8 ms·

When I first saw the Chromebook, I figured it would be priced around $150, so that it was a no-brainer decision (especially with it's limitations over a normal

When I first saw the Chromebook, I figured it would be priced around $150, so that it was a no-brainer decision (especially with it's limitations over a normal laptop). But at $349, its still $75 more than an Acer Aspire One. Make it $100-$150, and I'll buy it. As it stands though, its too much money and too little benefits.

lftl 15y ago
To be fair as far as I can tell, there is no directly comparable Windows Acer Aspire One. All the 11.6" Acers I see run on a different chipset, and they're all only $20 cheaper than the Acer Chromebook. When I first tried out the Chromebook, I thought the same thing about price. But I'm pretty sure Microsoft licenses Windows for these netbooks VERY cheaply, so there's not much price to be shaved by swapping out the OS. To hit a significant price difference Chromebooks would have to skimp on the hardware compared to their Windows/Linux counterparts. The Chromebook I have already struggles with flash, so without dropping support for that completely I don't think there's much to trim off the CPU end of things. There's a little room to skimp on the HD compared to Windows, but not a ton. So basically I don't see any route other than being ad supported, rentals or some other type of Google subsidy for Chromebooks to actually become cheaper than the low end of the netbook segment.
- jasongullickson 15y ago
  What does Windows have to do with it? Couldn't you achieve "Chromebook-level-functionality" with a Linux model (since you'd be living out of the browser)?
  - lftl 15y ago
    I was mostly just trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison based on price. I couldn't find any Acer linux laptops that ship with linux in a quick search. Functionality-wise, yes there's no reason you couldn't get linux on par with Chrome from a leanness standpoint by just stripping out services and booting into the browser.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  They don't really need to skimp on hardware. They just need to use the inexpensive ARM chips over the expensive Intel chips. That should cut at least $100 from the retail price. I can't believe they did the same mistake as with Google TV.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    The Atom N570 costs $86, so unless ARM is literally paying people to use its chips, dropping $100 seems unlikely.
    - listic 15y ago
      I think Atom N570 needs a chipset, too (maybe it's a single chip now, but still.)
- erikpukinskis 15y ago
  The Chromebook I have already struggles with flash A little off topic, but I find it interesting to note that what Apple has gotten in exchange for the flak they got for not including Flash on the iPad is that they don't have any reviews like this. People consider the iPad to have good performance. If Google had taken the same route and left out Flash, not only might they have more room to trim the CPU, it might be a better value proposition performance-wise.
  - streeter 15y ago
    The fact that Google owns the most popular flash site on the internet (YouTube), probably helped with their decision to include Flash.
    - esrauch 15y ago
      I assume the chromebooks support html5 video, which youtube also supports. Apple was able to have iPhones still work with youtube without supporting flash, so Google could have found a similar workaround even without including html5 video tags.
      - streeter 15y ago
        Though the iPhone uses a YouTube app, which isn't the web. The allure of the Chromebook is that it can play the whole web, and YouTube is a big part of that. YouTube does have html5 video, but it is still in beta and isn't available for all videos. And it is opt-in. In addition, with the focus on enterprise and education, I believe that Chromebooks had to support flash as a requirement.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Samsung Series 5 cost $334.32 to make.[1] Your price expectations are way off. [1]http://www.thechromesource.com/with-what-it-costs-to-make-is-the-samsung-series-5-chromebook-overpriced/ http://www.thechromesource.com/with-what-it-costs-to-make-is...
- mestudent 15y ago
  To be honest I expect a chromebook to be priced similar or at the very least $200 for me to be competitive with a more powerful/portable netbook. His expectations aren't off, the manufacturing limitations just don't meet them.
  - samuel 15y ago
    Asus is going to sell(presumably) the eee x101 running MeeGo for 200$, with decent specs for a "net oriented" computer(1 core Atom, 1GB RAM, 8GB SSD), so aren't manufacturing limitations what drive them away from that price tag. May be Google doesn't want to be identified with the somewhat crappy experience that low end hardware may deliver, just as they don't want Android to be associated with cheap smartphones, but with the iPhone competitors. Which would be silly because their "OS" is much more limited than Windows 7, even the Starter version, and its only compelling feature would be to run on much cheaper hardware.
- watty 15y ago
  I figured Google would try to use their ad-powered business strategy to lower the profit margin to near-zero or negative rather than competing against netbooks. Didn't PS3 sell hardware for much lower than cost to manufacture? These things would sell like hotcakes for $200 and Google would grow in users and advertising revenue. I was just surprised that they're selling near netbook prices considering they're limited devices and tied so tightly into Google Services. I don't see them disrupting the mobile device industry with Chromebooks unless they decide that # of users is much more important than profit per sale.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
bane 15y ago
I could see $200-250. It's basically a big netbook with most of the ports and storage removed. Better to just buy a largish netbook (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220942 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220...) and install Chrome OS on it. (http://moreinews.com/google-chrome-os-review-notebook-tablet-download-iso-image/ http://moreinews.com/google-chrome-os-review-notebook-tablet...)
smackfu 15y ago
The sacrifices needed to make it $100-$150 would result in you not buying it. Like crummy screens and slow processors.

lftl 15y ago

To be fair as far as I can tell, there is no directly comparable Windows Acer Aspire One. All the 11.6" Acers I see run on a different chipset, and they're all only $20 cheaper than the Acer Chromebook. When I first tried out the Chromebook, I thought the same thing about price. But I'm pretty sure Microsoft licenses Windows for these netbooks VERY cheaply, so there's not much price to be shaved by swapping out the OS. To hit a significant price difference Chromebooks would have to skimp on the hardware compared to their Windows/Linux counterparts. The Chromebook I have already struggles with flash, so without dropping support for that completely I don't think there's much to trim off the CPU end of things. There's a little room to skimp on the HD compared to Windows, but not a ton. So basically I don't see any route other than being ad supported, rentals or some other type of Google subsidy for Chromebooks to actually become cheaper than the low end of the netbook segment.

jasongullickson 15y ago
What does Windows have to do with it? Couldn't you achieve "Chromebook-level-functionality" with a Linux model (since you'd be living out of the browser)?
- lftl 15y ago
  I was mostly just trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison based on price. I couldn't find any Acer linux laptops that ship with linux in a quick search. Functionality-wise, yes there's no reason you couldn't get linux on par with Chrome from a leanness standpoint by just stripping out services and booting into the browser.
nextparadigms 15y ago
They don't really need to skimp on hardware. They just need to use the inexpensive ARM chips over the expensive Intel chips. That should cut at least $100 from the retail price. I can't believe they did the same mistake as with Google TV.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  The Atom N570 costs $86, so unless ARM is literally paying people to use its chips, dropping $100 seems unlikely.
  - listic 15y ago
    I think Atom N570 needs a chipset, too (maybe it's a single chip now, but still.)
erikpukinskis 15y ago
The Chromebook I have already struggles with flash A little off topic, but I find it interesting to note that what Apple has gotten in exchange for the flak they got for not including Flash on the iPad is that they don't have any reviews like this. People consider the iPad to have good performance. If Google had taken the same route and left out Flash, not only might they have more room to trim the CPU, it might be a better value proposition performance-wise.
- streeter 15y ago
  The fact that Google owns the most popular flash site on the internet (YouTube), probably helped with their decision to include Flash.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    I assume the chromebooks support html5 video, which youtube also supports. Apple was able to have iPhones still work with youtube without supporting flash, so Google could have found a similar workaround even without including html5 video tags.
    - streeter 15y ago
      Though the iPhone uses a YouTube app, which isn't the web. The allure of the Chromebook is that it can play the whole web, and YouTube is a big part of that. YouTube does have html5 video, but it is still in beta and isn't available for all videos. And it is opt-in. In addition, with the focus on enterprise and education, I believe that Chromebooks had to support flash as a requirement.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

Samsung Series 5 cost $334.32 to make.[1] Your price expectations are way off. [1]http://www.thechromesource.com/with-what-it-costs-to-make-is-the-samsung-series-5-chromebook-overpriced/ http://www.thechromesource.com/with-what-it-costs-to-make-is...

mestudent 15y ago
To be honest I expect a chromebook to be priced similar or at the very least $200 for me to be competitive with a more powerful/portable netbook. His expectations aren't off, the manufacturing limitations just don't meet them.
- samuel 15y ago
  Asus is going to sell(presumably) the eee x101 running MeeGo for 200$, with decent specs for a "net oriented" computer(1 core Atom, 1GB RAM, 8GB SSD), so aren't manufacturing limitations what drive them away from that price tag. May be Google doesn't want to be identified with the somewhat crappy experience that low end hardware may deliver, just as they don't want Android to be associated with cheap smartphones, but with the iPhone competitors. Which would be silly because their "OS" is much more limited than Windows 7, even the Starter version, and its only compelling feature would be to run on much cheaper hardware.
watty 15y ago
I figured Google would try to use their ad-powered business strategy to lower the profit margin to near-zero or negative rather than competing against netbooks. Didn't PS3 sell hardware for much lower than cost to manufacture? These things would sell like hotcakes for $200 and Google would grow in users and advertising revenue. I was just surprised that they're selling near netbook prices considering they're limited devices and tied so tightly into Google Services. I don't see them disrupting the mobile device industry with Chromebooks unless they decide that # of users is much more important than profit per sale.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago

bane 15y ago

I could see $200-250. It's basically a big netbook with most of the ports and storage removed. Better to just buy a largish netbook (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220942 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220...) and install Chrome OS on it. (http://moreinews.com/google-chrome-os-review-notebook-tablet-download-iso-image/ http://moreinews.com/google-chrome-os-review-notebook-tablet...)

smackfu 15y ago

The sacrifices needed to make it $100-$150 would result in you not buying it. Like crummy screens and slow processors.