5 ms·

The time to do this was 2 years ago, when netbooks were desperately looking for an operating system. Now they have adapted themselves (slightly higher cost/spe

by netsp 17y ago

The time to do this was 2 years ago, when netbooks were desperately looking for an operating system. Now they have adapted themselves (slightly higher cost/specs) to Windows XP, and people are fairly comfortable with that. The market is established & shaving an extra $50 off the price is not as much of an issue. The near future will have Windows 7 netbooks & Ubuntu for netbook to provide some theoretical competition. That doesn't mean this definitely won't take off, but a Google backed operating system made for small screens & cheap hardware could have been the default choice 2 years ago.

swolchok 17y ago
I have to disagree -- $50 is 20% of the price of the cheapest netbooks, and it's 10% of the price of relatively expensive $500 netbooks. The cheaper netbooks get, the more of an issue $50 is. The Eee PC was supposed to be the $200 laptop and we're still not there.
- inerte 17y ago
  Then MS will make it $40, $25, $5, $1. Some people would say it's anti-competitive, but Google can only provide a free netbook OS because of its ads business.
  - netsp 17y ago
    The problem is not just the license. It's also the hardware requirements.
- netsp 17y ago
  That is my point. For the theoretical $200 impulse buy EeePc, that $50 would have been a deal breaker. Armchair strategising would have led you to that conclusion. An OS that lowered costs by that much would have been an obvious choice. That's why they originally launched on Linux. But over time, the specs drifted up. Consumers preferred XP. They were willing to pay for it. I don't know what the median price is, but I'm guessing around $400-$500. In other words, the market has moved towards Windows. Windows has also moved towards netbooks. Google OS could have been the default choice for netbook manufacturers at the time when there were petitions going to keep XP alive. When this launches (2010?), Windows 7 netbooks will be the default choice. That doesn't mean this won't work. maybe people will prefer Chrome OS to Windows 7 for netbooks. Maybe it will enable $200 netbooks, almost a distinct class. If that's the case, they still need to go through the market test. Do a lot of people really want a $200 netbook?
  - swolchok 17y ago
    Netbook acceptability checklist: 1) Runs a web browser 2) Has k hours of battery life 3) Has "big enough" screen and keyboard These things don't compete on features, they compete on binary "good enough" and price. They're practically commodities, which is why the industry doesn't like them -- ECON 101 rules about efficiency apply. Of course, you can still decorate the case to differentiate on fashion.
    - pasbesoin 17y ago
      Add on: + I don't have to maintain it. (Anti-malware, etc.) + Comes with the applications I want. (Wherever they are hosted -- local or on the net.) Chrome might make the netbook into an (true) appliance. A lot of people would like that. I think the killer feature for Google may be manipulable audio-visual. The ability to insert and control advertising in A/V media. There's a reason they continue to pour money into YouTube.
    - netsp 17y ago
      I disagree. If that were the case prices would have gone down, not up. Since netbooks surfaced there has been feature creep and price creep.
sketerpot 17y ago
They're not going to compete with Windows XP on number of features or software compatibility, but I think Chrome OS has a chance to carve out a niche for itself. It can focus on being absolutely the best gosh darn web browser available for a netbook: zippy, no performance degradation over time, booting up in seconds, reliable, and running on ARM processors. That could give better battery life and lower costs if they're careful about tweaking it. For broader-purpose use, Android may catch on. Chrome OS is different, and I don't think it's supposed to compete directly with Windows XP.
TrevorJ 17y ago
It isn't so much about hardware. I think that Google is exploiting a relatively narrow trend with the netbook angle. Long run, I think they are banking on more and more of our apps moving to the cloud. This is an OS built from the ground up to run things in the cloud.

by netsp 17y ago

swolchok 17y ago

I have to disagree -- $50 is 20% of the price of the cheapest netbooks, and it's 10% of the price of relatively expensive $500 netbooks. The cheaper netbooks get, the more of an issue $50 is. The Eee PC was supposed to be the $200 laptop and we're still not there.

inerte 17y ago
Then MS will make it $40, $25, $5, $1. Some people would say it's anti-competitive, but Google can only provide a free netbook OS because of its ads business.
- netsp 17y ago
  The problem is not just the license. It's also the hardware requirements.
netsp 17y ago
That is my point. For the theoretical $200 impulse buy EeePc, that $50 would have been a deal breaker. Armchair strategising would have led you to that conclusion. An OS that lowered costs by that much would have been an obvious choice. That's why they originally launched on Linux. But over time, the specs drifted up. Consumers preferred XP. They were willing to pay for it. I don't know what the median price is, but I'm guessing around $400-$500. In other words, the market has moved towards Windows. Windows has also moved towards netbooks. Google OS could have been the default choice for netbook manufacturers at the time when there were petitions going to keep XP alive. When this launches (2010?), Windows 7 netbooks will be the default choice. That doesn't mean this won't work. maybe people will prefer Chrome OS to Windows 7 for netbooks. Maybe it will enable $200 netbooks, almost a distinct class. If that's the case, they still need to go through the market test. Do a lot of people really want a $200 netbook?
- swolchok 17y ago
  Netbook acceptability checklist: 1) Runs a web browser 2) Has k hours of battery life 3) Has "big enough" screen and keyboard These things don't compete on features, they compete on binary "good enough" and price. They're practically commodities, which is why the industry doesn't like them -- ECON 101 rules about efficiency apply. Of course, you can still decorate the case to differentiate on fashion.
  - pasbesoin 17y ago
    Add on: + I don't have to maintain it. (Anti-malware, etc.) + Comes with the applications I want. (Wherever they are hosted -- local or on the net.) Chrome might make the netbook into an (true) appliance. A lot of people would like that. I think the killer feature for Google may be manipulable audio-visual. The ability to insert and control advertising in A/V media. There's a reason they continue to pour money into YouTube.
  - netsp 17y ago
    I disagree. If that were the case prices would have gone down, not up. Since netbooks surfaced there has been feature creep and price creep.

sketerpot 17y ago

They're not going to compete with Windows XP on number of features or software compatibility, but I think Chrome OS has a chance to carve out a niche for itself. It can focus on being absolutely the best gosh darn web browser available for a netbook: zippy, no performance degradation over time, booting up in seconds, reliable, and running on ARM processors. That could give better battery life and lower costs if they're careful about tweaking it. For broader-purpose use, Android may catch on. Chrome OS is different, and I don't think it's supposed to compete directly with Windows XP.

TrevorJ 17y ago

It isn't so much about hardware. I think that Google is exploiting a relatively narrow trend with the netbook angle. Long run, I think they are banking on more and more of our apps moving to the cloud. This is an OS built from the ground up to run things in the cloud.