I don't ask with snark, but with genuine curiosity. I heard lots of people happy they got the free ones... But didn't hear about many people buying them.
I actually think they WOULD do better off if they made it themselves. Or at least just let Motorola do an exclusive Google-branded model akin to the Nexus.
I have one of the original Chromebooks, from their pilot program.
It's a great device for what it is, and the built-in 3G has actually saved my bacon on a couple of occasions. It made a great loaner device for when my girlfriend's parents had to drive halfway across the country with just a candybar pay-as-you-go phone.
Google's failing was twofold, in my opinion:
1) They initially said the device would sell cheaply, in the $200-300 range. Instead, the two launch devices were $500+, a price range which encroached on territory already covered by other, more powerful, and more featureful devices.
2) Lack of proper marketing. The Chromebook may have been less powerful, but it had a battery life like you wouldn't believe. I used mine daily, taking it to meetings at work to take notes on, browsing the web on breaks, yet I only had to charge it every few days, sometimes just once or twice a week. And that SSD! Every time I showed it to my coworkers, the first thing I did was close the lid to put it into hibernation, then re-open it and show how it was instantly back at its previous state. It truly behaved as though it remained powered on throughout the process, despite going into a low-power state that could last for weeks. Unfortunately, these and other great features were unknown to the average consumer.
As far as updates, however, their setup is top-notch. It automatically downloads and installs updates just like the Chrome browser does, and they update fairly often. I only wish they could do the same with their phones.
I never got one of the Chromebooks (I don't believe they're even available in my country), but I can understand why they failed at that price point and feature set.
If they were $200-300, then they not only are a great value for a laptop, but would provide fair competition against tablets, which many people want just as a cheap laptop.
But when you get to the $500 price point, you lose any advantage over the ipad, and start to encroach on the $900 price point of the macbook air, who's ssd and battery life is just as amazing as the chromebook, with better support and better specs.
I have one. I can't imagine any modern, budget laptop performing worse than a chrome book. As a last resort, I tried it with my 6 year old son, and he said it was too slow. It now sits in a pile of books.
If you havent used it recently its much better. I've been using mine since the day I got it and I'm using it right now. Considering this is $200 hardware from 15 months ago I could see this doing really well on $200 hardware today. I always took Google's approach to the CR-48 as making CrOS run well on the least powerful platform possible. If they can make me happy with this it can only get better with cheaper more powerful hardware in the future.
They sold very poorly, only about 5000 or so for each model after many months after launch.
The Motorola Xoom was a Google experience device but the initial high cost seems to have scared buyers away. Google does not have experience making hardware so it's better they let Motorola make it, but with Google branding.
Comments
How did the Chromebooks do?
I don't ask with snark, but with genuine curiosity. I heard lots of people happy they got the free ones... But didn't hear about many people buying them.
I actually think they WOULD do better off if they made it themselves. Or at least just let Motorola do an exclusive Google-branded model akin to the Nexus.
I have one of the original Chromebooks, from their pilot program.
It's a great device for what it is, and the built-in 3G has actually saved my bacon on a couple of occasions. It made a great loaner device for when my girlfriend's parents had to drive halfway across the country with just a candybar pay-as-you-go phone.
Google's failing was twofold, in my opinion:
1) They initially said the device would sell cheaply, in the $200-300 range. Instead, the two launch devices were $500+, a price range which encroached on territory already covered by other, more powerful, and more featureful devices.
2) Lack of proper marketing. The Chromebook may have been less powerful, but it had a battery life like you wouldn't believe. I used mine daily, taking it to meetings at work to take notes on, browsing the web on breaks, yet I only had to charge it every few days, sometimes just once or twice a week. And that SSD! Every time I showed it to my coworkers, the first thing I did was close the lid to put it into hibernation, then re-open it and show how it was instantly back at its previous state. It truly behaved as though it remained powered on throughout the process, despite going into a low-power state that could last for weeks. Unfortunately, these and other great features were unknown to the average consumer.
As far as updates, however, their setup is top-notch. It automatically downloads and installs updates just like the Chrome browser does, and they update fairly often. I only wish they could do the same with their phones.
I never got one of the Chromebooks (I don't believe they're even available in my country), but I can understand why they failed at that price point and feature set.
If they were $200-300, then they not only are a great value for a laptop, but would provide fair competition against tablets, which many people want just as a cheap laptop.
But when you get to the $500 price point, you lose any advantage over the ipad, and start to encroach on the $900 price point of the macbook air, who's ssd and battery life is just as amazing as the chromebook, with better support and better specs.
I have one. I can't imagine any modern, budget laptop performing worse than a chrome book. As a last resort, I tried it with my 6 year old son, and he said it was too slow. It now sits in a pile of books.
If you havent used it recently its much better. I've been using mine since the day I got it and I'm using it right now. Considering this is $200 hardware from 15 months ago I could see this doing really well on $200 hardware today. I always took Google's approach to the CR-48 as making CrOS run well on the least powerful platform possible. If they can make me happy with this it can only get better with cheaper more powerful hardware in the future.
They sold very poorly, only about 5000 or so for each model after many months after launch.
The Motorola Xoom was a Google experience device but the initial high cost seems to have scared buyers away. Google does not have experience making hardware so it's better they let Motorola make it, but with Google branding.