Hacker News Reader

Comment by platinum1 | Hacker News Reader

https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h...

Is that better?

edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos)

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features.html

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.ht...

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-device...

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html

So, we're looking at a relatively deep link, which assumes the reader has been shown the main OS features and is looking for which specific product to buy. That said, I agree that this page doesn't do much except show pretty pictures and throw out a few tech specs, and won't sell the product on its own.

View on HN

edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos)

When I search Google for chromebox the first result is the link that was submitted. I concur: it is a terrible landing page for a product. Consider the first page results for things like macbook, ipad, or mac mini and you can see where the failure lies. They do, after all, have control of search results, don't they?

http://www.apple.com/ vs http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/

http://www.apple.com/iphone/ vs https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html

I'd say Google's doing a better job.

Not sure how that's obvious from your links. It'd be helpful if you gave some explanation.

It's nuanced UI-related. There's a lot of psychology involved to understand the holistic effects. You need to include things like someone's brand perception into deciding how effective a UI will be, such as trusted brands will let someone assume that what they are looking at is trustworthy - and therefore of enough value for them to care and look further into it / to get interested.

Hope that helps?

I'd say you should compare Apple's and Google's sales reports.

I'd say a lot more goes into a company's revenue than two single product landing pages. Don't use Apple's earnings as justification for all it's actions.

McDonald's sells the most burgers in the world, that definitely means it's the best in everything burger-related right?

The two products are incomparable. One is unknown, the other is known by pretty much anyone who would be interested in buying a smart phone.

It's the brand of the company that matters; It's the foundation for what a user will expect, and will let them trust what they are seeing in front of them as valuable to them - prior to even knowing anything specific about it.

> Intel Core Processor

Why not specifying what processor and hardware is in the box ?

It's marketing. The emphasis is on the simplicity of the product.

That being said, it's a 1.9ghz Celeron CPU. That can give negative connotations since Celeron is Intel's cheap line of processors.

Good to know. I just got a quad-core desktop for US$377. The Chromebox w/ Celeron would have to print gold to compare to that.

I'd be curious to compare your time from power off, to viewing a web page.

They're very different machines, with very different goals. If you compare the components, then yes, it probably doesn't make any sense for you to get a Chromebox. If you look at the features they both have, then it might make more sense.

If I were buying a machine for my grandmother, I'd buy the Chromebox over your $377 desktop, in a heartbeat.

I have a chromebook with 1.66 ghz Atom CPU. ChromeOS is lightning on it.

Most likely, your desktop would have to print gold to make up for the difference in your power bill compared to a ChromeBox too. My desktop needs a couple hundred watts; my Google TV box needs closer to 10. Running a full-size desktop where you don't need the power is equivalent to a voluntary subscription fee versus a one-time payment.

At least it informs that it's not an ARM processor, so it should be a magnitude faster (more like a PC than a phone).

It's easier to switch parts if you don't specify them.

It's still not good enough for me, though it is a million times better.

"Go fast". The set top Androids are also pretty fast. Also, as someone said, who reboots these days? (though it's a selling point for a media player replacement)

"Stream HD movies without a hitch", ok, that's a selling point, though my cheap Android phone does well enough on "good enough" quality, so I'd expect the Android set top boxes or equivalents to do just as well.

"Go straight online to creating, sharing and enjoying. Chrome devices come with built-in apps for editing photos, creating documents and presentations, and video chat, so you can get everyday tasks done right out of the box."

Ok, though the Android boxes do that too.

"Google+ Hangouts. You can also integrate multiple chat accounts with apps like imo or eBuddy. "

Not a selling point for me (what is a Hangout?)

Edit: I tried explaining myself. Why the downvote instead of a rebuttal? (I can accept those)

Why are you comparing this to Android? Also, I've never heard of an Android set-top box.

I'm comparing them because the form factor and use case look to be exactly the same (heck, the UI looks very similar too, both being made by Google).

Examples of Android set top boxes (the first one has 4 GB):

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/google-android-2-2-hdmi-tv-set-...

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mele-1080p-android-2-3-internet...

They were featured recently by a local supermarket chain.

What, because they're square? By that measure, an Apple TV, Mac Mini and Airport Extreme are all in the same category.

From a consumer's perspective, isn't an Apple TV or a Mac Mini a substitute product? Especially at the 400 dollar price point of the Chromebox.

I mean, the sales pitch for the Chromebox is: surf the internet, stream movies and use some apps...

The Mac Mini - yes, the Apple TV - no. I don't think there's a lot of consumer confusion between set top boxes and desktop computers.

My point was it's like saying you don't understand why Apple sells the Mac Mini when the Apple TV is only $99.

> Also, I've never heard of an Android set-top box.

Google TV (aka Logitech Revue, Sony Internet TV, LG Smart TV). They've been at your local Best Buy type store for years.

They're Android 3.0 STBs, or in the case of the Smart TVs starting to come out, built into the TV.

The "LG Smart TV" box isn't (usually) Android, it's LG's own Smart TV platform.

(LG has announced GoogleTV/Android support, and showed samples at CES this year but AFAIK isn't shipping them yet).

http://www.google.com/tv/get.html

The LG TV with Google TV (Android) has been available for ~5 months at least. Amazon started selling it in February.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com