Yep. But competition is always better than monopoly. Corporations are always going to be 'evil' (that's why the free market works so well) but a monopoly situation give you all of the downsides. Apple doesn't count: 90% share is a monopoly in my opinion. The top three monopolies I dislike are Intel, Microsoft and BT.

Right now MS's big problem is that they aren't catering to low powered systems, and even though Win7 seems to be step in that direction, if they aren't going to make a Win7 lite for notebooks and other such small machines (i.e. 1.5ghz/single core + 1gig memory + integrated graphics) they could be in deep trouble with the upcoming (although much extended) drop of support for XP.

If you can get Linux as a known alternative for users in a business environment (something that the Google name could do) it'll help the open source movement as a whole. Now could Google be worse than MS? Yes they could. But at least with the Linux kernel there will always be alternatives (Ubuntu, Mandriva, fedora, SUSE, Debian, etc). Heck the Linux kernel is so versatile that I have a machine at my work used for electronic parts placement and it uses a custom Linux distro.

What, in a typical consumers mind, is the difference between a Google clone and Linux as it currently stands. Both would be a viable alternative to the current leader, and Google (just like MS) would have the power to shape public opinion.

In other words MS >> (seems easier to ) Linux to the consumer to a degree that MS has some control over the market.

and possibly:

Google >> Google clone (in the same way).

THE GOOGLOCALYPSE HAS BEGUN

You know imagine this. No preinstalled op system in the future, you just download whatever system you want from the net. Ive just mentioned Google's cloud software which is taking market share out of Vistas pocket. Interesting......

Btw, Wasn't it your countrys biggest ISP AT&T who worked for the government? Cutting Edge special from last yr. Id be worried about any and all corporate giants. They do favours for the gov. and the gov. does favours for them.

That does worry me about Google but not nearly as much as that mountain of security bullship you get everytime you boot up Vista.

However it may have sounded, I was by no way defending M$.  I was just pointing out that Google isn't Mr. Inocent.  Many of these big corporations are in some way bad.  And America by no means has the monopoly on bad companies, the exist in every nation.  We just happen to be an economic powerhouse so we have more.

I only trust these big conglomorates about as far as I can through them.

 BT's monopoly is weakening, Virgin are going for it at large. It's as if Virgin has come from heaven, directly attacking BSkyB and BT (which they are essentially doing with the same bit of cable).

Google laptops sound like a terrible idea. I'm already worried enough that Google monitors my e-mail and my browsing habits. Why would I want it monitoring my computer usage? I don't understand why so many people that screamed bloody murder when Microsoft did something minor like decided to authenticate your OS every once in a while let Google have full access to pretty much the sum total of their life. Are people just that much of suckers for "free" stuff?

If this takes off MS is in trouble. While microsoft's royalties on a 1000$ computer are small peanuts, on a 300$ netbook they become significant. Linux and its ecosystem still have some issues... if Google can deliver a proper OS and ecosystem without royalties for netbooks, MS will take a huge hit there.

If a netbook runs for 6 hrs, boots up like an ipod and costs under $400..Im all for it.otherwise.. pass

google or no google..