Google Wants to Turn Your Old Mac into a Chromebook With Chrome OS Flex

[LV426]

Is there a reason why you haven't addressed the fact that Google doesn't support their old products? You are saying it's embarrassing for Apple yet seem to be giving Google a pass for doing, or not doing in this case, the same thing.

Apple actually provides support for their products longer than most, if not all, competitors do for their own products. It is one of the reasons why Apple devices tend to have better resale values. It's too bad more Apple competitors don't step up to support their own products as long as Apple does.

Google abandoning their old products has absolutely nothing to do with them supporting old Apple products. I feel sorry for Google product owners who don’t get support, and I certainly don’t give Google a pass on that.

The big difference is that Google are not doing “the same thing”. Google are not abandoning hardware which is subsequently being given a new lease of life by Apple.

I hope this is clear.

 

[kc9hzn]

None of us here "hate" the idea. If Google can do this then more power to them.

The issue is a very few individuals who are singing Google's praises whilst ignoring it's failures - and the scope of the project.

It's rather hypocritical for folk to go on about how this must be embarrassing for Apple, while meanwhile Google are letting huge numbers of their own ChromeBooks go out of support.

A little honesty about this goes an awful long way.

I mean, there’s that and there’s the matter of a lot of MacRumor’s users’ lack of trust when it comes to Google. Google isn’t as untrusted as Facebook, true, but, if I had to list out big tech in order of trust, it would be something like this:
Facebook < Google < Amazon < Microsoft < Apple < Netflix
(Why Netflix? And on top? It’s the N in FAANG (so, a legit tech firm, even if we ignore their contributions to, and role in popularizing, microservices), and it’s the one FAANG I’ve heard almost no complaints about, especially as a technological firm. Most complaints tend to be about “they lost such and such a show” or complaints about content.)

 

[TiggrToo]

Google abandoning their old products has absolutely nothing to do with them supporting old Apple products. I feel sorry for Google product owners who don’t get support, and I certainly don’t give Google a pass on that.

The big difference is that Google are not doing “the same thing”. Google are not abandoning hardware which is subsequently being given a new lease of life by Apple.

I hope this is clear.

No, it's not.

Older Macs are Intel based. Gentoo runs on Intel based Macs. Flex is based on Gentoo.

Google have always been multiplatform.

Apple have only ever supported Apple devices.

Meanwhile the list of Flex supported devices reads like a "Macs released over 10 years ago".

Again you apparent desire to paint Google as benevolent saviors of old (10 years old) Mac hardware is horribly misplaced. Owners of ChromeBooks in 2016 would not be impressed.

 

[saulinpa]

Google abandoning their old products has absolutely nothing to do with them supporting old Apple products. I feel sorry for Google product owners who don’t get support, and I certainly don’t give Google a pass on that.

The big difference is that Google are not doing “the same thing”. Google are not abandoning hardware which is subsequently being given a new lease of life by Apple.

I hope this is clear.

You missed what the company Neverware was doing before Google bought them and changed their focus. Google abandoned old Chromebooks that Nevewware then provided support for. This is "the same thing." The insidious part is Google buying the company and hiding that support.

 

[webkit]

Google abandoning their old products has absolutely nothing to do with them supporting old Apple products. I feel sorry for Google product owners who don’t get support, and I certainly don’t give Google a pass on that.

The big difference is that Google are not doing “the same thing”. Google are not abandoning hardware which is subsequently being given a new lease of life by Apple.

I hope this is clear.

The point is Apple largely exceeds the industry average for support of their own products. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. It's too bad some other companies don't support their products as long as Apple supports its own.

Apple made a business decision not to support their old products. It appears Google made a similar decision when it comes to their own products. I'm sure many customers would like to see Apple support Macs longer and Google support Chromebooks longer but that's not the decision either decided to make. I wouldn't call that embarrassing.

I hope this is clear.

 

[Open-Source-Norange]

I find it funny how people are considering installing ChromeOS on older devices than installing Linux. Like, Linux is much more lightweight, configurable for funky hardware and gives the user more control than ChromeOS over could. It’s surprising to see that people would actually WANT a Chromebook when not forced on them for school or work.

 

[LV426]

The point is Apple largely exceeds the industry average for support of their own products. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. It's too bad some other companies don't support their products as long as Apple supports its own.

Apple made a business decision not to support their old products. It appears Google made a similar decision when it comes to their own products. I'm sure many customers would like to see Apple support Macs longer and Google support Chromebooks longer but that's not the decision either decided to make. I wouldn't call that embarrassing.

I hope this is clear.

No, that is not the point at all. You are making irrelevant comments.

Everyone, including myself, is in agreement that Apple generally provide good support for their products. Who on Earth suggests this fact is something to be embarrassed about? Certainly not me, so don't suggest that is what I have said.

The point in this thread specifically relates to Google's support of products that Apple have abandoned. Not Apple's general product support. Nor Google's abandonment of their own products.

I'll say it again: Google are supporting products abandoned by Apple, by offering an alternative operating system for installation on those very same abandoned Apple products. This is, or should be, an embarrassment, and the great majority of readers on this thread agree (check the upvotes) for what I would say are fairly obvious reasons.

There is not an equivalent situation the other way round. Apple do not offer an operating system for installation on any Google device whatsoever. If Apple were to provide an operating system for abandoned Chromebook's that would be an embarrassment for Google, and I would be the first person to say so. But this scenario does not exist.

 

[Open-Source-Norange]

No, that is not the point at all. You are making irrelevant comments.

Everyone, including myself, is in agreement that Apple generally provide good support for their products. Who on Earth suggests this fact is something to be embarrassed about? Certainly not me, so don't suggest that is what I have said.

The point in this thread specifically relates to Google's support of products that Apple have abandoned. Not Apple's general product support. Nor Google's abandonment of their own products.

I'll say it again: Google are supporting products abandoned by Apple, by offering an alternative operating system for installation on those very same abandoned Apple products. This is, or should be, an embarrassment, and the great majority of readers on this thread agree (check the upvotes) for what I would say are fairly obvious reasons.

There is not an equivalent situation the other way round. Apple do not offer an operating system for installation on any Google device whatsoever. If Apple were to provide an operating system for abandoned Chromebook's that would be an embarrassment for Google, and I would be the first person to say so. But this scenario does not exist.

Yeah, it’s quite shoddy how Apple will abandon hardware support quickly for their computers. I kind of understand, since new MacOS releases often have very…let’s just say unique features that need newer hardware to work on, but at the same time, anything perfectly working from beyond 5 or 7 years ago just goes ignored. It’s quite a shame, to be honest.

But Google ain’t the answer, it never is.

 

[webkit]

No, that is not the point at all. You are making irrelevant comments.

Everyone, including myself, is in agreement that Apple generally provide good support for their products. Who on Earth suggests this fact is something to be embarrassed about? Certainly not me, so don't suggest that is what I have said.

The point in this thread specifically relates to Google's support of products that Apple have abandoned. Not Apple's general product support. Nor Google's abandonment of their own products.

I'll say it again: Google are supporting products abandoned by Apple, by offering an alternative operating system for installation on those very same abandoned Apple products. This is, or should be, an embarrassment, and the great majority of readers on this thread agree (check the upvotes) for what I would say are fairly obvious reasons.

There is not an equivalent situation the other way round. Apple do not offer an operating system for installation on any Google device whatsoever. If Apple were to provide an operating system for abandoned Chromebook's that would be an embarrassment for Google, and I would be the first person to say so. But this scenario does not exist.

To my knowledge, no one supports their own "OS" devices longer than Apple. The fact that Apple chooses to not support old Macs is a business decision and nothing to be "embarrassed" about. You labeling it as "embarrasing" is silly. It may be "embarrassing" if Apple was incapable of doing so but that’s not the case here.

It's possible that Apple feels they can make more money by NOT supporting old Macs and that it would be "embarrassing" for them (and tick off shareholders) to do so and end up actually making less money in the process.

In the end, Apple CHOOSES to do some things and not do other things. Those decisions have helped Apple achieve a market valuation of over $2.5 trillion, record sales, record earnings, etc.

 

[LV426]

To my knowledge, no one supports their own "OS" devices longer than Apple. The fact that Apple chooses to not support old Macs is a business decision and nothing to be "embarrassed" about. You labeling it as "embarrasing" is silly. It may be "embarrassing" if Apple was incapable of doing so but that’s not the case here.

It's possible that Apple feels they can make more money by NOT supporting old Macs and that it would be "embarrassing" for them (and tick off shareholders) to do so and end up actually making less money in the process.

In the end, Apple CHOOSES to do some things and not do other things. Those decisions have helped Apple achieve a market valuation of over $2.5 trillion, record sales, record earnings, etc.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this. It is not a source of embarrassment per se that Apple fails to support old devices. That is to be expected.

But it is a source of embarrassment that Apple fails to support old devices when a competitor company chooses to do so instead.

Apple: We won't keep your old functional Apple equipment up to date and secure. Use at your own risk.
Google: Here you go, use our up to date and secure operating system instead on your Apple equipment. Use safely.

You are right that Apple have made a choice not to support that old equipment. But you have singularly ignored the fact that a major competitor has chosen to support that very same equipment with their own operating system. It doesn't matter how many times you assert that this is not embarrassing. It plainly is.

 

[webkit]

I really don't know how many times I have to say this. It is not a source of embarrassment per se that Apple fails to support old devices. That is to be expected.

But it is a source of embarrassment that Apple fails to support old devices when a competitor company chooses to do so instead.

Apple: We won't keep your old functional Apple equipment up to date and secure. Use at your own risk.
Google: Here you go, use our up to date and secure operating system instead on your Apple equipment. Use safely.

You are right that Apple have made a choice not to support that old equipment. But you have singularly ignored the fact that a major competitor has chosen to support that very same equipment with their own operating system. It doesn't matter how many times you assert that this is not embarrassing. It plainly is.

The only thing perhaps "embarrassing" here is your conclusion. Apple, like Google, like Microsoft, etc. choose not to provide support for their (very) old products. Period. Whether that's good or bad may be debatable but there's nothing "embarrassing" about it. These are business decisions, plain and simple. If other companies or mom and pop computer repair shops want to, fine. It's not a business Apple chooses to be in.

If Google or Microsoft someday decide to provide support for their (very) old products, maybe we can revisit the topic but until then I see no reason to continue with this.

 

[Rodan52]

According to osxdaily you can only install Chrome OS Flex on 2010 Mac models and above so trying to resurrect a 2009 or 2007 Macbook this way is not going to work.
I do have a 2010 white unibody MacBook myself which is running the latest macOS it can (High Sierra). I don't use Safari but the current Brave browser works perfectly well as does Vivaldi so no problems with web security/privacy or compatibility there. Spark works perfectly well as a email client and 2016 Microsoft Office for MacOS also works perfectly well.
It even allows me to access the old previously purchased 32bit apps from the App Store that no longer run in Monterey. I just finished playing Doom 3 for about the 4th time.
I do have iCloud activated but I don't sync much as it's not necessary with this device. No Photo library, no music, it is primarily a workhorse and backup in case my primary MBP has an issue.
So I can't see any advantages in converting the old device to Chrome OS but I'd be interested in hearing any.

PS. here is a pretty good article on the topic; https://www.profolus.com/topics/chrome-os-advantages-and-disadvantages/

 

[opeter]

I would rather install any of the usable Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Mint etc. with XFCE or similar less demanding desktop environment) on old devices not some proprietary thing like Chrome OS.

 

[russell_314]

I would rather install any of the usable Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Mint etc. with XFCE or similar less demanding desktop environment) on old devices not some proprietary thing like Chrome OS.

Wait did you dislike Chrome OS because it's "proprietary"? I'm guessing you don't use macOS?

I mean I don't have much use for Chrome OS but that's more due to what I need and want rather than any dislike of it. I think it's probably the best OS for people who aren't tech savvy and just want to go online.

 

[gank41]

Wait did you dislike Chrome OS because it's "proprietary"? I'm guessing you don't use macOS?

I mean I don't have much use for Chrome OS but that's more due to what I need and want rather than any dislike of it. I think it's probably the best OS for people who aren't tech savvy and just want to go online.

Right?!? I find that a 'proprietary' operating system, like macOS, tends to be more tuned to the hardware it's running on. ChromeOS actually runs quite well on new and old hardware, and referring back to the initial post here, what they're doing is allowing or helping you get the knowledge to run ChromeOS on non-proprietary hardware. Much more open than Apple is with macOS, although there are some great threads on Macrumors RE Hackintosh setups...

 

[chucker23n1]

I would rather install any of the usable Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Mint etc. with XFCE or similar less demanding desktop environment) on old devices not some proprietary thing like Chrome OS.

OK, but would you also rather support a family member who does so?

 

[opeter]

Wait did you dislike Chrome OS because it's "proprietary"? I'm guessing you don't use macOS?

I mean I don't have much use for Chrome OS but that's more due to what I need and want rather than any dislike of it. I think it's probably the best OS for people who aren't tech savvy and just want to go online.

I use less and less macOS. However I sadly have to use another proprietary OS and that is Windows, because of some programs, that don't exist or work elsewhere.

OK, but would you also rather support a family member who does so?

Yes, I do that for my mother and my sister. My mother has an older i3 computer, that has Xubuntu 20.04 LTS and my sister uses a Lenovo notebook with Kubuntu Linux.

 

[russell_314]

I use less and less macOS. However I sadly have to use another proprietary OS and that is Windows, because of some programs, that don't exist or work elsewhere.


Yes, I do that for my mother and my sister. My mother has an older i3 computer, that has Xubuntu 20.04 LTS and my sister uses a Lenovo notebook with Kubuntu Linux.

Yes because the rest of the world doesn't care about if something is proprietary. Most people just want it to work and have some built in support while companies want a standard that can be maintained.

If your mother and sister are non techy I applaud you for hooking them up with a Linux PC... You're either really dedicated to FOSS or you're a masochist. I would rather drive a 16 penny nail through the top of my foot than give my mom a computer with Linux on it... The thought gives me nightmares 😬 🤣

 

[toke lahti]

Does Thunderbird work fluently with ChromeOS Flex?

 

[Open-Source-Norange]

Does Thunderbird work fluently with ChromeOS Flex?

I’m honestly not sure. I know ChromeOS is based off of Gentoo Linus, but it’s so heavily modified that it’s not recognizable anymore. You can tweak ChromeOS to give it Linux functionality, but I don’t think that’s a guarantee that Thunderbird will work. Doesn’t help that there aren’t even any APKs for Thunderbird (though you could probably get K9 Mail, a good mobile alternative, on the Play Store).

Though if you really want to use Thunderbird and have an OS to keep your machine up to date…just install Linux. I’d recommend something like Fedora Linux or Endeavor OS.

 

[toke lahti]

Doesn’t help that there aren’t even any APKs for Thunderbird (though you could probably get K9 Mail, a good mobile alternative, on the Play Store).

Mobile alternative to laptop, no thanks.