chrome to Fuchsia. To observers, this was yet another signal that Google intended for Fuchsia to grow beyond the smart home and serve as a full desktop operating system. After all, what good is a laptop or desktop without a web browser? Fans of the Fuchsia project have anticipated its eventual expansion to desktop since Fuchsia was first shown to run on Google’s Pixelbook hardware.
However, in the intervening time – a period that also saw significant layoffs in the Fuchsia division – it seems that Google has since shifted Fuchsia in a different direction. The clearest evidence of that move comes from a Chromium code change (and related bug tracker post) published last month declaring that the “Chrome browser on fuchsia won’t be maintained.”
↫ Kyle Bradshaw at 9To5Google
Up until a few years ago, every indication was that Google had big plans for Fuchsia, from “workstation” builds to porting Chrome to developers using Fuchsia for Google Meet calls, and lots of other improvements, changes, and additions that pointed squarely at Fuchsia being prepped for use on more than just the Nest Hub devices.
We’re about a year later now, and everything has changed. The workstation builds have been discontinued, the Fuchsia team was hit harder by the Google layoffs than other teams, and now the Chrome port has been deprecated. All signs now point to Fuchsia being effectively a dead end beyond its use on Hub devices.
At least Google had the decency to kill this before it released it.
Maintaining an entire operating system is a big task. Especially more so when it would target multiple, conflicting, use cases.
Look at Microsoft. They had Windows, Windows CE and later Windows Mobile (non-CE version). Had do consolidate on Windows proper only. And even when they tried to break out to tablet use case, we had a major Windows 8 era that nobody wants to remember (I might think even Vista could be more popular).
So, yes, giving up on some of the goals might be the right thing to do.
(Software engineering is about being able to scope the project correctly. Programming that scope is another matter).
sukru,
Except that trillion dollar companies don’t deserve this excuse. Much smaller entities are able to do it. A far bigger problem than “maintaining an OS is a big task”, is that non-dominant operating systems struggle to get a footing in the market. Honestly this is the real killer for alt-operating systems. And when speaking of google in particular, they’re the least committal billion dollar company ever to exist. Apart from it’s cash cow, I can’t think any other company that has less faith in it’s own skunk-work projects. Google managed to build marketshare during the dotcom era, and they can ride that indefinitely. But they are crippled by risk-aversion and I honestly don’t know that google has what it takes to ever succeed at anything else ever again.
This comment hit the nail right on the head.
Alfman,
You might have been right, if Fuchsia was already a developed system with active users (though Google is definitely not doing well on that either, I agree with you on that one).
However, …
This is the exact point it stops being a “skunks-work” project, and real decisions has to be made.
Google has two options:
1) Invest in Fuchsia as a full fledged desktop operating system
2) Draw a reasonable boundary where they can actually support this
For (1), the problem is, they have to justify having a competitor to their own in house Chrome OS, which is also (a) lightweight, (b) supports Chrome, and more importantly (c) is mature and has much wider hardware and partner support.
Fuchsia has actually replaced Chrome OS, though. The original Cast OS in smart devices was based on Chromium, and for Google TV is was replaced by Android, and for basically everything else is is replaced by Fuchsia (or is in the process of being replaced).
So, this gives us:
1. Fuchsia: For low power or single purpose devices (like smart displays)
2. Android: For mobile phones, tablets, and full fledged TV
3. Chrome: For laptops and desktops (along with Linux and Android subsystem support)
Which would be reasonable. Wouldn’t it?
sukru,
What even is the point in starting things they’re not going to finish or see it though? It seems like they work on lots of projects until they get bored with them and then toss it. I wouldn’t know this first hand, but it almost seems like they too much money to care whether anything works out.
I can’t expect them to finish anything for my sake, but I for one was actually looking forward to an alternative to android on mobile (as we’ve discussed before).
Alfman,
Ah, yes, having Fuchsia as a “top level” operating system would be great. At least maybe we’ll see that in an alternate universe where things progressed differently.
But for this particular one, it was not about boredom. “Boredom” happens a lot in Google (there are entire sites dedicated to graveyard of Google projects). There is also Fear (like Stadia which would have required billions in additional funding).
But this is plain old corporate “cost optimization”.
The sadder part is the layoffs. They could have used all those engineers in other projects. Someone who can code a WiFi driver from scratch in Rust, is probably also capable to implement any new features in Chrome OS, or even Android. But Google’s recent strategy is … (can’t find the correct word here).
sukru,
While I understand your point in principal. I’d say google is particularly bad at that. Google keeps spending millions on projects only to shoot them all down later. They’ve failed to learn from failures (over and over and over again). In “normal” business this doesn’t make sense, nor is it sustainable. Google’s monopoly cash cow may be helping to protect google executives from an arguably destructive and counterproductive way of setting up projects to fail. I’m willing to get the benefit of doubt to the employees, who are talented and ready to launch successful projects. It is the company that failed them rather than the other way around.
I do not like that Google cancels so many things that it has released but I applaud their willingness to experiment and wish more companies would.
As per the 80 / 20 rule, the investment in creating something to the current maturity level of Fuschia is a small fraction of what it would cost to actually bring it to market as a competitor to Android. It is maybe 80 / 20 to get to product launching and then frankly it is 10x the cost from there. In relative terms, Google has spent very little to this point. It is exactly the right time to kill it if you are worried about using money wisely. It looks though that, rather than kill it, they have just figured out where it makes sense. It is probably more correct to say that they are focusing. Which means the amount of money spent exploring desktop use-cases is even smaller. Let’s not forget, they still know the results of that experiment. What they spent the money on is acquiring information and they still have that. Money well spent.
Having to finish everything you start is how you get wrong-headed white elephant projects that become business school cases of how great companies failed. Sure, you get some cool stuff. It is how you get the concord aircraft. What it is not is how to create a profitable or lasting company.
Not starting things that won’t finish is somewhat the classical approach. However, not starting things is not how you drive creativity and innovation. In my view, the greatest companies start things, learn a lot, and have the discipline to walk away from ideas that don’t make sense. If Google could do that consistently, I would applaud them.
What you do not want to do is constantly provide solutions to customers ( or other stakeholders ) that you then claw back. Google has done too much of that. That said, we get equally upset when things happen in a vacuum or when good ideas are denied the attention they need to find validation. It is a difficult balance.
tanishaj
I still don’t have any respect for google’s management style. They have hundreds/thousands of employees working on a project only to throw them all under the bus by discontinuing their project. As a company, it’s google’s right to spend millions and hire/fire developers as they please, all while pretending their jobs actually matter. But personally I don’t respect that way of doing business. Google can afford not to care about the success of their projects because of their cash cow, but frankly a smaller company behaving as irresponsibly as google does without a cash cow would have gone out of business many years ago. Project cancellations can/do happen, but its so systemic at google that evidence strongly suggests a leadership problem.
At least they failed fast this time..
What we don’t see is the (likely) years of trying to get hardware suppliers on board. Lovely to have it for some internal products but that is Far more expensive than “off the shelf”.
Fuchia sounded cool but for years was a kinda/sorta thing. I wonder if the reality of it is there is little compelling in the design (other than giving Google a cut) for manufactures/suppliers
Exactly. Also, Google can take most of the code from other projects.
jgfenix,
I am not sure you have looked at these “other projects”. But…
Android is a mix of C, C++, Java, and Kotlin:
https://android.googlesource.com/
Chromium is mostly similar (minus Java):
https://github.com/chromium/chromium
And then there is Fuchsia:
https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/fuchsia
https://github.com/vsrinivas/fuchsia
Which is C++ and Rust. They can’t take drivers (which are usually in C), or UI (which is in Java).
And the security design in the kernel is significantly different.
How do you expect them to just share code?
A little of many things. I’ve heard:
Not securely designed/coded ( according to others I’ve heard. I’m not able to verify).
Not enough revenue potential to continue.
Google doesn’t have the org structure to do big things any more.
Fuchsia was intended as a plan B for Oracle’s dispute about Java.
@Alfman,
maybe there is a much more positive message hidden here: Large amounts of money and unlimited resources backed by a huge company with the finest brains don’t guarantee success!
And this means, there is always a niche for independent minds and lots of opportunity, when you are just ready to step in and pick it up.
Andreas Reichel,
I may be pessimistic, but I don’t think the mobile market is open for business to new startups with limited resources. (or the browser market, etc). It sucks, but success in mature markets often comes down to monopoly power, bundling, exclusive partnerships, etc, I think only the tech giants could pull it off by using their dominant positions. Google has almost infinite resources to do anything, but lacks the mojo and conviction to make anything more of itself.
Small businesses have the opposite problem, often forced to reinvent themselves and not nearly as much money to do it with.
I beg to differ: power is nothing without control. Evolution is not about the strong vs the weak but the fittest and most agile against the sluggish.
Show me one big planned success story, drafted on a whiteboard “waterfall down”. I know only tesla and this has been on the brink more than one time.
Instead, all major success stories have been big surprises (Linux, BitCoin, FaceBook (meh!), ChatGPT) coming out of nowhere and nobody saw it coming.Show me just one exception please!
Having worked in and now working for large Banks and Insurances I can tell you: size is a curse. They are too big to carry their own weight and can’t bring their power down to the road. They may delay it by monopoly practices but their decay is inevitable and always opens the room for new sprouts. Like a fallen giant in the forest.
Andreas Reichel,
Have you ever played monopoly? Once things reach a certain point, the imbalance of power and control create an irreversible feedback loop. Skill no longer matters anymore. Although reality is a bit more complex than the game, this phenomenon is very significant in shaping opportunity for the masses IRL. The power and control that market incumbents have, especially those with monopolies and duopolies, often tends to become more important than their agility. So much so that blocking competition can become their new focus/expertise and this has been getting stronger, not weaker. They keep getting a larger share of GDP while smaller businesses get less and fail.
Even those with talent struggle to compete against significantly bigger fish. Conventional wisdom is to give up old markets and find new markets, and I’d agree this will maximize opportunity. But these days even new markets like AI are highly tilted in favor of those with big pocketbooks.
Many people, myself included, like the ideals of free market capitalism, but I think a lot of adam smith anecdotes need to be revised for end-game capitalism. If society fails to do anything to avoid this outcome, then markets will continue consolidating until every single one turns into a monopoly or oligopoly – if so, this future sucks for opportunity and vertical mobility.
You cannot compete with monopolies or giant corps doing what they do. Like cities, large companies are more efficient than you think they are despite all the visible waste. They have resources you don’t and so, in a war of attrition, they win. The opportunity lies in doing what they are not doing. If that has value, you can be successful.
Technology in particular shows the lie to the idea that monopolies cannot be beat. Think of huge tech companies in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s and think how many of them are even around now, nevermind dominating like they were. The companies that dominate now perhaps did not exist then. There are some, like Microsoft, that have impressively re-invented themselves. You could talk about Apple the same. Even IBM to some extent.
tanishaj,
We agree on that.
I also agree new markets are the best opportunity. The tech industry, by virtue of being new, still has some of the best opportunities, although these aren’t necessarily accessible to people of moderate means especially when competing against entities with much deeper pockets.
Well to be fair, I don’t think anybody said what you are claiming. You might have a monopoly in a shrinking industry that becomes less relevant. Or you might go up against a monopoly with a monopoly of your own. These things can and do happen. But if we’re talking about starting up a new business without the benefit of easy money, then the economic outlook naturally becomes more pessimistic for the smaller fish.
Bill Gates was very lucky to have personal connections promoting him within IBM over others they could have gone with. IBM created microsoft’s early OS monopoly. If microsoft did not have IBM to their fill sails and maybe even had to compete against IBM, microsoft would have likely joined the others we never hear about today. Sure we can say good for Bill, but there’s no denying he benefited from privileged family wealth and connections.
Personally I give more credit to apple as an indy startup. They had a hard time competing against MS, at least until they made some good investments in mobile taking them to the top of the market, which I give them credit for. I don’t know how much longer they would have lasted as a computer company competing against windows.
Well, the opportunity lies in doing what they are not doing, and some how prevent them from doing it or get lucky and catch them sleeping. IBM was only outsourcing the OS because they were trying to catch up with Apple and wanted to squash the lower end from out competing their mainframe./terminal business. And Microsoft just bought a smaller company’s operating system and slapped their name on it. And that was just a bad clone of a better design.
Just luck all around for Microsoft that and copying other companies ideas or out bidding them for employees: WinNT, Netware, Netscape, Borland, Office, Azure. Teams, Skype.
TakeMyClassHelp is here to present its online math class-taking service. We know how hard math classes are, but not anymore – with 24/7 constant support from our 180+ highly qualified math experts with a proven track record of more than 9,000 orders delivered on time. Not just that, we promise A/B grades only and deliver plagiarism-free work only with 100% originality, keeping your academic integrity sound and safe. Email or WhatsApp us right now and get a free quote for your online Math class.
https://takemyclasshelp.com/take-my-online-math-class-for-me/
I am not taking about the kernel. I am taking about what runs on top of the kernel: Shelly, display server, utility libraries (libjpg &similar), basic utilitirw, etc.
That’s really a sad day for the future of Linux.
I really hoped Linux could get an excellent microkernel with stable API/ABI, alas, won’t happen.
And that’s despite Google being flush with money.
Artem S. Tashkinov,
I’m confused by your statements, do you mean Fuchsia?
Linux changing to a microkernel seems a bit out of reach IMHO. A stable ABI would be quite doable if you could get project leaders on board. The unstable ABI as it exists today today is no good for an OS that is in the mature phase of it’s life, IMHO. It creates way too much developer churn, lowering efficiency. Also it breaks both forwards and backwards compatibility of modules on android/arm, which leaves many stuck on kernels that cannot be upgraded. This consequently can lead to more e-waste.
IMHO the benefits of stable ABI outweigh any cons, but historically many linux leaders are resistant to changing their ways. I’d be ok with some kind of compromise, like well planned changes periodically every few years with major version bumps. But this probably would have had a better chance at happening if a competitor like Fuchsia would have lit a fire under Linux dev butts. Without any serious competition in the FOSS kernel space, linux can afford to remain complacent with no real risk of being displaced.