

Acer sold only 5000 Chromebooks, yet Google still promoting ChromeOS - wavephorm
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html

======
bane
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
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
_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.

~~~
philwelch
> Why not just offer it up to people to use?

The kind of people who install different OS's on computers they already own
are more likely to actually need to use native apps and more likely to spend
lots of time on the internet anyway. ChromeOS is better targeted at a lower
end of the market.

~~~
bane
_ChromeOS is better targeted at a lower end of the market._

Which I agree with. It's too bad that $500-600 isn't the lower end of the
market anymore. I can get a usable notebook for <$300 these days. To really
make a case, they need to hit the $200-$300 segment for it to make any kind of
sense.

At $600 bucks I can get an actually fairly decent Windows 7 laptop.

It just comes off as "weird" to me.

~~~
ansible
> At $600 bucks I can get an actually fairly decent Windows 7 laptop.

Heh, I did just that yesterday. $600 (no tax or shipping) got me a mid-range
quad-core which can be used for casual gaming too.

------
philwelch
> 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
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
Apple pretty easily dispels this notion.

The PC makers commoditized themselves by provided no added value.

~~~
kissickas
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.

~~~
philwelch
The actual hardware is supplied by the CPU manufacturer, the motherboard
manufacturer, the video card manufacturer, etc. The "added value" is basically
distribution and sales--they buy the parts, have them shipped to a Chinese
manufacturer, and then have the assembled computer shipped and distributed to
retailers and customers. Some companies do the manufacturing themselves
(generally the Chinese manufacturer, who's edged into the sales and
distribution side a la Lenovo) and some companies design their own cases
(poorly, a la Dell). It's really a boring industry.

------
Steko
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
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
"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
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
They're selling to businesses who know the price tag of an item isn't what it
says on the package. Google believes they can reduce your IT costs enough that
a ChromeBook pays for itself. It's not a race to the bottom, it's a race to
the Cloud.

The problem is there aren't a lot of enterprises that are (yet) completely web
based. It's going that way and there are more every day, but Google's still
ahead of the curve with ChromeOS.

~~~
dextorious
"""They're selling to businesses"""

RTFA. The whole point is that they are NOT selling. Period.

~~~
jonknee
Don't be a dick, you know exactly what I mean. From the FA:

"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."

------
Tloewald
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?

~~~
jonknee
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).

~~~
netcan
Sure, but the OP still has a good point. Google can put out major, 'change the
way we do X' products out there and completely flop without much fuss. They
get back on it with a new products with the hope that one of them will take
off.

Apple bats much higher and rarely misses on the big products. They make big
announcements and put a lot of credibility behind never seen by the public
products. Out of the major product categories, a lot caught fire fast: ipods,
iphones, ipads, OSX, istore, itunes, air. Several didn't catch fire like that
but still picked up decent usage: appleTV, icloud, iwork, ilife

It's actually a remarkable experiment. Evolution vs intelligent design. Both
are way better than the average but each approach probably has an advantage in
certain situations.

Apple's approach is probably better for hardware-software products. You need
scale and certainty to get prices down and the wow factor to jumpstart sales.

------
runjake
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.

------
zmmmmm
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.

------
yummies
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
Yeah, because in the second month and afterwards sales skyrocketed, right?

It's bad. Period.

------
code_duck
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.

------
ivank
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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.

------
redwood
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.

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

------
sdtransier
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.

------
rbanffy
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.

------
desireco42
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.

~~~
metel
" _I have Chromebook_ "

'Me have Chromebook', surely.

------
treelovinhippie
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.

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

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

~~~
wavephorm
Sorry about that. There was no paywall for iOS/Safari.

~~~
Steko
Had no issue accessing on firefox either, I run a bunch of ad and script
blockers though.

------
yanw
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
I think it's because most recent google projects have been launched into a
doubtful world and quickly abandoned.

------
nzonbi
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.

