sigh, now every touch screen device will be compared to the iPad's...I liked the world better last month when people could just make touch screen interface concepts and be left unmolested (or at least just be compared to Perceptive Pixel).
An Apple designer wouldn't even show their manager concept drawings this rudimentary, especially if they were nothing more than copies of a competing product released the week before.
I really hope this isn't Google's doing. But if they are working on a tablet version of Chrome OS, they should probably keep the lid on it until it's had more than 2 hours of mockup work.
The keyboard and popover menus in those pictures look like direct rips of Apple's tablet
It is a pretty obvious choice to do it that way. Saying it's a rip off of Apple's tablet is like saying every car 'rips off' a carriage. The same thing will usually be invented multiple times you know.
They're not trying to compete with Apple. It's just a demo they had lying around (probably from back when everyone was going crazy about chrome os), which they released because everyone's going crazy over tablets.
Regardless of Google's intentions, it's going to be perceived as part of their feud with Apple. Anyone can make a demo, but Google has yet to demonstrate that they can execute well on hardware.
I'm not really sold - one of the strengths of the iPad is that it has a UI that's specifically geared towards finger interaction - a lot of this concept seems like it's just doing "desktop UI with touch enhancements". IMHO that's not enough.
Yeah, a lot of things seem to happen "by magic" and one wonders a) what seemingly-invisible element on the screen is the user touching to make that happen and b) how did the user learn that? I didn't get that feeling from the iPad videos I've seen.
I agree (I made the video). There is actually bunch of thinking behind it, but we're leaving it rough because we don't want to pretend we're developing high-detail specs just yet, as doing so tends to lock you in to a certain approach - we really do prefer to experiment in code.
The point of the Chromium site is not to sell, but to be pretty open about what we're doing and what we're thinking early in the process so that our external contributors, who we value highly, can get access to the same information that our internal teams can and so that they don't get surprised by sudden public changes in direction.
It's a tough balance - not over-specifying yet being open, especially when people are used to everything a company puts out being a high-definition advertisement. This open development style is still new to me, and hope we'll get better at it with practice.
(FWIW, this is all personal opinion, not Google's).
Are you targeting a specific physical size with the concepts? Like someone else said, that device looks fairly big. It seems reasonable that what is best for a big display might not be best for a small one.
Also, as a general suggestion, one of the -worst- things about the current desktop is manual window management - please, please come up with an automatic system that works! The iPhone sidesteps this by only allowing one app at a time, but with several apps it'll be one of the make-or-break aspects of these devices...
Have you considered some of the good ideas of Robert Clayton Miller (watch the video http://10gui.com/video/)?
I particularly like how you can switch from one application to another by scrolling horizontally and then resizing the window's width as you need. Furthermore, the additional gestures with 3 and 4 fingers provide additional information bandwidth.
These ideas might solve some of the problems others in this thread have been pointing out.
I have very high hopes for the upcoming Chrome OS netbooks. I'm probably the only one here planning on using one as my primary computer. After the disappointment that was the iPad, I suspect the media is going to be very kind to the launch of the Chrome netbooks. I just hope someone makes one with a 12 or 13'' screen.
Btw, these concepts are definitely somewhat distant and based on iMac sized tablets. I can guarantee that the first Chrome OS Tablet is going to look pretty much just like Chrome OS with an on screen keyboad.
Looks pretty dang annoying to use. Bringing the windows metaphor into small form factor touchscreen devices is not exactly something I'm looking forward to.
I've always thought a combination of a touchscreen interface that can reconfigure itself, and a touchscreen display, so you don't break your neck bending over to look at it, would be best...and the most flexible. On something the size of this, I'd bet that typing on it wouldn't even be that bad after a while.
I had grown used to Microsoft reflexively competing with whatever led the tech headlines that month, whether it was Zune coming out to combat iPod, Surface and Zune Phone to combat iPhone, multiple attempts to combat Google, and so forth.
Part of this is simply having a shotgun approach, which is a cheap way to diversify your business. After reading The Road Ahead, I got the distinct impression, based on Gates' appraisal of Wang, that his greatest fear for Microsoft was to stay stuck in one product line and be made obsolete by the next big thing, which partially explains the shotgun strategy and even the trend-jumping strategy. Still, it comes off as desperate for Microsoft to respond in kind to each new product category that makes news, like they are trying to prove their relevance. Secure companies which really do innovate don't need to imitate and they don't need to try so hard to prove their relevance.
Google, too, always had a shotgun approach by design, but seeing this makes me worry that Google is following Microsoft into the hole of mimicking whatever the big news is at the time. I don't think that road pays off. It's the exact opposite of what Google started off doing--improving a boring and forgotten part of the internet ecosystem--and it's the exact opposite of Apple's strategy. (If Microsoft and Google are shotguns, Apple is a sniper rifle carefully picking off market opportunities no one else really sees that well.)
What's the rationale for Google getting in on the hardware business anyway? Are they so concerned that Apple will dominate the metal that the web is viewed under that they have to take matters into their own hands? It seems a bit extreme.
> Are they so concerned that Apple will dominate the metal that the web is viewed under that they have to take matters into their own hands? It seems a bit extreme.
Why so? Google depends entirely on the web, it makes sense. Also depending on a third party/competitor for accessing your very business is a very bad thing, especially when this competitor is Apple. It's better to depend on as few parties as possible.
I'll stick with my netbook, thanks. Just make them more powerful and lighter, and give me a better pointing device (built in eye tracking perhaps?) and that's the type of innovation I'll be buying into. Then again, Google isn't competing for my money, they're competing for my mom's money.
In "Marketing Warfare," Reis and Trout explain that while you should take advantage of a competitor's weakness, you should never make it your primary point of attack. In stead, you should attack a competitor's strength.
The problem with a weakness is that a competitor can fix it, nullifying your attack. In fact, they may already be working on a fix, so you may get to market and discover your entire strategy is bunk. Whereas they can't 'fix' one of their strengths. In more modern terms, attacking their strength is leveraging The Innovator's Dilemma.
So about multi-tasking. Whoop-de-doo. This is a weakness Apple can fix with a minor point release of their OS. iPads have more battery and a faster processor, they are probably already toying with the idea. This is not a point of attack for Google.
OTOH, the Apple Store is a strength for Apple. The well-behaved apps are a benefit for users, so having an open ecosystem is attacking Apple's strength. If Apple opens its ecosystem up, junkware, malware, and other forms of app garbage will quickly follow, which will eat away at Apple's control of the user experience.
Thus, openness is a great strategy for Google to follow, while multi-tasking is simply something they should do but not hang their hat on.
36 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 97.5 ms ] threadthis looks like it can be carried. remember, there are people lugging around 17" laptops...
An Apple designer wouldn't even show their manager concept drawings this rudimentary, especially if they were nothing more than copies of a competing product released the week before.
I really hope this isn't Google's doing. But if they are working on a tablet version of Chrome OS, they should probably keep the lid on it until it's had more than 2 hours of mockup work.
It is a pretty obvious choice to do it that way. Saying it's a rip off of Apple's tablet is like saying every car 'rips off' a carriage. The same thing will usually be invented multiple times you know.
They're not trying to compete with Apple. It's just a demo they had lying around (probably from back when everyone was going crazy about chrome os), which they released because everyone's going crazy over tablets.
It's timely, and it's worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq3EeZz-W3A has some similar interactions.
The point of the Chromium site is not to sell, but to be pretty open about what we're doing and what we're thinking early in the process so that our external contributors, who we value highly, can get access to the same information that our internal teams can and so that they don't get surprised by sudden public changes in direction.
It's a tough balance - not over-specifying yet being open, especially when people are used to everything a company puts out being a high-definition advertisement. This open development style is still new to me, and hope we'll get better at it with practice.
(FWIW, this is all personal opinion, not Google's).
Also, as a general suggestion, one of the -worst- things about the current desktop is manual window management - please, please come up with an automatic system that works! The iPhone sidesteps this by only allowing one app at a time, but with several apps it'll be one of the make-or-break aspects of these devices...
I particularly like how you can switch from one application to another by scrolling horizontally and then resizing the window's width as you need. Furthermore, the additional gestures with 3 and 4 fingers provide additional information bandwidth.
These ideas might solve some of the problems others in this thread have been pointing out.
Maybe on a wall where space is cheap.
I had grown used to Microsoft reflexively competing with whatever led the tech headlines that month, whether it was Zune coming out to combat iPod, Surface and Zune Phone to combat iPhone, multiple attempts to combat Google, and so forth.
Part of this is simply having a shotgun approach, which is a cheap way to diversify your business. After reading The Road Ahead, I got the distinct impression, based on Gates' appraisal of Wang, that his greatest fear for Microsoft was to stay stuck in one product line and be made obsolete by the next big thing, which partially explains the shotgun strategy and even the trend-jumping strategy. Still, it comes off as desperate for Microsoft to respond in kind to each new product category that makes news, like they are trying to prove their relevance. Secure companies which really do innovate don't need to imitate and they don't need to try so hard to prove their relevance.
Google, too, always had a shotgun approach by design, but seeing this makes me worry that Google is following Microsoft into the hole of mimicking whatever the big news is at the time. I don't think that road pays off. It's the exact opposite of what Google started off doing--improving a boring and forgotten part of the internet ecosystem--and it's the exact opposite of Apple's strategy. (If Microsoft and Google are shotguns, Apple is a sniper rifle carefully picking off market opportunities no one else really sees that well.)
Why so? Google depends entirely on the web, it makes sense. Also depending on a third party/competitor for accessing your very business is a very bad thing, especially when this competitor is Apple. It's better to depend on as few parties as possible.
Google demos Hacker News.
The problem with a weakness is that a competitor can fix it, nullifying your attack. In fact, they may already be working on a fix, so you may get to market and discover your entire strategy is bunk. Whereas they can't 'fix' one of their strengths. In more modern terms, attacking their strength is leveraging The Innovator's Dilemma.
So about multi-tasking. Whoop-de-doo. This is a weakness Apple can fix with a minor point release of their OS. iPads have more battery and a faster processor, they are probably already toying with the idea. This is not a point of attack for Google.
OTOH, the Apple Store is a strength for Apple. The well-behaved apps are a benefit for users, so having an open ecosystem is attacking Apple's strength. If Apple opens its ecosystem up, junkware, malware, and other forms of app garbage will quickly follow, which will eat away at Apple's control of the user experience.
Thus, openness is a great strategy for Google to follow, while multi-tasking is simply something they should do but not hang their hat on.
Edit: Especially radial menus that sort the rings on usage (IE, high use programs closer to the center of the disk).