The middle class can afford to pluck down a few more bucks and get a device with a real OS...
Imagine your average laptop cost $5k - $15k. Would you consider it a big deal if you could get a decent <$1k laptop? That's the equivalent situation.
The implicit context for the comment you're replying to, made explicit, is clearly "Consumers have spoken, they do not care [about whether their devices have a 'real' OS or not]." Given that this is the case, your rebuttal is a fairly empty one. It's essentially in the same realm as tautological-ish, no-impact statements, as far its role in this discussion goes...
That's what an automotive-minded person might believe. Why would you buy an electric car that you can't control when you could have a 1989 Volkwagen Golf getting 30mpg that would last you forever with just a little bit of maintenance? You would make that choice because you don't want to have the responsibility of doing something that makes the car unreliable or unsafe. You don't have the knowledge or the tools to fix it when it does. And you can't be late for work, or fail to pick up your daughter from school because your car wouldn't start. So even though you could get a car perfectly tailored to you and controlled by you for just $5,000, you buy a $60,000 electric car knowing that there's hardly any moving parts, so all you need to do is turn the car on and put your foot down and it will work. You plug it in when you get home, and unplug it when you leave for work. That's all you need to know.
That's how I liken the debate between Android and iOS, or Linux and Windows. People say to me "look at all the customization I can do!" and all I see is a maintenance nightmare. I use Linux at work because that's what it's best at. When I get home, I'm playing video games on my Windows desktop. On the weekends, I'm driving down two-track roads in my custom-built 1998 Toyota 4Runner, but my daily driver is a Fiat 500. When I'm playing around with developing apps, I'll sideload them onto my Nexus 4. But when someone calls my phone number, it rings to my iPhone, which I know will always ring no matter what software I manage to install.
As a consumer, it's not that I don't care. It's that I don't even want it. I know it's there. I know it's cheaper and I know it's more powerful and I know it can be customized. But none of those things are at the top of my list. Reliability, compatibility, and simplicity are my three biggest requirements.
That is an interesting analogy, but it's pretty misleading. Tesla happens to be locked down but not because it's electric. It doesn't need a turbo, that's like being upset you can't put a new zip disk in your SSD. The engines are fixed ratio, that's a more direct control than using a gear box. Electric cars have either simpler transmissions, or no transmissions at all. In general that means easier replacement, or not having to replace anything, surely a positive, right?
Electric cars are capable of being simpler and more alteration-friendly than ICEs. They just cost more.
What I'm saying is it's not that customers don't understand these points, it's that these points are exactly why some customers don't choose a more open system.
And some of the androids are even more expensive than iPhones...
I disagree, developers can develop native apps for iOS even if they need to go through the App Store. Only crippled web apps are allowed on Chrome OS and only Google can develop really native apps.
The usual "word processing, research, facebook" student load, for instance? A dedicated physical machine powerful enough to run even MS Word locally is a waste of money in this instance.
Access to the global information network and ability to use things on it is step 0 in getting people into the modern era. All that other stuff that you get from a "real OS" is a step above that.
The whole point of a netbook (which is really what a Chromebook is, with the tainted name dropped) is something that has most of its functionality on the web rather than a local device.
Had one of those machines for work. Even after a fresh install, the lag was positively infuriating.
Not that the over-arching sentiment of "you shouldn't take the existence of an always-available network connection for granted" is a bad one. It's just that saying, basically, "These devices aren't suitable everywhere; consider market segments that may be less mature than the big, contemporary Western one you're most familiar with, for example" is a little bit of a weird and not terribly convincing way to express it.
Not in Cologne (~1 million) nor Dortmund/Bochum (part of the 'Ruhrgebiet' metropolitan area, which Wikipedia estimates includes about 12 million people).
Guess not a first-world country?
We're probably on the same side: I would NEVER go for a Chromebook. Always online is stupid. Mobile sucks on trains here, so forget about data on the move. Hotspots don't exist. There are still lots of places that I visit that have little to no usable data connectivity.
I have no clue what the Chromebook is for, but it would be a giant failure in my circles and my environment.
When Apple released the MacBook the other week, everyone had the same reaction ("Only one port? Can't plug in a USB stick and the power adapter at the same time? It'd STOOOPID").
But, when Google releases an UNDERPOWERED netbook with abysmal 1990s screen resolution, less storage than a USB stick and that only fully works when you're on a network, it's widely praised. I don't understand it!
In the 1980s with the microcomputer boom, if you'd have told all those kids using BBC Micros at their school that they could only use their computer and the Interword ROM whilst connected to the telephone system, they'd have thought you were stupid.
Yet, essentially this is what Chrome OS offers you. You can upload all your data (as if uploading your 4GB videos to "the cloud" is an enjoyable experience), and then view it periodically when you have a network connection.
I know we normally DO have network connections but the invention of microcomputers was meant to DO AWAY with the need for mainframes, not turn our local powerful microcomputers into dumb terminals for remote corporate-controlled mainframes. If you'd proposed such a solution 20 years ago, they'd have thought you were insane.
You need a connection for web-based use-cases.
You don't need a connection for non web-based use-cases (document editing, etc works offline).
The same is true of any OS.
I think storing all of your data online is foolish, basically as it means that offline you're scuppered.
It is not going to run Visual Studio of course, but it is quite capable for browsing/videos/word processing/etc.
Browse https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps?_feature=of... to get a list of apps that are available that work offline.
And yes, Netflix, YouTube etc., no problem.
Which is probably why they're so popular with schools. I no longer own one but when I did it was my go to for email and basic web stuff.
With all the talk of schools mandating that children have equivalent devices, what was wrong with writing on paper and doing maths on paper? We managed at school.