I'm sure it's not "dead", but it doesn't have any "e-buzz" right now. It was designed to be a tabletOS - how come all the upcoming tablets are all going to be based on Android? Are Android and ChromeOS going to interact with each other? It seems silly to have two free products that compete with each other doing very similar things - especially when both of them are supposed to offer the same thing experience-wise.
Android has all the buzz, Android has the market share, Android has all the apps - if I were a tablet maker, would you put Android (a proven platform right now) or ChromeOS on your new tablet? ChromeOS will need some serious help from Google if it's going to be viable (i.e a Google specific device that shows it off). This is a prognostication on my part (a big one), but if Google relies on it's manufacturing partners (without strong direction), ChromeOS will fail.
Chrome OS was not designed to be a tablet OS. It can be used on a tablet, but if you read the launch blog post it's very clear they are targeting netbooks, not tablets. Since that day they have of course expanded to include tablets, but suggesting that was the original idea is misleading at best.
Also, Chrome OS hasn't been released to the public yet and so it's absurd to call it "dead". The planned release date is in October.
Imagine walking in to Best Buy or Futureshop and seeing a line of laptops, some labelled "Microsoft" and some labelled "Google". People are less afraid to move away from MS if they're moving to a company they know and trust, like Google.
Calling Chrome OS dead, at least right now, is a very very silly mistake to make.
We'll see how ChromeOS does! It seems to me that you won't see any netbooks labeled Google - you'll see them marketed as "Acer", "Asus", or "Dell".
Focusing on the web experience and printing (to combine your reply to my other comment) seems like a very narrow niche to me. It seems like ChromeOS is trying to position itself between Android and something like Windows 7.
Surfing the web and wanting to print is a common use case - but in that example, why would I want a device that does that, but not get a full fledged computer? I can't even install my own apps! Why would I need the capability to print - yet buy a device that pretty much requires me to be online all the time?
It just seems very risky to me. Why not add a printing function to Android? Wouldn't it be cool if you could hook up your phone and connect it to a printer and print? Wouldn't Android devices have "proper" flash if they had more powerful processors? (which is a function of mobile processors getting more powerful)?
Keep a notebook for just 3 days, list out every activity that you do on a computer/computing device (tablet, smartphone etc) in just broad terms, personal and work: e.g. read hacker news, write report, review y, code x, watch movie, read magazine, listen to last.fm, gaming, print., scan, take photo, edit photo, check email, check social network, IM etc.
Then put a +1 next to everything you did on the web (or could have been if you Google it and found a web service for that) and a -1 to everything that you could not.
Work out what +1 and -1 as a % of normal. For me it was 95%, for my wife was 100%.
That is why Chromium will work. I put Ubuntu on for my wife put some links titled Facebook, TV, Music. She didn't even notice she was not on Windows anymore.
You hit the nail on the head: "labeled Google - you'll see them marketed as "Acer", "Asus", or "Dell" . People do not care it is Microsoft Windows or not they care that it does what they want, quickly, reliably and cheaply.
>People do not care it is Microsoft Windows or not they care that it does what they want, quickly, reliably and cheaply.
Except that this doesn't actually seem to be the case at all. Netbooks had this and the market utterly rejected it. Now they pay much more for Windows netbooks. Before anyone tries to jump into the market with Chrome OS (a less capable OS), they will need to explain why this was the case and what has changed.
You are right - but I could also do everything on Android! I'm not saying that there's a market for a "web-based" experience - I just think Android already fills that gap.
There are very few cases in where having ChromeOS would be superior to a device with Android. Flash? Flash seems to be a processor issue. Android has Flash, and it should get better as mobile chips get more powerful. The whole flash thing may be moot if HTML 5 really takes off.
Printing? This seems marginal to me. "Buy this device so you can print from it" - that does not seem to be a very appealing sell.
Those were both of the features mentioned above. In contrast, if I have Android, I have access to all those Apps. Will Android apps be compatible with ChromeOS. I don't think so - this seemed to be a "feature" of Chrome.
It just seems that Chrome's functionality is a subset of Android functionality. With Android, I don't have the browser open all the time, but I can click a button and get there. Web pages should display the same on both devices - what's the advantage? The keyboard? Android works with a keyboard as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that the market for an Android netbook (vs. tablet - this whole issue is moot to me, they're both "mobile" devices) seems to be larger - it would do so much more than a device that's just limited to the browser.
Well, look how good Linux did on the netbook. And on Linux you could at least do what ever you wanted if you knew how. I expect this is just another to-be-abandoned-at-some-future-time Google project.
Because netbooks are not the future of ultraportable computing; tablets are, and Chrome OS is primarily part of a mouse and keyboard driven paradigm. Also it is making increasingly little sense for Google to support two divergent operating systems.
I agree with you, ChromeOS certainly doesn't look bad. I just have a hard time figuring out - what's the difference between the two? What use case does ChromeOS solve that Android doesn't solve?
I consider myself web-savvy and fairly technical. If I have trouble answering this question, what is the average user going to think?
People are turning towards experiences - which is a combination of hardware and software. What edge does ChromeOS have that is going to give it a better experience than Android?
> What use case does ChromeOS solve that Android doesn't solve?
Printing. Browsing the web and writing long emails like a normal user, rather than like a tablet user: no weird issues with mouseover, fully-functional built-in Flash, etc, etc. There are lots of differences between the web experience offered by Android and the web experience offered by Chrome OS.
Also, normal people won't have to make a decision in a store about picking "Android" vs "Chrome OS". It's more and more likely that people will pick from the limited few options in the store, and maybe try it out before buying it. If a store sells laptops and some run Windows, some Mac OS X and some Chrome OS, then Chrome OS will be a serious competitor at least in the netbook form-factor.
Tablets are often sold in different parts of a store, or at least together in a different display. You'll see people picking between iPads and Andriod tablets. I doubt that normal stores would display Chrome OS tablets in the same area (but I could be wrong).
> "What use case does ChromeOS solve that Android doesn't solve?"
Android is designed for native application based devices, Chrome is designed from the ground up for Web applications. Web applications especially with HTML5 caching technologies, LTE and Wimax, use of whitespace to increase Wifi range is the future and make a lot more sense on tablets than mobile phones.
Strongly disagree. When I see those little sparks of delight in my mother's eyes when she is using her iPad I think I see a pretty strong predictor of Apple 'being onto something'. Tablets are not about being great multiple-purpose devices. They're about being good enough.
That has best buy saying tablets are cannibalizing their netbook revenue. This does not mean that netbooks or laptops are dead - personally for the current price I find something like an ACER1215N a lot better value for my usecases than an ipad. This is primarily due to the the HDMI out, USB input for storage, rich client gaming and the fact that I can run any VM for any OS I want. For running MS office / Openoffice also the tactile keyboard is handy without paying for additional accessories.
If there are others like my netbooks/laptops may decline but not die completely, I would suggest a 60/40 split in 3 years tablets/laptops respectively.
If you're pointed at data which suggests that laptop sales are declining significantly in parallel with the increase in tablet sales, I think you need to provide an argument a little more substantial than bluster.
There would seem to be some evidence that some of the people who have to choose now are migrating to tablets but the real test will be when they come to replace them having experienced both. Do they stay tablet or return to a laptop?
I was extrememly surprised at the number of people at Singapore's Changi airport who were using their (Apple) tablets in the departure lounges. Still a small percentage of total laptop users, but very noticeable.
And the number of kids showing their parents how easy it was to be online with iPads in the various shops that were selling them.
Step outside the bubble yourself - "most people" don't understand the complicated "Start" menu - they just want to get on with using the web so they can do their internet banking, buy cheap airfares or look at gossip sites. Preferably not at desk. Or with a keyboard.
