Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbail | Hacker News Reader

So, it is real!

It looks awesome, but at $1,299, I don't think it's priced well. That's $100 more than a 13" MacBook. I just don't see that much value in a Chromebook at this point in time.

View on HN

I honestly think the high price tag is the point. Google is trying to establish itself as a major brand that isn't just offering alternatives to Apple hardware for a lower price. Think of the plans to build retail stores, and how the Android brand is given less prominence these days: they are working hard to build a consumer "Google" brand that's as strong as Apple.

So far most of the devices they sold were priced to be cheaper than Apple's counterparts. This pricing move is trying to say "we have better technology than Apple and it's worth the price", possibly in anticipation of other high-end products such as Glass.

I have no idea if it will pay off, but it's a bold move.

I love bold moves and this is certainly one of them. I just don't think it's going to sell well. Yet.

I don't think the average consumer will understand what it does and why it's priced the way it is. I understand what it does and does not do, I work in front end web engineering, and ultimately would really like to see Chrome OS take off (selfishly because my skillset would be very well suited for writing software for it). This is all a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. I just wouldn't plunk down $1300 for one.

But isn't it essentially just running web applications? I know I could download applications from the Chrome app store but I couldn't install any other applications, correct?

Yes, it's just webapps, Chrome extensions and Chrome Apps from the Web store. If you feel strongly that you need to install other software then the Pixel is probably not a product for you... Just keep in mind that it's pretty much the same for all tablet users, since they can also only use webapps and install apps from their vendor's store.

One of the things Apple avoids is $1,300 products that are conceptual beta-tests. It's blatantly obvious that "life in the cloud" isn't feasible for most people yet, not when 10 GB of Verizon LTE costs $90 here in the US, then $10/GB. But with that tiny 32GB of flash, that's clearly what the Chromebook is designed for.

It's bold, but it's not going to sell. The reviews are going to rip this to shreds ("nice screen, but doesn't run anything.") In the end, it's going to be a "what the heck were they thinking?" product that will dilute the brand.

People get by with 16GB iPads just fine, think you're wrong here.

People who "live in the cloud" with a 16GB iPad have very un-demanding needs. They're people like my mom, who take some photos and send some e-mails. They're not going to buy a $1,300 machine to do those things when a $500 iPad does them just fine.

That's the problem with speaking for the general population, you say "most people need more", someone else says "most people only need X" and the conversation goes no where.

You can make some inferences from the available statistics. The Chromebook is priced like an Ultrabook. Nobody is making any money off Ultrabooks, except Apple. Why would anyone spend as much as an Ultrabook to get a machine that does even less than an Ultrabook? I don't think this is that subjective of an argument.

The FACTS speak for themselves. Look at the sales and Apple's advertising.

> They're not going to buy a $1,300 machine to do those things when a $500 iPad does them just fine.

I think that this depends almost entirely on how slick it looks and how well it is marketed. Plenty of moms have MBPs that they shelled out the extra $1k+ for to take get on FB and send emails.

I'm not saying that it's _smart_ to do that :) but never underestimate the allure of a well-marketed product.

So who's going to spend 3x the price to buy a Chromebook? This thing is just flat out weird.

But in the same respect, I'm not paying $1300 for a 16gb iPad, and it's serving a purpose that lends itself to cloud storage.

>One of the things Apple avoids is $1,300 products that are conceptual beta-tests.

How about the original Macbook Air? That was $1800 and pretty much a beta test of the good Macbook Airs that are out now (slow CPU, slow HDD, stuck with 2 GB RAM forever).

> That's $100 more than a 13" MacBook.

Some will see that as "So Chromebook is better than a MacBook then? They wouldn't have priced it that high if it wasn't. I want one".

Kind of how some expensive wine is sold. Sell it for $15 / bottle and it gets lost on the shelves among others. Put it in a special glass case and sell it for $120 / bottle and surprise people will buy, taste it and think it is really the best one they've ever head.

Not only this, now a cheaper Chromebook will seem like a really good deal.

I don't know anybody who only bought a Mac because it was expensive. They bought it because it was worth the expense.

Chrome OS is an unproven platform that doesn't have nearly the popular support of Apple's products, and it's coming from a company that's still fairly new at both software and hardware design. That's not to say this will be a bad product, but this is certainly a risky marketing strategy. I'd love it they pulled it off – I like the thought of a web-only notebook, even if I don't want one myself – so I'll be crossing my fingers and hoping they pull this off.

I wonder if this is intended as a flagship - not so much to actually sell, but to give Chrome OS the aura of quality, so that the cheap ones feel like a good deal, rather than a poor alternative for people who can't afford a 'real' laptop. Google presumably has the cash to do it.

Plus, of course, there's simple media exposure. Most people don't associate Google with laptops, but this is on the BBC homepage at the moment (first story under technology).

Not many people in the tech industry buy Macs because they are expensive, but I'd venture that (like many other trendy products) there are a good number of people who have bought it for the status/trendiness/cost/whatever. Not that it matters really, but it's an odd claim to make that all Mac purchasers were informed consumers. Most consumers are relatively uninformed, regardless of what they're buying, and loads of people buy things for no other reason than that they saw a commercial on TV and can afford it.

What's odd is making the assumption that all Mac purchasers weren't informed consumers. Your attitude reeks of arrogance and superiority (which seems to be common in the tech community).

>Most consumers are relatively uninformed, regardless of what they're buying, and loads of people buy things for no other reason than that they saw a commercial on TV and can afford it.

I have a few friends that work in creative at ad agencies and they would laugh at this.

I'm not saying that it happens without advertising :) but it happens, right?

Also, I am not trying to be superior or critical - I'm not slamming Mac owners, I own Apple products. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the GHz on your CPU. It doesn't matter for many people, and that isn't an arrogant judgment (or at least I don't mean it to be). I just think it's silly that we sometimes assume all people will evaluate technology the way we (tech people) do. Just because a thing is more/less expensive, more/less powerful, has more/less storage, does not mean that it might not be the perfect solution for someone else.

edit: I should add that I buy things for weird reasons all the time. I know nothing about fashion - I assume that the $80 jeans are nicer looking than then $40 jeans. Or I assume that the BMW 3x is a better car than the Accord. I do of course try to look into these things thoroughly, but sometimes I don't care, and I just want to buy a credible product. I suspect that lots of people do this with lots of things that aren't their primary concern - that's all I'm saying. A well-marketed, slick Chromebook could find an audience if for no other reason that there are a lot of people who think about computers like I think about cars: "I want a good one. This one looks pretty good to me, I haven't heard anything bad, it has a good reputation, it looks well-made, I don't want to spend the cycles endlessly investigating it, it's in my price range, I'll grab it."

These things are called "scams" and rarely survive long

>>Kind of how some expensive wine is sold.

I don't think computers are comparable to wine.

Depends who buys it. We don't view them that way because we are programmers and we know what an 8GB of ram means or what i5 means. Others look at computers differently (oh, I like the metal finish, this machine feels so fast). Not saying there is anything wrong, it is just how it is.

I think you're dead on and that's the factor a lot of techie people seem to completely fail to understand. We look at this stuff through a completely different lens than the typical consumer. Back in the awful days when I was retailing computers, I can't count the number of times people bought one laptop over the other because of the color or finish or some other minor detail. One of the main reasons Apple succeeds is that they make beautiful products, and it looks like Google is trying to share that market.

People use price to compare wine because we have virtually nothing else to go on. With wine, many people are selecting from options they have no direct experience with (styles, yes, particular wine or year? not in many cases) – so price became a way to discriminate when all else was unavailable.

You're not looking at the Retina MacBook (they start at $1,499 and don't have any touch features).

Considering that this is actually competing against the Retina MacBook Pro, it's actually $200 cheaper...

For a much slower CPU and 1/4 the disk, and an OS that has no apps.

I would consider in this calculation that the chromebook comes with 1 terabyte free storage on the cloud for 3 years.

That's basically worthless in a country where people are paying $10 per GB for 4-5 megabit LTE service, or else hopping on Starbucks Wi-Fi access points to get 1-2 megabit service.

I can foresee scenarios where that would be useful: when we have unmetered 30-40 megabit wireless service everywhere. But very few people in the U.S. find themselves in that situation.

I don't see that. For most application the typical Wi-Fi access is enough, e.g. for music and movie streaming, working in Google Docs...

Even if it was only working on home Wi-Fi, it would be far from worthless. People pay $200 for a Wi-Fi home NAS. Having your home NAS available anywhere is a nice plus.

Also there is the screen that is higher resolution and multi-touch.

You're going to chew through 10 GB of LTE steaming music and movies. Working in Google Docs, maybe, but Google Docs sucks. I can justify $250 to use Google Docs over Starbucks WiFi. Not so much $1,300 to do the same thing.

Use QuickOffice that is integrated then.

Who uses 1TB of storage?

Totally agreed - but as has been mentioned elsewhere here, the overwhelming majority of computer owners aren't techies/developers. I definitely wouldn't buy one of these, but if you're basically a web user and you don't want to shell out for the MBP, I could see this being an appealing option I guess.

The importance of price anchoring...

$100 more? Is it better than a MacBook?

$200 less? Wow...MacBooks are so overpriced.

$200 less than a macbook retina 13" with 2560x1600. Up until now there have been no competitors even near this resolution.

$1269 for a refurbished 13" rMBP

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD212LL/A/refurbished-macb...

And none of those devices do touch.

Don't see it as a direct competitor with the Macbook Pro or Retina. If anything it is trying to be higher end Air.

Especially since for $1269, you can get a refurb MBP Retina with more RAM, more flash, more CPU, and almost as much screen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com