6 ms·

edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/d

edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos) When I search Google for chromebox the first result is the link that was submitted. I concur: it is a terrible landing page for a product. Consider the first page results for things like macbook, ipad, or mac mini and you can see where the failure lies. They do, after all, have control of search results, don't they?

loceng 14y ago
http://www.apple.com/ http://www.apple.com/ vs http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ vs https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html I'd say Google's doing a better job.
- fratis 14y ago
  Not sure how that's obvious from your links. It'd be helpful if you gave some explanation.
  - loceng 14y ago
    It's nuanced UI-related. There's a lot of psychology involved to understand the holistic effects. You need to include things like someone's brand perception into deciding how effective a UI will be, such as trusted brands will let someone assume that what they are looking at is trustworthy - and therefore of enough value for them to care and look further into it / to get interested. Hope that helps?
- shpoonj 14y ago
  I'd say you should compare Apple's and Google's sales reports.
  - AncientPC 14y ago
    I'd say a lot more goes into a company's revenue than two single product landing pages. Don't use Apple's earnings as justification for all it's actions. McDonald's sells the most burgers in the world, that definitely means it's the best in everything burger-related right?
- lachyg 14y ago
  The two products are incomparable. One is unknown, the other is known by pretty much anyone who would be interested in buying a smart phone.
  - loceng 14y ago
    It's the brand of the company that matters; It's the foundation for what a user will expect, and will let them trust what they are seeing in front of them as valuable to them - prior to even knowing anything specific about it.

loceng 14y ago

http://www.apple.com/ http://www.apple.com/ vs http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ vs https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html I'd say Google's doing a better job.

fratis 14y ago
Not sure how that's obvious from your links. It'd be helpful if you gave some explanation.
- loceng 14y ago
  It's nuanced UI-related. There's a lot of psychology involved to understand the holistic effects. You need to include things like someone's brand perception into deciding how effective a UI will be, such as trusted brands will let someone assume that what they are looking at is trustworthy - and therefore of enough value for them to care and look further into it / to get interested. Hope that helps?
shpoonj 14y ago
I'd say you should compare Apple's and Google's sales reports.
- AncientPC 14y ago
  I'd say a lot more goes into a company's revenue than two single product landing pages. Don't use Apple's earnings as justification for all it's actions. McDonald's sells the most burgers in the world, that definitely means it's the best in everything burger-related right?
lachyg 14y ago
The two products are incomparable. One is unknown, the other is known by pretty much anyone who would be interested in buying a smart phone.
- loceng 14y ago
  It's the brand of the company that matters; It's the foundation for what a user will expect, and will let them trust what they are seeing in front of them as valuable to them - prior to even knowing anything specific about it.