Google announces next Chromebooks and a Chromebox (desktop replacement) | Hacker News Reader

Google announces next Chromebooks and a Chromebox (desktop replacement)

chrome.blogspot.com

98 pointsrryan113 comments

I think whats unsaid here, and particularly telling about the Chromebox, is that Google is gunning to be a replacement for Windows in the workplace.

The ISO certification of google apps, a cheap desktop replacement directly integrated into google products, a laptop that keeps in sync with its desktop counterpart, these are all significant steps into creating a fully cloud-based workplace.

A chromebook may not become your home computer but it may soon be the cheap laptop the IT guys at your work start issuing to employees who don't need the heavy lifting power of a mac or windows machine...

Ironic though that if the IT department is handing out Chrome-things they are basically writing their own pink slips.

Someone has to admin the systems online as well as the networking.

Google may gun for whatever it wants to, but sales of Chromebooks have been really dismal so far, and I seriously doubt the Chromebox is going to be much different.

>but it may soon be the cheap laptop the IT guys at your work start issuing to employees who don't need the heavy lifting power of a mac or windows machine...

The Chromebook isn't much cheaper than equivalent laptops with which you can access Google apps as well as run other programs.

IIRC Android phones weren't selling particularly well a year and a half after the 1st release either

I would consider this the "test" phase for Google. They are testing the waters, getting feedback, and adding as needed. Agile development applied to hardware - and (I hope) soon coming to Motorola.

I don't get it. And I'm almost a Google fanboy. I got a chromebook at Google IO last year. I use it very sporadically .. typically when my iPad is out of power.

The chromebox looks nice .. but can it really compare with a Mac Mini I have hooked up to my TV? I thought Google TV was supposed to take on that role.

Google TV, Android and Chrome ... there can only be one!

I was also a skeptic of Chromebooks until I took mine home from Google IO last year and gave it to my then 7yr old. His response after a few minutes, "Dad, this has the whole internet on it!"

This was followed by a detailed lesson from me on exactly how the "whole internet" works. Then later, regret on my part for not having explained that to him earlier.

Google TV is Android 3+ with some UI changes to make it better suited for TVs. Eventually, I think they will merge Chrome OS's great looks into the Chrome app for all platforms (especially Android), or at least do some kind of merge with Android and Chrome.

I don't like the idea of having "one UI" for all form factors, like Microsoft tries to do. I think that will only lead to being optimized for one form factor, and significantly underoptimized for others.

Personally, I'd like to see them use some kind of "UI modes", so you have a phone mode, a tablet mode, a TV mode, and a desktop mode (which may or may not be the same as the tablet one, but would probably be better if they are kept separate).

Of course, they should still make them resemble each other as much as possible, but you can't use a tablet UI for a TV, and you can't use a phone UI for a desktop monitor. So when I dock the phone into a PC monitor, I want to see the desktop mode, and when I dock it into the TV, I want to see the TV mode, and so on. I don't think there is such thing as "one UI for everything". It may be good for one form factor, but for all the others it will be mediocre at best.

chrome is essentially a browser, even as an os, so expect chrome browser that is now a part of android to continue to improve alongside chrome os.

I cannot believe the pricing fail here. It's insanely overpriced for what it is -- and the reality is -- from someone who has tested one of these new Chromebooks -- the thing STILL has major usability issues. Chrome OS has too many bugs to depend on even if you live in a Google-fied cloud-centric world.

Still, on what planet does $330 for a desktop and up to $550 for a netbook make sense, especially when you don't get a Windows license (assuming you're selling to schools and businesses here)?

The netbook is dead and the iPad is the product that Chrome OS's target customers are actually buying in droves.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I personally think the Chromebook is more useful in both education and business than an iPad. Although perhaps not as useful as a slate might be (but those will cost >$1000 give or take and Windows 8 is looking to be maybe not as good as people were hoping).

What if you lose or break your computer - something that happens all the time in schools - with a chromebook it doesn't matter, just login to another one. In businesses, the chromebook would require virtually zero IT overhead. What if you don't want to spend extra on overpriced apps with less functionality than free ones in the browser (like Pages vs. Google Docs + Google Cloud Print) What if you actually want to quickly type up documents/code without having to pay an extra $60-$75 for a keyboard?

It's $550 for a 3G chromebook, compared to $629 for a 4G or $529 for a 3G ipad. Pretty comparable - not to mention the firmware on the chromebook is open so I would expect to see people running ubuntu or android on these devices, too.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/slick-new-chromebook-...

The Chromebox feels about $180 too expensive.

compared to what?

Compared to what I need and what I'm willing to spend for the features the product offers. It fals short of what I need a desktop to do, so that means it's better suited as a TV-connected device. But the GoogleTV does much of what you'd want a Google device that's connected to your TV to do and only costs $100. Alternately, many TVs will offer GoogleTV integration if that's what a consumer really wants. Or, if you've got an Apple ecosystem of devices in your household, the AppleTV and Mountain Lion will likely offer you better connectivity for that content. If you're a gamer then an XBOX360 and the myriad of supported streaming services it now offers (Amazon, HBO, MLB, etc.) can stream the most-common services to your TV. But let's say your desktop computing needs are different than mine, and you still want a desktop PC. A cheap Inspiron offers all of the Google browser-based services PLUS you can run all of the Windows applications too, so why not go with that instead? You can get an underpowered device that can do basic desktop stuff for less than this costs, or if your needs demand it, you have the option of adding better hardware to meet your specific needs.

Edit: Apparently there are shortcuts that are not typical on Windows that apply to the Cr-48. I was a dope with my chromebook all this time! I should have known better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_keyboard_shortcuts#Tex...

Original comment:

Unfortunately these laptops still have the same problem as the original Cr-48. None of these keyboards are suited for basic text editing as they lack the home/end/delete keys, which would be a minimum for a lot of people, and the entire 6-key cluster still-in-place would be much preferred.

This is the keyboard, by the way, which is identical my old Cr-48:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/815Dnur3O6L._AA1500_.j...

Making blog posts, using google docs, jsfiddle, Ace, StackOverflow, etc. All of these are a frustrating experience after a while if you are used to using a normal keyboard and are then forced to forego the home/end cluster.

If the difference between a tablet and a Chromebook is a keyboard, why can't they take writing seriously?

I don't know if they've disabled it in their distribution, but Ctrl-A (beginning of line) and Ctrl-E (end-of-line) work in my version of Chrome. Not sure if this is a default or something I've set system-wide.

default, at least it's true for me to, and I never set anything

Macs don't have home/end/delete. Personally I don't miss them.

They kinda do, actually - fn+left/right is home/end, fn+up/down is pageup/down, fn+backspace ("delete") is forward delete.

I like the way you said kinda - sometimes they aren't as you would expect.

I absolutely love the home and end shortcuts. The one thing that does look odd with the Chrome shortcuts is the reliance on the Function keys - that as a touch typist - I find hard to get on with.

http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/425436/9396978/0/1245127440/10...

???

Sorry, I was being lazy. I meant on the comparable devices to a Chromebook - small macbooks.

Really? They must be mislabeled on my keyboard then.

Hmm... my MacBook doesn't have a home/end cluster and I seem to function fine on all those sites. CTRL-A & CTRL-E (handy if you're an Emacs fan).

Troll? if not:

These keys are easily replaced by ctrl-a ctrl-e or alt-arrow keys. Moving your hand all the way over there to the arrows and 6key cluster is for the birds.

That said, I agree, google seems dead set on making these machines for "normal people", and that they are lacking in a few ways that keep the "normal" folks away (not the least of which is that you can't just walk into a best buy and pick one up), but not having home/end/delete is probably low on that list. Not a single Mac laptop has those on single keys and they seem to be selling ok.

Not a troll, sorry to not be clear. I would think a lot of people would prefer the 6key cluster, but thats very possibly just my own bias.

I've honestly never heard of ctrl-a ctrl-e or alt-arrow keys to do those tasks. They certainly don't work on Windows Chrome or Sublime Text 2 in Windows so I've never used them in my daily routine.

I haven't used a chromebook personally, but:

ctrl-a (home)

ctrl-e (end)

ctrl-n (next line)

ctrl-p (previous line)

ctrl-f (forward/right)

ctrl-b (back/left)

are all traditional Emacs key-bindings, and they're supported throughout all of OSX; it's one of the very few features I actually miss when I'm on other OSes...

How does that interact with Ctrl+a being select all?

Since macs rely mostly on the 'command'/'apple' key for that stuff (instead of Ctrl), on OSX Select All is just cmd+a, like how Copy/Paste are cmd+c/cmd+v respectively, so it doesn't interfere.

And on Emacs you start getting into multi-key combo finger dances for that (e.g. "Ctrl+x h" = highlight all), which OSX doesn't emulate for various reasons I'm sure...

I did an image search and it doesn't look like the chrome books have the extra meta/command/apple/super/windows key on them. Do they just not have a select all?

I use Chromebook a lot and I never really thought about the home/end/delete keys.

Your argument falls apart when you realize that Macs don't have any of those keys and most people have no issues using them for "basic text editing".

Not really. I have a Macbook Air, and the main reason I don't use it more often is the lack of those keys.

Notice that all the replacements for those keys in the Mac world require a two-key combo. Two keys from two separate hands in most cases (fn + arrows accounting for 4 of them and fn+delete being the fifth).

That means you can't poke at it with one hand while walking past with a cup of coffee, use it while keeping a mouse in one hand, or otherwise interact with it casually. It's a small annoyance, but one that simply doesn't exist in the Windows experience.

All other things being roughly equal between those two worlds, I find myself using the old XP box in favor of the Mac most of the time. Mostly for the reason the grandparent mentions.

I must admit I was a little disappointed to not see an even more simplified keyboard. A three finger combo (chord) is just ridiculous.

If I am able to watch videos that are stored on my Google Drive on a Chromebox connected to a television I would be very interested in this.

For $200 you can get a Boxee Box from Dlink, which has a HDMI out, a very slick remote and will play back 1080p videos over wireless from any network share (it's basically a physical manifestation of VLC).

Currently using a WD Live which does pretty much all you said although the interface is kind of poor. Only paid $50 though, but I'll check the Boxee out.

The Boxee is based off of XBMC so it will be a night&day improvement over the WD.

You should be able to.

I'm glad to see them iterating, and in exactly the way they should -- The original Chromebooks were a neat concept, but too underpowered.

But can something like the chromebook survive in a ipad world? Maybe for some, but while I could be in the market for a chromebook (if it came before the ipad I would properly own one) but a tablet fits my 2nd computer device much better.

I can survive with only a chromebook, so it would need to supplement my main computer, and in that regard I think my ipad (or properly a android tablet) is a much better suplement.

I agree that for personal use, Chrome OS is not very interesting until the price is down to 200,- or less.

But I don't see businesses adopting tablets for use in their call centers, and that is what Chrome OS is currently targeted at.

Every large company has thousands of employees that need a computer basically only to access some web based business application as well as basic office tasks (spreadsheets, mail).

Chrome OS promises a very secure solution with a minimum of maintenance costs.

The market is (as I see it) for a "home" machine. People who use the web, the augmented web (web services via apps), video & maybe some light document stuff. People who "get enough of the computer at work" people who can share a laptop, people who didn't really use the internet before facebook & youtube came to them.

That's a lot of people. Being a second machine might follow from being good at those things.

That said this chrome/android separation is nonsense.

No. It can't. And that's why it has been an utter failure in the marketplace.

Google toyed with subsidizing the costs more to try to use it to push more enterprise services to business and education customers but it never gained traction (and from I understand, they were practically willing to give them away).

The large-scale use case for Chrome OS is minuscule.

So Chromebox is Mini-ITX, or is it smaller?

I sure hope this inspires other companies to release more smaller desktops. I don't see any reason why we should have to keep lugging around giant boxes anymore.

And actually you can get very powerful systems in Mini-ITX now, doesn't have to be bargain-power like these Chromeboxes on Amazon. Although dual-core is probably more than enough for most things.

Sigh, this sounds neat "The new Chromebook and Chromebox, based on Intel Core processors, are nearly three times as fast as the first-generation Chromebooks."

Except when you click the 'buy now' and go to either the NewEgg or the Amazon store all you get are Atom N570 choices or the Celeron for the ChromeBox. Did somebody forget to the HW guys to use the new Ivy Bridge processors?

Is this some sort of weird "Quick lets announce something before Apple creams us with the new Macbook Pro?" (ok that is a bit cynical but still). I'd love to see the 'new' Chromebooks that can compete with the 'old' Macbook Air because I'd love to have something with the build quality of the Air and the simplicity of ChromeOS to recommend to my non programming friends. You're letting me down Google, bad dog, no biscuit.

Why would Google push towards the high end? They already have people complaining Chromebooks cost too much. It would be a massive waste of money and effort to build MacBook Air style Chromebooks, with an absurdly small market even if done well. And I don't think Google could do that well.

Sadly a MB Air with Chrome OS and 3G is exactly what I want.

And you would pay $1000 for one?

not when i can get essentially the same experience for 1/2 as much. all i need my mpb/mba for is consuming media. everything else is done out of my chrome browser anyways.

I would love to hear more about how you reason to "absurdly small market."

When I look at the market, and especially after the pretty remarkable success of the iPad, I see a clear line from smartphone, through smart tablet, to smart laptop. My expectation is that Apple will release an iOS based version of the Macbook Air for just this reason.

This is my reasoning for that expectation. The iPad has taken a chunk out of the laptop market. A number of folks who would have bought a laptop bought an iPad instead this year. The number one reason that folks give for not replacing their laptop with an iPad is that "they can't type on it." and carrying multiple elements around (bluetooth keyboard etc) is inconvenient.

When you get a device which has a high quality screen, and an attached keyboard, and can be used anywhere on 3G, you will capture a much bigger chunk of the laptop market.

Now granted, I've been working this since 1999 when I pitched the 'appliance' laptop to Venture funds (they declined to fund because they didn't feel anyone could ship a product against windows and succeed), and I pitched it to the Android team when I was at Google (and while I take no credit at all for ChromeOS it did a lot of the things I had proposed in my JaDE project, so they were on the same wavelength). When I did my VC pitch I had commissioned some surveys and found that a significant chunk of people who owned a computer didn't want the "compute" part, they wanted just the web browsing/emailing/document prep part. Further it bothered them that their computer had all this stuff that they never used, and was often a source of exploits by third parties.

So as I pushed inside Google for this the primary push back was "Ok, I got that already, its my phone doofus. C'mon network computers are soo last century, didn't you work on diskless workstations back in the stone age? How did that work out for you?" And I get that its not very sexy to propose the 21st century equivalent of the VT100 but that did not change the fact that the data says that people want these things.

So I keep hoping Google will/would step outside their complexes and build a laptop killer. And they are getting closer and closer. These machines are clearly an improvement over the first generation both in software and in hardware. I feel like they had an opportunity here to get out in front of Apple, but given the announcement I don't think they did.

For me, it makes June 11th (Apple's WWDC keynote) more interesting than it might otherwise have been.

I have no doubt that "network computers" are going to have a bit of renaissance soon. I just doubt that people will be in a rush to buy a $1000 version. People may like simpler computing experiences, but they won't buy just based on that. The iPad took off cause it is a sexy (and fairly cheap) product. The simplicity just enhanced the experience. High end Chromebooks would basically require the purchaser to value simplicity over everything. They would have to not buy cheaper computers that check off more features and can even run Chrome themselves. And I just think the amount of people who are aware of their limitations and will spend more than the average person to accommodate them is very small.

Thank you for that response.

What is really cool is that we may see folks actually get this choice and then we can come back around and talk about it again.

A funny (and true) story: I got to intern at IBM in the late 70s. The Altair 8800 was getting a lot of press and Apple had just jumped in with the Apple II. I lusted after a Sol-80 at the time. Anyway, there was an on going discussion at IBM as to whether or not anyone would really pay what it would cost to make a "real" computer for individuals. So they built one, it ran a hacked up version of the software their other computers ran called TSO/MVS. It had a very serialized 370 architecture to cut down on complexity, and limited batch capability. It would have retailed for about $17,000 to make the kinds of margins IBM expected. (many of the parts got reused in the 5100 but that is different story)

It was a total failure of course, nobody wanted a computer for themselves, it was just a bunch of overly ambitious EE's over promising and under delivering by using calculator chips to make something that could run stored programs. IBM was not a calculator company, so that was a market they weren't going to enter. A complete renegade at IBM had a different view and built their vision in a widely derided project in Boca Raton FL (even then it wasn't much of a tech bastion). The resulting machine, the IBM PC, was a huge deal. And like the iPad it surprised its own maker at how many they sold.

I relate that story because I think we're on the cusp of one of those changes. My instincts tell me that this is one of those times when renegades have an advantage over the common knowledge. I call it out so that folks can watch it happen, or not. I'm really going to feel foolish next year if nothing has changed but I'm totally ok with that. At the moment it feels like Christmas Eve to me.

The Atom Chromebooks are the first generation Chromebooks. Both the Series 5 550[1] and the Chromebox use Celeron processors, of which the current models are based off of Sandy Bridge[2]. There currently aren't any low-powered Ivy Bridge mobile processors, and the cheapest standard powered one is nearly three times what the Sandy Bridge Celerons cost[3] (and is probably overkill for just browsing the web).

1: http://amzn.com/B007Y8DJ22 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microproc... 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_%28microarchitecture...

The chromebox really needs to be $200. I have a Cr48 and I went and threw Win8 Consumer Preview (and it runs VS2k11 Beta - not the best experience but it is not unusable) on it. Maybe 1 or 2 iterations later, this will be a very competitive offering.

Does this raise the chances for a "Google Drive for Linux" release within the next weeks?

Chrome OS is a very different beast from desktop GNU/Linux distributions so I don't think that's a fair assumption.

It's really not, once you get beneath the user-facing skin (most of which is, obviously, implemented as just a bunch of Chrome extensions). It's a Linux distro running X.org. It's much (much!) closer to Ubuntu or Fedora than it is to Android.

And even closer to Gentoo! At least, it uses portage.

I believe it was built in Ubuntu. I know they worked with Canonical on it before they announced it.

There is an unofficial linux client out now - Grive:

http://www.webupd8.org/2012/05/grive-open-source-google-driv...

There is already a Chrome client.

I'm really sad that the Chromebox only has Bluetooth 3.0 (not 4.0/LE), and the Chromebook 550 doesn't seem to list Bluetooth at all.

LE would be amazing for the kind of corporate environments the Box would work in -- as a user presence/locking token.

Despite the initial Chromebooks being widely considered a failure, they push on with the next iteration of this product. Google has the kind of determination that only obscene amounts of money can buy.

It was mostly a pricing failure, one which they unfortunately repeated again this time. Yes, it did have usability problems, and it has been greatly improved, but you know as they say: there is no bad product, only bad pricing.

Chromebooks would sell for $200, or free on contract with LTE. They won't sell for $450.

$30 a month for business customers if they'd open it up to the general public. And with a few meg of free 3g.. I can imagine that taking off nicely.

I'm waiting for them to get rid of the 3 unit minimum.

For the business market, a Chromebook pays for itself in software licensing, maintenance, and other savings vs. Windows, every year.

Do you still have to use a google account to use chromeos?

Yes, it is fundamental to it's function. Basically it acts as a terminal system to your google applications and the wider web.

I believe you can sign in as a guest, but it won't save your browser settings. Since ChromeOS is all about having data "in the cloud" and keeping as little mutable state on the computer as possible, I guess this makes sense.

Can we coin an abbreviation for "in the cloud"? I put it in quotation marks to avoid the unconscious eyerolling that I do when I use that phrase in a non-ironic fashion. "ITC"?

Larry Ellison was right, "The Cloud" as used in today's marketing is simply a synonym for "The Internet".

PLAYD - possibly loses all your data?

How's that one?

Google's data centers are slightly more reliable than the average laptop hard drive.

But are they as reliable and available as a laptop and a USB stick? That's a hard one to prove.

I assume they make back-ups all the time, so yes. Definitely more reliable for most people.

But what if there's a bug where attackers gain access to your account and drain all of your Word documents into their bank accounts!!!11?

That's a pretty big assumption, for example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/09/atlassian_cloud_stor...

Google's still trying to sell netbooks? Really? Sometimes I wonder if they are aware that the iPad has completely obliterated the market for underpowered/overpriced netbooks.

Completely different market. People don't type on an iPad for long periods.

So there's actually a market of people that don't want a fully capable laptop, and don't want a tablet + external keyboard, and want a web-only miniature laptop? I think these Chromebooks are targeted at market that actually does not exist.

I think once you can program on them it'll become obvious that the main customer for these things is Google themselves.

Right now though I'd tend to agree with you.

And this based on what? One data point (You)?

I have no data points, because I don't know anyone that wants one these chromebooks.

I'm so fortunate that I don't know anyone who needs a wheelchair. There's no market for that kind of useless thing really. Aren't crutches enough?

What about sales figures for the Chromebooks? It's been very close to a full year since they've been lauanched. And by all the accounts sales have been really bad.

"I have no data points, because I don't know anyone that wants one these chromebooks."

I don't know anyone who watches Big Bang Theory but that show has millions of viewers and has been around for 5 seasons.

Please stop. We don’t always have to ask for data to prove one’s opinion. Opinions are opinions, you can have them without data to back them up, basing them on your own experience, they are still valid. If you have a different opinion discuss that instead of just dropping the stupid [citation needed].

I’m not saying whether I agree or not with the OP, but I certainly disagree with your way of having a discussion by not having one.

Also certainly Chromebooks are somewhat puzzling because of their overlap with Android tablets, especially ones like the Asus Transformer to which you can attach a keyboard and have basically the same thing with a slightly different OS that sync your data everywhere anyway.

Having a discussion on how they are different and why both would be useful is an interesting conversation to have, shutting it down with “where’s your data” is stupid.

So, if you want to discuss, provide your reasons why they are useful instead of trying to shut off people with petty arguments.

I'm calling out the arrogance of people to make conclusions just based on one data which is usually just their own.

In my other comment, I said I don't know anybody who watches Big Bang Theory. But I can't make a statement that nobody watches it just because I don't know anyone who does.

>And this based on what? One data point (You)?

No... we can sit here and make predictions.. but the real market data is important, and it isn't pretty.

>"In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html

That market is really tiny and it doesn't have the buzz factor of the iPad to push sales. Why not just buy a cheap laptop with Windows 7 and run Chrome browser on it instead of hobbling yourself with a Chromebook?

Google does not release Chromebook and Google TV sales numbers, but they do release number of activations for Android. That should tell you that the numbers are not very good.

Travelers who want to type stuff and not want to care if their laptop gets stolen. If your documents are on the web and your laptop is literally ripped away from your hands you lose what, 30 minutes of work?

The market seems to be every non-technical family member of mine. All they need is a web browser; if these "just work" for that purpose, have good battery life and they don't have to worry about anti-virus software or other updates, then these are significantly better for their needs than what they have.

If all they need is a web browser, how does an iPad/Fire/etc not solve that problem?

Bigger screen, keyboard, better web experience, the Chrome store to fill in the gaps of what they might miss from Windows. Sure, there are overlapping use cases but they're not the same. Chrome OS gives them what they need/want from their laptop/desktop (e.g. Facebook, web browsing, YouTube, email, pictures, occasional word processing, etc.).

But you're changing the parameters.. You said "All my family needs is a web browser". Now you're saying they need other software that the might miss from Windows (plus what they might need/want from their laptop.

Given your original parameters, my point still stands. If you're looking for a laptop "replacement" then obviously a "laptop" is going to fulfill that need.

My core argument is that what Chrome OS sets out to provide is what most people need from a laptop; a web browser and somewhere to get "apps" (Chrome webstore: Netflix, picture editing, etc.). If it can do these well, the market for these is massive; that's my point to people claiming there's no market.

You might say that a current laptop can do this and more. The "and more" part is the issue because it ends up causing the average user more trouble than it's worth; seriously, talk to them. They still have issues with anti-virus software, paranoia about getting a virus, performing updates, anxiety resulting from worrying about what might happen if they do/don't update, resolving issues that result from updates, resolving issues that result from not updating, what to do when when it runs slow, drivers, handling files, dealing with the inevitable mess their system will be in after a year or two of use, etc.

First paragraph - second paragraph + fast boot + good battery life = massive market of potential happy users. Again, I don't know if Chrome OS will succeed but the market's there waiting for something better.

1) Support for HTML5 features.

2) JavaScript speed.

When tablets browsers catch up to the desktop on those two things, I'll consider using a tablet for more than just a comic reader (all I use one for now).

It's targeted at companies that already use Google Apps. Imagine cheap laptops that do email and word processing, but never need updates and can't get viruses. And that are fully-encrypted and backed up by default, so losing a laptop doesn't leak information or lose data. That's what a Chromebook is. It makes giving employees computers simple and inexpensive.

It's also a good machine for people that don't know how to use computers. There's so little you can do with them, you can become an expert very quickly. In that sense, it is very much like an iPad, but with Chrome apps and a keyboard instead of iOS apps and a touchscreen. I personally find both unusable, but that doesn't mean they're not good devices.

I want one.

I have an iPad at work and I absolutely hate it. I also have an iMac at work and I absolutely hate it (typing this on the Windows PC that sits next to the idle iMac).

My personal laptop is a Thinkpad T61 with Xubuntu 12.04 and I love it, except that it's pretty bulky. I used to have an HP netbook and it was a generally positive experience, but the touchpad was terrible.

I am seriously considering a Chromebook (have been for a couple months now) as an ultra-portable machine.

Of course there's on obvious concession I have to make: I'm clearly not "normal". First, I hate OS X (most people love it) and the iPad (most people love it). Second, I don't own a smartphone (most geeks seem to). Third, I spend nearly all my time (when I'm not at work) in a web browser or a terminal emulator so I have no need for "apps" on a Chromebook.

> I have an iPad at work and I absolutely hate it. I also have an iMac at work and I absolutely hate it

Oh come on. What you're trying to say, if anything, is: "I am a raging Google fanboy".

What, you aren't allowed to dislike iPad's now? I have one that I use for work (facetime with other coworkers), but aside from facetime and a few sporadic games I don't really use it much.

So: I don't really like my iPad. Am I a raging Google fanboy too? (Hint: I'm not, I don't like the Chromebook and I don't really like Google that much either)

I have noticed that a lot of people would have you believe that disliking Apple products is akin to denying the holocaust...

Hehe, that's kinda funny since I've recently been accused of being anti-Google for defending DDG and using it as my default search provider in Chrome :)

So no, I'm not a fanboy of any kind. I have products and companies that I prefer, but not to the point of fanboy-ism.

Actually, I do own one Mac product that I enjoy quite a bit: I have a Mac Mini plugged into my TV for casual web browsing and Hulu (it's the only device hooked up to the TV in fact).

It's just that it doesn't make sense that someone would "absolutely hate" either, let alone both.

Ah, I see your point. Maybe "absolutely hate" was too strong. I wrote that pretty quickly. The sentiment I was trying to express is that I really don't find the iPad useful at all, nor do I even enjoy using it as a toy.

I have a chromebook and a MacBook Air. Both are ultraportable and I use the macbook air because I can actually do something other than just run chrome in it all day. I heavily use google apps but my MacBook Air is much more useful. My brother has a chromebook and all he did was install ubuntu on it.

ill take one, too, over an ipad. i write emails in addition to reading them. ipads are mostly good for consuming content.

My housemate has more or less replaced his 1st-gen MacBook with a used 1st-gen iPad, and he does most of his typing on it. Notes in class, emails, word processing, etc. A case with a stand is relatively cheap, and even at $60, Apple's bluetooth keyboard has been well worth it.

Sure, cheap 1st gen iPads aren't available in infinite supply, but I would bet there are more of them available than Google will sell ChromeBooks.

My roommates are all med students, and Stanford "gives" every incoming med student an iPad. They all got a keyboard case for it, and use it for most of their note taking and reviewing.

They only use their laptop at home now, and only when they need to multitask (in which case they often have the iPad sitting on the side as a secondary display of sort) or run medical software that isn't available on the iPad.

But an iPad isn't terribly slow and completely worthless without an internet connection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com