7 ms·

Acer sold only 5000 Chromebooks, yet Google still promoting ChromeOS

52 points by wavephorm 15y ago

AdamGibbins 15y ago
This redirects me to a paywall. Not visible on Google Cache either.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  Full article text: Google pushing Chrome OS for PCs; vendors give it the cold shoulder Aaron Lee, Tapei; Joseph Tsai, DIGITIMES [Thursday 10 November 2011] Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, at speech in Taiwan on November 9, promoted Chrome OS in high-profile for the PC market, but PC players are rather pessimistic about the idea and believe if Google wants to cut into the PC market, the company will need to provide more resources and support. During his speech, Schmidt mentioned several times about Chrome OS' advantages such as fast boot up, no virus issues and free of charge, and prompted PC players to give Chrome OS a try. However, due to demand for Chrome OS-based devices (Chromebooks) being lower than expected, PC players are taking a passive attitude toward opening projects. In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry. However, Acer has declined to comment. Analyzing Chromebooks' difficult situation, the sources pointed out that although Google is mainly pushing Chromebooks in the enterprise market, its Google Docs applications cannot meet the needs the enterprise users. Meanwhile, since Chromebooks' major advantage is their cloud computing capability allowing users to use online document processing tools, if users are at a location without Internet connection or have poor connection quality, the advantage becomes a disadvantage of the device, noted the sources, adding that cloud computing is the trend of the future, but Chromebook is currently still too idealized.
- tovmeod 15y ago
  for me too, found this google searching: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/poor-sales-of-chromebooks-wont-stop-google-from-promoting-chrome-os/7014 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/poor-sales-of-chromebook... http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html
- wavephorm 15y ago
  Sorry about that. There was no paywall for iOS/Safari.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Had no issue accessing on firefox either, I run a bunch of ad and script blockers though.
  - shaggyfrog 15y ago
    I got a paywall on my iPhone FWIW.
- mikescar 15y ago
  You should be so lucky, with recoiledsnake's transcript. Times New Roman in the middle of three animated gif ad units, that all change frames at different rates and times.
yummies 15y ago
Somewhat misleading title - the article said Acer sold 5k Chromebooks in the first month and a half. Still not stellar, but not as bad as the title makes it out to be.
- dextorious 15y ago
  Yeah, because in the second month and afterwards sales skyrocketed, right? It's bad. Period.
Tloewald 15y ago
One of the interesting things about Google's recent forays into products is that it appears to be able to outsource its risk and subsequent losses. Imagine if Apple released products as unsuccessful as GoogleTV and Chromebook — it would be a bloodbath. On the one hand i guess this makes being a product manager at Google less stressful. On the other, just how committed is Google to any of this?
- VonGuard 15y ago
  If they succeed, like Android, Google is VERY committed. It's like they get other companies to test their grenades, and the ones that don't blow up in faces, they stick with. Hence Google buys Motorola, but not, say, Acer.
- philwelch 15y ago
  > Imagine if Apple released products as unsuccessful as GoogleTV and Chromebook — it would be a bloodbath. AppleTV? iPod Hi-Fi? MobileMe? Need I go on?
  - SigmundA 15y ago
    Apple TV 2nd gen is selling over 500,000 units per quarter?
    - rapind 15y ago
      I have a 1st gen ATV and Apple pretty much abandoned it. The 2nd gen is pretty sweet though if you're cool with streaming only (and wouldn't prefer a WDLive or Roku).
- jonknee 15y ago
  Final Cut Pro X? Ping? iAds? Apple doesn't bat near perfect. Some good stuff has come out this endeavor though--Cloud Print has been integrated into Chrome and is fantastic. Beats the pants off of AirPrint from Apple (for starters, you don't need to buy a new printer).
  - 15y ago
desireco42 15y ago
So, I have Chromebook, it is really nice laptop for what it is meant to be used. I have friends who are huge fans of it, I installed Ubuntu on mine recently and kind of, improved it quite a bit. I have Samsung and build is not that great, battery life is, though, having MBP, this is one machine that is much lighter and long lasting for significantly longer. I think if they would do next round it would be really good machine, and lower to like $200, keep the format of 12". Add maybe page up and down to keyboard, that's all.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """So, I have Chromebook, it is really nice laptop for what it is meant to be used. I have friends who are huge fans of it, I installed Ubuntu on mine recently and kind of, improved it quite a bit.""" So you don't have Chromebook, you just have a cheap plastic laptop. Chromebook is all about running Chrome OS.
- zyfo 15y ago
  alt + arrows = page up/down alt + ctrl + arrows = home/end Very useful when reading pdfs or long articles.
- metel 15y ago
  "I have Chromebook" 'Me have Chromebook', surely.
bane 15y ago
I'm generally a fan of what Google does, but I really really don't understand what they're doing with ChromeOS and the Chromebooks. Why one network oriented mobile operating system when you can have two? (where one has tons of applications and the web, while the other just has the web). Why get vendors to build one dedicated tablet/netbookish type device (ref:Asus Transformer) when they can build 2 or 3 (ref:netbooks)? Why improve netbooks, which are cheap and have decent battery life and are intended for network connectivity (while offering the benefits of local apps) when you can compete with them with similar devices with less functionality at twice the price? On top of these obvious problems, the OS was announced very early (probably before there was any code written) and it took forever to come out, wasn't really available for people to just use on their own devices conveniently (I'd much rather install this on my old laptop and turn it into a halfway decent web oriented carry-around then buy some new fangled device at 600 bucks) and Google never successfully answered the questions around having Android and this at the same time.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Google's strategy seems to be to get people to spend more time on the web so they can view and click on Google ads. On the desktop, this means less time in native apps and more time in web apps. So they sell netbooks that don't support native apps. On mobile devices, they just want people to use smartphones rather than dumb phones. They don't even really give a shit whether they're Androids or iPhones, except introducing a competitor to the iPhone grows the smartphone market in total and commoditizes them, so they give away Android. And for that strategy to work, Android has to feature-match iOS, which means native apps. And since iPad, Google now has to grow the tablet market and commoditize them, and since iOS can be adapted to tablets, so must Android.
  - bane 15y ago
    Google's strategy seems to be to get people to spend more time on the web so they can view and click on Google ads. Which makes the strategy of coupling ChromeOS to specific hardware devices even more odd. Why not just offer it up to people to use? Give it away a la Ubuntu and see if people wholesale switch up? Heck, if it worked decently on old machines I might be able to get another couple years out of some of the unused computers I have lying around. That'd get the eyeballs using those machines on the web and hopefully clicking on Google ads. This present strategy (Chrome books) is obviously not doing it and seemed odd from the start -- and smells like mission creep to me.
runjake 15y ago
Not that I pay attention to ChromeOS, I wonder why they aren't using Android. But, that's really hard to believe they sold only 5,000 by the end of July 2011. An org I work with ordered a couple hundred or so (in June-ish), alone. DigiTimes doesn't cite a source, so if anyone has a source, drop me a line here.
ivank 15y ago
I thought about buying a Chromebook, but realized I wouldn't be able to run f.lux or redshift on it, which is pretty much essential for me. I imagine quite a few other people need just that "one extra application" and realized that it wouldn't work on the Chromebook.
philwelch 15y ago
> Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, at speech in Taiwan on November 9, promoted Chrome OS in high-profile for the PC market, but PC players are rather pessimistic about the idea and believe if Google wants to cut into the PC market, the company will need to provide more resources and support. It's possible that Chromebooks are just a shitty idea. That's a pretty boring interpretation and I have nothing interesting to say about it. But it's also possible that none of the PC manufacturers have the vision to really execute this strategy. Why would they? They aren't technology companies, they just buy parts, assemble them, and distribute them. They live in a world that Microsoft and Intel created in the 90's. No way are they going to try anything different. What Google needs to do if they're going to pursue this strategy is to contract a manufacturer like Asus and basically design and sell the thing themselves.
- DenisM 15y ago
  I would like to add that PC manufacturers are not able to innovate precisely because Microsoft and Intel took all the money in the platform, commoditizing their complements. That's why PCs often suck in quality - they have to compete of price and they have to cut every corner, which sometimes they get away with, and sometimes not. And that's why they install crapware on their PCs - every penny counts in race to the bottom.
  - forensic 15y ago
    Apple pretty easily dispels this notion. The PC makers commoditized themselves by provided no added value.
    - kissickas 15y ago
      Hardware is not added value to a PC? I'm asking an honest question. Obviously I hate the "value" HP adds to PCs with terrible pre-installed software, but surely the manufacturing still counts as adding value to software, which would be useless without the hardware.
      - 15y ago
ChuckMcM 15y ago
ChromeOS is an interesting beast. I've said it before that as the 'tablet/netbook' version of Android I felt like it had a solid chance, but I don't think the Android/ChromeOS rivalry inside of Google would let that succeed. Given how much 'better' Ice Cream Sandwich looks on an Asus 'tablet/keyboard dock' than ChromeOS does I believe they are going to lose this round. Oh, and the kernel's are largely similar its more like 'Phone/Android' and 'Chrome/Android' so that confuses things even more.
sdtransier 15y ago
I received a CR-48 as part of the ChromeOS pilot program. It's been nice to use during school for notetaking and general web browsing, but I could never see myself purchasing one on my own. Honestly, the only reason I haven't given it away is because of the free 100mb of 3G every month. I could see Chromebooks being more popular if they were a more reasonable price, say $99, but the current ones are way to expensive. I think the problem is that they are basically regular netbook hardware with a free OS. The only difference between a Chromebook and a netbook is the free OS vs. a non-free OS. With it only being limited to the web, there's not much reason for the average consumer to choose a Chromebook over a netbook with all the extra features of Windows 7.
Steko 15y ago
I don't get why people are in a rush to poop on Chrome after 6 months when it's pretty clear Android followed the same path to success: (1) get an inferior beta product out in the market early; (2) then iterate both the product and the ecosystem so that (3) when the category explodes you have a moat that makes you the default option. We all know that decisions at Google, particularly for resource allocation are data driven. Google Docs is not good enough for the enterprise today. The only way it will be good enough in 2014 when thin clients explode is for resources to be allocated today which requires the 2011 Chromebook failure.
- jsz0 15y ago
  Android is a huge step forward from feature phones while ChromeOS is a huge step backwards from real PCs. It's almost the exact opposite of Android in many ways. Android is probably the most capable SmartPhone platform in a booming market. ChromeOS is probably the least capable platform in the depressed market for PCs. It's almost comical how juxtaposed the two are. I think Google's model is sound enough just the wrong product at the wrong time. I'm also not sure the OEMs making ChromeBooks were let in on the failure guarantee thing. Sounds like another Logitech/Google TV situation developing. Will they still be making ChromeBooks in 2 years?
  - Steko 15y ago
    "Android is a huge step forward from feature phones" And it was a shitty smartphone in the first iteration. "ChromeOS is a huge step backwards from real PCs" Which is a different category then what ChromeOS is in.
    - jsz0 15y ago
      If a device has the same form factor and approximately the same price I'd say it's in the same category by most standards. If part of Google's plan is to get ChromeBooks down to $99 or maybe $199 then it might be successful.
      - jonknee 15y ago
joejohnson 15y ago
No way?! Google doesn't understand what consumers want? That's so out-of-character for them.
treelovinhippie 15y ago
I think the inevitable trend for the desktop OS has been moving toward fully web/browser based for many years now. 99% of the time I use my desktop, I'm in the browser. The first thing I click when I boot-up is the browser. ChromeOS makes a lot of sense, but there are a few hurdles that will naturally work themselves out over the next 3 years. Things like Internet speeds, connectivity issues, offline/online data sync, the user's hesitations, the current state of web technologies to replace native apps etc.
reustle 15y ago
They'd sell fine if they weren't the same price as a real laptop.
code_duck 15y ago
I could see these systems being desired by enterprise the customers. The way that everything is locked down surely must be attractive to IT departments. My mother had all sorts of problems with Windows ranging from spyware and virii to failed updates. I set her up with Linux years back, and it has suited her needs quite well. Now she has a new machine, an ASUS netbook with Windows 7... and it recently lost wireless ability I some inscrutable way following a Windows update. She spends 98% of her computing time using a browser. As someone who began using modern computers within the past few years, she already has a fuzzy view of the line between a browser and an operating system. I'm thinking that actually, for her usage profile Chromium OS would be a great fit. I don't think that people should be so quick to declare ChromeOS a failure. It's quite forward thinking in my view and it will be interesting to see if we see significant adoption. As noted by some others here, one thing that is holding back ChromeOS's usefulness is the relative immaturity of the Google browser apps, such as Docs, that are supposed to make up the core of the productivity software for the platform.
rbanffy 15y ago
I think it's more like a research project than anything else. Google knows the local-storage-as-main-storage idea is dying and wants to test other ideas at some scale. Also, this number can't be right: Google alone probably ordered more than 5000 machines.
redwood 15y ago
Lack of sufficient client-side caching makes ChromeOS a horrible user experience, especially in places with less great internet access. The places most enthused by a ChomeOS cost advantage are precisely those with worse internet coverage. ChromeOS is a strategic mistake but an example of Google feeling the need to copy Apple's simplicity sells model. Businesses are the target market for ChromeOS but simplicity (e.g. Apple's model) doesn't sell well to businesses because businesses want as much as they can for the money, and they can get a regular netbook with native apps for the same cost. Simplicity is great for personal computing and device markets, but ChromeOS is inferior to Android for this market, so where's the selling point? If Google made ChromeOS devices really cool, really slick and really cheap, e.g. devoted the effort Apple does, these could succeed. But Google isn't going to do that with G+ and the millions of other initiatives they're focused on.
zmmmmm 15y ago
The article nails it with: "although Google is mainly pushing Chromebooks in the enterprise market, its Google Docs applications cannot meet the needs the enterprise users" I don't know how google could possibly have released the Chromebooks before their apps worked offline. That alone was a showstopper but the apps themselves are still just not nearly feature-rich enough to replace real office apps. Look at OpenOffice / LibreOffice - even with 10 times the features of Google's solutions it doesn't make a dent even though it is free. I think Google is just delusional about what's needed here. They can't "incrementally" get to where they need to be from where they are. It's a whole different ball park.
yanw 15y ago
What is this obsession in the press about killing Google initiatives? I'm not imagining this am I? it's all about "this isn't working why even bother". Not everything needs be an over night success, specially new concepts such as this, they seem to even dismiss the notion of long term projects. Is it just PR attacks from Google's competitors or is it that they just like to gloat?
- savoytruffle 15y ago
  I think it's because most recent google projects have been launched into a doubtful world and quickly abandoned.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- clinq 15y ago
  I think Google initiatives and effectiveness are being killed by hiring more and more some KIND of persons. That KIND of persons has killed MS and many other IT companies in US. Now they are killing Google. Once an IT company occasionally hires one of them, those guys will hire more and more their KIND, spend significant money and efforts on doing something just wasting resources but the management level are marketed to trust.
nzonbi 15y ago
Not directly related to the article, but a personal opinion I will take this opportunity to point: Product names and logos are a small but somewhat influential aspect, of a product overall perception. I have this perception on some product names and logos, relevant to this discussion: - apple: cool - apple logo: very cool - android: very cool - android logo: very cool - windows: average - windows logo: average - ubuntu: cool - ubuntu logo: average - webOS: poor - chromeOS: below average - chromebook: below average I have a not very positive perception of the chromeOS and chromebooks names. For a google OS, different of android, I would have preferred maybe something like "GOOS". I wonder what other people think of the chromeOS product name.

52 points by wavephorm 15y ago

AdamGibbins 15y ago

This redirects me to a paywall. Not visible on Google Cache either.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
Full article text: Google pushing Chrome OS for PCs; vendors give it the cold shoulder Aaron Lee, Tapei; Joseph Tsai, DIGITIMES [Thursday 10 November 2011] Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, at speech in Taiwan on November 9, promoted Chrome OS in high-profile for the PC market, but PC players are rather pessimistic about the idea and believe if Google wants to cut into the PC market, the company will need to provide more resources and support. During his speech, Schmidt mentioned several times about Chrome OS' advantages such as fast boot up, no virus issues and free of charge, and prompted PC players to give Chrome OS a try. However, due to demand for Chrome OS-based devices (Chromebooks) being lower than expected, PC players are taking a passive attitude toward opening projects. In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry. However, Acer has declined to comment. Analyzing Chromebooks' difficult situation, the sources pointed out that although Google is mainly pushing Chromebooks in the enterprise market, its Google Docs applications cannot meet the needs the enterprise users. Meanwhile, since Chromebooks' major advantage is their cloud computing capability allowing users to use online document processing tools, if users are at a location without Internet connection or have poor connection quality, the advantage becomes a disadvantage of the device, noted the sources, adding that cloud computing is the trend of the future, but Chromebook is currently still too idealized.
tovmeod 15y ago
for me too, found this google searching: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/poor-sales-of-chromebooks-wont-stop-google-from-promoting-chrome-os/7014 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/poor-sales-of-chromebook... http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html
wavephorm 15y ago
Sorry about that. There was no paywall for iOS/Safari.
- Steko 15y ago
  Had no issue accessing on firefox either, I run a bunch of ad and script blockers though.
- shaggyfrog 15y ago
  I got a paywall on my iPhone FWIW.
mikescar 15y ago
You should be so lucky, with recoiledsnake's transcript. Times New Roman in the middle of three animated gif ad units, that all change frames at different rates and times.

yummies 15y ago

Somewhat misleading title - the article said Acer sold 5k Chromebooks in the first month and a half. Still not stellar, but not as bad as the title makes it out to be.

dextorious 15y ago
Yeah, because in the second month and afterwards sales skyrocketed, right? It's bad. Period.

Tloewald 15y ago

One of the interesting things about Google's recent forays into products is that it appears to be able to outsource its risk and subsequent losses. Imagine if Apple released products as unsuccessful as GoogleTV and Chromebook — it would be a bloodbath. On the one hand i guess this makes being a product manager at Google less stressful. On the other, just how committed is Google to any of this?

VonGuard 15y ago
If they succeed, like Android, Google is VERY committed. It's like they get other companies to test their grenades, and the ones that don't blow up in faces, they stick with. Hence Google buys Motorola, but not, say, Acer.
philwelch 15y ago
> Imagine if Apple released products as unsuccessful as GoogleTV and Chromebook — it would be a bloodbath. AppleTV? iPod Hi-Fi? MobileMe? Need I go on?
- SigmundA 15y ago
  Apple TV 2nd gen is selling over 500,000 units per quarter?
  - rapind 15y ago
    I have a 1st gen ATV and Apple pretty much abandoned it. The 2nd gen is pretty sweet though if you're cool with streaming only (and wouldn't prefer a WDLive or Roku).
jonknee 15y ago
Final Cut Pro X? Ping? iAds? Apple doesn't bat near perfect. Some good stuff has come out this endeavor though--Cloud Print has been integrated into Chrome and is fantastic. Beats the pants off of AirPrint from Apple (for starters, you don't need to buy a new printer).
- 15y ago

desireco42 15y ago

So, I have Chromebook, it is really nice laptop for what it is meant to be used. I have friends who are huge fans of it, I installed Ubuntu on mine recently and kind of, improved it quite a bit. I have Samsung and build is not that great, battery life is, though, having MBP, this is one machine that is much lighter and long lasting for significantly longer. I think if they would do next round it would be really good machine, and lower to like $200, keep the format of 12". Add maybe page up and down to keyboard, that's all.

dextorious 15y ago
"""So, I have Chromebook, it is really nice laptop for what it is meant to be used. I have friends who are huge fans of it, I installed Ubuntu on mine recently and kind of, improved it quite a bit.""" So you don't have Chromebook, you just have a cheap plastic laptop. Chromebook is all about running Chrome OS.
zyfo 15y ago
alt + arrows = page up/down alt + ctrl + arrows = home/end Very useful when reading pdfs or long articles.
metel 15y ago
"I have Chromebook" 'Me have Chromebook', surely.

bane 15y ago

I'm generally a fan of what Google does, but I really really don't understand what they're doing with ChromeOS and the Chromebooks. Why one network oriented mobile operating system when you can have two? (where one has tons of applications and the web, while the other just has the web). Why get vendors to build one dedicated tablet/netbookish type device (ref:Asus Transformer) when they can build 2 or 3 (ref:netbooks)? Why improve netbooks, which are cheap and have decent battery life and are intended for network connectivity (while offering the benefits of local apps) when you can compete with them with similar devices with less functionality at twice the price? On top of these obvious problems, the OS was announced very early (probably before there was any code written) and it took forever to come out, wasn't really available for people to just use on their own devices conveniently (I'd much rather install this on my old laptop and turn it into a halfway decent web oriented carry-around then buy some new fangled device at 600 bucks) and Google never successfully answered the questions around having Android and this at the same time.

philwelch 15y ago
Google's strategy seems to be to get people to spend more time on the web so they can view and click on Google ads. On the desktop, this means less time in native apps and more time in web apps. So they sell netbooks that don't support native apps. On mobile devices, they just want people to use smartphones rather than dumb phones. They don't even really give a shit whether they're Androids or iPhones, except introducing a competitor to the iPhone grows the smartphone market in total and commoditizes them, so they give away Android. And for that strategy to work, Android has to feature-match iOS, which means native apps. And since iPad, Google now has to grow the tablet market and commoditize them, and since iOS can be adapted to tablets, so must Android.
- bane 15y ago
  Google's strategy seems to be to get people to spend more time on the web so they can view and click on Google ads. Which makes the strategy of coupling ChromeOS to specific hardware devices even more odd. Why not just offer it up to people to use? Give it away a la Ubuntu and see if people wholesale switch up? Heck, if it worked decently on old machines I might be able to get another couple years out of some of the unused computers I have lying around. That'd get the eyeballs using those machines on the web and hopefully clicking on Google ads. This present strategy (Chrome books) is obviously not doing it and seemed odd from the start -- and smells like mission creep to me.

runjake 15y ago

Not that I pay attention to ChromeOS, I wonder why they aren't using Android. But, that's really hard to believe they sold only 5,000 by the end of July 2011. An org I work with ordered a couple hundred or so (in June-ish), alone. DigiTimes doesn't cite a source, so if anyone has a source, drop me a line here.

ivank 15y ago

I thought about buying a Chromebook, but realized I wouldn't be able to run f.lux or redshift on it, which is pretty much essential for me. I imagine quite a few other people need just that "one extra application" and realized that it wouldn't work on the Chromebook.

philwelch 15y ago

> Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, at speech in Taiwan on November 9, promoted Chrome OS in high-profile for the PC market, but PC players are rather pessimistic about the idea and believe if Google wants to cut into the PC market, the company will need to provide more resources and support. It's possible that Chromebooks are just a shitty idea. That's a pretty boring interpretation and I have nothing interesting to say about it. But it's also possible that none of the PC manufacturers have the vision to really execute this strategy. Why would they? They aren't technology companies, they just buy parts, assemble them, and distribute them. They live in a world that Microsoft and Intel created in the 90's. No way are they going to try anything different. What Google needs to do if they're going to pursue this strategy is to contract a manufacturer like Asus and basically design and sell the thing themselves.

DenisM 15y ago
I would like to add that PC manufacturers are not able to innovate precisely because Microsoft and Intel took all the money in the platform, commoditizing their complements. That's why PCs often suck in quality - they have to compete of price and they have to cut every corner, which sometimes they get away with, and sometimes not. And that's why they install crapware on their PCs - every penny counts in race to the bottom.
- forensic 15y ago
  Apple pretty easily dispels this notion. The PC makers commoditized themselves by provided no added value.
  - kissickas 15y ago
    Hardware is not added value to a PC? I'm asking an honest question. Obviously I hate the "value" HP adds to PCs with terrible pre-installed software, but surely the manufacturing still counts as adding value to software, which would be useless without the hardware.
    - 15y ago

ChuckMcM 15y ago

ChromeOS is an interesting beast. I've said it before that as the 'tablet/netbook' version of Android I felt like it had a solid chance, but I don't think the Android/ChromeOS rivalry inside of Google would let that succeed. Given how much 'better' Ice Cream Sandwich looks on an Asus 'tablet/keyboard dock' than ChromeOS does I believe they are going to lose this round. Oh, and the kernel's are largely similar its more like 'Phone/Android' and 'Chrome/Android' so that confuses things even more.

sdtransier 15y ago

I received a CR-48 as part of the ChromeOS pilot program. It's been nice to use during school for notetaking and general web browsing, but I could never see myself purchasing one on my own. Honestly, the only reason I haven't given it away is because of the free 100mb of 3G every month. I could see Chromebooks being more popular if they were a more reasonable price, say $99, but the current ones are way to expensive. I think the problem is that they are basically regular netbook hardware with a free OS. The only difference between a Chromebook and a netbook is the free OS vs. a non-free OS. With it only being limited to the web, there's not much reason for the average consumer to choose a Chromebook over a netbook with all the extra features of Windows 7.

Steko 15y ago

I don't get why people are in a rush to poop on Chrome after 6 months when it's pretty clear Android followed the same path to success: (1) get an inferior beta product out in the market early; (2) then iterate both the product and the ecosystem so that (3) when the category explodes you have a moat that makes you the default option. We all know that decisions at Google, particularly for resource allocation are data driven. Google Docs is not good enough for the enterprise today. The only way it will be good enough in 2014 when thin clients explode is for resources to be allocated today which requires the 2011 Chromebook failure.

jsz0 15y ago
Android is a huge step forward from feature phones while ChromeOS is a huge step backwards from real PCs. It's almost the exact opposite of Android in many ways. Android is probably the most capable SmartPhone platform in a booming market. ChromeOS is probably the least capable platform in the depressed market for PCs. It's almost comical how juxtaposed the two are. I think Google's model is sound enough just the wrong product at the wrong time. I'm also not sure the OEMs making ChromeBooks were let in on the failure guarantee thing. Sounds like another Logitech/Google TV situation developing. Will they still be making ChromeBooks in 2 years?
- Steko 15y ago
  "Android is a huge step forward from feature phones" And it was a shitty smartphone in the first iteration. "ChromeOS is a huge step backwards from real PCs" Which is a different category then what ChromeOS is in.
  - jsz0 15y ago
    If a device has the same form factor and approximately the same price I'd say it's in the same category by most standards. If part of Google's plan is to get ChromeBooks down to $99 or maybe $199 then it might be successful.
    - jonknee 15y ago

joejohnson 15y ago

No way?! Google doesn't understand what consumers want? That's so out-of-character for them.

treelovinhippie 15y ago

I think the inevitable trend for the desktop OS has been moving toward fully web/browser based for many years now. 99% of the time I use my desktop, I'm in the browser. The first thing I click when I boot-up is the browser. ChromeOS makes a lot of sense, but there are a few hurdles that will naturally work themselves out over the next 3 years. Things like Internet speeds, connectivity issues, offline/online data sync, the user's hesitations, the current state of web technologies to replace native apps etc.

reustle 15y ago

They'd sell fine if they weren't the same price as a real laptop.

code_duck 15y ago

I could see these systems being desired by enterprise the customers. The way that everything is locked down surely must be attractive to IT departments. My mother had all sorts of problems with Windows ranging from spyware and virii to failed updates. I set her up with Linux years back, and it has suited her needs quite well. Now she has a new machine, an ASUS netbook with Windows 7... and it recently lost wireless ability I some inscrutable way following a Windows update. She spends 98% of her computing time using a browser. As someone who began using modern computers within the past few years, she already has a fuzzy view of the line between a browser and an operating system. I'm thinking that actually, for her usage profile Chromium OS would be a great fit. I don't think that people should be so quick to declare ChromeOS a failure. It's quite forward thinking in my view and it will be interesting to see if we see significant adoption. As noted by some others here, one thing that is holding back ChromeOS's usefulness is the relative immaturity of the Google browser apps, such as Docs, that are supposed to make up the core of the productivity software for the platform.

rbanffy 15y ago

I think it's more like a research project than anything else. Google knows the local-storage-as-main-storage idea is dying and wants to test other ideas at some scale. Also, this number can't be right: Google alone probably ordered more than 5000 machines.

redwood 15y ago

Lack of sufficient client-side caching makes ChromeOS a horrible user experience, especially in places with less great internet access. The places most enthused by a ChomeOS cost advantage are precisely those with worse internet coverage. ChromeOS is a strategic mistake but an example of Google feeling the need to copy Apple's simplicity sells model. Businesses are the target market for ChromeOS but simplicity (e.g. Apple's model) doesn't sell well to businesses because businesses want as much as they can for the money, and they can get a regular netbook with native apps for the same cost. Simplicity is great for personal computing and device markets, but ChromeOS is inferior to Android for this market, so where's the selling point? If Google made ChromeOS devices really cool, really slick and really cheap, e.g. devoted the effort Apple does, these could succeed. But Google isn't going to do that with G+ and the millions of other initiatives they're focused on.

zmmmmm 15y ago

The article nails it with: "although Google is mainly pushing Chromebooks in the enterprise market, its Google Docs applications cannot meet the needs the enterprise users" I don't know how google could possibly have released the Chromebooks before their apps worked offline. That alone was a showstopper but the apps themselves are still just not nearly feature-rich enough to replace real office apps. Look at OpenOffice / LibreOffice - even with 10 times the features of Google's solutions it doesn't make a dent even though it is free. I think Google is just delusional about what's needed here. They can't "incrementally" get to where they need to be from where they are. It's a whole different ball park.

yanw 15y ago

What is this obsession in the press about killing Google initiatives? I'm not imagining this am I? it's all about "this isn't working why even bother". Not everything needs be an over night success, specially new concepts such as this, they seem to even dismiss the notion of long term projects. Is it just PR attacks from Google's competitors or is it that they just like to gloat?

savoytruffle 15y ago
I think it's because most recent google projects have been launched into a doubtful world and quickly abandoned.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
clinq 15y ago
I think Google initiatives and effectiveness are being killed by hiring more and more some KIND of persons. That KIND of persons has killed MS and many other IT companies in US. Now they are killing Google. Once an IT company occasionally hires one of them, those guys will hire more and more their KIND, spend significant money and efforts on doing something just wasting resources but the management level are marketed to trust.

nzonbi 15y ago

Not directly related to the article, but a personal opinion I will take this opportunity to point: Product names and logos are a small but somewhat influential aspect, of a product overall perception. I have this perception on some product names and logos, relevant to this discussion: - apple: cool - apple logo: very cool - android: very cool - android logo: very cool - windows: average - windows logo: average - ubuntu: cool - ubuntu logo: average - webOS: poor - chromeOS: below average - chromebook: below average I have a not very positive perception of the chromeOS and chromebooks names. For a google OS, different of android, I would have preferred maybe something like "GOOS". I wonder what other people think of the chromeOS product name.