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.
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.