Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kadecgos | Hacker News Reader

So, I'm only slightly trying to be a smartass here, but... Who is this for? They are marketing what is ostensibly a computer for people who seem to not want to use a computer in scenarios that I don't think even exist.

Beyond that, this is a laptop that is running a really shitty, 'apps only, no you cannot do anything useful with this' operating system. I have an awful lot of complaints about MacOS's relatively restrictive use cases, but it's still at least a General Purpose OS. Android on laptop is very much not.

This is an overgrown phone with all the trash that comes with a phone, and the very finite use cases that come with a phone, only now it has a keyboard. It's solving none of the problems with Android as an operating system and doesn't seem to even be interested in doing that anyway. The marketing is demoing use cases that don't even exist.

So I repeat my question: Who is this for?

View on HN

> So, I'm only slightly trying to be a smartass here, but... Who is this for?

The primary difference between a Chromebook and a Googlebook appears to be the ability to run LLM's locally.

The requirements were spelt out at Google I/O. They boil down to a 40 TOPS NPU and a minimum of 16GB of memory. They appear to be trying to match Apple's M series memory bandwidth using software compression. ChromeOS didn't need an NPU and specified a minimum of 4GB of memory. Aluminium OS looks to have the same relationship with its LLM as a Chromebook did with Google Chrome, and needs the hardware to power it.

If they pull it off you will get GPT-4 performance, running locally.

As for who this is for: your guess is as good as mine. But if their replacement for crostini works (crostini is so hopelessly unreliable it felt like it never got out of beta, so it's a big if), even the minimum specs would be a very good Linux laptop.

Do you have a source for this local stuff?

i can kinda see it, they spent a lot of time getting Gemma 4 pretty efficient and then seeing everyone buy macs to run them and realize it’s maybe a real moat since Apple doesn’t make any AI

Would be an interesting product if it could actually give you GPT performance locally, will be an awful experience if it’s essentially just cloud AI…like a premium laptop where most of the features are locked behind a subscription would be wild

They are already rolling it out in Chrome: https://www.pcmag.com/news/chrome-is-quietly-downloading-4gb... It won't work on a Chromebook with 4GB of RAM, so they need beefier hardware.

Yep, that's the answer. That being said I still imagine their preference is that nothing is run locally, all via their server to get all precious usage data.

They could provide a preinstalled harness, which can send them all the juicy anonymized (or not) data

Don't give them ideas... /s

Without pricing information, it’s hard to the question "who is this for?".

Below $500? Same as the cheap Chromebooks market.

Around $700? (Or $600 educational) Direct competitor to Macbook Neo, educational market and the middle of the road laptop market.

Above $900? No idea, maybe for Google Platform die-hards.

> Above $900? No idea, maybe for Google Platform die-hards.

Managed corporate machines. I've worked with all platforms and managing ChromeOS is massively, massively easier than MacOS or Windows.

I’ve never encountered a company that used ChromeOS.

Closest was some teacher friends who had Chromebooks for their students, but they’ve all switched to Lenovo or Apple.

I don’t think I’d work for a company that made me use a Chromebook. (I prefer a company that lets me choose my own tools).

ChromeOS is still huge in education and I still see more people moving from Windows and Apple to ChromeOS than vice versa.

However, the introduction of the MacBook Neo has generated a lot of serious discussion about the possibility of it being a ChromeOS replacement, which surprises me. Not a lot of people pulling the trigger yet until the Neo can make volume.

I would virtually guarantee that any Chromebooks for Education versions of these new devices would be hobbled by restrictive data sharing policies forcing the disabling of the Gemini Intelligence features.

Also, most schools purchase the most abysmally low quality Chromebooks for students, which cost in the $200-300 range in bulk orders. They're awful.

I don't think the world cares much about things you personally encountered, since it's not a role playing game with you as a main character :D

You're welcome to look up actual facts online about adoption though.

So what companies are issuing chromebooks? Want to know so I can avoid.

When I search Chromebook in the enterprise, I only find people wondering if it should be done, and everyone saying please don’t.

Many schools across western New York

I didn't realise schools are now considered companies or enterprises.

Keep moving the goalposts man. You can use AI or Google to find those facts as well as we can.

Goalposts? I don't think you know what they even are.

Someone asks what purpose is a $900 chromebook. You say: Managed corporate machines.

Prepend writes: I’ve never encountered a company that used ChromeOS...

You respond: I don't think the world cares much about things you personally encountered... You're welcome to look up actual facts online about adoption though.

Then I simply ask which companies and enterprises do infact issue Chromebooks. Nobody is moving the goalposts, the context being discussed was Chromebooks in company/enterprise; not once were schools mentioned. Your response seems to give the air that you have personal knowledge of these being used in corporate, hence why I asked which companies are issuing Chromebooks.

Nice try deflecting though. I'm guessing by your non-response, nobody actually does, except possibly Google themselves. Which makes sense, since nobody wants to use them.

Yes, Chromebooks are easy to administer but very limited (you can't run much outside the browser). It sounds like Google's trying to fix that and make a full Desktop OS.

I don’t get why anyone would price a Neo competitor higher than a Neo.

No idea. The people that have no need to run real software and want a high end device probably have an iPad with a keyboard case. Those that want a low end device have a chromebook.

This thing will be killed early 2028...

I am old enough to remember the chromebook is dead rumours of ...let me think... every years since it was introduced?

I personally would prefer a good chromebook to an ipad+cramped keyboard but I guess people are different

> Beyond that, this is a laptop that is running a really shitty, 'apps only, no you cannot do anything useful with this' operating system. I have an awful lot of complaints about MacOS's relatively restrictive use cases, but it's still at least a General Purpose OS. Android on laptop is very much not.

Android 16+ offers a built-in integrated Linux VM that can be enabled from Developer Mode, and if this[0] third-party site is accurate, "Android on laptop" will have it enabled by default.

So it should not be too different from working on a Windows laptop with WSL2, or on an OSTree distro where you use distroboxes to work with non-sandboxed programs.

(fwiw, I would still refuse to have one of these for personal use because Google is a shameless data robber. Unless someone were to de-google Aluminium like LineageOS and GrapheneOS did for Android, but that would probably take years.)

[0] https://aluminium-os.com/

GrapheneOS users that need to access their banks but their bank's websites treat users on browsers as second class users by requiring phone in 2fa. Chase.com is an example of this. Android app on Chrome device? No issue.

> MacOS's relatively restrictive use cases

I’m very curious what you mean by this.

A user has to use the CLI to turn off the Apple DRM to install software on an Apple laptop. The CLI is often cited as the reason people won't try Linux. This makes the entire user experience on those machines a restricted use case.

My daily driver for the past 20 years or so has been a Mac, doing everything from software development to music production to general computer use.

I’ve never had to use the CLI to turn off Apple DRM to install software. I use the Homebrew package manager to install all types of command line and GUI software and I download and install all manner of software outside the App Store regularly.

The only times I’ve had to do anything is if the app isn’t signed which is rare to come across, and even then it is a couple clicks in the macOS GUI to allow installation (I’ll grant you the fact they’ve made it more cumbersome in the past years by requiring you to go into the settings panel and click a button there, but it never outright prevents installation and never requires CLI use).

I really have to question if you’ve actually used a Mac or if you’re just repeating something you’ve heard because it doesn’t match my daily experience at all nor that of any Mac user I know (all my coworkers for example).

I think they're referring to disabling system integrity protection, which I've admittedly had to do for some specialized use cases that I can't remember.

SIP is similar to an enhanced secure boot. It's not (at least not primarily) for DRM.

He might be talking about a Gatekeeper override which is available by digging into the system settings? This allows you to run insecure resigned software (like pirated software is a common use case, honestly). But you only have to do this once, it isn't some constant headache.

I'm not sure what exactly he's referencing, actually. But it can almost all be disabled on macOS (the same is not true of iOS).

I've been using a Mac since 2012 for all manner of work and personal use cases. I haven't needed to disable SIP to do anything in quite a long time. I used to need to do this to install kernel extensions for audio, but this is no longer required for systems that support AudioKit.

Basically, I don't see any impediments to doing anything I need to do with SIP enabled at this point. I'm not sure what GP thinks the impediment is.

Regardless you still had to do it. Anyone that doesn’t do it is in a restricted use case for the machine. That’s my point which I made clear in my original comment. Disabling it allows you to use the machine outside of restriction. Fancy that!

I only had to do it years ago. I have a new M5 Max MBP and it has never had SIP disabled, neither did my M1 Max MBP I replaced. That's at least 4-5 years where it's been unnecessary. Never needed it on Apple Silicon devices, although I don't think the SoC arch is related to why.

I’ve had to disable it a few times but for niche stuff. I like to run LittleSnitch and monitor all outgoing network connections.

I’ve used macOS for over a decade and can count on one hand how many times I’ve had to use the CLI to disable DRM. Zero times in the past 5 years.

You never had to disable SIP and Gatekeeper? Then you’re using a restricted machine.

Could you explain what CLI you think needs to be used to install software on a Mac?

`sudo spctl —-master-disable`

`csrutil disable`

What do you think that does with regards to DRM? And do you really think most people are running that to use their Mac?

Yes I think enough people run it. To install unsigned code such as macports or homebrew or little snitch or other software:

https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/670610

I like how Apple related conversations, I can’t make a point about how restrictive the OS has become and how most users are probably using restricted devices without apologists telling me “not enough people need to disable that stuff so it doesn’t count”. I’m sure you will brag about the merits of Apple’s locked down security of the App store, that’s not a restriction right? It’s just “security”.

Wherever you pundits want to move the goal post I guess.

Nobody is moving the goalposts. You just poorly choose words.

I don’t think you actually understand the problem space of what you’re describing or you wouldn’t call it DRM.

And as such I don’t think you actually have a grasp of what is affected. But you’ve deles that everyone who doesn’t think it’s the same level of issue as you is somehow beneath your intellect based on your other comments.

> I don’t think you actually understand the problem space of what you’re describing or you wouldn’t call it DRM.

Yap yap yap “it’s Apple security!”

> But you’ve deles that everyone who doesn’t think it’s the same level of issue as you is somehow beneath your intellect based on your other comments.

Same to you.

Enough actual Mac user have asked you wtf you're talking about. I'm more interested to know where you picked up the idea, if you care to speak to that too.

Enough Mac users are restricted users then and definitely not hackers and only one other Mac user has figured out what I’m talking about.

What? No they don't. I work for an org with 4,000 Mac users and zero of them have had to do this to get the apps they want on their Macs.

Edit: Why is this getting downvoted so much? It's 100% accurate. Here's the Apple doc describing the process. Nowhere does it mention the CLI:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445

None of them have had to let an app through Gatekeeper? Then you’re restricting the allowed software and they are all restricted device users.

Occasionally, but not often. BUT in no case do they need to use the CLI to do that. When they do need to, they allow the app in System Settings app, under Privacy & Security.

Heck, I am a "power user" who installs all kinds of weird apps and I haven't had to do that, except in my hackintosh days when modifying the system.

Here is the related Apple support article: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102445

Yes but you admit they dont need to do that but they can and probably have. That’s the simple point I’m making between restricted and non restricted devices. You may see them as guard rails or whatever but they’re still restrictions.

As soon as you let macports through Gatekeeper you are breaking through device restrictions. Does macports/homebrew have a UI?? They might not need to use the CLI to do that but they might still use it. Heck their AI assistant even might.

Another example my company doesn’t allow me to adjust OSX notification settings. Another restriction making my device use restricted.

I mean a lot. I purpose left it vague because I fear unpacking it is going to turn into the worst parts of a reddit thread, something that I would definitely be contributing to myself.

The big bullet points though are:

• Apple has crazy opinions about hardware

• And increasingly crazy opinions about what software you can put on it.

• And goes out of it's way to not work with open standards because 'fuck you'.

So examples here - non-exhaustive, just examples.

Hardware is not something I need to explain. You are stuck on their hardware. You can't upgrade it, by design.

Software has been touched on re: DRM nonsense, but they are leaning more and more into 'only signed apps' and even 'only apps you get on the app store' (which I assume is the future for that OS). They also just don't really give a shit about compatibility and will happily break API when it suits them.

Open standards is completely obnoxious and just an unforced error, but it's not actually an error because they want users and developers both to be exclusively in their ecosystem. Vulcan is example prime in my head. They could support that, but they choose not to because they want everyone on Metal. The platform is not about being useful - it's about generating mind share and revenue.

---

There are a lot of Apple users who will insist they don't feel like they are missing anything, and I do genuinely believe that they do feel that way. They just don't know what they are missing and if something isn't introduced as an option, it's not even in their mental model when choosing a solution for a problem. It's like trying to explain the virtues of a mouse and keyboard and an OS that supports multi tasking to a modern day teenager attached to an iPad and a phone - the idea of a more capable, more complex input stack is so foreign that it doesn't even register meaningfully. I don't mean to be a dick here, but I wouldn't go around saying, 'I've used Mac for 20 years and haven't ran into any issues with the OS' -- You're kinda telling on yourself a bit there.

Where are you getting the information that only signed apps are allowed on macOS? macOS will, just like windows, issue a scary warning when running a program of unknown origin, sure, but there’s no indication of just letting macOS open it anyway going away. As much as the quality of Apple’s software is declining, the macs are not getting more restrictive

> So, I'm only slightly trying to be a smartass here, but... Who is this for?

You're not the only one asking this. I'm right there with you.

For corporates it could be a good balance between security and being able to spoon feed people AI. It is an alternative to Microsoft and the mess of different products and licences.

A company that mostly works inside the browser and/or Google workspace. ChromeOS makes sense and just decent devices here are rare.

I mean you basically just described a chromebook, though I believe one of the selling points of chromebook is that it's dirt cheap.

Yeah, a Chromebook's killer 'feature' is that it's web browser attached to a keyboard and functional screen for cheap on a platform that you can't otherwise screw up.

If you price that up to $1,000 (which some Chromebooks definitely do), then I start to ask a variation of the same question: Why did you buy that?

It's for Google.

every large corporation is going to come out with a hardware device in the next 12 months where you don't directly use applications, where the AI acts as an intermediary

openai, anthropic, meta, google, all of them

even you will want one of these devices, probably (not saying this is a positive development in the world)

And every one of these ‘AI first’ laptops will be cancelled in a couple of years when generative AI is no longer the hot new thing and end users realise its severe limitations.

I hope you're right, it would be better for the world if you are

but that's probably not what's going to happen

Given this is from google I'd say there is a very high probability the project is cancelled in the next few years even if it is moderately popular.

it's hard to guess who the winners will be in this product category, I would guess openai or microsoft are more likely than google

I don't think there will be any winners, the category shouldn't exist and is here because of the bubble and them trying to shove AI into absolutely everything before it is actually useful.

We don't need AI terminal computers and general purpose computers will do just fine to interface with AI. If anything things like voice assistants in some form are far more likely outcome of better AI than computers you have to type into to get things done.

Press F to doubt.

Brother, I don't even want a phone. I need devices that actually, ya know, do stuff. A phone is barely functional even at the best of times. A device that might do the thing I ask it to 60% of the way there, sometimes, on a full moon, when the LLM cooperates... No thanks. I'm absolutely confident that I will never want such a device - it's simply not useful as a tool because it's not a tool. It's just a toy - an expensive toy that can do a cute party trick.

And all of them will learn how expensive and difficult it is to make good hardware that the majority actually wants to use. Meta learned this the hard way (Facebook phone, Oculus, Meta home devices, etc.), the same for Google. I don't think OAI and Anthropic have the capital and time to ride out the hardware loss. Google and Meta could afford their hardware blunders because it's not their revenue sources.

Wait, there are people there who use computers for more than creating family albums? Gosh, I lived in ignorance all this time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com