You're also forgetting... at least 256GB of SSD storage vs. 32GB on Chromebook and the ability to install and run a crapload of apps from numerous vendors.
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 Announces New Chromebook Pixel With USB-C, $999 Price Tag
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're also forgetting... at least 256GB of SSD storage vs. 32GB on Chromebook and the ability to install and run a crapload of apps from numerous vendors.
Are you talking about the Macbook?
----------
Pretty much what a lot of people think about Macbook.
It is set up to run as a traditional "desktop" OS. So the idea of a workspace exists. Where as Android is not designed to function like that, it's more of a full screen mode or split screen, not a free space environment like Windows or other traditional OS's.
I would say they each have their limitations. Supposedly you will be able to run Android Apps within Chrome someday. I was actually under the impression this was true when I bought it. It seems like such a natural environment to push their store. I think that was my biggest disappointment with the OS, was how fragmented it was from the Google experience.
The "app" selection on Chrome is terrible. There is very little outside of the native apps. I would rate Windows RT and it's limited apps to be a far better user experience.
I've got a chromebook and its a brilliant device to chuck in a bag and not worry about (it cost less than £200). My company uses google for work premium which definitely helps. I also develop on it using c9.io for web apps. However, I wouldn't spend a grand on one 
I can't imagine which cocktail of drugs could get me high enough to consider paying $1000 for something that runs ChromeOS.
It's an open standard... So yes it should be cross compatible. Maybe not the charger, but definitely the usb adaptor.
I think its funny how around the time the original rMBP came out, the original Chromebook was released, with a similar awesome screen, ect ...and now the Macbook comes out, and the Chromebook is similar to that, with USB C, ect.
I dont think this means Google is copying, I think it means both companies are ahead of the curve, and leading us to the next generation of laptops.
I dont think this means Google is copying, I think it means both companies are ahead of the curve, and leading us to the next generation of laptops.
There's nothing "simple" about the fact the adapters they've shown thus far have no pass-through on them. So if you need a Firewire adapter but want to plug in your mouse and keyboard when you dock...well...I hope you have Bluetooth mice and keyboards. If you want to plug in AC power AND have a Firewire port and/or anything at all? I don't see an adapter for that yet. It seems to me you really NEED at least two ports just to cover plugging the damn thing in when you're at a hotel or docked. You can't swap out the battery if you run out of power so I guess you just have to sit there and WAIT for it to recharge or choose not to use anything that needs to plug in at all. Yeah, any way I try to run it through my thick skull, I come to the conclusion that TWO ports would/should have been a bare minimum OR one port PLUS a mag-safe connector (where you COULD charge it with the USB port if needed, but would have an alternate option). Looking at the chassis, I see enough space for 2-3 ports per side and then there's the back/front as well that they could have had some useful ports for SOMETHING so you didn't have to depend on ONE lousy port for everything under the sun.
Now, keep those adapters handy and don't lose them or you lose everything. You'll probably need about 8 different varieties until someone comes up with "The Ultimate Hub" for this thing, but to carry a half dozen or more ports, it will be bulky. Oddly, though they already had a bulky surface they could have fit 6 ports on and it's called the FREAKING COMPUTER ITSELF!
IMO, there's no point to any of these "thin freak" models. Given the price isn't even much lower, I honestly don't see the point of them. I'm more afraid they will continue to ruin the Pro models with further reductions (they already ditched the removable battery, dedicated FW400 first and then later ALL FW ports (more adapters even on the Pro model, yay!), made your Thunderbolt and VIDEO OUT ports ubiquitous (causing more potential adapter and daisy-chaining headaches) and all these things are supposed to make life SIMPLER? HOW, I ask? To me, it's simpler to use the sides of the computer to fit as many freaking ports as possible JUST IN CASE you need them. Johnny Ive can make things thinner. Can he not make them thinner without sacrificing utility? It doesn't appear so. Time to hire someone with more talent, IMO.
I'm saying I want more ports than the MBP has even (i.e. my 2008 model has LOADS of ports and a removable battery AND a DVD writer drive and yet it's still pretty darn thin and weighed only around 5 pounds even so. Honestly, I don't really give a crap about thin. It's more like Apple is trying to FORCE thin on me these days. Why does a Mac Mini need to be thin? It's a desktop! It could be a little bigger and have better video and maybe that quad-core i7 option they got rid of (that does fit in my 2012 version even so).
Furthermore, given the high prices of these "Macbooks", I'd expect not only enough functionality to get things done, but something faster than a low-end PC or glorified Netbook processor. Given the complaints already about the trackpad (one of Apple's high points in the past), I'd say it seems like a glorified Netbook at 3x the price. One might as well get a Macbook Pro, IMO.
But then I never really understood the fascination with the early Macbook Air either. Underpowered, overpriced for a slightly thinner/lighter model? Blech. But some people loved them anyway. This actually seems like a mediocre attempt to compete with the Microsoft Surface line, except without having any options for touch-screen functionality. I know touch-screens suck for some activities, but it'd be so easy to include the option at this point, it kind of makes Apple look almost RETRO in some respects.
I would reply that is a very strange thing to say given those items have nothing to do with computers. I mean if you're going to condescend and generally act in such manners, at least give a clever comparison instead of bringing out the sandwich concept from The Jetsons circa 1962.
Perhaps Mr. Ive could only be bothered to fit one? I see plenty of space on the sides. It's just a matter of leaving enough room for the data lines. If that means the motherboard has to leave an extra 1/16 inch of space for them, so be it.
So if something doesn't exist on the market or not in that configuration that means they can charge anything they want? That seems to be what you're implying. Value is in the eye of the consumer and to me, thinner isn't worth more money. The Macbook Pro is MORE than thin enough. I already thought the existing Air was moot. Again, this seems more like some kind of competition with the Microsoft Surface line, but without the flexible tablet capabilities. I mean if this thing could flip over and be an iPad as well, that would be something useful and justify the price. As it is, it just seems like a slightly smaller/thinner Macbook Pro without all those pesky useful PORTS and a much slower CPU.
My wife uses my old early-2011 maxed out 15" MBP while I have my rMBP, and to this day I always dream of the rMBP stuffed in the old case - much bigger battery, better cooling, more space for ports, etc. Apple has been sacrificng thinness for utility for a while now, and with the new Macbook it is getting ridiculous. I really dig the look of Pixel, it is so anti-thin. Hopefully the thin trend will go the way of the stone-washed jeans.
I have a Chromebook as well and yes, it does web browsing like a champ but there is a long way to go for the OS to be more useful. The built-in video player is garbage, for one thing. If can't even play subtitles as of now. And unlike OSX, VLC isn't available as an alternative. The App Store is lacking as well.
----------
Jonny Ive should have put USB-C on both sides.
That way, people can choose which side they would like to charge and trip over because it's not a magsafe.
But wait, that's a gen 2 feature
Yup, gen 2 is where it's at. After the horridly slow original iPad, I'll never buy a first generation Apple product again.
Thin equals light. Light equals comfortable. Comfortable equals awesome.
But yeah, it would be better with two USB-C ports.
Not even a day before we see proof that USB C will be everywhere.
It irked me that Google kept saying 'we' designed USB C...it was a industry wide thing. Quit the bragging.
It irked me that Google kept saying 'we' designed USB C...it was a industry wide thing. Quit the bragging.
One day in, and Google is already celebrating ......
I never knew Google would react so quickly to adding this to their Chrome books. I thought at least give it a while.
But If Google does it early, it MUST be good.
"One ring (i mean port) to rule them all"
Two ports is always good too... You never can find a port when u need one. .....
I never knew Google would react so quickly to adding this to their Chrome books. I thought at least give it a while.
But If Google does it early, it MUST be good.
"One ring (i mean port) to rule them all"
Two ports is always good too... You never can find a port when u need one. .....
Did you misread me? You are describing the limitations the Chrome OS, not iOS.
Also being "tied" to wifi is not a limitation. Access to Wifi is very much the default for many of Apples customers. I know that I have wifi access at Work, Home, and many commercial locations. I'd guess that for 80% of my day I'm in range of a wifi that I have the password for.
I think the original Pixel was pretty impressive. The latest Macbook seems to have leapfrogged the latest Pixel by having just as good specs but being a full pound lighter.
This would be interesting at about $499, but still at this weight and size, you can get a decent Windows ultrabook, strip it down and run Chrome (along with a whole bunch of real applications). I don't see a compelling reason for this to exist, especially compared to an Air.
All that heavy hardware to run a lightweight browser!
All that heavy hardware to run a lightweight browser!
Yeah, but you get Google Drive storage with it. Remember, the future is in the cloud...
