Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Introduces the Chromebook Pixel to Compete With the MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let me just throw out the pat answer that everyone here says when someone criticizes and Apple product:
Don't buy it!
Don't buy it!
Or you could backup your claim with a link. I hear that's an effective way to defend forum posts.
I have an impression this is an approach similar to that of Microsoft.
Microsoft has money from Office and Windows so it can afford to make and try to sell various risky things, like Xbox, zunes, Surface RT. They even might be made at al loss, if necessary, just to see what remains stuck on the wall after a while.
Google is well known for a number of its initiatives beyond search, most of which were failures like Wave, or Google TV, but some were reasonably successful (Google Docs, for example). They never tried premium hardware (Nexuses are sold as cheaply as possible), so its an attempt to see if they can win something from that.
After a while we'll see if market approves this. My feeling is that it will have similar fate to Google TV or whatever like like that unfortunate hardware companies like Logitech tried to adopt. Probably, it doesn't have a real business plan, its an experiment, maybe not that costly for Google, because an outsourced manufacturer in Taiwan or China or maybe some Motorola division assembles the thing for them, its kinda experimental.
The thing is that after a number of such tries in various fields (Glass, TV, music, etc) none of which really add to their core strength of selling private information for ads, they will begin to lose more and more money. Since their search algorithm made 15 years ago, they have really nothing innovative, all their recent attempts - android, g-drive, picasa, whatever is still aimed for data excavation from individuals.
Microsoft has money from Office and Windows so it can afford to make and try to sell various risky things, like Xbox, zunes, Surface RT. They even might be made at al loss, if necessary, just to see what remains stuck on the wall after a while.
Google is well known for a number of its initiatives beyond search, most of which were failures like Wave, or Google TV, but some were reasonably successful (Google Docs, for example). They never tried premium hardware (Nexuses are sold as cheaply as possible), so its an attempt to see if they can win something from that.
After a while we'll see if market approves this. My feeling is that it will have similar fate to Google TV or whatever like like that unfortunate hardware companies like Logitech tried to adopt. Probably, it doesn't have a real business plan, its an experiment, maybe not that costly for Google, because an outsourced manufacturer in Taiwan or China or maybe some Motorola division assembles the thing for them, its kinda experimental.
The thing is that after a number of such tries in various fields (Glass, TV, music, etc) none of which really add to their core strength of selling private information for ads, they will begin to lose more and more money. Since their search algorithm made 15 years ago, they have really nothing innovative, all their recent attempts - android, g-drive, picasa, whatever is still aimed for data excavation from individuals.
Last edited:
Believe me nobody will.
----------
Haha I suppose Google marking would spin it that way!
strange choices
What I really don't understand is why they chose to go with a retina type display. That thing uses so much power generally, and is great for things like photo editing, etc..
but, with such limited storage and no good "chrome" resident photo editing apps, photo editing is going to have to rely heavily on cloud storage and back and forth transmission of very large files. That, in my opinion would totally suck.
And 4:3 format for the screen, the black bars above and below normally formatted 16:9 movies will be bigger than the movie itself.
Ah well, put it all together in the heap of failed hardware products like google tv, nexus Q among others.
What I really don't understand is why they chose to go with a retina type display. That thing uses so much power generally, and is great for things like photo editing, etc..
but, with such limited storage and no good "chrome" resident photo editing apps, photo editing is going to have to rely heavily on cloud storage and back and forth transmission of very large files. That, in my opinion would totally suck.
And 4:3 format for the screen, the black bars above and below normally formatted 16:9 movies will be bigger than the movie itself.
Ah well, put it all together in the heap of failed hardware products like google tv, nexus Q among others.
There's no USB 3, for one thing.
The biggest flaw, though, isn't that it's outdated- it's that it's underutilized. They put a high density screen on a machine that's designed to surf the web and use the cloud. (how many retina-quality web pages have you been to recently?
)----------
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. You're right, that WOULD suck!
Yeah, but...I mean...besides that.
The biggest flaw, though, isn't that it's outdated- it's that it's underutilized. They put a high density screen on a machine that's designed to surf the web and use the cloud. (how many retina-quality web pages have you been to recently?
Probably none, but it'd still look decent. Every page I visit looks nicer, crisper on my iPad 3 than it does on my big computer monitor. You don't necessarily have to have a retina enabled web page to take advantage of a high resolution display.
I do agree with you about it being underutilized. It's got an excellent screen, decent hardware, and...an OS that can't do anything with either one of them.
Though like I said earlier, if I could get a refurbed model for $800 or so, and pop another OS on it (Linux is already in the pipelines), I'd probably be tempted to pick one up.
"Junk OS"
"Browser"
Man, I get the feeling the people on here haven't actually ever used Chrome OS and get their information from their local Best Buy...
"Browser"
Man, I get the feeling the people on here haven't actually ever used Chrome OS and get their information from their local Best Buy...
It isn't a bad OS for what it is, but there isn't anything on it that needs an i5 and 4GB ram to run.
...at least not yet.
...at least not yet.
No, no, it does need the 4GB of RAM.
2GB just didn't cut it for the Samsung Chromebook.
The i5 would likely let it run 1080p video without lagging.
Okay, I can understand having 4GB ram for people who work with multiple tabs. Ram's so cheap and plentiful, they might as well throw it in.
But 1080p video doesn't need an i5 to run. Even my iPad 3 with it's dinky ARM processor can play high def videos without any problems.
But 1080p video doesn't need an i5 to run. Even my iPad 3 with it's dinky ARM processor can play high def videos without any problems.
Then there's something wrong with the Samsung Chromebook. It has the most recent Exynos processor... but I could never get it to run 1080 without grinding to a halt.
Then again, the iPad has the best graphics processor for an ARM device.
No a tablet in a laptop frame would still have 100x more functionality than this piece of junk
Finish this sentence.
"My iPad is more functional than this Chromebook because _________".
I mean real ways, functional things.
There's no USB 3, for one thing.
The biggest flaw, though, isn't that it's outdated- it's that it's underutilized. They put a high density screen on a machine that's designed to surf the web and use the cloud. (how many retina-quality web pages have you been to recently?
----------
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. You're right, that WOULD suck!
Same applies to most all laptops. Real professionals do not use laptops for creative work. As far as USB 3.0 is concerned, Google's decision makes a lot more sense than Apple sticking with USB 2.0 for too long. This is a cloud-connected device. The data comes and goes via WiFi/LTE. USB 2.0 is their mostly for a mouse which would not benefit from USB 3.0 anyways.
Oh I don't disagree with you, Apple hasn't offered much for the last few years other than spec updates. Can't expect them to blow up a new market every year that is a little unrealistic but they really have been putting half efforts out the last few years, switching ports (lightning) just to corner the market and intentionally holding back releases (the mini) for future update ideas because they can't find anything that's really new for the iPad Mini next year so they'll recycle the iPad 4 updates for the 2nd generation iPad Mini.
Anyway the reason they are critical is that the product is on a operating system that isn't even popular or well established right now so why would they think anyone wants to pay that high of a price (even if the hardware is great) when it can only do 1/10th of what Windows could do or 1/5th of what iOS could do?
Renzatic said:
Because you can get Windows 8 touch screens/laptop hybrids for $300 cheaper (actually $419 cheaper if you buy the keyboard too) which include a keyboard and much more space. Detachable ones are still $200 ($319) cheaper than the Surface Pro.
I think the iPad is a toy and I own a Surface Pro now so I really can't finish that sentence without laughing
But functionality comes from software
iPad = budget ARM software
Surface Pro = premium x86 software
Chromebook Pixel = web apps, which don't penetrate the software market in any volume sizable enough to make this laptop a disruptive product or good value proposition
Buying a Chromebook Pixel is like paying top dollar for a Blu Ray player in a world where Blu Ray discs aren't gonna exist for another 5-10 years. And in the meantime it won't even let you watch regular DVD's
You just made my point! It isn't. It's essentially a $1,300 tablet (from any manufacturer) stuffed into a laptop's physical body for USB ports and a SD-reader. Battery life, cloud-based OS (no software/hardware), even a required internet plan after the free service expires (like wifi/non-wifi iPads).
I don't get it.
For another $50 you can get an actual laptop that runs an actual operating system that runs actual applications and can function in an real world environment as it exists right now. I just don't see how this makes sense, sorry.
Or for $300 ($1,000 less) you can buy any bottom of the line laptop and still have something more functional. LOL