How Google plans to rule the computing world through Chrome(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
How Google plans to rule the computing world through Chrome
http://gigaom.com/2013/05/22/how-google-plans-to-rule-the-computing-world-through-chrome/
13 comments
I agree that ChromeOS as a base operating system is difficult to imagine but I think that the new rich GUI is moving towards HTML (beyond its use for browsing). Flash, Silverlight, and WPF will be replaceable very soon. Metro has a similar goal but less "standard".
I also prefer to have the opportunity to use the browser engine as a rich GUI but develop in any programming language (like Python or C#). It seems like this is not the Google vision because there is not an official Google's WebKit COM bindings for Windows while Apple has a good Javascript/Objective-C integration.
I also prefer to have the opportunity to use the browser engine as a rich GUI but develop in any programming language (like Python or C#). It seems like this is not the Google vision because there is not an official Google's WebKit COM bindings for Windows while Apple has a good Javascript/Objective-C integration.
Using HTML to create an entire user interface seems entirely reasonable to me, and a hell of a lot more pleasant to work with as a developer than the traditional way of doing things.
Yes, one area where Microsoft is ahead of Google is in designing interfaces within the IDE. Probably this trend is changing since Android Studio but I am waiting for the HTML/CSS/JS Studio (not Aptana/Eclipse).
This is really off topic, but could you speak to the battery life of the pixel running Debian? What you're describing is exactly what I'd like to do.
Seems to run between 4 and 5 hours. Not great, but it seems to be about in line with what people get with ChromeOS.
Also I run >3.9.0 kernels from git for clickpad/touchscreen support. Other than that everything is from Wheezy.
Also I run >3.9.0 kernels from git for clickpad/touchscreen support. Other than that everything is from Wheezy.
You're confusing me, honestly. If you have a Windows box, and want to view photos, would you settle for Paint? No, you'd be nuts to.
So when you want to browse pictures from your phone on your Chromebox, upload them to flickr, and the experience is awesome.
When you want to watch some videos on your Chromebox, you watch Netflix Instant Watch, or YouTube, or Google Play Movies, and the experience is awesome.
It's like you're comparing Vanilla Windows to Vanilla Chrome. Why are you tying one arm behind your back, like that? Install some programs on that Windows box, and use the best of the web on your Chromebox.
So when you want to browse pictures from your phone on your Chromebox, upload them to flickr, and the experience is awesome.
When you want to watch some videos on your Chromebox, you watch Netflix Instant Watch, or YouTube, or Google Play Movies, and the experience is awesome.
It's like you're comparing Vanilla Windows to Vanilla Chrome. Why are you tying one arm behind your back, like that? Install some programs on that Windows box, and use the best of the web on your Chromebox.
But you wouldn't use Paint. The Windows Photo View and Explorer actually do a more than adequate job. Windows Media Player too does a reasonable job of playing video. Netflix, YouTube and Google Play Movies don't solve the problem of plying my videos. The Mac, modern desktop Linux distos and Windows support the functionality that the OP and you crave out of the box - as do most tables, including the iPad. I just don't see where Chrome OS fits in.
Yes, YouTube does solve the problem of playing your videos. And sharing them with your friends. And archiving them, in case of disaster. If you're willing to use YouTube, of course. If not, you can use Smugmug or Flickr or Vimeo or...
ChromeOS is inherently an operating system that uses the internet to solve users' problems.
Expecting ChromeOS to have BUILT-IN ways to do what you want to, is kind of silly, in my mind. I validate that you may reject the design idea, but you're forcing it into solving problems in a way it was inherently and intentionally NOT designed to solve them.
ChromeOS is inherently an operating system that uses the internet to solve users' problems.
Expecting ChromeOS to have BUILT-IN ways to do what you want to, is kind of silly, in my mind. I validate that you may reject the design idea, but you're forcing it into solving problems in a way it was inherently and intentionally NOT designed to solve them.
Viewing photographs and videos is something that ChromeOS does. It is not asking too much of it to do it well.
They gave it the ability to play videos and pictures offline because even they know it is absurd to expect the user to upload all their videos and pictures.. at least prior to viewing them. They just did a half-assed job of it.
I tried looking for programs on ChromeOS to install to fix these things, the offerings are either universally abysmal or for once Google has completely failed at search because I failed to find anything that wasn't abysmal.
They gave it the ability to play videos and pictures offline because even they know it is absurd to expect the user to upload all their videos and pictures.. at least prior to viewing them. They just did a half-assed job of it.
I tried looking for programs on ChromeOS to install to fix these things, the offerings are either universally abysmal or for once Google has completely failed at search because I failed to find anything that wasn't abysmal.
In the analogy, Chrome is Linux.
If you want a full-fledged system, you use GNU/Linux, or probably a distro like Ubuntu.
If you want a full-fledged system from Chrome, you use the Internet.
You can text edit with sed, but that's not how anyone uses Linux, in real life, right?
If you want a full-fledged system, you use GNU/Linux, or probably a distro like Ubuntu.
If you want a full-fledged system from Chrome, you use the Internet.
You can text edit with sed, but that's not how anyone uses Linux, in real life, right?
One might argue that a Linux distro without vi, ex/ed, or at least nano/pico, but rather just sed is ludicrous because no user operates like that.
If they included sed and intended it to be your text editor, as ChromeOS has included half-assed local picture and video playing (is this not what those things are for? Am I supposed to be using these things for stream manipulation, not picture/video viewing? Because if that is the case, their UI has failed to convey that.), then I would without hesitation assert that their distro was poorly considered.
If they included sed and intended it to be your text editor, as ChromeOS has included half-assed local picture and video playing (is this not what those things are for? Am I supposed to be using these things for stream manipulation, not picture/video viewing? Because if that is the case, their UI has failed to convey that.), then I would without hesitation assert that their distro was poorly considered.
I must inform you that there is a user who uses sed over all other text editors: me. I do use vi but I could easily survive without it; I have countless custom utilities that rely on sed. Surviving without sed would be difficult. Imagine a system that has pipes but where you cannot "write to disk"; where you do not have a TMPDIR for ed to use. With sed, this poses no problem.
Just out of curiosity - your resume was written in sed?
Actually, I used fmt. Then groff and ghostscript.
The job of fmt could be done with sed, of course. As many of HN'ers know, sed can perform the functions of many other UNIX utils. If used as an "all-purpose" program, perhaps it raises the possibility of the typical mantras about "the right tool for the job". But consider this: editing/transforming text (e.g. output from other programs) as a "job" is somewhat all-encompassing under UNIX. Everything can be a "file" and every file can be represented as "text" (e.g. ASCII, hex). What varies is the context in which you do this job of editing/transforming. It might be preprocessing source code (text) for gcc or maybe it's preprocessing a resume (text) for groff.
"When all you know is a sed, everything is a text." - Unknown
The job of fmt could be done with sed, of course. As many of HN'ers know, sed can perform the functions of many other UNIX utils. If used as an "all-purpose" program, perhaps it raises the possibility of the typical mantras about "the right tool for the job". But consider this: editing/transforming text (e.g. output from other programs) as a "job" is somewhat all-encompassing under UNIX. Everything can be a "file" and every file can be represented as "text" (e.g. ASCII, hex). What varies is the context in which you do this job of editing/transforming. It might be preprocessing source code (text) for gcc or maybe it's preprocessing a resume (text) for groff.
"When all you know is a sed, everything is a text." - Unknown
"Their distro" is the Internet.
A Chromebook without the Internet is ludicrous, because no user operates like that.
They might have been better off to not have the local picture and video player. They're the embarrassing "Notepad," if I want to make the analogy to Windows, again.
A Chromebook without the Internet is ludicrous, because no user operates like that.
They might have been better off to not have the local picture and video player. They're the embarrassing "Notepad," if I want to make the analogy to Windows, again.
"A Chromebook without the Internet is ludicrous, because no user operates like that."
I don't believe that anybody doesn't. Even android phones have better offline capabilities (Way better, and generally with less offline storage to boot) and people expect their phones to always be online.
I don't believe that anybody doesn't. Even android phones have better offline capabilities (Way better, and generally with less offline storage to boot) and people expect their phones to always be online.
"I don't believe that anybody doesn't."
Here are the devices I own that are always online, when they're on:
TiVo, Logitech Revue, Wii, Chromebook, Android 1, Android 2, iPhone, Desktop 1, Desktop 2, Laptop 1, Laptop 2, Laptop 3, Laptop 4, and Kindle Fire. (I might be missing a couple.)
I expect my Chromebook to ALWAYS be online. Not least of which, because my Chromebook has 3G, just like my first Android phone did.
Here are the devices I own that are always online, when they're on:
TiVo, Logitech Revue, Wii, Chromebook, Android 1, Android 2, iPhone, Desktop 1, Desktop 2, Laptop 1, Laptop 2, Laptop 3, Laptop 4, and Kindle Fire. (I might be missing a couple.)
I expect my Chromebook to ALWAYS be online. Not least of which, because my Chromebook has 3G, just like my first Android phone did.
"Expecting ChromeOS to have BUILT-IN ways to do what you want to, is kind of silly, in my mind." Why?
My VCR doesn't have any BUILT-IN movies.
I really, honestly don't mean to be crass, but the analogy is apt to me.
I really, honestly don't mean to be crass, but the analogy is apt to me.
Besides mudding the issue by confusing data with function, the Chromebook does have these features, and there is nothing about it that even indicates these features are deliberately second class citizens.
In this analogy your VCR has the ability to write an input source to a cassette, all you've got to do is hit the record button on the front of it but is incapable of writing to the first or last 10 minutes of the tape. VCR company considers cassette consumption to be the primary VCR use-case and is the use-case they are concerned with. Is it reasonable to complain about the substandard record functionality that they shipped? Is it reasonable to question the market viability of a VCR so needlessly crippled?
In this analogy your VCR has the ability to write an input source to a cassette, all you've got to do is hit the record button on the front of it but is incapable of writing to the first or last 10 minutes of the tape. VCR company considers cassette consumption to be the primary VCR use-case and is the use-case they are concerned with. Is it reasonable to complain about the substandard record functionality that they shipped? Is it reasonable to question the market viability of a VCR so needlessly crippled?
Is there anything in Notepad to indicate it's a deliberately second-class citizen?
My Roku doesn't have any built-in movies, my DVD player doesn't have any built-in movies...
It's not "needlessly crippled," it's brand new. Windows 3.0 would be seen as needlessly crippled if it were released today.
Look, if you don't like it, that's fine. But you can't convince me that it's not a viable product for many people, in many use cases. It might not be right for you, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that.
My Roku doesn't have any built-in movies, my DVD player doesn't have any built-in movies...
It's not "needlessly crippled," it's brand new. Windows 3.0 would be seen as needlessly crippled if it were released today.
Look, if you don't like it, that's fine. But you can't convince me that it's not a viable product for many people, in many use cases. It might not be right for you, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that.
Notepad doesn't need to indicate that it is second-class because standard end users don't give shits about text editing. Standard end users use word processors. Text editing is itself a second class activity; playing your videos and browsing your pictures is not.
> My Roku doesn't have any built-in movies, my DVD player doesn't have any built-in movies...
Yeah, I'm starting to think you are deliberately being weird. My complaint is not that my movies were not pre-installed on the thing.
> My Roku doesn't have any built-in movies, my DVD player doesn't have any built-in movies...
Yeah, I'm starting to think you are deliberately being weird. My complaint is not that my movies were not pre-installed on the thing.
DVD players can play movies, if you plug one in.
Chrome can play movies, if you connect to a site that has them.
Standard end users don't give shits about built-in apps in Chrome. Standard end users use web applications like Google Docs, Flickr, Facebook, Smugmug, and on and on...
Chrome can play movies, if you connect to a site that has them.
Standard end users don't give shits about built-in apps in Chrome. Standard end users use web applications like Google Docs, Flickr, Facebook, Smugmug, and on and on...
ChromeOS can play movies... sometimes.
Here is a fun use-case for you: A mother sits down in front of her laptop with a swanky 10GB/mo dataplan from Verizon. To her right is a SD card, on which are several videos of her children at their latest soccer game. She plugs the SD card into her computer, the SD card reader slot being one of only 5 ports that it has.
Can she watch her videos, without blowing through her dataplan?
With ChromeOS all bets are off. ChromeOS professes to support such a use case, as does her Android phone. Unlike ChromeOS, she can be confident that her Android phone will not let her down.
This isn't a reason why I don't use ChromeOS. My reasons for not using ChromeOS are weirder, and I do not fault ChromeOS for not meeting my needs. Rather, these are reasons why I could never recommend ChromeOS to friends and family, people I otherwise recommend software that I do not like to.
Here is a fun use-case for you: A mother sits down in front of her laptop with a swanky 10GB/mo dataplan from Verizon. To her right is a SD card, on which are several videos of her children at their latest soccer game. She plugs the SD card into her computer, the SD card reader slot being one of only 5 ports that it has.
Can she watch her videos, without blowing through her dataplan?
With ChromeOS all bets are off. ChromeOS professes to support such a use case, as does her Android phone. Unlike ChromeOS, she can be confident that her Android phone will not let her down.
This isn't a reason why I don't use ChromeOS. My reasons for not using ChromeOS are weirder, and I do not fault ChromeOS for not meeting my needs. Rather, these are reasons why I could never recommend ChromeOS to friends and family, people I otherwise recommend software that I do not like to.
Yes, you have valid complaints, for why you wouldn't recommend today. I think those complaints are going to go away, over time.
The world of 10GB/mo dataplans is as dead as the world of 14.4 Kbps modems, it just doesn't know it yet. Google Fiber is going to push the other ISPs kicking and screaming into the modern world.
When I record videos on my Android Phone, they're automatically uploaded to the cloud for me. I can view them instantly. There are Android Cameras / Videocameras coming to the market that do the same trick.
Also, I'll point out to you that people in Moore, OK are looking through rubble for family photo albums. If they'd been in the cloud, instead...
Also, Notepad professes to be a word processor. It sucks at it, and ChromeOS's native video-watching app sucks at it.
The world of 10GB/mo dataplans is as dead as the world of 14.4 Kbps modems, it just doesn't know it yet. Google Fiber is going to push the other ISPs kicking and screaming into the modern world.
When I record videos on my Android Phone, they're automatically uploaded to the cloud for me. I can view them instantly. There are Android Cameras / Videocameras coming to the market that do the same trick.
Also, I'll point out to you that people in Moore, OK are looking through rubble for family photo albums. If they'd been in the cloud, instead...
Also, Notepad professes to be a word processor. It sucks at it, and ChromeOS's native video-watching app sucks at it.
YouTube or any other Internet Only service does not solve the problem of playing my videos very well.
Why would I want to upload gigabytes of video instead of downloading a small program to play them locally? If I care about archiving things - why would I want to archive just my video files?
I don't think anyone expects ChromeOS to have many built-in ways of doing things - but I also don't expect ChromeOS to be very widely used because it's not solving users' problems very well at all. Unless of course...they add native apps ;) Then it could be something.
Why would I want to upload gigabytes of video instead of downloading a small program to play them locally? If I care about archiving things - why would I want to archive just my video files?
I don't think anyone expects ChromeOS to have many built-in ways of doing things - but I also don't expect ChromeOS to be very widely used because it's not solving users' problems very well at all. Unless of course...they add native apps ;) Then it could be something.
Yeah, at the very least I would expect ChromeOS to be good at playing videos out of that massive 1TB Google Drive offering that the pixel gets you. I mean, what else are you going to burn up 1TB on, if not video?
> Why would I want to upload gigabytes of video
To archive them. To share them.
> If I care about archiving things - why would I want to archive just my video files?
You wouldn't. You'd want to archive anything. I genuinely don't understand the point you were trying to make here.
> it's not solving users' problems very well at all
I disagree. It solves my problems better than most other devices. "Playing my videos," it does extremely well. Step one, I shoot them on my Android, so they're instantly uploaded. If I have a video that's not on Android, I upload it to YouTube to archive and share it.
Many people in Moore, OK are shifting through rubble, looking for family photos. I think backing photos and videos up online makes a ton of sense...
To archive them. To share them.
> If I care about archiving things - why would I want to archive just my video files?
You wouldn't. You'd want to archive anything. I genuinely don't understand the point you were trying to make here.
> it's not solving users' problems very well at all
I disagree. It solves my problems better than most other devices. "Playing my videos," it does extremely well. Step one, I shoot them on my Android, so they're instantly uploaded. If I have a video that's not on Android, I upload it to YouTube to archive and share it.
Many people in Moore, OK are shifting through rubble, looking for family photos. I think backing photos and videos up online makes a ton of sense...
I don't want or need to publish many of my videos or photos online. They are private; I'm a fairly private person.
Also - where am I supposed to put the terabytes of legally obtained digital media that I own? Can you upload every movie you own to YouTube? Furthermore, my NAS serves things quicker than any online service.
I also like a local player in case there's no Internet connection or if it's slow. I go camping in the mountains and my mobile provider has spotty coverage in remote regions.
So no, it doesn't solve the problem real well. I'll keep using my NAS and online backup service and general/full operating systems such as Windows, OS X, Debian and CentOS.
Also - where am I supposed to put the terabytes of legally obtained digital media that I own? Can you upload every movie you own to YouTube? Furthermore, my NAS serves things quicker than any online service.
I also like a local player in case there's no Internet connection or if it's slow. I go camping in the mountains and my mobile provider has spotty coverage in remote regions.
So no, it doesn't solve the problem real well. I'll keep using my NAS and online backup service and general/full operating systems such as Windows, OS X, Debian and CentOS.
> They are private; I'm a fairly private person.
You don't need to publish them. I have YouTube videos uploaded which can only be seen by me - with my two-factor authentication. I bet they're more secure than most backups that most HN'ers use.
> So no, it doesn't solve the problem real well.
I'd wager most users don't have terabytes of data, or need to watch movies when they go camping in the mountains.
Bummer it doesn't work for you, but I still think there a lot of people it would work for.
You don't need to publish them. I have YouTube videos uploaded which can only be seen by me - with my two-factor authentication. I bet they're more secure than most backups that most HN'ers use.
> So no, it doesn't solve the problem real well.
I'd wager most users don't have terabytes of data, or need to watch movies when they go camping in the mountains.
Bummer it doesn't work for you, but I still think there a lot of people it would work for.
> I have YouTube videos uploaded which can only be seen by me - with my two-factor authentication.
How can you be so sure? I think a Google employee or a three letter agency could probably look at them if they wanted to. What if Anonymous gets hold of them and wrongly identifies you as a bomber?
Also, I'd wager that most users don't need to have all of their videos, photos or other media available to them wherever they go or on whatever device they're using.
How can you be so sure? I think a Google employee or a three letter agency could probably look at them if they wanted to. What if Anonymous gets hold of them and wrongly identifies you as a bomber?
Also, I'd wager that most users don't need to have all of their videos, photos or other media available to them wherever they go or on whatever device they're using.
You wouldn't use Paint to view pictures on vanilla Windows. You'd use apps far better suited (and already set as default).
I think you still have a point in your comment though.
I think you still have a point in your comment though.
In Windows 3.1 days, I absolutely would have used Paint, if I were lucky enough to have it open my file type.
If you unplug both devices from the internet, there's absolutely no question at all which is superior - Windows, hands down, no argument from me.
But if you let a Chromebook get on the internet, and you're comfortable using the best tools on the internet to solve your problems... there's a lot going for a Chromebook.
Someone who says, "Well, sure, but what if you don't have internet???" Yes, that's totally true and valid. But I think it's almost equally valid to ask how well a Windows box does without power. In a lot of ways, a college ruled notebook and a No. 2 pencil has them both beat.
If you unplug both devices from the internet, there's absolutely no question at all which is superior - Windows, hands down, no argument from me.
But if you let a Chromebook get on the internet, and you're comfortable using the best tools on the internet to solve your problems... there's a lot going for a Chromebook.
Someone who says, "Well, sure, but what if you don't have internet???" Yes, that's totally true and valid. But I think it's almost equally valid to ask how well a Windows box does without power. In a lot of ways, a college ruled notebook and a No. 2 pencil has them both beat.
There are places where people want to use their computers where there's no internet, or very slow internet, or a fee for using the internet. For example, on airplanes.
Yeah, and there are places where people want to use their computers where there's no power. For example, on airplanes.
More airplanes are getting internet, and power.
More airplanes are getting internet, and power.
> Both Packaged Apps and Native Client apps work on any computer that has the Chrome browser installed.
Hmm. On my Mid 2011 MacBook Air, I searched for the referenced "Cracking Sands Racing" game on the Chrome Web Store, but found no results. I clicked on the link from the article, and am told "This application is not supported on this computer. Installation has been disabled." I guess they don't work on any computer after all.
When I try the Chrome Web Store, I find it difficult to distinguish between apps and what I would call just links to websites. For example, the top result in the "Lifestyle" section is an "app" that is really just a link to a random shopping site, full of the usual tracking cookies and advertising crap.
I feel tricked: if I wanted a shopping site, I'd have searched for it. Does Google just let anyone submit a link to their site and call it an app? Applications ought to have a higher quality bar.
Hmm. On my Mid 2011 MacBook Air, I searched for the referenced "Cracking Sands Racing" game on the Chrome Web Store, but found no results. I clicked on the link from the article, and am told "This application is not supported on this computer. Installation has been disabled." I guess they don't work on any computer after all.
When I try the Chrome Web Store, I find it difficult to distinguish between apps and what I would call just links to websites. For example, the top result in the "Lifestyle" section is an "app" that is really just a link to a random shopping site, full of the usual tracking cookies and advertising crap.
I feel tricked: if I wanted a shopping site, I'd have searched for it. Does Google just let anyone submit a link to their site and call it an app? Applications ought to have a higher quality bar.
They're in the process of reorganizing the store to do exactly that. Preview is available on Dev/Canary channels: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/05/preview-new-chrome-packaged...
A bit overly dramatic. Long term, I think there will be a harmonization between Chrome packaged apps and Firefox OS apps, and maybe even Surface RT. I personally prefer 'drive by' apps and I think install should really mean "bookmark and pin my cache".
The real issue is keeping the Web viable, as it is under attack from native platforms, and both Google and Firefox have to keep aggressively upgrading the platform to keep to competitive with what's available.
We've seen an astounding amount of innovation in the browser in the last few years. As Larry Page said at I/O when asked, eventually developers should not have to think about the platform.
The real issue is keeping the Web viable, as it is under attack from native platforms, and both Google and Firefox have to keep aggressively upgrading the platform to keep to competitive with what's available.
We've seen an astounding amount of innovation in the browser in the last few years. As Larry Page said at I/O when asked, eventually developers should not have to think about the platform.
Not so sure. The Internet and the browser make many scenarios very easy (Joel Spolsky makes a great case). Jeff Attwood, with ego firmly in hand, named a law after himself that says any software that can be written, will be written for the browser.
While entirely possible, that's an extreme view, and maybe not very realistic.
The web's "viability" as you put it, will naturally shrink into its natural niche. First and foremost it's probably good to remember that the web relies on a transport layer. There are apps (web sites, email and so on) that live on top of that. That transport layer is what makes the web compelling, but that's not the only possibility (or future) that that layer affords us.
I think the real viability question is not the web, but rather data ownership. Users' personal information created Facebook, user knowledge created Stack Exchange, and user behaviour generates Google's income (amongst many examples on the web).
Users that are the raison d'être for these web sites have no power over, or control of their data. And it's that fact that will shift (and on mobile, already is shifting) focus back to native client apps that are completely decoupled from the browser. These apps use the Internet as a transport layer, in much the same way a browser does.
The shift then, as I see it, is towards one in which the balance of power over data is maintained in a natural equilibrium.
In that world, the Stack Exchanges will do well online because their acquisition of user knowledge benefits users directly. The Facebooks and Googles will (I imagine) remain relevant, but not in the way they'd like to be.
In conclusion, what the article posits will probably come to be, to a degree and for a while.
But it ain't the future.
While entirely possible, that's an extreme view, and maybe not very realistic.
The web's "viability" as you put it, will naturally shrink into its natural niche. First and foremost it's probably good to remember that the web relies on a transport layer. There are apps (web sites, email and so on) that live on top of that. That transport layer is what makes the web compelling, but that's not the only possibility (or future) that that layer affords us.
I think the real viability question is not the web, but rather data ownership. Users' personal information created Facebook, user knowledge created Stack Exchange, and user behaviour generates Google's income (amongst many examples on the web).
Users that are the raison d'être for these web sites have no power over, or control of their data. And it's that fact that will shift (and on mobile, already is shifting) focus back to native client apps that are completely decoupled from the browser. These apps use the Internet as a transport layer, in much the same way a browser does.
The shift then, as I see it, is towards one in which the balance of power over data is maintained in a natural equilibrium.
In that world, the Stack Exchanges will do well online because their acquisition of user knowledge benefits users directly. The Facebooks and Googles will (I imagine) remain relevant, but not in the way they'd like to be.
In conclusion, what the article posits will probably come to be, to a degree and for a while.
But it ain't the future.
Good luck. There was a company in Redmond trying to do the same with IE.
"plans to rule the computing world through IE"
serious overstatement, no? Should be "plans to rule the webbrowsing world through IE" probably..
serious overstatement, no? Should be "plans to rule the webbrowsing world through IE" probably..
Nope, with the likes of ActiveX they wanted more than just web browsing, they saw that net-delivered apps were the future. They just weren't as advanced/ambitious with their plans. Still, this will fail for Google as it did with MS, if that is indeed what they are trying to do.
Difference: IE was ugly and IE experience was ugly.
Neither IE nor the IE experience was ugly for that time, the time when they decided to introduce ActiveX. Infact, it was the hip browser. I used to remember being on Netscape (my fav/default browser) and unable to browse most modern sites as they were designed specifically for IE, similar to how you now come around those "works only on chrome/webkit" sites.
I personally find Chrome 'ugly'. Surely 'ugly' is an opinion? Also, I challenge your "IE experience was ugly." comment. Many seem to forget how revolutionary and influential IE 6 is. Google are very much standing on Microsoft shoulders here, like it or not.
[deleted]
> Google are very much standing on Microsoft shoulders here, like it or not.
That's a fine point of view, but I think that it's more accurate to say that Google and Microsoft are standing on the same shoulders.
That's a fine point of view, but I think that it's more accurate to say that Google and Microsoft are standing on the same shoulders.
Really? I'd suggest that Microsoft development of XMLHTTP and by extension XMLHttpRequest were pretty big developments for the web as we know it today. They certainly enabled Google to produce many of their services that are taken for granted today.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with your point of view. There's no denying that in the history of the web, those were important moments.
I'd say the creation of the web browser, HTML, HTTP, were even larger moments. And in that regard, Microsoft and Google are standing side-by-side on the shoulders of giants.
And I'd go further and say that when Google decided to make JavaScript performance a top-priority, and started pushing HTML5 standards, Microsoft has been the one playing catch-up. I'd say that those efforts enabled Microsoft to produce Metro, which is core to their new push.
I'd say the creation of the web browser, HTML, HTTP, were even larger moments. And in that regard, Microsoft and Google are standing side-by-side on the shoulders of giants.
And I'd go further and say that when Google decided to make JavaScript performance a top-priority, and started pushing HTML5 standards, Microsoft has been the one playing catch-up. I'd say that those efforts enabled Microsoft to produce Metro, which is core to their new push.
No.
Chrome (okay, I only looked at Chromium) is ugly, has basically no way to adapt it to one’s needs, runs out of RAM quickly, is slow and needs updating all the time.
Not really a difference to IE.
Not really a difference to IE.
I find it interesting that there are still people out there who think Chrome is ugly.
Firefox and Internet Explorer have all bad tab and/or adressbar placement.
Or do you just find any browser ugly by definition?
Firefox and Internet Explorer have all bad tab and/or adressbar placement.
Or do you just find any browser ugly by definition?
I’m using Opera, so Firefox and IE are not exactly gold standards of nonugliness to me. The biggest contributor to me finding Chrome ugly is certainly that the tab bar is placed on the top rather than the left (and me being too lazy to search for an appropriate extension to change that).
I see, yeah this is probably nice, I know many people who abuse the tab-feature, because they don't like the bookmarks. (Never had a problem with it, but most people seem to think the bookmarks are "broken")
I like Chrome over FFox and IE BECAUSE of the top-tabs.
Firefox needs more vertical space and Internet Explorer just cripples them beneath the address bar :\
I like Chrome over FFox and IE BECAUSE of the top-tabs.
Firefox needs more vertical space and Internet Explorer just cripples them beneath the address bar :\
For me, bookmarks are a hole where content goes to die.
Beyond about 5 of them which will get used more or less daily, I'm more likely to just search for content again than to think to check my bookmarks. Unfortunately this usually leads to 100-200 open tabs at any given time of things that are either "in-queue" for reading or research/reference for what I'm currently working on.
I'm not going to claim it's the best system (or even a good one), but you really do get used to it and it works pretty well.
Beyond about 5 of them which will get used more or less daily, I'm more likely to just search for content again than to think to check my bookmarks. Unfortunately this usually leads to 100-200 open tabs at any given time of things that are either "in-queue" for reading or research/reference for what I'm currently working on.
I'm not going to claim it's the best system (or even a good one), but you really do get used to it and it works pretty well.
I know what you mean, I only use a few bookmarks in the bookmarks-bar (sorted in folders) and the rest is lost...
So you saying, the fact that you have about 100-200 open tabs is not because you need them (...just search for content again...), but you just don't close them when not needed anymore?
So you saying, the fact that you have about 100-200 open tabs is not because you need them (...just search for content again...), but you just don't close them when not needed anymore?
Many of them you could probably say at some level that I "need them", in that it'd be faster to find the tab among the open ones then to find the content again.
Usually they end up clustered into groups around particular topics. For example "all of the man pages for the BSD socket API" and "all of the RFCs for the protocol I'm implementing".
Usually they end up clustered into groups around particular topics. For example "all of the man pages for the BSD socket API" and "all of the RFCs for the protocol I'm implementing".
Oh, don’t get me wrong, of course tabs belong above the address bar (I think recent browsers get this right).
Even better though is putting the tab bar on the right where it doesn’t eat precious vertical space.
Even better though is putting the tab bar on the right where it doesn’t eat precious vertical space.
Try to open 100 tabs, first in Chrome, then in Firefox. Chrome doesn't even show the titles and runs quickly out of memory.
Chrome's process model incurs in substantial overhead, opening tens of tabs in a low-spec PC it's a surefire way to freeze the system.
Chrome's process model incurs in substantial overhead, opening tens of tabs in a low-spec PC it's a surefire way to freeze the system.
I just open more than 10 tabs if I'm searching something.
Like opening 20 results, than closing them after I visited every tab and found out that they don't have what I searched for.
Yeah I know. Many of my friends, whos PC usage is 99% browser and nothing else, still get their 8GB RAM full with Chrome only, just because they spam tabs all over the place.
I get crazy if I have too many tabs open for too long, don't know why...
Yeah I know. Many of my friends, whos PC usage is 99% browser and nothing else, still get their 8GB RAM full with Chrome only, just because they spam tabs all over the place.
I get crazy if I have too many tabs open for too long, don't know why...
My second biggest gripe with the Chrome UI it the tabs shrink the size of the window title bar which makes it harder (read slower) to move windows around. (first biggest gripe is the single search/url field, but that is getter hard to get away from)
IE was amazing at the time, far better than Netscape 4.
I used to be a Firefox fan but not anymore, I made chrome my default browser and I am highly satisfied. Now I use FF just to test while developing things. I love lightness of chrome and have shifted all dev related work to chrome. I wont be surprised if chrome becomes the first choice all the developers in next couple of years.
On a side note the only problem i had with chrome is that you cannot disable disk cache. The problem was easily solved with junctions to /Device/Null for the Cache and MediaCache folder.
Not sure if this is valid but:
User Bapabooiee:
Well, you guys are in luck (BTW, great work-around, Xenofon), since Chrome now has two startup switches that you can use:
--disk-cache-dir and --disk-cache-size
Simply close Chrome, right-click your Chrome shortcut, click Properties, and then in the field labeled "Target:", make it look something like this:
"...chrome.exe" --disk-cache-dir="CACHE_DIR" --disk-cache-size=N
Where 'CACHE_DIR' is the new cache location, and 'N' is the cache size limit, in bytes.
Use whichever switch you need, or both. Keep in mind, however, that these features may not be completely stable yet. But you probably shouldn't have any problem with using them.
And to anyone who's interested, I caught gander of the existence of these switches directly from a source code file for Chrome. See here:
http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/common/chrome_s...
Hope this helps!
User Bapabooiee:
Well, you guys are in luck (BTW, great work-around, Xenofon), since Chrome now has two startup switches that you can use:
--disk-cache-dir and --disk-cache-size
Simply close Chrome, right-click your Chrome shortcut, click Properties, and then in the field labeled "Target:", make it look something like this:
"...chrome.exe" --disk-cache-dir="CACHE_DIR" --disk-cache-size=N
Where 'CACHE_DIR' is the new cache location, and 'N' is the cache size limit, in bytes.
Use whichever switch you need, or both. Keep in mind, however, that these features may not be completely stable yet. But you probably shouldn't have any problem with using them.
And to anyone who's interested, I caught gander of the existence of these switches directly from a source code file for Chrome. See here:
http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/common/chrome_s...
Hope this helps!
Thanks! I'm trying it now. The caching directives work. Hopefully this will fix the performance issues I've been seeing with Chrome the past two months.
The issues I'm talking about are constant disk access and freezing the entire machine when I open multiple tabs simultaneously.
The issues I'm talking about are constant disk access and freezing the entire machine when I open multiple tabs simultaneously.
You can disable cache though, is that not what you wanted?
This stuff seems like an excellent reason to go back to Firefox.
I tend to agree. Google is looking more and more like the MS of the new century. Chrome's performance advantage has all but been erased by FF (and in some cases FF is better in my anecdotal experience), and I find FF's add-on ecosystem still better than Chrome's for development.
FF is OSS (as far as that goes) and certainly not sitting still. Seems like the obvious dev choice to me these days.
FF is OSS (as far as that goes) and certainly not sitting still. Seems like the obvious dev choice to me these days.
I've been toying with this. Their developer tools are looking rather neat.
Google is missing a key thing in its personality or repertoire. The ability to create god solid concepts that everyone understands. A nice tight category of thing that can have a name and a meaning.
Apple is the example of a company that did/does. iOS apps were a clear concept of day one. What are they? Where are they? How do you get them? How do you get rid of them? The average user is much less likely to be confused by that question on iOS than any other platform. They're one indivisible thing with one icon and no hair.
Google's exploratory Failure is OK, Let The Users Figure It Out mentality is good too. It produces some really good stuff. But, for a lot of the things that google is trying to do, the ability to create really strong concepts is important. "Packaged web app" or "chrome app" or even "web app" are not clear concepts. Users don't understand them. Is it a website? Is it a Link? Is it on my computer?
It's not just here that this ability would make a difference. Hangouts. Plus. Wave (rip). They all had definition problems.
Apple is the example of a company that did/does. iOS apps were a clear concept of day one. What are they? Where are they? How do you get them? How do you get rid of them? The average user is much less likely to be confused by that question on iOS than any other platform. They're one indivisible thing with one icon and no hair.
Google's exploratory Failure is OK, Let The Users Figure It Out mentality is good too. It produces some really good stuff. But, for a lot of the things that google is trying to do, the ability to create really strong concepts is important. "Packaged web app" or "chrome app" or even "web app" are not clear concepts. Users don't understand them. Is it a website? Is it a Link? Is it on my computer?
It's not just here that this ability would make a difference. Hangouts. Plus. Wave (rip). They all had definition problems.
The precedent of Microsoft + DOJ and in Europe about IE means that some walled garden vendors will be somewhat reluctant to restrict browsers - especially if google has big enough legal guns. Which could give a (complicated) holes in the wall for vendors and users that like the hardware but hate the appstores.
Or rather, how Google plans to rule the consumer computing world.
It's been a while since the average Facebook addict really needed a computer anyway, they can all throw their laptops away and switch full-time to phones and tablets and I won't care.
But businesses and professionals have different needs. I don't see web apps and NaCl apps replacing Office suites, IDEs, or 3D graphic design tools anytime in the next decade, no matter how much Google tries to advertise Google Drive (Docs) as an Office replacement. There's a lot more to "computing" than shiny new consumer-grade gadgets. Although I vaguely remember a Chrome add-on that can SSH into remote machines, why would I use it when I have GNU utilities running natively on my OS?
> What does your desktop look like a year from now?
Probably the same as it does now. Lots of terminals and text editors, maybe a browser window or two in the background.
It's been a while since the average Facebook addict really needed a computer anyway, they can all throw their laptops away and switch full-time to phones and tablets and I won't care.
But businesses and professionals have different needs. I don't see web apps and NaCl apps replacing Office suites, IDEs, or 3D graphic design tools anytime in the next decade, no matter how much Google tries to advertise Google Drive (Docs) as an Office replacement. There's a lot more to "computing" than shiny new consumer-grade gadgets. Although I vaguely remember a Chrome add-on that can SSH into remote machines, why would I use it when I have GNU utilities running natively on my OS?
> What does your desktop look like a year from now?
Probably the same as it does now. Lots of terminals and text editors, maybe a browser window or two in the background.
I think there is going to be a big departure in what developers want, and what consumers want. For the most part, over the last 10 years, those two groups were largely using the same computers and OS's, but that has already changed, and will continue to do so. If Google can get their platform in front a ton of people, the developers will most likely follow (although they maybe using different machines than the consumers).
On a random side note, just picked up a Samsung Chromebook. Loaded up crouton and Ubuntu. This thing definitely puts my 5 year old craptop to shame. If you already have a Macbook, you might not be as impressed, but for the price, this thing can't be beat. So to answer the question " What does your desktop look like a year from now?" Assuming the Chromebook holds up that long (although even if it doesn't, I can easily afford a new one), Ubuntu/Linux for dev(ish) work, and Chrome OS for browsing and non-work stuff (switching between the two is instant, and you can even stream music in Chrome OS and listen to it while in Ubuntu).
On a random side note, just picked up a Samsung Chromebook. Loaded up crouton and Ubuntu. This thing definitely puts my 5 year old craptop to shame. If you already have a Macbook, you might not be as impressed, but for the price, this thing can't be beat. So to answer the question " What does your desktop look like a year from now?" Assuming the Chromebook holds up that long (although even if it doesn't, I can easily afford a new one), Ubuntu/Linux for dev(ish) work, and Chrome OS for browsing and non-work stuff (switching between the two is instant, and you can even stream music in Chrome OS and listen to it while in Ubuntu).
>On a random side note, just picked up a Samsung Chromebook.
Which one: the one with the ARM (the Series 3) or the one with the Celeron (the Series 5)?
Which one: the one with the ARM (the Series 3) or the one with the Celeron (the Series 5)?
Series 3. Admittedly, there are a few applications that I use that won't run on ARM, but there are also plenty of alternatives that do. I would imagine that will change pretty soon though.
FWIW, the company I work at just moved from a windows+office+outlook setup to google apps.
And it just worked. Very smooth migration.
Just a random datapoint, not claiming its a trend.
And it just worked. Very smooth migration.
Just a random datapoint, not claiming its a trend.
And what do you do when they drop a feature that you really depended on for your business? Say that you get addicted to a certain spreadsheet feature and they drop that. You have built an ad-hoc application that needs that feature. Now what? Do you go and now pay a developer tens of thousands of dollars to develop a custom app to replace the feature?
and what do you do when the network is down ?
Keep working offline? http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ...
We are in a comment thread for an article that talks about how Google apps work offline... ;)
A lot of businesses tend to be very file/folder focused. There are difficulties in creating browser based line of business apps that interact with the file system. They need servers and sysadmin support which is against the whole ethos of a user driven ecosystem.
An OAuth secured http api that wrapped basic file system commands and gave some kind of indexing and file level hashing would make a whole set of apps much easier to develop.
An OAuth secured http api that wrapped basic file system commands and gave some kind of indexing and file level hashing would make a whole set of apps much easier to develop.
Chromebooks are amazing for business, in my experience.
- Collaborating on shared documents in Google Docs is awesome.
- Walk up to a Chromebook that's plugged in to the projector, sign in, and show my Presentation.
- Hangouts for video conferences.
- Chrome Remote Desktop to log in to my desktop when I want to do heavy lifting.
- Two-factor Authentication to protect everything.
- Collaborating on shared documents in Google Docs is awesome.
- Walk up to a Chromebook that's plugged in to the projector, sign in, and show my Presentation.
- Hangouts for video conferences.
- Chrome Remote Desktop to log in to my desktop when I want to do heavy lifting.
- Two-factor Authentication to protect everything.
Yes, those are awesome features, and they might be able to cover 90% of a typical business's use cases. Similarly, lots of open-source alternatives to MS Office, Photoshop, etc. can cover 90% of a typical business's use cases. But the missing 10% is enough to prevent their use in mission-critical tasks, because one unsupported Excel macro is enough to turn an entire spreadsheet into garbage, and you're losing money while someone tries to fix a stupid incompatibility.
Which option would you prefer?
1) Chrome OS, which allows you to use all the Chrome apps but absolutely no other software, ever.
2) A regular OS (Windows, OSX, Linux, whatever) with Chrome installed on it, which allows you to use both Chrome apps and any other software that you might need from time to time.
Which option would you prefer?
1) Chrome OS, which allows you to use all the Chrome apps but absolutely no other software, ever.
2) A regular OS (Windows, OSX, Linux, whatever) with Chrome installed on it, which allows you to use both Chrome apps and any other software that you might need from time to time.
My whole working life, when Microsoft changes something in Visual Studio, do you know what the only answer has been? Recreate the Project from scratch the new way. Every single time.
So, when you switch to a Google Docs way of life, you don't necessarily import your Office documents into it. For things like Spreadsheets, you might have to recreate them, if they use weird features. It's unfortunate. Moving away from Office is hard, no argument.
Why should I answer a hypothetical where my Chromebox can use absolutely no other software, ever? It's a ridiculous hypothetical.
My Windows box is literally useless to me, if I can't run Visual Studio on it.
My Chromebook is a more secure way and faster to Remote Desktop in to my primary computer, than my Windows Laptop is. Chromebook WILL NOT replace my primary computer, for any time in the immediate future - I work on Windows Applications. That's just my life. But if I were a web developer???
So, when you switch to a Google Docs way of life, you don't necessarily import your Office documents into it. For things like Spreadsheets, you might have to recreate them, if they use weird features. It's unfortunate. Moving away from Office is hard, no argument.
Why should I answer a hypothetical where my Chromebox can use absolutely no other software, ever? It's a ridiculous hypothetical.
My Windows box is literally useless to me, if I can't run Visual Studio on it.
My Chromebook is a more secure way and faster to Remote Desktop in to my primary computer, than my Windows Laptop is. Chromebook WILL NOT replace my primary computer, for any time in the immediate future - I work on Windows Applications. That's just my life. But if I were a web developer???
I also don't see how anyone can trust Google with any of these technologies considering how they have been butchering all of their existing applications or outright shutting them down. Gmail is a shell of itself. Google Docs are a glorified WYSIWYG editor. They drop products like flies. They explicitly state that their job is to get as close to the creepy line as possible and not cross it. This has bad idea written all over it.
> Gmail is a shell of itself.
I'm having a hard time thinking of anything GMail used to do, that it doesn't any more. Can you list some?
I'm having a hard time thinking of anything GMail used to do, that it doesn't any more. Can you list some?
> I'm having a hard time thinking of anything GMail used to do, that it doesn't any more. Can you list some?
Being the new hotness from a company that its cool to love for being a relatively new upstart gaining ground against tech behemoths on every front rather than a well-established offering from a company that its cool to hate for being a well-established tech behemoth, maybe?
Being the new hotness from a company that its cool to love for being a relatively new upstart gaining ground against tech behemoths on every front rather than a well-established offering from a company that its cool to hate for being a well-established tech behemoth, maybe?
Not wasting massive amounts of screen space, but I think they recently added a "condensed" view again so that issue seems to be resolved.
If we for a second assume this is happening, I can't decide if it's worrisome development or something I should try to exploit..
I think it's the nature of business that those two opinions aren't mutually exclusive in any way.
This observation brings some potential context to the rationale for the Dart language.
Well thought-out post, but probably a little sanguine on the timeline. People are still digesting App Store and other platforms.
There are a lot of caveats to the stats.
First, look at the browser marketshare table.
Notice how Net Applications shows Chrome only at 16% while the others are close to 40%? Wonder why?
Net Applications attempts to measure what individual users are using, while Statcounter tries to measure how much of browsing is done though a particular browser. That is, if you browse 1000 webpages a day and use Chrome, and your girlfriend browses only 50 but uses Firefox, Statcounter counts you as 20 times more marketshare than your girlfriend! In this hypothetical scenario, Statcounter will give Firefox 5% of marketshare and Chrome 95%, even though half of people use Firefox.
This is like setting up a lookout on a road in a typical US city and concluding that the Ford Crown Victoria is the most popular car in America, based on the fact that you see it most since the taxicabs and police patrol cars drive back and forth all day(since you're not tracking the license plate) while the best selling cars like the Honda Civic/Accord, Toyota Camry/Corolla are not driven as much during a typical day. So, if you're writing a Chrome app, you're targeting only around 16% of people, not 40%.
Google bundles Chrome by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates which are installed on 98% of computers by paying a lot for it, Mozilla has nowhere near the huge ad revenues like Google does. Not to mention how Chrome is pushed on Google properties like Gmail and Youtube. I keep seeing a "Slow browser? Upgrade to Chrome." message on Gmail sometimes while using the latest version of Opera.
The biggest challenge Chrome apps will have is that they won't run on the hottest devices right now, the iPad and iPhones. Apple prohibits any sort of native API or dynamic code in iOS apps so Chrome apps will be confined to HTML5 and WebGL.
First, look at the browser marketshare table.
Notice how Net Applications shows Chrome only at 16% while the others are close to 40%? Wonder why?
Net Applications attempts to measure what individual users are using, while Statcounter tries to measure how much of browsing is done though a particular browser. That is, if you browse 1000 webpages a day and use Chrome, and your girlfriend browses only 50 but uses Firefox, Statcounter counts you as 20 times more marketshare than your girlfriend! In this hypothetical scenario, Statcounter will give Firefox 5% of marketshare and Chrome 95%, even though half of people use Firefox.
This is like setting up a lookout on a road in a typical US city and concluding that the Ford Crown Victoria is the most popular car in America, based on the fact that you see it most since the taxicabs and police patrol cars drive back and forth all day(since you're not tracking the license plate) while the best selling cars like the Honda Civic/Accord, Toyota Camry/Corolla are not driven as much during a typical day. So, if you're writing a Chrome app, you're targeting only around 16% of people, not 40%.
Google bundles Chrome by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates which are installed on 98% of computers by paying a lot for it, Mozilla has nowhere near the huge ad revenues like Google does. Not to mention how Chrome is pushed on Google properties like Gmail and Youtube. I keep seeing a "Slow browser? Upgrade to Chrome." message on Gmail sometimes while using the latest version of Opera.
The biggest challenge Chrome apps will have is that they won't run on the hottest devices right now, the iPad and iPhones. Apple prohibits any sort of native API or dynamic code in iOS apps so Chrome apps will be confined to HTML5 and WebGL.
Net Applications count unique daily users, so if you surf all day you'll be counted as exactly the same as your friend who only surfs a little each day. However, you will both be counted 7 times more than someone who only surfs once a week.
So both give weight to more regular web surfers, it's just that Net Applications caps it at the level of daily use.
So both give weight to more regular web surfers, it's just that Net Applications caps it at the level of daily use.
In addition to counting vistors rather than hits, Net Applications has a global number of 6.22% for Internet Explorer 6. No, that is not a typo, that is the number pulled today, because Net Applications performs geographic weighting of their data, and China has 24% usage. That inflates the global Internet Explorer numbers and is higher than IE7. Last time I looked at ie6countdown.com, the US and European numbers were 0.2%.
Sources: http://www.netapplications.com/newsletter2/20090803/nanl.htm... http://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&... http://www.ie6countdown.com/
Sources: http://www.netapplications.com/newsletter2/20090803/nanl.htm... http://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&... http://www.ie6countdown.com/
I'm not running ChromeOS on my pixel right now. I tried it for a weekend, it wasn't my cup of tea, and I slapped Debian onto it instead. No big surprise there, I have different needs from most computer users. I want a web browser, a tiling window manager, and a metric fuckton of urxvt's on my screen at once... it doesn't surprise or concern me that I didn't like ChromeOS. I also don't like OSX and Windows 7/8; clearly I have minority interests.
Who is the target user of these systems then? Well, I may not like OSX or Windows, but I certainly understand at least a segment of their market. If my mother asks me for an opinion on what computer to get, I'm going to tell her to get a mac, or to stick with the windows Thinkpads she's traditionally gotten. Either of those are great for her, great for browsing the web, watching videos, and viewing pictures from her camera. Now, as I understand the marketing materials, this should make ChromeOS (probably not the pixel, considering the cost, but ChromeOS) a perfect choice for her. I wouldn't even consider recommending ChromeOS to her though, the reality of ChromeOS does not seem to fit the marketing materials or the author of this article's described reality.
I tried browsing pictures from my phone on it. My android phone. Fucking awful experience. All of the shine but none of the grace of OSX. Wasted screen-space everywhere, piss-poor file navigation, the works. Alright then, how about watching some videos? Plug in my portable harddrive only to discover that the video player on the thing has all the codec/container support of a bargain-brand smart-tv from 2007. My stock android phone does video a thousand times better than this shit. Fine, maybe I was expecting too much of the default video player. I don't expect my preferred mplayer to be available, but my brothers got my mother hooked on VLC a few years ago. Can I try that? Hahahaha no, what was I thinking? Alright, alright, what about webbrowsing? Well I guess it works exactly as you would expect. You open chrome and browse the web... nothing to complain about, nothing to get excited about. So score one for ChromeOS I guess?
The Pixel's hardware though.. my god it is fantastic. Well, aside from the absurdly tiny harddrive which would cripple any offline user with usage patterns terribly dissimilar from mine (for example: my mother). And aside from the uninspired RAM and processor offering... Those are not big complaints though, those failings don't represent significant technical challenges. They are things that could easily be fixed in the next revision. If those things are resolved the next generation of Pixel could be a serious contender, as a piece of hardware, to any of Apple's offerings. They just don't have the software to do it though. If this ChromeOS crap does end up taking off in a few years it will be despite the current state of affairs, much like Android's current popularity is despite the abysmal quality of earlier versions. The market for desktop OS's is entirely different from the 2007-era smartphone market though; ChromeOS isn't "that thing you use if your executives shit their pants when the iPhone was unveiled."
Who would I recommend a pixel to? Nobody... nobody except for a very small list of users that I know have usage patterns very similar to my own (and to them I could not recommend the computer strongly enough). This could easily be fixed though. Their hardware could have a future for itself.
Who would I recommend ChromeOS to, with any imaginable hardware? I honestly have no idea, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.