edit the second: it seems pretty competitive with a Mac mini, actually. 1.9ghz Celeron instead of 2.3 i5, same RAM, and same graphics card. The 16gb SSD vs 500gb HDD might make the Chromebox feel snappier, though. And at $329 vs $599, it's quite a bit cheaper.
Afraid a Celeron isn't very competitive with an i5, even at the same speed. At least not comparing to similarly clocked computers running here. A dual-core Celeron based PC here is significantly slower than a similarly clocked i5 Mac Mini.
Oh interesting. The desktop I was referring to has a 4 year old Celeron at 1.9Ghz, so possibly its older architecture makes it more different, but not sure.
There's a tiny little thing called the operating system which makes significantly more of a difference to the overall experience, performance and value of a computer than a few GHz.
He worded his point badly, but no need to be so sarcastic when it's obvious what he means, which is that choice of OS only matters if you need it [for more than to sit in the background behind your web browser].
1. The Chromebox has 16gb of internal storage. I'm fairly certain it's using the same SSD model the Cr-48s and other Chromebooks used, which is not easily replaceable (difficult to find a fitting card)
2. Chrome laptops and (now) desktops use verified boot, you won't be able to install your own OS unless you literally crack open the case (there are physical implements to prevent firmware flashing) and flash your own BIOS.
Just a note: there are three levels of access in the CR-48: regular (out of the box), dev mode (flip the switch), unprotected (open it up, take out the mobo, tape over a contact to disable bios protection).
The guides that don't require flashing the BIOS are nightmares. Awful, awful hackish nightmares. I say this as someone who did it. It's much easier to open it up, but a piece of tape over some contact, flash the BIOS and install whatever you like.
However, I flat out don't think the disable BIOS protection option is available on retail devices. (I have the cr-48).
If you want a lightweight Linux box, don't buy this, you don't want it, honest.
Shame really, you'd think that if you were producing a device that ran linux anyway, you'd be able to pick up a few extra sales by letting enthusiasts do their own thing with it. Since you're not paying Microsoft anything you've got a bit of wiggle room to be competitive pricewise too. (At the very least you'd think that Google employees might like something to run Goobuntu on).
It's all about trusting the integrity of the machine. With the signed BIOS, and the trust chain of ChromeOS, you can be quite sure that you're booting what you expect you're booting.
I'm serious. If you give a Mac Mini running Chrome and a Chromebox to someone who doesn't care about the numbers, and ask them to use them, how do they compare? If you cared about the OS and that you could install e.g. MS Office, you wouldn't buy a Chromebox in the first place, so you're not even remotely their target audience. And then there are always people who will crack the thing open and write their own OS into it, for whom the bottom price vs specs are the only real deciding factor.
>it seems pretty competitive with a Mac mini, actually. . . . same RAM
Actually, the Chromebox has 4 GB of RAM whereas the mini with the $599 list price has only 2 GB. So, technically your statement "same RAM" is incorrect even though upgrading the RAM on the mini to 4 GB will not cost very much.
Hope this works for Google, but my suspicion is consumer segment will be tough for them.
Iterative design methods ("lets release and see what happens") in consumer hardware, may not be as suited as the Apple method viz. highly designed, integrated (aka ecosystem) and engineered approach.
I see two main targets: Grandmas (sorry to stereotype the tech savvy grandmas out there) or rather tech savvy sons of grandmas which want something that just works for their mothers and that automatically backs things up for them.
And enterprises who want to kick Microsoft prices in the nuts.
I see the Grandma use case, but it's so niche I can't see that being viable. As for enterprise, you'd have to have a pretty "progressive" company... and one that would be very sure that you'll never need a desktop app. Again, I would think very small numbers.
I realise Chrome OS is somewhat still a market experiment, but I think it would've gone a lot further at a better price point. For ~$200 I would put one in my living room for checking the web & controlling my home web apps. I see that as the perfect way to get people familiar with it (thinking of it more like a tablet, a limited utility), then once NaCl goes mainstream, you have a who market who's ready to start replacing their other PCs.
I can tell you that a huge international bank (as far as "progressive" as you can get) went Google Apps and ditched Office, so your thinking might be a bit off.
Try answering the question "What does it do?" by reading the copy on the website. Almost impossible. The questions I wanted to know were: Will VLC run on this? Can I download stuff and put on a hard drive? The website does not seem to indicate this.
I'd guess everything the Chromebooks can do. Which essentially means: run Chrome. They're meant to be (rather exclusively) always-connected devices, and not for heavy offline use. And you can run VLC if/when they target NaCl.
That said, I don't have a Chromebook, and haven't watched the changes for a while. Anyone have a link or something handy for what they're up to lately?
I agree, it doesn't even mention that it runs Chrome OS or offer links to more information about its operating system. Not all people even know that there is such thing as Chrome OS, or what it can do.
Maybe they do not want to take the support calls from users who would have mistaken the mini-Displayport for Thunderbolt. (Not that I approve of the effect of such a decision on the proliferation of port types, just that I can see it from Google's point of view.)
It'll be a very capable PC or thin client if that's at all possible.
I wonder how feasible it is to put a Linux distribution here and get it working. I know it is possible with the Chromebook, and if it's gonna work for the Chromebox, then shut up and take my money.
But seriously you can something with cheaper and better specs for less that $329 to run Linux.
But as small and quiet and that can drive two 30" monitors?
I have an Eee Box running Linux; it's physically larger, only supports one monitor (as far as I can tell), and the hardware video decoder can only do 720p. (The hardware video decoding is important because the Atom cannot decode 720p H.264 in real time itself.)
There are several things that puts the Chromebox ahead:
1, It is as small, slick and quiet as a Mac Mini.
2, It is designed to run Linux.
3, The hardware is backed by Smasung/Google.
4, It has a freakin' SSD? Unless you're compiling AOSP or put all of you music on it, 16GB is some space to spare. I guess there are ways to expand the internal storage too.
I think it's a good choice in india. We have customers who bought our software but first they need a computer to use it. $329 is not cheap but there's the 'google' brand to it, so to customers 'we are not recommending something bad'. Wonder how much will it cost in india though.
I think it's too expensive to be a good choice in any country, especially India where I assume it will cost even more than in the US.
I assume you are selling some software solution to your customers and they also need hardware to run it. It might be a good purchase for some companies but at this price they can also get a standard desktop.
How does Google manage to only have one retailer who actually sells the device in Europe. It feels as if every time they [Google] introduce something new and cool (phone, computer ...) it is only available for a selected few. Then when we all forgot about it they add a few more retailers.
That's not by accident. Exclusive partners gain that status by agreeing to help subsidize the product in some way, shape, or form. And they want their money's worth, so they (the partner) make sure the contract lasts just long enough for you to not care after the contract ends. Of course, the first party is hoping the product catches on, is insanely popular, and continues to drive demand after the contract is up. That doesn't always happen.
So, it's a catch-22. Do you as a first party go it alone, and incur more cost, or curtail your retail spread and take less of a hit up front? From the disinterest in the retail Chromebooks, Google made the right call there.
That said, I wouldn't have minded a CR-48... But it was a little costly, and the other models were a little too wimpy. I'd think Google would take a risk by taking a loss on one huge product push... But I guess not.
I guess my problem, as a consumer, is that I never expect to actually to be able to buy a Google hardware product. Compared to a hardware company like Apple, I know I can go to my local store to get that fancy device I just heard about on the radio. While, with Google, It's like their glasses, their autonomous car, their phones, their computers; it seems to only be some really polished R&D thing.
You don't strictly "download" or "install" web apps, Chrome's "installed" apps are glorified shortcuts. There is a Chrome store full of web apps. However, thanks the HTML5 and app caching, these applications will work offline.
That's not really true, it's more that installable apps can just be a glorified shortcut. The majority of apps that did that at launch of the store hurt them on that perception, I think.
I am struggling to imagine a situation where I would be tempted to recommend a Chromebox over an iPad to a non-savvy user. (The iPad 2 is currently available from Apple's online store for $399, and remember that the Chromebox's $329 price does not include keyboard, mouse or monitor.)
The only thing coming up for me is if the non-savvy user's vision is really horrible, such that he or she will always be using a big TV as a monitor, then the Chromebox wins because even with Airplay Mirroring, the user would have to look at the iPad to manipulate the elements of the iPad's user interface.
I think you are letting your enthusiasm for Google's commitment to innovation or your enthusiasm for ChromeOS's being based mainly on open-source codebases or your enthusiasm for the open web bias your thinking about what would be best for a non-savvy user!
It seems Google is trying to break into the consumer hardware space to compete against Apple -- Chromebox + Chromebook + Nexus (and likely Motorola developments)... I'm not sure how I feel given they haven't been blockbuster successes thus far.
I think $150-$200 would've been the sweet spot for a ChromeBox, and $200-$300 the sweetspot for a Chromebook, depending on the configuration, quality of materials, etc.
Also, I see no reason why these shouldn't be running ARM chips. All you're using is the web, so it's not tied down to the x86 architecture like Windows is.
For only $70 more, Google also sells the Galaxy Nexus, which is a similar Samsung device but contains more storage, runs a lot more apps, can make or receive phone calls and data over a cell phone connection, and even includes a high definition display, and a (removable) battery, and NFC, and all in a smaller package.
Since the Galaxy Nexus can use a keyboard and mouse over Bluetooth and run a 1080p display over HDMI, the advantage of the Chromebox is that it can run multiple displays and connect external storage devices.
With Ubuntu for Android scheduled to be released later this year, a logical progression is that Google's future home appliances and mobile devices will run the same exact operating system, rather than two different ones.
However, Android is supposed to be open and has many different App Stores like Amazon Appstore that compete with Google's Android Play (Android Market), while Chrome O.S. will allow Google to own the entire purchase process (like Apple), which benefits the consumer by allowing them to purchase an app they already own on their iPad, Android phone, Mac, PC, and XBox a 6th time.
> Android is supposed to be open and has many different App Stores like Amazon Appstore that compete with Google's > > >Android Play (Android Market), while Chrome O.S. will allow Google to own the entire purchase process (like Apple)
That's not true. You can install crx files from places other than the webstore. Infact there are a few app stores out there if anyone tries to google them.
I think your point about the hardware is a good one. All these "small pc equivalent" boxes seem to be overpriced to me, especially the arm-based ones that are essentially competing with smart phones.
From the software side, it's a whole different animal. ChromeOS is intended to be very different from Android. I don't think you can compare some of the features like verified boot or integrated cloud services. Also, you can install apps on android as you like with the flick of a setting. ChromeOS doesn't have installed apps in the sense that they reside on the device. Apps are websites in ChromeOS, no difference. I'm pretty sure "installing an app" and "bookmarking a website" are the same thing in ChromeOS.
>I'm pretty sure "installing an app" and "bookmarking a website" are the same thing in ChromeOS.
Not quiet so. I write chrome apps myself and there is is difference between websites and installable apps. Mostly they have more API access and features such as background processes. But the underlying technology is exactly same as websites. It's essentially a local website that is not hosted on any server but in browser's environment.
If you are interested to know exact differences then allow me to make a shameless plug. This is a media player but is installable instead of hosted. This makes it possible for the app to have a background page which runs even if the browser is closed. Being instalable instead of hosted also has an advantage of more flexible file API. But that is bound to change soon.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm a bit disappointed in Google about this. I would much prefer the apis to be shared completely between the 2 models and don't see why they can't be.
Also, installable web apps should be something not specific to Chrome. Why not make this an open standard so I can install my apps to other browsers without extra effort from the app developer.
As i said, the work is being done on APIs. Infact in developer channels of the browser, I think all the html5 APIs are accessible to everyone. As for background pages, there is no way of running a background page that is hosted somewhere else because there is an internal api that allows communication between pages's javascript in realtime. And such communication would not be possible with a hosted file.
And there is a thing known as installable web-apps. Which basically means you can install an app with just one manifest file hosted online. (it used to be in about:flags but now i think it has landed in stable release, but not sure). Which means no hassle of webstore or even maintaining a separate crx file, just upload a manifest.js once and forget :) Unfortunately background processing is not possible in hosted apps, just in installable ones.
Raspberry Pi makes products like this completely obsolete. I see nothing here worth paying an order of magnitude more money for. Google seems to have a really bad habit lately of building products that nobody wants.
The Raspberry Pi is targeted squarely at enthusiasts (which, granted, is probably most people here).
It comes without an operating system, any storage, a case, or even a power supply. This is a huge, if not insurmountable, barrier to entry for a large portion of the population.
The Chromebox is a turnkey, plug in power, plug in TV, surf the web product. They couldn't be more dissimilar.
Just a quick note: The biggest piece of feedback I got from a journo friend of mine who just reviewed this chromebox is actually that out of the box it won't do HDMI or VGA (without buying an adapter separately that is), which seemed odd to me (and to him) given being easy to connect to a TV seems like a big use case for the chromebox.
>out of the box it won't do HDMI or VGA (without buying an adapter separately that is)
Some DVI ports can send VGA signals, in which case it would just be a matter of getting a cable with DVI pins on one end and VGA pins on the other.
In other words, the DVI spec contains a VGA-compatible part and an HDMI-like part so that a single DVI port can send VGA signals or HDMI-like "DVI-D" (DVI digital) signals.
Moreover, DVI-HDMI cables are common although some DVI ports cannot provide audio to go along with the video and others cannot speak the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection protocol.
I see nothing here worth paying an order of magnitude more money for.
Simplicity? I am very much willing to pay for a simple device that requires close to no support and maintenance. And I’m sure this is quite a common sentiment among people who have to service their relatives’ computers – huge, complex machines used mostly just to browse the web.
At the very least - theres _lot_ more RAM on board the Chrome Box, theres a "16G hard drive" (presumably ssd/flash?), there 6 usb ports, there's a power supply built in, bluetooth onboard, and there's a nice (enough) case wrapping it all up.
For _some_ people that's not worth ~$280, but there's not very many "general public" who're planning on plugging a RaspberryPi into their TV as part of their home entertainment system.
Small businesses (think store clerk, hotel lobby), for instance.
Alternatively as a mediacenter or server. I've used an Acer Revo for exactly this for the past two years now. The low power consumption maked it great for at-home development and hosting in my case.
I can think of some. A lot of people use browser almost exclusively at work. Salespeople, customer service people, etc. If the business software they use is web based, they use a browser.
I don't know, what if they need to edit a report with a company template someone made in Word? There are full fledged PC for sale at less than that price. Salespeople are often on the move and would probably use a netbook I think.
How do businesses currently share Word docs? They either email them around or put them in a shared folder. And when that happens, and the ChromeBox user clicks it, GMail or Google Drive will happily open that Word doc in Google Apps.
I may be mistaken but I don't remember being able to keep the template of a word document while editing it in google docs, changing examples anyway, slightly more complex excel files could also not be supported I think.
If this box really is a secure, maintenance free computer, I see a lots of places where it could shine: elementary schools, small business, info kiosks, libraries, my parents ;-)
Majority of these mini PC's used in conference or meeting rooms, as an easy way to hook up PC with TV. However, next month when Apple announce to open Apple TV as an development platform, there will be an interesting convergence of mini Pc's and tv boxes. Which will probably lead to long rumored Apple TV box.
You don't know what this Chrome box do because Google doesn't know either. Companies threw hardware and see what developers can do, and see where it evolves.
There's no bad product, just bad pricing. I think Google and their partners really don't know how to price a new category product. They should be priced aggressively like the iPad was (when people expected it to be $800-$1000), and also as the iPhone, even though in the beginning Apple tried to sell to the "early adopters" with a higher price, too. But they quickly learned their lesson after just 2 months.
Google has already been through a few of these situations already ($300 Google TV set top box, $430 Chromebook at launch, $800 Honeycomb tablet at launch) and they still haven't learned anything. They haven't learned that the "early adopter price" tactic doesn't work well anymore. You need to price it for mainstream from day one, maintain the price throughout the year, and then just update the hardware for the same price every year. Consumers don't want to be cheated into buying a product that is twice as much at launch, compared to 6 months later.
Looks like there's major spin on this on that page.
Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies.
Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD.
The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issues.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead?
>Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead?
I think you have been downvoted _because_ you made a good point and the Google fanboys armed with downmods want to bury the comment. Unfortunate trend on HN here.
If it looks like a computer, people will think it's a computer at first glance. There's nothing on that page that makes for particularly compelling reading, so why would I read first, instead of going by the picture?
The Celeron they're using is basically a low-end Sandy Bridge processor, and Intel markets most Sandy Bridge processors under the Core brand. It's not really anemic, either.
That reference(even if Wikipedia) seems to imply that the first Sandy Bridge processors released were the Core processors, not that all Sandy Bridge silicon will be or is branded Core.
Are there any cases of laptops or PCs with Celeron processors being referred to as having Core processors?
My apologies, I meant to link to the list of processors in that article -- by pure count (and, anecdotally, most often), most Sandy Bridge processors are Core processors.
Yes, there is a noticeable pro-Google bias on Hacker News. Links that show Google in a negative light are instantly backed up by Google employees. This comment will probably get down voted. I seriously don't care about votes and don't know how the system works and get annoyed when people complain about down votes (like it actually matters).
I've noticed quite a few companies seem to be astroturfing hacker news recently, it wouldn't be so obvious if it wasn't the same people commenting on every single article that's critical of there company or trashing on their competitors products.
Even Mozilla isn't innocent of this but Google is taking this to the next level; I wouldn't be surprised if they have there own 50 Cent Party specifically targeting (social) news websites.
The top comment starts "This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed" which doesn't seem to indicate an HN pro-Google bias.
Celeron is more than enough for everything if the software beneath is good enough -- remember, it's orders of magnitude faster than what we had in the 80s, but most computer tasks are still similar. Perhaps Google is betting on that?
16GB SSD needs to hold the OS (.5GB perhaps?), the browser (.1GB), and some cache (all the rest). Everything else is in the cloud.
"No Blue Screen" -- I suppose it hangs in some other way then :)
While definitely an interesting development in computing, I find the advertising used disingenuous.
They advertise "built-in anti virus" all over, when the truth probably is that there is no anti-virus at all. You can argue that there is a lack of need for this and as such advertising for a device without mentioning anti virus at all would make it seem "unsafe" or confusing for the less technically inclined.
But still claiming it has things it doesn't just to make the marketing department's job easier is in my books disingenuous. It's factually inaccurate. It's a lie.
To me it sounds like "Macs can't have viruses" all over again: It supposedly is safe and "has anti-virus" because it isn't Windows. That's pretty cheap and far from factual.
Why do you thik there's no antivirus? There are antiviruses that run on unices, like ClamAV for example - it's open source, they can include it for free - maybe they did.
ClamAV for Linux et. al. primarily targets Windows threats. It's primarily used to filter e-mail or scan SMB shares, not look for threats that might affect the machine they run on, so it'd seem a very odd choice to include.
I'm not seeing the new units for sale on Amazon.co.uk (though they do have updated copy and product shots for the Chrome device range) but the second-gen Samsung Chromebook is listed on the John Lewis website, which is one of the other retail partners.
I installed ChromeOS on my old VAIO recently. It is definitely not bad in the sense that things it cannot do don't fall in the 99%. I would be happier if Google manages to bring the Play store and run android apps on it. Anything I could imagine the machine couldn't do, there's an app on Android that does it.
If this could run Android apps too, $329 would appear to be a bargain.
Eventually there's going to have to be some merger. I think it could be Chrome OS becoming a variant of Android, considering there's now Chrome for Android.
That said, personally, I'd rather see Chrome OS on phones and tablets, and Android die off, since Chrome OS is the most web-first platform out there.
While Chrome OS is definitely the most web-first platform out there, right now that does not really work to its advantage.
Right now Android has the massive advantage in being able to work reasonably well while offline, something you can just forget with most web apps run on top of Chrome OS.
For a "desktop PC" I'm sure Chrome OS will be more than sufficient, since internet connectivity is not going to be an issue. For mobile devices however, you must always assume connectivity is missing, flaky or slow.
When web-apps finally get the whole offline thingie working a web-first option will become much more of a real option also for mobile, but it's the web which will need to drive it, not the other way around.
When web-app DEVELOPERS finally get the whole offline thingie working, a web-first option will become much more of a real option...
/edit: Then again, I'm not positive if Google Chrome's "intalled web apps" often being shortcuts are developer's fault or Google's? I'd love someone with insight to tell us.
It's an awkward combination. By installing a Chrome App, the app can use more and newer (read: more privileged and untested) APIs. These can help make offline apps better. Sometimes they simply look like links but DO enable other functionality. This is the case with several of the Google Apps.
I agree that it's confusing and it's one area where Google could (and I'm not saying they will, I really hope they don't) exert themselves and use the Chrome Web Store as a way of gating "web apps" in Chrome (versus branded "Chrome Apps")
Not all apps have been designed to work when offline and use local storage, local services etc. Most web apps will expect you to have constant connectivity in order to work or be useful.
IOW: Just because web-browsers support offline, doesn't mean the apps does it.
I used the Chromebook I got from Google I/O for a while. You have to understand that it's not designed to be a hacker's computer or even really a consumer device. It's designed to be a cheap, low-maintenance terminal for generic business computing. This is the new 3270.
I actually think it's a pretty good product for that purpose. The economics are compelling if you maintain hundreds of desktops. Instead of PC + Windows + Office + McAffee + a large desktop support organization, you just have ChromeOS devices and Google Apps. It's not sexy but 99% of the employees at the DMV don't need sexy, they just need to run a handful of basic apps.
There is a lot of crossover between the anti-power user at work and the anti-power user at home. The former gets a locked down machine managed by IT to keep it running and uses the browser and a contant handful of apps. The latter uses a machine that runs poorly because no one is managing it.
Making a disruptive improvement for one market would probably end up being compelling to both so you focus on either for a start.
I don't like the decision to focus on office staff first. Google's in a great position to sell to consumers. Also I think Apple demonstrated that going through consumers first encourages better products.
Those 2 comments really helped me understand where chromeOS and other browser-OS machines sit. The are the opposite of Raspberry PI, which is a tiny but all-capable thing for general purpose computing. They are limited by design, therefore might be more secure (not prone to OS-vulnerabilities) and suitable for anti-power users.
I've been using a chromebook at home as a mostly-primary computer, replacement for a 13" MBP w/ SSD (which cost ~$2000 when it was new).
The only thing that's weird is printing, but for 90% of "generic internet stuff" it works fantastic. ChromeOS just updated last night and I haven't even had a chance to mess with it.
It will even work mostly-ish as a web-dev terminal as it'll do SSH as well as chrome developer tools (although it is slightly hokey).
I'm a 15+ year linux user and I don't mind using the chromebook at all AS AN ADJUNCT TO A REAL COMPUTER!
A ChromeBook is ~1/10th the cost of a "real" computer, is SSD by default (only I think), is great for "kitchen computing", great for travel (just turn on password-protection and it gets very good battery life, and you don't mind if it gets lost, stolen, or damaged and it's very lightweight).
It's got a lot of advantages even for a power-user, although it doesn't (yet) replace a "real" computer / linux / osx box.
The things I've used my "real" computer for since then have been seashore (gimp), inkscape, video editing, printing, and some minor gaming, and I've had the MBP for 1-2 years and the chromebook for ~6 mo.
I don't see ~1/10th the cost. I'm on a netbook now, that I could re-buy for under US$300 with 2GB of RAM and 250GB drive. It's great for travel and runs 5+ hours on battery.
> PC + Windows + Office + McAffee + a large desktop support organization, you just have ChromeOS devices and Google Apps
I think if you put a Chromebook/Chromebox in front of most business users, the organization has to be using Citrix. Google Apps is not even remotely viable as a replacement for Office except in cost or for very basic work.
FWIW, I haven't used Office for 5 years and I don't miss it one bit. Google docs and gmail work fine and collaborative document editing is much easier.
The big challenge with business users are that they have established workflows and habits. Converting an existing Office-based infrastructure to Google Apps is a struggle mostly because it's expensive and difficult to retrain workers. On the other hand, if you start off with Google Apps, it works pretty well.
Certainly every now and then you have The Giant Spreadsheet Of Doom to maintain cost models or whatnot; this is more like custom application software that only a handful of users use. Give them Excel if they need it. There aren't many of these employees even in a large organization.
304 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 285 ms ] threadedit: Amazon has a lot more info: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE300M22-A01US-Series-3-Chrome...
edit the second: it seems pretty competitive with a Mac mini, actually. 1.9ghz Celeron instead of 2.3 i5, same RAM, and same graphics card. The 16gb SSD vs 500gb HDD might make the Chromebox feel snappier, though. And at $329 vs $599, it's quite a bit cheaper.
The main difference is that the Chromebox is limited to 4GB of RAM, whereas you can put upto 16GB in the Mini.
So Clock frequency IS the main differentiator here, 1.9Ghz vs 2.3-2.9Ghz (with turbo), which probably corresponds to 30% to 60% difference in general.
Specs of both processors:
Celeron B840: http://ark.intel.com/products/59801/Intel-Celeron-Processor-...
i5-2415M: http://ark.intel.com/products/53449/Intel-Core-i5-2415M-Proc...
There's a tiny little thing called the operating system which makes significantly more of a difference to the overall experience, performance and value of a computer than a few GHz.
So, also from my point of view the OS provided in the beginning is not interesting.
2. Chrome laptops and (now) desktops use verified boot, you won't be able to install your own OS unless you literally crack open the case (there are physical implements to prevent firmware flashing) and flash your own BIOS.
The guides that don't require flashing the BIOS are nightmares. Awful, awful hackish nightmares. I say this as someone who did it. It's much easier to open it up, but a piece of tape over some contact, flash the BIOS and install whatever you like.
However, I flat out don't think the disable BIOS protection option is available on retail devices. (I have the cr-48).
If you want a lightweight Linux box, don't buy this, you don't want it, honest.
Easy… one of them is a full computer and one of them is a web browser with 6 USB ports and 16 gig of storage
Actually, the Chromebox has 4 GB of RAM whereas the mini with the $599 list price has only 2 GB. So, technically your statement "same RAM" is incorrect even though upgrading the RAM on the mini to 4 GB will not cost very much.
Iterative design methods ("lets release and see what happens") in consumer hardware, may not be as suited as the Apple method viz. highly designed, integrated (aka ecosystem) and engineered approach.
I realise Chrome OS is somewhat still a market experiment, but I think it would've gone a lot further at a better price point. For ~$200 I would put one in my living room for checking the web & controlling my home web apps. I see that as the perfect way to get people familiar with it (thinking of it more like a tablet, a limited utility), then once NaCl goes mainstream, you have a who market who's ready to start replacing their other PCs.
That said, I don't have a Chromebook, and haven't watched the changes for a while. Anyone have a link or something handy for what they're up to lately?
I wonder how feasible it is to put a Linux distribution here and get it working. I know it is possible with the Chromebook, and if it's gonna work for the Chromebox, then shut up and take my money.
But seriously you can something with cheaper and better specs for less that $329 to run Linux.
But as small and quiet and that can drive two 30" monitors?
I have an Eee Box running Linux; it's physically larger, only supports one monitor (as far as I can tell), and the hardware video decoder can only do 720p. (The hardware video decoding is important because the Atom cannot decode 720p H.264 in real time itself.)
1, It is as small, slick and quiet as a Mac Mini. 2, It is designed to run Linux. 3, The hardware is backed by Smasung/Google. 4, It has a freakin' SSD? Unless you're compiling AOSP or put all of you music on it, 16GB is some space to spare. I guess there are ways to expand the internal storage too.
I assume you are selling some software solution to your customers and they also need hardware to run it. It might be a good purchase for some companies but at this price they can also get a standard desktop.
Is your software a web app then?
The consumer space between cheap laptops/netbooks and an iPad is vanishingly small.
So, it's a catch-22. Do you as a first party go it alone, and incur more cost, or curtail your retail spread and take less of a hit up front? From the disinterest in the retail Chromebooks, Google made the right call there.
That said, I wouldn't have minded a CR-48... But it was a little costly, and the other models were a little too wimpy. I'd think Google would take a risk by taking a loss on one huge product push... But I guess not.
Installable apps, like extensions, usually reside mostly locally and can have elevated permissions on some things: https://developers.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/developers_gu...
The only thing coming up for me is if the non-savvy user's vision is really horrible, such that he or she will always be using a big TV as a monitor, then the Chromebox wins because even with Airplay Mirroring, the user would have to look at the iPad to manipulate the elements of the iPad's user interface.
I think you are letting your enthusiasm for Google's commitment to innovation or your enthusiasm for ChromeOS's being based mainly on open-source codebases or your enthusiasm for the open web bias your thinking about what would be best for a non-savvy user!
Also, I see no reason why these shouldn't be running ARM chips. All you're using is the web, so it's not tied down to the x86 architecture like Windows is.
Because there are no ARM chips as powerful as the Celeron in the Chromebox.
Since the Galaxy Nexus can use a keyboard and mouse over Bluetooth and run a 1080p display over HDMI, the advantage of the Chromebox is that it can run multiple displays and connect external storage devices.
With Ubuntu for Android scheduled to be released later this year, a logical progression is that Google's future home appliances and mobile devices will run the same exact operating system, rather than two different ones.
However, Android is supposed to be open and has many different App Stores like Amazon Appstore that compete with Google's Android Play (Android Market), while Chrome O.S. will allow Google to own the entire purchase process (like Apple), which benefits the consumer by allowing them to purchase an app they already own on their iPad, Android phone, Mac, PC, and XBox a 6th time.
That's not true. You can install crx files from places other than the webstore. Infact there are a few app stores out there if anyone tries to google them.
Wait, doesn't that defeat the entire premise of the Chrome OS?
Also, what does this have to do with Android?
From the software side, it's a whole different animal. ChromeOS is intended to be very different from Android. I don't think you can compare some of the features like verified boot or integrated cloud services. Also, you can install apps on android as you like with the flick of a setting. ChromeOS doesn't have installed apps in the sense that they reside on the device. Apps are websites in ChromeOS, no difference. I'm pretty sure "installing an app" and "bookmarking a website" are the same thing in ChromeOS.
Not quiet so. I write chrome apps myself and there is is difference between websites and installable apps. Mostly they have more API access and features such as background processes. But the underlying technology is exactly same as websites. It's essentially a local website that is not hosted on any server but in browser's environment.
If you are interested to know exact differences then allow me to make a shameless plug. This is a media player but is installable instead of hosted. This makes it possible for the app to have a background page which runs even if the browser is closed. Being instalable instead of hosted also has an advantage of more flexible file API. But that is bound to change soon.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fddboknafkepdchido...
Also, installable web apps should be something not specific to Chrome. Why not make this an open standard so I can install my apps to other browsers without extra effort from the app developer.
And there is a thing known as installable web-apps. Which basically means you can install an app with just one manifest file hosted online. (it used to be in about:flags but now i think it has landed in stable release, but not sure). Which means no hassle of webstore or even maintaining a separate crx file, just upload a manifest.js once and forget :) Unfortunately background processing is not possible in hosted apps, just in installable ones.
It comes without an operating system, any storage, a case, or even a power supply. This is a huge, if not insurmountable, barrier to entry for a large portion of the population.
The Chromebox is a turnkey, plug in power, plug in TV, surf the web product. They couldn't be more dissimilar.
Just a quick note: The biggest piece of feedback I got from a journo friend of mine who just reviewed this chromebox is actually that out of the box it won't do HDMI or VGA (without buying an adapter separately that is), which seemed odd to me (and to him) given being easy to connect to a TV seems like a big use case for the chromebox.
edit: In case anyone wants to see his hands-on piece, it's at http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-mac-desktops/sams...
Some DVI ports can send VGA signals, in which case it would just be a matter of getting a cable with DVI pins on one end and VGA pins on the other.
In other words, the DVI spec contains a VGA-compatible part and an HDMI-like part so that a single DVI port can send VGA signals or HDMI-like "DVI-D" (DVI digital) signals.
Moreover, DVI-HDMI cables are common although some DVI ports cannot provide audio to go along with the video and others cannot speak the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection protocol.
Simplicity? I am very much willing to pay for a simple device that requires close to no support and maintenance. And I’m sure this is quite a common sentiment among people who have to service their relatives’ computers – huge, complex machines used mostly just to browse the web.
At the very least - theres _lot_ more RAM on board the Chrome Box, theres a "16G hard drive" (presumably ssd/flash?), there 6 usb ports, there's a power supply built in, bluetooth onboard, and there's a nice (enough) case wrapping it all up.
For _some_ people that's not worth ~$280, but there's not very many "general public" who're planning on plugging a RaspberryPi into their TV as part of their home entertainment system.
Alternatively as a mediacenter or server. I've used an Acer Revo for exactly this for the past two years now. The low power consumption maked it great for at-home development and hosting in my case.
You don't know what this Chrome box do because Google doesn't know either. Companies threw hardware and see what developers can do, and see where it evolves.
Google has already been through a few of these situations already ($300 Google TV set top box, $430 Chromebook at launch, $800 Honeycomb tablet at launch) and they still haven't learned anything. They haven't learned that the "early adopter price" tactic doesn't work well anymore. You need to price it for mainstream from day one, maintain the price throughout the year, and then just update the hardware for the same price every year. Consumers don't want to be cheated into buying a product that is twice as much at launch, compared to 6 months later.
Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies.
Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD.
The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issues.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead?
I think you have been downvoted _because_ you made a good point and the Google fanboys armed with downmods want to bury the comment. Unfortunate trend on HN here.
Note that my comment was more about the way it was presented rather than a complaint that it is slow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microproc...
Do you have any reference for that?
Intel's own page shows that only i3, i5 and i7 are part of the family as does Wikipedia.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core
Although I did forget about the Xeons.
Are there any cases of laptops or PCs with Celeron processors being referred to as having Core processors?
The text "Upgrade To An Intel® Core™ Processor" does appear on Intel's Celeron page, so there's that. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/celeron/ce...
(And, for what it's worth, I'm not completely defending Google on this, just pointing out what their reasoning could be.)
"Sandybridge base Samsung ChromeBox"
How many different types of ChromeBoxes is Samsung selling?
Even Mozilla isn't innocent of this but Google is taking this to the next level; I wouldn't be surprised if they have there own 50 Cent Party specifically targeting (social) news websites.
To be fair, it is Google's page. I don't expect anyone trying to sell me anything to tell me the negatives unless they're legally obligated to do so.
16GB SSD needs to hold the OS (.5GB perhaps?), the browser (.1GB), and some cache (all the rest). Everything else is in the cloud.
"No Blue Screen" -- I suppose it hangs in some other way then :)
They advertise "built-in anti virus" all over, when the truth probably is that there is no anti-virus at all. You can argue that there is a lack of need for this and as such advertising for a device without mentioning anti virus at all would make it seem "unsafe" or confusing for the less technically inclined.
But still claiming it has things it doesn't just to make the marketing department's job easier is in my books disingenuous. It's factually inaccurate. It's a lie.
To me it sounds like "Macs can't have viruses" all over again: It supposedly is safe and "has anti-virus" because it isn't Windows. That's pretty cheap and far from factual.
If this could run Android apps too, $329 would appear to be a bargain.
That said, personally, I'd rather see Chrome OS on phones and tablets, and Android die off, since Chrome OS is the most web-first platform out there.
Right now Android has the massive advantage in being able to work reasonably well while offline, something you can just forget with most web apps run on top of Chrome OS.
For a "desktop PC" I'm sure Chrome OS will be more than sufficient, since internet connectivity is not going to be an issue. For mobile devices however, you must always assume connectivity is missing, flaky or slow.
When web-apps finally get the whole offline thingie working a web-first option will become much more of a real option also for mobile, but it's the web which will need to drive it, not the other way around.
When web-app DEVELOPERS finally get the whole offline thingie working, a web-first option will become much more of a real option...
/edit: Then again, I'm not positive if Google Chrome's "intalled web apps" often being shortcuts are developer's fault or Google's? I'd love someone with insight to tell us.
I agree that it's confusing and it's one area where Google could (and I'm not saying they will, I really hope they don't) exert themselves and use the Chrome Web Store as a way of gating "web apps" in Chrome (versus branded "Chrome Apps")
IOW: Just because web-browsers support offline, doesn't mean the apps does it.
I actually think it's a pretty good product for that purpose. The economics are compelling if you maintain hundreds of desktops. Instead of PC + Windows + Office + McAffee + a large desktop support organization, you just have ChromeOS devices and Google Apps. It's not sexy but 99% of the employees at the DMV don't need sexy, they just need to run a handful of basic apps.
Making a disruptive improvement for one market would probably end up being compelling to both so you focus on either for a start.
I don't like the decision to focus on office staff first. Google's in a great position to sell to consumers. Also I think Apple demonstrated that going through consumers first encourages better products.
The only thing that's weird is printing, but for 90% of "generic internet stuff" it works fantastic. ChromeOS just updated last night and I haven't even had a chance to mess with it.
It will even work mostly-ish as a web-dev terminal as it'll do SSH as well as chrome developer tools (although it is slightly hokey).
I'm a 15+ year linux user and I don't mind using the chromebook at all AS AN ADJUNCT TO A REAL COMPUTER!
A ChromeBook is ~1/10th the cost of a "real" computer, is SSD by default (only I think), is great for "kitchen computing", great for travel (just turn on password-protection and it gets very good battery life, and you don't mind if it gets lost, stolen, or damaged and it's very lightweight).
It's got a lot of advantages even for a power-user, although it doesn't (yet) replace a "real" computer / linux / osx box.
The things I've used my "real" computer for since then have been seashore (gimp), inkscape, video editing, printing, and some minor gaming, and I've had the MBP for 1-2 years and the chromebook for ~6 mo.
I think if you put a Chromebook/Chromebox in front of most business users, the organization has to be using Citrix. Google Apps is not even remotely viable as a replacement for Office except in cost or for very basic work.
The big challenge with business users are that they have established workflows and habits. Converting an existing Office-based infrastructure to Google Apps is a struggle mostly because it's expensive and difficult to retrain workers. On the other hand, if you start off with Google Apps, it works pretty well.
Certainly every now and then you have The Giant Spreadsheet Of Doom to maintain cost models or whatnot; this is more like custom application software that only a handful of users use. Give them Excel if they need it. There aren't many of these employees even in a large organization.