The ARM bit is quietly hidden away on the specs page[0].
Can't find anything yet either way if these will still have the developer switch. If the build is as good as the 550 and this particular Exynos has decent performance; it'd make an awfully good cheap Linux laptop (not to say CrOS is worthless, far from it).
I think that the biggest ingredient of Apple's success is the "it just works" aspect. iOS and CrOS are much closer to this ideal than desktops have been. It is also possible to get even closer.
Argh I HATE that phrase, they "just work" as often as any Windows PC since XP has. In the past week in fact one of my designers was complaining of problems getting some work finished on her Mac that "just works" because guess what? It didn't JUST WORK!
Note the phrase "much closer to this ideal." And actually, I switched away from XP in 2003, because XP did't just work when trying out new video codecs. OS X did.
I should add I am not a MSoft fanboy, I've owned a Mac Classic back in the day and recently a Macbook Pro. But the Macbook pro had all kinds of issues with my outboard soundcard and midi interface that my windows PC never had and in the end was glad to get rid of it.
"It works" and "it is compatible" are different. Apple does more former than latter. MS is reverse, on the hardware side, for obvious business model reasons.
So glad they finally did this. I've been begging them to do a $250 Chromebook since day one, because I think that's the sweetspot for a "Chromebook", and the only way they could've achieved that, while also having good build quality and whatnot, was to use an ARM chip, and not an Intel one, so I'm glad they finally did that, too. I think it's long overdue, but perhaps they were waiting for the Cortex A15 chips to come to market, which I guess makes sense.
If Google would partner with Verizon or AT&T to offer these things for free (much better marketing than say a $50 price) with LTE and a 2 year contract, I think they would see even more sales, especially from businesses and professionals. Obviously they should be getting the data plans they get with an USB modem, not the amount they get with a cellphone plan.
250$? I really don't get it. Three years ago I bought a Gateway LT23 Netbook, with a 160GB HD and 1GB memory, it runs Windows7 and cost me 300$.
Aren't Netbooks better? And have been availbable for many years now?
Agreed. I think $150 is more appropriate. What makes me even MORE confused is the 550 model. $450 seems awfully expensive when compare to all your other computing options.
Edit - After a bit more consideration, I might be interested if the HDMI output is decent and the network TV websites won't block the browser. I would use the Chromebook as a replacement HTPC for my Google TV which is basically a brick now.
That's a spinning disk. There were 8/16 GB SSD netbooks for around the same price as that 160 GB HDD netbook. Plus, this seems higher quality than those typical netbooks. It's more like an ultrabook for $250, at least in terms of build quality and looks. The specs are obviously lower than a $1000 ultrabook.
This also probably runs a lot better with this chip and ChromeOS. I have one of those old netbooks myself with Windows 7, and the experience is very frustrating. You can't even switch to a different Chrome tab sometimes because the CPU is too busy loading another tab.
I've been using a i5 Windows 7 box for some office work and it has been, by far, the worst desktop experience I had in years. For other activities, I'm using a first gen Acer netbook running Ubuntu on an Atom processor and it's much smoother.
I don't think they are. The only thing that they might've subsidized (as in you get it for free) is that 100 GB of Google Drive storage, that you only get for 2 years.
Is Dell lying when they say their desktops can play 1080p? They don't even have a screen at all! Playing 1080p is more a gpu/cpu performance thing. Chromeboxes can do 1080p on 2 monitors, which is quite a feat considering their hardware.
Despite having a few other my portable devices my original single-core atom netbook (that came with XP!) is still one of the most remarkably useful devices I own.
I sort of lament how useless my Android tablet is in comparison. It's by far a better device for consumption but nothing beats a full desktop experience (even at a laughably low resolution).
And yet everyone goes on about an ipad being a 'cheap laptop alternative'. This isn't for everyone, but it definitely has a great niche. It has USB3, HDMI, 1366x768 screen, no moving parts and 6.5 hour battery life.
Putting the time difference aside, how many of those does your gateway have? The processor is probably a little faster, too.
That and with a better battery (sure they will come out or exist in some form) it becomes much nicer.
Though the 16GB storage, thought even with the Nexus 7 they are dropping the 16Gb and replacing with a 32GB as the new top end model. But this is the base model. Even adding a 4-cell battery and an a base of 40gb would of been a nice move and offered a longer lasting platform.
That all said I recently got me a netbook cheap on clearance, 2gb ram built in 3g modem...Even if I stuck a 80gb ssd in there it would still work out cheaper. Though this does look appealing as a grandparent/parent pressy given the time of year. Just show them how to email google and your covered; Very tempting.
And the Chromebook is more capable. With the current state of Microsoft's marketplace, there is literally zero compelling reason to buy into the WinRT ecosystem.
We don't know whether we will be able to make that claim or not. It's unclear how many vendors will port their software to the ARM version of Windows at this point. Even if they do, I suspect it will be more like 6-8 months, since a lot of people will be waiting to see how big the market is before supporting it.
And in case you are wondering, all my paychecks at the moment rely on Windows, and I have 0 involvement with anything related to the ARM version, nor do I hear about it. Anecdotal at one company, but I don't think it's unusual. Mobile support on the other hand, seems to be a big deal.
The PC market is in decline but still huge. Windows 8/RT will have more total users than Android tablets within a few month. The idea that companies aren't going to build for the default interface is silly.
But how dedicated to the default interface are they really going to be? I imagine there is going to be a lot of developers who decide that if they have to re-write their app anyways, it makes more sense to port it to the web than to port it to metro.
Really doubt it (about Win8/RT having more users than Android, ever), Smartphones are already selling more than PCs. Windows 7 took 2 years to reach 500 millions, and Android is already on that many hands (counting only OHA devices, ignoring Amazon/Nook/China Androids), will be on 1 billion by middle next year.
That's a bit of an unfair comparison. The surface works entirely offline, if you're using it for offline tasks. The Chromebook also works offline if you're using it for offline tasks.
The number of offline apps available for chrome is pretty limited, but so is the total number of apps available for winRT. as far as i can tell, both of these devices are basically just a web browser plus potential.
>Won't the Surface tablets be able to run Chrome just as well as a Chromebook, in addition to apps that aren't Chrome?
That depends entirely on the good graces of Microsoft.
On a less snarky note, the WinRT based tablets (the ones coming out in a week or so) can only run metro apps. Unless Chrome puts a version of the browser in Microsoft's marketplace, it won't be available for use.
If the Metro APIs include anything capable of running binary code, Chrome will probably be developed for it. Given Microsoft's recent history of being careful to display monopolistic behavior, I'm sure they'd allow Google to distribute Chrome through the Windows app marketplace.
Chromebooks just run a browser. Windows runs a browser and other things. Even if there aren't that many other things, your comment is fundamentally wrong.
but can it on Surface/Windows RT? I haven't checked back in on that for a few months, but my understanding is that they still won't let you run JIT compiled code unless you're built into the system -- aka Internet Explorer 10 or the CLR.
Firefox and Chrome will have Metro versions on x86, but will have to interpret JavaScript under Windows RT, and V8 doesn't have an interpreted mode.
Too bad the Surface currently for pre-order is ARM and thus runs Windows RT. An x86 version with Windows 8 should come later, but will likely be more expensive. Chrome won't run on RT unless it is in the Microsoft store.
So you can run them they'll just be slow? And could Chrome Frame be modified to run Chrome apps in IE at full speed?
Edit: just to be clear, without VirtualAlloc() and VirtualProtect(), you can't really run any JIT. No LuaJIT, no PyPy, no Java. No Scala, Clojure, or jRuby either.
It may be possible, Google may opt to release Chrome on it (or someone may port Chromium) but the lack of an optimizing runtime will probably make it suck when compared to IE.
Chrome could use the IE10 JavaScript engine presumably (depending on how easy it is to hook native APIs back into the rendering engine from JavaScript).
The comment you replied to said "Chromebooks just run a browser. Windows runs a browser and other things." The fact that Chrome (and Firefox) can run apps doesn't change that.
So cortex A15 has finally landed.. no mention of RAM or size of on-board SSD, i'm guessing 1-2GB and 8/16GB respectively (e: 2/16). Disappointing battery life ('over 6 hours', same as the x86 one), i guess the battery wasn't spared from the cost-cutting. Exynos 5 also means USB 3.
And do we know if you can definitely get linux on these (==interesting), or might they be super locked-down?
Definitely a device worth recommending to the former netbook/ 'only use my computer for facebook' crowd.
e: the battery is 2 cell, AFAIK even cheap x86 laptops come with 6-cell batteries, so it is a case of cost-minimizing.. shame, i'd lap this up with a 12-18hr battery life.
2 GB of RAM and 16 GB of SSD + 100 GB of SSD storage in Google Drive (for 2 years). The battery life does seem a bit strange. My guess is Google hasn't had enough time to optimize it as well as they did for Atom, which gives them pretty equal battery lives now, or they are using a smaller battery to cut costs, or Chromebook simply isn't as "ultra-mobile" as Android. But for a Chromebook, I think they need to increase that battery life somehow.
All ChromeOS devices to date have come with a "Developer Mode" hardware switch which turns off trusted boot and allows you to run your own OS / custom ChromeOS builds. I would bet this Chromebook is not locked down.
I thought they only allowed you to replace user space, not the Kernel?
I'm always so tempted by Chromebooks... All I want out of a laptop is no moving parts, < 12" screen, an 8+ hour battery, and 1080p video playback using my Linux distro of choice for under $300, but nobody delivers... Instead it's just endless parades of 'ultrabooks' that mysteriously cost $800+...
I could care less if the hard drive is 100 gigs or 16. But if you can't use your own Kernel I won't use it. Too much like buying a car with the hood welded shut.
But I guess for me a laptop is just the minor sibling of my desktop that's supposed to be good enough to watch movies while traveling and look up something on Wikipedia from the couch, and also be cheap enough that it doesn't have to last or not get stolen. In other words, not my main computer. But still have a keyboard.
I put a 40 GB SSD in my Cr-48, re-installed ChromeOS, then overwrote the BIOS, loaded Ubuntu, works fine. So long as they have an SD card slot, onboard memory shouldn't be a huge issue, but 16 GB is cramped.
If you don't want to dive _that_ deep, the developer switch still disables signature checking on kernels, so you can replace that one as well, but with their specialized bootloader, it's somewhat more difficult to get a system onto there than on a regular system (expectations on SSD partitioning etc)
(edit: clarified bootloader/firmware situation on ARM after finding appropriate link)
I've got one on preorder. I'm a gentoo dev in my spare time, and I definitely intend to get Gentoo running on it. I kind of have a leg up though since Chrome/ChromiumOS is built on Gentoo. In that regard, it already does run Linux, just their custom spin.
Now, here's a comment where I would think it makes sense to have karma visible. Because I suspect your comment should get some upvotes and that might influence OP's interest in doing a blog post, but we are also discouraged from "bump" comments. And instead, here I go, meta.
Well, actually, part of doing it IS documenting it so that others can enjoy Gentoo on their machine.
I normally do blog posts when I first get a machine, the unboxing and so forth, but documenting normally goes somewhere on the gentoo documentation site. Or possibly our new wiki.
And for the record when fun topics come up like ARM based hardware, or Linux stuff in general (I'm not much if a web guy, I prefer lower level work) I tend to visit the comments more than a couple times.
2 cell battery? Ouch. No wonder the battery life is surprisingly small for an ARM "laptop". My old netbook had 5 hours of battery life with a 6 cell battery, so they shouldn't have needed much more in battery capacity. 8h would've been "okay". 10-12h would've been hype-worthy. They definitely need to take this into account at least with future Chromebooks.
Ubuntu 12.10 may support Cortex A15, but I'm not sure. I know they were working on supporting it, so it's possible. There's also an open source Lima driver (for the Mali GPU's) but I don't know if they've even started reverse engineering the Mali T604 GPU in this thing, which is on a totally new GPU architecture, and has support for OpenGL ES 3.0 as well.
Second this question, if it can be "jailbroken" so you have a terminal with root privileges and a standard environment underneath it becomes an interesting option.
Current Chromebooks require a signed kernel on a separate partition. No grub, no BIOS. Not falling into that trap again, don't see why the new crop would be any better.
From one of the developers on the project: "(And getting a regular u-boot on these to use as generic linux hacking platforms isn't all that hard. Should be a nice base for people to do native ARM development)"
Weird future moment: a 21st century industry titan has to use puppies, kitties, and children to sell a machine that freely dispenses the sum total of humanity's knowledge.
That's why it's a weird future moment. We're living in an era where all the information in the world is so readily available that the market for devices that can display this information is hugely competitive.
I had exactly the same weird future moment a few hours ago when I saw the Android event invite: "The playground is open" [1]. Got me thinking what Mad Men era execs would make of it all.
Good question, but the medium has changed. That's a media invitation card, that is guaranteed to be carried by online tech sites, but we'll likely never see in Mad Man era TV or print.
Since I learned I was going to be a dad (in 7 months!), I've found these kinds of advertisements increasingly unsettling, in an uncanny-valley kind of way.
I love my tiny one. I've heard the quick little heartbeat. I'm largely responsible for if this little person grows up happy and healthy. The enormity of the ensuing feelings is impossible to express.
Uncanny valley situations arise when a simulation looks almost real, maybe 96% real, but the 4% difference is very unsettling because it just looks _off_. You feel a creeping sensation that something is wrong.
In this video, Google very poignantly portrays a bunch of vibrant people, children and fathers prominently featured. They are picking at the deepest heartstrings I've ever known. At the deepest anxieties and aspirations that it is possible to have in the human experience. It's 96% poignant.
But...they're doing this for what reason again? So they can sell me a $250 piece of electronics and absorb my family into their ecosystem? It's a 4% that makes the entire rest of it feel fake.
Turns out that cognitive dissonance relating to your children, even peripherally, is really uncomfortable. :/
Hey, there's a reason "Won't somebody please think of the children?" is such a devastatingly effective argument. I've found it is an effective cognitive defense to learn to become pissed off that somebody would be so manipulative as to reach for that. It's the cognitive-emotional equivalent of grabbing you by the balls, and it's not a polite move.
Appeals to emotion rarely have any substance - but remember that sometimes there is other supporting evidence for arguments, even if an emotional appeal is used.
I don't mean to deny your gut/emotional response. But isn't all of capitalism based on the idea that two entities can make an exchange that is mutually beneficial?
On the purely economic level, Google is offering a hunk of electronics and software for $250. (There are secondary economic effects too; the Chromebook will encourage the use of Google services, etc).
On the emotional level, Google is offering an an experience and trying to show how it could be a part of your family life and make it better. And you are offering Google employees a chance to feel like they're making the world better (speaking as a Googler, I can say that I definitely care about that sort of thing).
As a completely honest question: do you feel this way about ads that sell diapers/baby-food/etc?
No, I don't really have this visceral reaction (or at least not nearly as much) to baby companies, but that is probably because none of their stuff that I've seen feels as starkly personal as this video. Maybe their stuff is 50% to 80% compelling, and thus doesn't make it into uncanny valley territory.
Also, because products more fundamentally require themes of babies / children / parenting, so discordance is limited anyway.
That's an interesting thought about the emotional exchange, I never thought of people in a company as recipients in an emotional exchange with their customers. Fascinating.
As a father myself raising little programmers, I can relate to your depth of feeling--well, about the kids anyway. If it's any help, on most days my little guys grab the nearest available electronic device with Web access to work on homework, to pretend to do homework, to work on their own websites, to check on their YouTube view count, to email their friends, chat online with grandpa (a former programmer), and so on. I only watched once, but that video didn't strike me as strangely inauthentic.
I'm just hoping that devices such as these can evolve to the point where ubiquitous, online touchscreen and laptop devices run HTML5-based apps that are effectively as good as any native app (for most types of apps) so that I don't have to teach these little ones a whole different programming stack for each device in the house.
Hey congrats, and I hear what you're saying about people tugging on heartstrings to sell stuff.
But I think the kid connection is a legit part of the point. In the developed world at least, $250 is getting into the range where something stops being an Expensive Piece of Electronics and starts being something that your kids can break without breaking the bank.
Many people would hesitate to give a more expensive laptop to a young kid. But something this cheap changes that equation. So the kid stuff in the ad isn't just heartstring-tugging, it's part of the point.
Showing an ad where a kid drops a laptop in the bathtub (um, maybe not quite that) and life goes on would be cool. Making an ad about a dead mom and playing sapping music to match a video hangout is over the top.
I've often wondered - do people really wish to see the earliest events of their lives? My parents took tons of videos and photos of me as I was growing up, but I've never felt the urge to look through them. Sometimes I think that these sorts of collections are more for parents to relive their children's early days (and as a parent of a 2 year old, I definitely feel like all the pictures and videos I take are more for me than my child when she's older).
Having worked in the advertising world at many points in my career, I completely understand the visceral reaction you're talking about (I now work in news).
When my son was born a year and a half ago, my wife and I agreed to a "no screen time" clause for him until the age of two. When he's around, there's no television, laptop screens, Netflix, or iPhones. Occasionally, exceptions occur, and it's not a big deal. NPR and Pandora are acceptable media alternatives in our household.
So far the results have been great. He LOVES to read, and has shown a general disinterest in television when it is on. As a bonus, I've already prevented him from exposure to thousands of advertisements.
Go for it. I grew up without TV other than occasional exposure. Its a good choice. There is an opportunity to introduce children to Wikipedia before TV now. Creation before consumption. Could be interesting. Clay Shirky wrote a lot about creation first.
Now that you mention it, I realize how creepy that must seem. I also realize that I have a huge barrier or boundary to feeling emotion about anything I see on an advertisement. It's like the most cynical piece of me dismisses all emotions with prejudice.
I doubt it. It used to be pretty good with dual core A9's too at 1.2 Ghz. This is a dual core A15 at 1.7 Ghz. And TheVerge reports 1080p works very well on it.
Until Google upgrades their apps, or write new ones, that utilized advanced HTML5 capabilities, I have to assume they aren't serious about the platform and neither should anyone else be. They didn't release Android without apps, Chromebooks should get the same treatment.
Packaged apps (still Chrome canary) now at least have most UDP/TCP socket functionality (when experimental API turned on in flags), so the door is at least open (soon) to more advanced apps.
It's been open since they did ChromeOS, but Google Talk was the only app they wrote specifically for it. Even today, 95% of Google's apps are firmly HTML4.
All of the normal apps you would get when you buy a new computer or smartphone. Email, calendar, maps, news reader, word processor. Technologies would include things like css transforms, transitions, animations, application cache, indexeddb, file api, canvas, video, full screen... the things that make web apps feel like apps and not web pages.
Gmail, Calendar, Maps, Reader, Google News, and Google Docs aren't enough?
What do CSS transforms have to do with making an app feel like an app? They all work full screen, or you can open them windowed, with no chrome controls. They don't need local file access (though many use it) because they're beginning to store files in Drive. Some of the apps may already use appcache to speed up startup.
> Gmail, Calendar, Maps, Reader, Google News, and Google Docs aren't enough?
No, they're not. Aside from Maps using WebGL, I don't believe any of those are using anything that can reasonably called "cutting edge", and most of them are relatively unchanged in the last 5 years. Since Google wants developers to built for Chrome, and wants users, companies, and educators to spend money on Chrome, they should show that they themselves are dedicated to Chrome as well. The first party app support is equivalent to releasing Android without a Gmail app, but a shortcut to the browser version.
Huh? Gmail is the Chrome app. There will never be a separate Chrome version of Gmail. Over time Gmail is using more HTML5 features, but those work on other browsers too.
What other "web apps" work better these days than Google's? What is your basis for saying Google's apps don't have advanced HTML5 capabilities? Have you heard of Offline Google Drive for example? How do you think they pull that off? HTML5...
What puzzles me is why the ChromeBox, with no display (and I'm not sure if it comes with a keyboard and mouse) costs $329 and lacks HDMI. If it were $199 and had HDMI it would seem like a very compelling device.
The cost could be better, but keep in mind that this thing can drive 2x30 inch monitors. My latest and greatest macbook pro can't even do that smoothly. Actually, streaming 1080p Netflix on my 30 inch monitor makes the fan get pretty loud.
You can buy a very cheap displayport HDMI adapter; we have a chromebox connected to our television. Although we're currently having a problem with overscan. (The displayport-hdmi connection also seems to flake out when the TV is not connected to it...)
I have an iPad 3 and a Chromebook. I like and use the Chromebook much more, because of the built in keyboard. I know plenty of people who would hate using a Chromebook and much prefer their iPad for everything. To each his own.
I was interested in buying, but I'm totally confused. Wikipedia also just lists the 550 model as the one released now, and has nothing matching the spec in the Google post.
Anyone worked it out? Sorry if I've missed something...
Yeah, I can't work out if PC World even have it listed? It doesn't seem to have a model number, it's just Samsung Chromebook, which doesn't really help!
Seriously, shut up and take my money?! 100GB of Google Drive storage for 2 years is included in the price. That storage alone would cost $120 ($5/month). So if you were already in the market for extra storage, you can get an ARM Chromebook for $130.
It's obvious now that Google intends to keep improving Chrome OS, the devices on which it runs, the services that come with it (100GB of free online storage!), and the cost & headaches of maintaining it -- while aggressively cutting prices.
I'm expecting a $199 Chromebook within a couple of years, and a $99 model within the next five years. This has the potential for upending the prevailing business model of traditional PC vendors.
Google's revenue is very closely tied to the amount that people use the web in general. So much so, that they will make more money simply by encouraging people to use the web more. As a result, their strategy is largely to reduce the barriers to the next click and the next session, and thereby moving closer to the next Google search. Faster connections, faster browsers, cheaper devices, more ubiquitous access, etc.
It's almost like oil companies subsidizing the cost of cars to make more money. Reminds me of the start of the Michelin guide book, which was created to encourage people to drive to interesting places in France.
The same can be said of Amazon and their willingness to take losses on hardware just for the chance to get people into their content ecosystem. I've certainly found that, since getting my Kindle, I purchase all of my eBooks (used to pirate), and also use the Amazon store for goods quite frequently, whereas I previously had never used it.
I would say they are more like a funnel. And they are trying to make their funnel even bigger. They make their money by sending you to other websites and services, which is why most people don't consider them a walled garden.
Their mail and calendaring apps sure don't, for example.
At this point Google is big enough that generalizing about how they make money is a bit pointless, because they have a bunch of different revenue streams. The only commonality is advertising.
Sure. They're way better than many about vendor lock-in, because they do realize that it's somewhat evil. Not to mention often counterproductive.
But that's not stopping them from signing deals to get Chrome drive-by installed on users' computers, say. Again, it's a big place. Some of it is still all about "do no evil", while other parts seem to be run by scumbags. Pretty good for a large corporation, all things considered, but not exactly all wonderful.
The 'open internet' is often just a reverse walled garden. Things used to be locked down on your device, now they are locked down on remote servers where you couldn't even pry them out if you tried hard & ignored the law. (Unless you're the US government, in that case things have gotten much easier.)
The only advantage is that there is no middle-man between you and using any app (website) you want. But no company has ever tried to restrict web access on its devices, so where's the advantage?
And judging Google by its products: Google+ actually seems a lot more closed to me than Facebook (hardly any API?). Android itself is open source, but it is hardly about pushing the open web either. (At least it stopped pushing Flash)
While I don't entirely disagree with your point about the "open internet" being another kind of walled garden, there are definitely companies and organisations that have taken steps to ensure that the open web is actually "open," and Google is one of them. Evidence: https://www.google.com/takeout, which lets you export data from almost all of your Google services.
Some major innovations from Android have inspired sister projects for the open web, like http://webintents.org/
Also, I think you're misinterpreting the term "open internet" ; it usually means "open" for the developer, not the user. However, it's still better for users, as competition between open standards and technologies means that they usually get the best solutions (exceptions being things like h.264) This is certainly better than the classic walled garden where one company gets to decide what developers may or may not use.
In short, it's better because it's:
- unfiltered (mature content, etc.)
- unrestricted in terms of technologies used
- partially open for users
This business model is not new at all. That's what video games console manufacturers (except Nintendo) have been doing for dozens of years. Selling the hardware very cheap, at no margin or even "dumping it", to make money on the software licenses. Really, Google has not invented anything.
All consoles use the "cheaper razors, more expensive blades" model, but there is a big difference in exactly how.
Nintendo actually prices their gaming consoles above production cost (and probably above all-in cost) AND charges huge license fees to developers (and also has a huge first party developer userbase, unlike the other companies).
Nintendo is the company who maximizes profits, Sony and Microsoft at best maximized top-line and in reality just tried to maximize market share.
Aren't these Chromebooks subsidized by Google to get into mainstream faster? I always felt there were big tie-ups. (See Asus Nexus tablet pricing)
And How much is a google user+account worth? An android or a chromebook device is worth atleast $$$+ for Google on the long-run. And users are Locked'in with google's services! And more and more Web users mean more $ flows for google. :)
It must be certain for every subsidized device that ships, Google must be sharing revenues.
There's 2 models listed in the UK at £229 and £299. Not sure why, the only spec diff I can see on PC World is one says LCD the other says HD LCD. Yet the resolution is listed as being the same.
I'd like it if they weren't telling two stories. We have almost opposing operating systems being shipped by these guys.
We have Chrome OS on one hand which focuses on the web being the be all and end all of computing. Then we have Android on the other hand which focuses on client side processing.
Android has people downloading "apps", true, but the apps Google pushes still have the "cloud" has their data backend.
It's not like Android's star applications are ones that get you to keep all your data local to your phone. In fact, Chrome OS being centered around the browser (I assume), note the push of the "Google Chrome Web Store" which has browser "apps" installable.
iOS and Mac OS are not the same. WP8 and Windows 8 are also not the same, just look the same. That being yes, I'd probably prefer some kind of merger, too. But the execution needs to be flawless, and they need to make a compelling case for why you'd use ChromeOS over Android's Chrome when docked to the keyboard.
A coworker explained Google to me as more like a university than a company. It would not be surprising to find two departments in the same university working in divergent or even cross directions.
Use Google cloudprint. If you sign-in, it should list all the printers that are connected to any of your other computers where you're signed into Chrome (i.e. through Chrome settings, not just signed into gmail).
344 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 224 ms ] threadCan't find anything yet either way if these will still have the developer switch. If the build is as good as the 550 and this particular Exynos has decent performance; it'd make an awfully good cheap Linux laptop (not to say CrOS is worthless, far from it).
[0] http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/samsung-chromeb...
I think that the biggest ingredient of Apple's success is the "it just works" aspect. iOS and CrOS are much closer to this ideal than desktops have been. It is also possible to get even closer.
If Google would partner with Verizon or AT&T to offer these things for free (much better marketing than say a $50 price) with LTE and a 2 year contract, I think they would see even more sales, especially from businesses and professionals. Obviously they should be getting the data plans they get with an USB modem, not the amount they get with a cellphone plan.
Last time I checked, the exchange rate wasn't £1=$1!
[0] http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/chromebook-1460-commercial.htm...
Edit: The pictured models at the bottom of the page start at £250 but the copy at the top says "Starting at £199.97".
They got me.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebooks.htm...
Edit - After a bit more consideration, I might be interested if the HDMI output is decent and the network TV websites won't block the browser. I would use the Chromebook as a replacement HTPC for my Google TV which is basically a brick now.
Processor: Atom n450 (single-core 1.6ghz vs Arm 15 (dual core 1.7ghz)
Fan: Yes vs No
HDD: Spinning rust vs. SSD
Weight: 2.75lbs vs 2.lbs
Screen 10.1" 1024x600 vs 11.6" 1366x786
Innovation continues apace from what I can see.
The Atom is not the problem here.
Unlike Microsoft, here Google pays for every device. :)
I think that's very misleading. The average consumer is just going to take that claim at face value and believe they are getting a 1080p screen.
Not that I would want to install Windows on it, but it certainly feels nice to have a machine like that.
I sort of lament how useless my Android tablet is in comparison. It's by far a better device for consumption but nothing beats a full desktop experience (even at a laughably low resolution).
Putting the time difference aside, how many of those does your gateway have? The processor is probably a little faster, too.
Though the 16GB storage, thought even with the Nexus 7 they are dropping the 16Gb and replacing with a 32GB as the new top end model. But this is the base model. Even adding a 4-cell battery and an a base of 40gb would of been a nice move and offered a longer lasting platform.
That all said I recently got me a netbook cheap on clearance, 2gb ram built in 3g modem...Even if I stuck a 80gb ssd in there it would still work out cheaper. Though this does look appealing as a grandparent/parent pressy given the time of year. Just show them how to email google and your covered; Very tempting.
Microsoft Surface with Keyboard: $600. Chromebook: $249
And in case you are wondering, all my paychecks at the moment rely on Windows, and I have 0 involvement with anything related to the ARM version, nor do I hear about it. Anecdotal at one company, but I don't think it's unusual. Mobile support on the other hand, seems to be a big deal.
While it might have a high number of entries, I just don't think we know how well supported it will be 2 months from now.
I've got a chromebook in the office as a test machine and its a fancy brick without a network connection.
The number of offline apps available for chrome is pretty limited, but so is the total number of apps available for winRT. as far as i can tell, both of these devices are basically just a web browser plus potential.
That depends entirely on the good graces of Microsoft.
On a less snarky note, the WinRT based tablets (the ones coming out in a week or so) can only run metro apps. Unless Chrome puts a version of the browser in Microsoft's marketplace, it won't be available for use.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/home
http://grab.by/gRs8
Firefox and Chrome will have Metro versions on x86, but will have to interpret JavaScript under Windows RT, and V8 doesn't have an interpreted mode.
Edit: just to be clear, without VirtualAlloc() and VirtualProtect(), you can't really run any JIT. No LuaJIT, no PyPy, no Java. No Scala, Clojure, or jRuby either.
So cortex A15 has finally landed.. no mention of RAM or size of on-board SSD, i'm guessing 1-2GB and 8/16GB respectively (e: 2/16). Disappointing battery life ('over 6 hours', same as the x86 one), i guess the battery wasn't spared from the cost-cutting. Exynos 5 also means USB 3.
And do we know if you can definitely get linux on these (==interesting), or might they be super locked-down?
Definitely a device worth recommending to the former netbook/ 'only use my computer for facebook' crowd.
e: the battery is 2 cell, AFAIK even cheap x86 laptops come with 6-cell batteries, so it is a case of cost-minimizing.. shame, i'd lap this up with a 12-18hr battery life.
I'm always so tempted by Chromebooks... All I want out of a laptop is no moving parts, < 12" screen, an 8+ hour battery, and 1080p video playback using my Linux distro of choice for under $300, but nobody delivers... Instead it's just endless parades of 'ultrabooks' that mysteriously cost $800+...
I could care less if the hard drive is 100 gigs or 16. But if you can't use your own Kernel I won't use it. Too much like buying a car with the hood welded shut.
But I guess for me a laptop is just the minor sibling of my desktop that's supposed to be good enough to watch movies while traveling and look up something on Wikipedia from the couch, and also be cheap enough that it doesn't have to last or not get stolen. In other words, not my main computer. But still have a keyboard.
If you don't want to dive _that_ deep, the developer switch still disables signature checking on kernels, so you can replace that one as well, but with their specialized bootloader, it's somewhat more difficult to get a system onto there than on a regular system (expectations on SSD partitioning etc)
(edit: clarified bootloader/firmware situation on ARM after finding appropriate link)
bump.
I normally do blog posts when I first get a machine, the unboxing and so forth, but documenting normally goes somewhere on the gentoo documentation site. Or possibly our new wiki.
And for the record when fun topics come up like ARM based hardware, or Linux stuff in general (I'm not much if a web guy, I prefer lower level work) I tend to visit the comments more than a couple times.
For those not familiar with building chrome, it should be something like export BOARD=daisy before doing the setup/build steps.
[0] http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE303C12-H01US-Chromebook-3G-1...
[0] http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/chrome-os-devices/XE303C1...
https://plus.google.com/109993695638569781190/posts/6MDhf9Hu...
1. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/googles-october-29-an...
Since I learned I was going to be a dad (in 7 months!), I've found these kinds of advertisements increasingly unsettling, in an uncanny-valley kind of way.
I love my tiny one. I've heard the quick little heartbeat. I'm largely responsible for if this little person grows up happy and healthy. The enormity of the ensuing feelings is impossible to express.
Uncanny valley situations arise when a simulation looks almost real, maybe 96% real, but the 4% difference is very unsettling because it just looks _off_. You feel a creeping sensation that something is wrong.
In this video, Google very poignantly portrays a bunch of vibrant people, children and fathers prominently featured. They are picking at the deepest heartstrings I've ever known. At the deepest anxieties and aspirations that it is possible to have in the human experience. It's 96% poignant.
But...they're doing this for what reason again? So they can sell me a $250 piece of electronics and absorb my family into their ecosystem? It's a 4% that makes the entire rest of it feel fake.
Turns out that cognitive dissonance relating to your children, even peripherally, is really uncomfortable. :/
</passionate_rant>
On the purely economic level, Google is offering a hunk of electronics and software for $250. (There are secondary economic effects too; the Chromebook will encourage the use of Google services, etc).
On the emotional level, Google is offering an an experience and trying to show how it could be a part of your family life and make it better. And you are offering Google employees a chance to feel like they're making the world better (speaking as a Googler, I can say that I definitely care about that sort of thing).
As a completely honest question: do you feel this way about ads that sell diapers/baby-food/etc?
ps. Congratulations on fatherhood!
No, I don't really have this visceral reaction (or at least not nearly as much) to baby companies, but that is probably because none of their stuff that I've seen feels as starkly personal as this video. Maybe their stuff is 50% to 80% compelling, and thus doesn't make it into uncanny valley territory.
Also, because products more fundamentally require themes of babies / children / parenting, so discordance is limited anyway.
That's an interesting thought about the emotional exchange, I never thought of people in a company as recipients in an emotional exchange with their customers. Fascinating.
I'm just hoping that devices such as these can evolve to the point where ubiquitous, online touchscreen and laptop devices run HTML5-based apps that are effectively as good as any native app (for most types of apps) so that I don't have to teach these little ones a whole different programming stack for each device in the house.
But I think the kid connection is a legit part of the point. In the developed world at least, $250 is getting into the range where something stops being an Expensive Piece of Electronics and starts being something that your kids can break without breaking the bank.
Many people would hesitate to give a more expensive laptop to a young kid. But something this cheap changes that equation. So the kid stuff in the ad isn't just heartstring-tugging, it's part of the point.
Having worked in the advertising world at many points in my career, I completely understand the visceral reaction you're talking about (I now work in news).
When my son was born a year and a half ago, my wife and I agreed to a "no screen time" clause for him until the age of two. When he's around, there's no television, laptop screens, Netflix, or iPhones. Occasionally, exceptions occur, and it's not a big deal. NPR and Pandora are acceptable media alternatives in our household.
So far the results have been great. He LOVES to read, and has shown a general disinterest in television when it is on. As a bonus, I've already prevented him from exposure to thousands of advertisements.
For more: http://commercialfreechildhood.org/issue/screen-time
Best of luck to you and your new family.
</side_tangent>
Behind Chrome, Google uses plugins, like webgl for Maps and the Talk plugin for chat.
Why does HTML " 5 " matter more than the actual functionality?
What do CSS transforms have to do with making an app feel like an app? They all work full screen, or you can open them windowed, with no chrome controls. They don't need local file access (though many use it) because they're beginning to store files in Drive. Some of the apps may already use appcache to speed up startup.
No, they're not. Aside from Maps using WebGL, I don't believe any of those are using anything that can reasonably called "cutting edge", and most of them are relatively unchanged in the last 5 years. Since Google wants developers to built for Chrome, and wants users, companies, and educators to spend money on Chrome, they should show that they themselves are dedicated to Chrome as well. The first party app support is equivalent to releasing Android without a Gmail app, but a shortcut to the browser version.
What other "web apps" work better these days than Google's? What is your basis for saying Google's apps don't have advanced HTML5 capabilities? Have you heard of Offline Google Drive for example? How do you think they pull that off? HTML5...
I'm with you on the price thing though.
It links to this PC WOrld page for the UK model which just confuses me further: http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/chromebook-1460-commercial.htm...
I was interested in buying, but I'm totally confused. Wikipedia also just lists the 550 model as the one released now, and has nothing matching the spec in the Google post.
Anyone worked it out? Sorry if I've missed something...
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-series-3-xe303c12-11-6...
But it's 300 GBP, or 484 USD (excluding shipping), almost twice the price advertised!
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-series-3-xe303c12-wifi...
£229 or £249 in-store. Bananas.
I'm expecting a $199 Chromebook within a couple of years, and a $99 model within the next five years. This has the potential for upending the prevailing business model of traditional PC vendors.
It's almost like oil companies subsidizing the cost of cars to make more money. Reminds me of the start of the Michelin guide book, which was created to encourage people to drive to interesting places in France.
This a good thing, as it means they're powerful advocates for a more open internet.
Their mail and calendaring apps sure don't, for example.
At this point Google is big enough that generalizing about how they make money is a bit pointless, because they have a bunch of different revenue streams. The only commonality is advertising.
But that's not stopping them from signing deals to get Chrome drive-by installed on users' computers, say. Again, it's a big place. Some of it is still all about "do no evil", while other parts seem to be run by scumbags. Pretty good for a large corporation, all things considered, but not exactly all wonderful.
The 'open internet' is often just a reverse walled garden. Things used to be locked down on your device, now they are locked down on remote servers where you couldn't even pry them out if you tried hard & ignored the law. (Unless you're the US government, in that case things have gotten much easier.)
The only advantage is that there is no middle-man between you and using any app (website) you want. But no company has ever tried to restrict web access on its devices, so where's the advantage?
And judging Google by its products: Google+ actually seems a lot more closed to me than Facebook (hardly any API?). Android itself is open source, but it is hardly about pushing the open web either. (At least it stopped pushing Flash)
Some major innovations from Android have inspired sister projects for the open web, like http://webintents.org/
Also, I think you're misinterpreting the term "open internet" ; it usually means "open" for the developer, not the user. However, it's still better for users, as competition between open standards and technologies means that they usually get the best solutions (exceptions being things like h.264) This is certainly better than the classic walled garden where one company gets to decide what developers may or may not use.
In short, it's better because it's: - unfiltered (mature content, etc.) - unrestricted in terms of technologies used - partially open for users
Nintendo actually prices their gaming consoles above production cost (and probably above all-in cost) AND charges huge license fees to developers (and also has a huge first party developer userbase, unlike the other companies).
Nintendo is the company who maximizes profits, Sony and Microsoft at best maximized top-line and in reality just tried to maximize market share.
And How much is a google user+account worth? An android or a chromebook device is worth atleast $$$+ for Google on the long-run. And users are Locked'in with google's services! And more and more Web users mean more $ flows for google. :)
It must be certain for every subsidized device that ships, Google must be sharing revenues.
The fine print: "100 GB of free storage is valid for 2 years, starting on the date you redeem the Drive offer."
Maybe people will be more gullible this time.
A 250 euro Chromebook (VAT included) would be a nice buy. This means an ARM-based Chromebox should be around 150?
It's unclear from the announcement if Flash works or not since Youtube could be streaming H264.
Edit: Specs, including prices on https://sites.google.com/a/pressatgoogle.com/samsungchromebo...
http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/landing.html http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/samsung-chromeb...
We have Chrome OS on one hand which focuses on the web being the be all and end all of computing. Then we have Android on the other hand which focuses on client side processing.
Which one do they actually believe in?
It's not like Android's star applications are ones that get you to keep all your data local to your phone. In fact, Chrome OS being centered around the browser (I assume), note the push of the "Google Chrome Web Store" which has browser "apps" installable.
I don't think their strategy is divided.
Because I doubt it would work with my Epson for example.
Unless it can use linux drivers.
http://www.google.com/cloudprint/learn/