First Chrome OS netbook expected this month(geek.com)
geek.com
First Chrome OS netbook expected this month
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/first-chrome-os-netbook-expected-this-month-may-be-google-own-brand-hardware-2010112/
3 comments
Netbooks just seem like a solution needing a problem to me. My kids have a netbook that I bought them for Christmas last year, but the greatly prefer using a regular sized computer or my iPad.
The problem: I want to browse the web (on the go) for long periods of time, on a reasonable screen and without a cord.
Potential solutions: Traditional laptop: nope. Probably < 4 hours battery, huge and heavy, overpowered for the task.
Phone: nope. screen is too small for comfortable web browsing, typing is slow.
Tablet: sure, this would work. But they're > $500, so that's a pretty solid commitment.
Netbook: yep! > 10 hour battery life, okay screen, perfect solution to "I want to browse the web on the go". They can be had for ~$200, so you can save hundreds by not going for a tablet.
Note: I own a netbook and love it (I have the new System76 Starling). I don't own a tablet. So maybe I'm biased.
Potential solutions: Traditional laptop: nope. Probably < 4 hours battery, huge and heavy, overpowered for the task.
Phone: nope. screen is too small for comfortable web browsing, typing is slow.
Tablet: sure, this would work. But they're > $500, so that's a pretty solid commitment.
Netbook: yep! > 10 hour battery life, okay screen, perfect solution to "I want to browse the web on the go". They can be had for ~$200, so you can save hundreds by not going for a tablet.
Note: I own a netbook and love it (I have the new System76 Starling). I don't own a tablet. So maybe I'm biased.
The problem: I want to browse the web (on the go) for long periods of time, on a reasonable screen and without a cord.
Once again, Apple has the right answer. Go lighter and not too small. I think there was a powerful economic incentive to go with smaller screens for early netbooks because one could still deliver laptop-like functionality with cheaper hardware. The problem with this is that the user has to pay with less comfort. The smaller Unibody Air still has a comfortable keyboard and a screen larger than most netbooks.
To make a profit: sell something with components like the 11" Macbook Air, with just as much performance and a comparably slick design but just a tiny bit thicker, with a plastic body, even less weight, and over 8 hours of real-world battery life. There are currently 11" netbooks, but they seem to fall short in one or two of the above aspects. (HP Mini 311 is close.)
Once again, Apple has the right answer. Go lighter and not too small. I think there was a powerful economic incentive to go with smaller screens for early netbooks because one could still deliver laptop-like functionality with cheaper hardware. The problem with this is that the user has to pay with less comfort. The smaller Unibody Air still has a comfortable keyboard and a screen larger than most netbooks.
To make a profit: sell something with components like the 11" Macbook Air, with just as much performance and a comparably slick design but just a tiny bit thicker, with a plastic body, even less weight, and over 8 hours of real-world battery life. There are currently 11" netbooks, but they seem to fall short in one or two of the above aspects. (HP Mini 311 is close.)
Or you could get a ultra low voltage laptop and have the best of both worlds.
(Good battery life and a decent amount of processing power)
(Good battery life and a decent amount of processing power)
Well netbooks have always been seen as a solution for someone who just wants to surf the web. In a lot of respects a full OS gets in the way of that. If Google deliver with Chrome (less than 4 second boot, focus on browsing and web apps, much cheaper than current netbooks) then it could reinvigorate the market for them.
I have a netbook that has been completely replaced with my iPad. (Browsing the web is a strong suit)
I think the netbook market is going to dwindle in the face of expanding tablet options.
I think the netbook market is going to dwindle in the face of expanding tablet options.
With an 11" or larger screen, better keyboards, and under 2 pound form factor, something like a netbook will still be able to give the tablets a run for the money. The problem to date has been keyboards/touchpads that have been too cheap and uncomfortable and screens that are too small. Optimize for surfing from the couch or the bed, and netbooks (w/physical keyboards) will still have a place. (Especially for those who post lots of comments!)
I have a netbook that I use for development when I am on the go. It's quite small and light and has a long battery life. I have apache, coucdb, mysql, php, etc. all loaded. I work on two web sites with it. I back up to a usb stick with mercurial, so in a couple of strokes everything I do on it is backed up to my dev box when I get home.
I have always loved the idea of a tablet since I had one that was supposed to read my handwriting and automatically convert it to text (never really worked well). But they have a ways to go before I could use one instead of a netbook.
Now, if Santa is good to me this year...
I have always loved the idea of a tablet since I had one that was supposed to read my handwriting and automatically convert it to text (never really worked well). But they have a ways to go before I could use one instead of a netbook.
Now, if Santa is good to me this year...
I actually found a problem that the EeePC 701sd solved magnificently.
I traveled around Asia for six months with one backpack's worth of gear. A full size laptop would have killed me, but that little 9" (8"?) netbook was perfect. Although, once I got back, I had no use for it, so I installed Ubuntu server on and got OpenVPN working on it.
I traveled around Asia for six months with one backpack's worth of gear. A full size laptop would have killed me, but that little 9" (8"?) netbook was perfect. Although, once I got back, I had no use for it, so I installed Ubuntu server on and got OpenVPN working on it.
>Netbooks just seem like a solution needing a problem to me. My kids have a netbook that I bought them for Christmas last year
So then the problem is what useless gadget to get your kids for Christmas.
So then the problem is what useless gadget to get your kids for Christmas.
Hacking code on the bus -- my 17" macbook pro isn't good for this.
Haha. I, too, insisted on the 17" when I got my new one awhile back. So delightfully impractical. But I wouldn't have it any other way.
Codename: "ThighScorcher" [Or are they running cooler now?]
My anecdotal evidence is the opposite.
Your kids prefer a netbook to a full-sized computer or iPad?
Yes, except it's me, not my kids (which are, as of yet, just a twinkle in my eye...).
I'm excited to hear that but also surprised.
When I checked on Chrome OS project page only a few weeks ago, it looked like the project had done very little of public mention since a year ago. And the video on the linked page with the demo is a year old.
And, I'm confused about what Google is doing with Chrome OS and Android. Google TV runs an old version of Chrome, stamped as a newer version, but is supposed to later run newer Chrome and Android apps. I know that Android isn't really mean for netbooks (even though it has been run on some), and I like the idea of Google providing an operating system that can run seemlessly like the rest of the web in a browser. But, it almost feels like these two efforts (Chrome OS and Android) should be managed by two different companies. I just don't see how the company can effectively focus on one or the other in marketing and not cause problems for the other: If I create an ad for Chrome OS that implies running in a web browser OS is smarter, that would be a slight against Android, even if it is unrealistic to run Chrome OS on a mobile device; similarly, if I create an ad for Android saying that people should buy Android because there are 50 million apps (not yet, but just an example) then that might be a slight against Chrome OS which may have many fewer apps available in the Chrome OS Web Store ( https://chrome.google.com/webstore ).
When I checked on Chrome OS project page only a few weeks ago, it looked like the project had done very little of public mention since a year ago. And the video on the linked page with the demo is a year old.
And, I'm confused about what Google is doing with Chrome OS and Android. Google TV runs an old version of Chrome, stamped as a newer version, but is supposed to later run newer Chrome and Android apps. I know that Android isn't really mean for netbooks (even though it has been run on some), and I like the idea of Google providing an operating system that can run seemlessly like the rest of the web in a browser. But, it almost feels like these two efforts (Chrome OS and Android) should be managed by two different companies. I just don't see how the company can effectively focus on one or the other in marketing and not cause problems for the other: If I create an ad for Chrome OS that implies running in a web browser OS is smarter, that would be a slight against Android, even if it is unrealistic to run Chrome OS on a mobile device; similarly, if I create an ad for Android saying that people should buy Android because there are 50 million apps (not yet, but just an example) then that might be a slight against Chrome OS which may have many fewer apps available in the Chrome OS Web Store ( https://chrome.google.com/webstore ).
The Android/ChromeOS strategy makes sense from Google's point of view. At this stage in the game, it's unclear whether the future of app development is browser-based or native, but it's incredibly important to get the answer right. So what do you do? If you're Google, you run a big A/B test and let the data decide.
Apple is doing something similar on a smaller scale by investing heavily in both webkit and native apps. In the short term it causes some developer and user confusion, but it's worth it to make sure they aren't left behind if web apps win in the end.
Apple is doing something similar on a smaller scale by investing heavily in both webkit and native apps. In the short term it causes some developer and user confusion, but it's worth it to make sure they aren't left behind if web apps win in the end.
I don't think it is an A/B test. They just want to dominate the web in the short and long term. The majority of their efforts support this hypothesis.
To own the web in the current day and age, they would want to:
- Own the browser (so they started the Chrome project)
- Own the OS (preferably using Chrome, to reduce complexity/overhead/duplication)
- Own the applications/be what people use (Google apps, App Engine, Search, Gmail, ...)
- Own the data (Search, Maps/Street View/Google Earth, Google Base, Google Apps, Google Groups, Gmail, ...)
- Make business dependent on Google (Search, Ads, ...)
To own the web in the future they would want to:
- Embrace web to transition world from client-centric/thick-client to fully browser-based that just happens to run on their browser. (I doubt they will make the browser pluggable, using the excuse that this would be way too complex.) Android does not further this purpose as much as Chrome OS.
Android was originally supposed to be a temporary solution to the mobile OS (like iOS, Windows Mobile, etc.). However, when it took off (exceeding their expectations, I imagine) they had to temporarily deprioritize Chrome OS. But, eventually mobile devices could run Chrome OS, at which point they'd ditch Android.
I think Apple is making a similar play now, heading towards the eventual "merge" of iOS and OS X, using the iOS model of controlling the apps sold via the app store in OS X until mobile devices are powerful enough to run (the future version of) OS X (after it has been redesigned to better support usage on a smaller screen without mouse, etc.). Except that Apple won't (in this century) ditch the significant investment in Cocoa for a browser-based OS.
To own the web in the current day and age, they would want to:
- Own the browser (so they started the Chrome project)
- Own the OS (preferably using Chrome, to reduce complexity/overhead/duplication)
- Own the applications/be what people use (Google apps, App Engine, Search, Gmail, ...)
- Own the data (Search, Maps/Street View/Google Earth, Google Base, Google Apps, Google Groups, Gmail, ...)
- Make business dependent on Google (Search, Ads, ...)
To own the web in the future they would want to:
- Embrace web to transition world from client-centric/thick-client to fully browser-based that just happens to run on their browser. (I doubt they will make the browser pluggable, using the excuse that this would be way too complex.) Android does not further this purpose as much as Chrome OS.
Android was originally supposed to be a temporary solution to the mobile OS (like iOS, Windows Mobile, etc.). However, when it took off (exceeding their expectations, I imagine) they had to temporarily deprioritize Chrome OS. But, eventually mobile devices could run Chrome OS, at which point they'd ditch Android.
I think Apple is making a similar play now, heading towards the eventual "merge" of iOS and OS X, using the iOS model of controlling the apps sold via the app store in OS X until mobile devices are powerful enough to run (the future version of) OS X (after it has been redesigned to better support usage on a smaller screen without mouse, etc.). Except that Apple won't (in this century) ditch the significant investment in Cocoa for a browser-based OS.
Except Google TV doesn't fit into that strategy; why have a version of Android that only runs a browser? Why have two browser codebases for Android?
Google is going to have a really tough time marketing this. It's a bold idea, which, one way or another, is probably the correct direction for personal computing. But the timing is just too soon. And I doubt people are willing to hand a golden key to all their data, documents, photos, passwords, everything to a single company.
Also I wonder if Google even realizes that the iPad has pretty much nuked the entire netbook market. Nobody really wanted these machines anyways, they wanted touchscreen tablets.
Also I wonder if Google even realizes that the iPad has pretty much nuked the entire netbook market. Nobody really wanted these machines anyways, they wanted touchscreen tablets.
Actually, I think quite a lot of people won't care about this golden key thing. If they did, they wouldn't be using Facebook either.
It's a reference platform, it's job isn't to sell - it's to be the hardware that programmers buy to test their chrome apps, so that when they don't work on random chrome-os tablet you know it's that tablets fault.
Back in the 386 days Intel used to sell PCs, they were expensive and not terribly good but since IBM didn't ship a 386 based ISA bus 'PC' you needed an official standard PC so you knew if it was Microsoft's fault your code didn't work or 'random PC maker'
Back in the 386 days Intel used to sell PCs, they were expensive and not terribly good but since IBM didn't ship a 386 based ISA bus 'PC' you needed an official standard PC so you knew if it was Microsoft's fault your code didn't work or 'random PC maker'