Another brilliant piece and I always like reading your stories and I know sometimes you read the forums so I have a question for you:
At what point do you think they will allow multitasking on the iPhone with 3rd party apps?
The iPhone, while it has undergone significant changes from OS 2.0 to 3.0, none of these things have lead to increased RAM usage. Since all the newer models come with 256MB RAM, shouldn't that kind of space allow for some apps (perhaps three or four at the most) to run in the background? I would gladly take this even if could only be used for certain apps though I would think it would be an all or nothing position with Apple. Though battery life is a concern, we already deal with these concerns as iPhone users.
I'm expecting that Apple will release this in OS 4.0 but I'm still concerned that they are still selling the iPhone 3G with half the RAM. Usually Apple prepares a clean break with the past in order to move people on to the next generation of software. By the time that Apple releases 4.0 it will be around the same time that early adopters of the 3G will have their contract up.
I would like to see a story on the pros/cons in a future article.
Google and Apple are two very different companies and brands. Apple is established as a design driven leader in the computer and software industry while Google is a search engine. Google has a long way to go to gain people's interest and trust that they can deliver a product designed to the level the IPhone is at. Not only that but the Apple store experience, product updates and support, etc. Google isn't there yet and I doubt they can make the leap from a search engine to a software company on par with Apple. They will have to change their culture to do that, putting design first over technology. People WILL pay for quality design, Apple knows that, Google ignores that or at least thinks free will overcome quality. Google knows nothing about branding or image, two very important features to help sell your companies products. They have a long way to go to even becoming "Intel Inside". Look at the current Google phones, they have a big/ ugly Verizon logo on them. Where's Google?
Google has gained the trust of people in Gerald whether rightly or otherwise. They will never be a company that opens up their own store nor will they change their culture. They will never put design over engineering. A lead designer quit over there a few months back because he felt he wasn't being listened to. They are a company that is built solely on engineers and their products reflect that. Their products are efficient and have plenty of features but they look horrible and can be unwieldy to deal with.
flash 10.1 needs a recent GPU for hardware acceleration which means that any netbooks running Chrome will have decent hardware. at least as good as any Macbook
Flash has no barring on what systems Chrome OS willl run. Despite the fact that Flash currently has no GPU acceleration for Linux or OS X Chrome OS uses open webcode for the UI, not Flash. WebGL is being worked to make acceleration and may likely be what will drive Flash video, along with HTTP Secure Streaming, in the future.
Lots of lies and half-lies in such a short article. Such as Android is completely insecure or you can only install 20 apps at 10MB each. In fact, BFU has the same level of security, as all of applications he gets are through the Android Market. Applications can save their data to the SD card, so it is no problem to have 20 apps at 100MB or even more, just as on iPhone. And the list of lies goes on...
A few spelling errors here and there, this series seems intent on stating the iPhone is better than Android, which is great. Except Google are really after market share in this market to ensure the proliferation of their services.
As long as google software is available (or preinstalled) in the majority of mobile phones Google wins. The iPhone has Google maps, search and mail support built in. Now Google have bought Admob, truly hedging their bets. Now Google has its own OS on the horizon as well. Sure we could compare it to Windows and Mac OS X (I'm sure such a series would be quite popular) - but that isn't really the point.
Curious to see how the Android progresses. I suspect that Google is looking beyond the limitations of the phone. Who cares if you have only 200k of ram, if your application is hosted on a website that is designed to use in a browser. Perhaps not Flash (which, I believe will run on Android... not iPhone). Keep in mind, these phones certainly want to be connected to the internet. This would certainly resolve many of your pirating, security, plateform and OS limitations.
Unfortunetly, the your ISP and cell phone providers have the US consumers 'trained' to the limited bandwidth that they offer. Look at the fine print of your "unlimited" cell phone plan. I have a friend that lived in Seoul 5 years ago. He used to watch his daily shows on his cell phone, while riding the mass transit system via his cell phone provider. And, he is not a geek. He felt like a Luddite when he moved back to the US. World ranking for broad band speed of US? Look em' up yourself (reading that we are between 17th and 24th). Average broad band speed? 5 mb/sec vs Japan's 60 mb/sec.
Lots of lies and half-lies in such a short article. Such as Android is completely insecure or you can only install 20 apps at 10MB each. In fact, BFU has the same level of security, as all of applications he gets are through the Android Market. Applications can save their data to the SD card, so it is no problem to have 20 apps at 100MB or even more, just as on iPhone. And the list of lies goes on...
Thanks for pointing out what you think a "lie" is so it's obvious you are simply wrong.
As for 20 apps at 10MB, that's true. There's only around 200MB of space available for installing apps from Android Market. And while you can hope for vaporware dreams that someday those apps will save data to your SD card, that's currently not the case among real apps (which is why there's no real games, certainly none that weigh in at 200MB or more!), and it's not likely to happen because developers are leaving Android because the sales aren't there.
"We have significantly cut our investment in Android platform, just like ... many others," Gameloft finance director Alexandre de Rochefort said at an investor conference.
Rochefort said the company has cut back on investment mostly due to weaknesses of Android's application store.
"It is not as neatly done as on the iPhone. Google has not been very good to entice customers to actually buy products. On Android nobody is making significant revenue," Rochefort said.
Games for iPhone generated 13 percent of Gameloft's revenue in the last quarter. "We are selling 400 times more games on iPhone than on Android."
Yet, Google's "kill switch" was reported on some time back.
? Google notes however, that each application is "sandboxed", that it has a "kill switch" and that it uses certificate signing (for each super-cheap, one-time $25 fee developer account set-up). I'm left thinking there is an untold story there.
So there are two scenarios on Android: apps from the store are restricted and signed and only work in a sandbox, somewhat similar to iPhone apps (although they are modified Java VM applets, and can run concurrently, and so on). But Google also allows users to download and install their own apps, similar to jailbroken apps on the iPhone.
You can't have the benefits of a secured iPhone and the joys of a jailbroken iPhone at the same time, because the issues of the second negate the engineering of the first.
Essentially, Android phones are tantamount to jailbroken iPhones that also run official store apps. That means you can get duped into installing adware/spyware that Google can't "kill switch" (because it's self-signed stuff you installed yourself). That becomes a problem when, like Windows, the problem isn't your phone but millions of doufus people installing crap and ending up with spambot networks that hose their phones and steal their data (including data you sent them, or your contacts, etc). IE, no security.
It also opens up security problems that the Android Market is trying to half close - including piracy. If you can install your own apps, why not install cracked versions of any commercial software that does appear in the official Android Market, and that being the case, why would developers put any efforts into real software that can be easily pirated (unlike the iPhone, without jailbreaking)?
There's two sides to Google's platform, and people only ever talk about one at a time. That makes it possible to describe it like its as secure as the iPhone and also that it's as fun and unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone. But the reality is that both sides are there, and so it's neither as secure as an iPhone nor as unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone.
You know that saying, "You can't have it both ways"? Well Google tried to have it both ways, and the result is something that's not going to work.
Also, notice that people who support Android aren't explaining away these "alleged issues" because those who know what's up and are rational know the issues are real, while those who are just excited about Android and hope it works out don't have anything to say other than fanboyish "you suck for criticizing my party" comments.
It would be awesome if Google actually offered some competitive pressure for Apple, but the article is right -- Google isn't trying to deliver an iPhone killer, it's trying to kill WiMo, and that doesn't require a high bar. Or even a different phone spec than the crippled hardware with scant RAM that Microsoft came up with for the smartphone world pre-iphone.
As long as Apple can keep its iPhone prices competitive and stay one step ahead of the pack it will continue to draw customers and developers. I don't think we're going to see a retake of what happened to Apple v. Microsoft 20 years ago. There's no central opposition this time.
How many people have Wiis? How many people are there in the world? How many of them have a system capable of accessing the internet. Chrome OS will run on machines much lower powered than your Wii and will be able to do a lot more stuff than Opera on your Wii as it?s designed to access local storage, too.
Mmm...
From this, and your last few posts on this thread, you seem to be suggesting that the time for an "Internet Appliance" is about to arrive.
I had looked at chrome and decided that there was not much to it (for me).
You seem to be saying that:
1) Internet connections (and WiFi LANs) will become as ubiquitous as cable TV or home phone/electrical service-- probably included in a package with these services.
2) many devices will become Internet-savy: Phones; TVs; Friges; Thermostats; Security...
3) an Internet OS, such as chrome, will power many (if not most) of these devices
I hadn't considered this, but you may be on to something.
That said, there needs to be some capability to setup/monitor/control all these disparate "Internet Appliances" and their OSes, with their unique device and human UIs.
I am interested in what you think will be the master control for this?
Surely, it can't be a netbook or GP computer, or TV with a remote.
P.S. Luv your sig though I do find an occasional kernel of brilliance amongst the dross
1) Internet connections (and WiFi LANs) will become as ubiquitous as cable TV or home phone/electrical service-- probably included in a package with these services.
2) many devices will become Internet-savy: Phones; TVs; Friges; Thermostats; Security...
3) an Internet OS, such as chrome, will power many (if not most) of these devices
We may be using the term ?appliance? differently. In regards to the home entertainment appliances? such as optical media players, DVRs, cable boxes and TVs?these could all get browsers to have access to the internet. After all, they all have CPUs and are connected to monitors already. Some of them even have networking capabilities. Game consoles already have web browsers.
I really don?t see a new for a fridge or thermostat to have Chrome OS or another browser running on it when an embedded OS to run the device seems to be the most efficient method. However, there is at least one fridge and one washer/dryer with an iPod dock on the market.
I would like to see home devices more connected using Zeroconf networking. Apple markets it as Bonjour. It?s a service discovery protocol that would be ideal for getting local and remote system checks and configurations of your home?s appliances. This seems like a likely evolution even if Zeroconf is not the protocol to bring it.
So there are two scenarios on Android: apps from the store are restricted and signed and only work in a sandbox, somewhat similar to iPhone apps (although they are modified Java VM applets, and can run concurrently, and so on). But Google also allows users to download and install their own apps, similar to jailbroken apps on the iPhone.
You can't have the benefits of a secured iPhone and the joys of a jailbroken iPhone at the same time, because the issues of the second negate the engineering of the first.
Essentially, Android phones are tantamount to jailbroken iPhones that also run official store apps. That means you can get duped into installing adware/spyware that Google can't "kill switch" (because it's self-signed stuff you installed yourself). That becomes a problem when, like Windows, the problem isn't your phone but millions of doufus people installing crap and ending up with spambot networks that hose their phones and steal their data (including data you sent them, or your contacts, etc). IE, no security.
It also opens up security problems that the Android Market is trying to half close - including piracy. If you can install your own apps, why not install cracked versions of any commercial software that does appear in the official Android Market, and that being the case, why would developers put any efforts into real software that can be easily pirated (unlike the iPhone, without jailbreaking)?
There's two sides to Google's platform, and people only ever talk about one at a time. That makes it possible to describe it like its as secure as the iPhone and also that it's as fun and unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone. But the reality is that both sides are there, and so it's neither as secure as an iPhone nor as unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone.
You know that saying, "You can't have it both ways"? Well Google tried to have it both ways, and the result is something that's not going to work.
Also, notice that people who support Android aren't explaining away these "alleged issues" because those who know what's up and are rational know the issues are real, while those who are just excited about Android and hope it works out don't have anything to say other than fanboyish "you suck for criticizing my party" comments.
It would be awesome if Google actually offered some competitive pressure for Apple, but the article is right -- Google isn't trying to deliver an iPhone killer, it's trying to kill WiMo, and that doesn't require a high bar. Or even a different phone spec than the crippled hardware with scant RAM that Microsoft came up with for the smartphone world pre-iphone.
I don't know enough about the technical issues to be able to say whether what you're saying here is dead on or somewhat biased or what, but: you write clearly and persuasively and I can discern exactly what you mean. Given the signal to noise ration on this board as of late, that makes me jump up and applaud. Thanks.
But in this scenario the "very average consumer" you're positing is apparently fairly dim-witted, what with their Pavlovian reaction to a computer "running Google."
I've seen it many times, and it's easy to imagine several people I know of, saying: "my new computer runs Google..". This is totally the way some (roughly 10% of) people think.
There's a number of people out there who just want Google.com, Facebook.com, Wikipedia.com, Facebook apps and their e-mail.
I say they freak out, and suddenly Chrome has an image problem. That is, if you're right about the target demographic being computer illiterate morons.
The main things I can see issue with is things like iTunes and iPods etc. But they will be told in the shops that you can't get iTunes, just the internet. My point is the market for people who just want the internet is a lot bigger than you seem to think.
The main things I can see issue with is things like iTunes and iPods etc. But they will be told in the shops that you can't get iTunes, just the internet. My point is the market for people who just want the internet is a lot bigger than you seem to think.
I think that people who think that they "just want the internet" will be angry when they find out that their "computer" doesn't work when they don't have an internet connection.
And I think that throwing around figures like "roughly 10%" is pointless.
And I think that throwing around figures like "roughly 10%" is pointless.
It's not pointless, it's pointed. I know of people who just use the internet and don't have an iPod, and for those people it would do all they need. If you cannot grasp that then you may have a listening problem. The figure 10% was a guess, the point is there's a number of people for this system.
My point is people know and generally trust Google. When they have computers "running Google" in stores they will sell, especially considering the market they are going after. They are targeting the "very average" user, and that user will buy. Will I buy one? No, but they aren't targeting the type of user I am. I know of several people will get a computer that "runs Google".
The "very average" user, LOL
Yes but surely, your comment os for a different article, right? This was about smartphones, in particular iphone and those smartphones running android. Your comments seem to be only relevant to Chrome and "computers" perhaps netbooks, but not phones...
I wonder if you actually read the article (it was loooong).
From my POV 90% of folks on AI fail to see the bigger picture here with regards to chrome OS. And from what I gather they'll continue to try to persaude themselves why Google hasn't a hope until Google sells a lot of Google computers and they change their minds with a lot "yeah but's...". For 10% of the people on this planet Google's system, when finished will be good enough. And not only that, but it will do what they want from a computer faster. Up and running Reading their e-mail, using their chat and playing their Farmville. For some people this will be their only computer, and as the years progress the web and a system like this only gets more powerful. There will be more people who know very little about computers who used to say: "why is my computer so slow..." saying: "hello my facebook".
But I insist. The article was not about Chrome. Why do you keep hammering it in?
Comments
At what point do you think they will allow multitasking on the iPhone with 3rd party apps?
The iPhone, while it has undergone significant changes from OS 2.0 to 3.0, none of these things have lead to increased RAM usage. Since all the newer models come with 256MB RAM, shouldn't that kind of space allow for some apps (perhaps three or four at the most) to run in the background? I would gladly take this even if could only be used for certain apps though I would think it would be an all or nothing position with Apple. Though battery life is a concern, we already deal with these concerns as iPhone users.
I'm expecting that Apple will release this in OS 4.0 but I'm still concerned that they are still selling the iPhone 3G with half the RAM. Usually Apple prepares a clean break with the past in order to move people on to the next generation of software. By the time that Apple releases 4.0 it will be around the same time that early adopters of the 3G will have their contract up.
I would like to see a story on the pros/cons in a future article.
Google and Apple are two very different companies and brands. Apple is established as a design driven leader in the computer and software industry while Google is a search engine. Google has a long way to go to gain people's interest and trust that they can deliver a product designed to the level the IPhone is at. Not only that but the Apple store experience, product updates and support, etc. Google isn't there yet and I doubt they can make the leap from a search engine to a software company on par with Apple. They will have to change their culture to do that, putting design first over technology. People WILL pay for quality design, Apple knows that, Google ignores that or at least thinks free will overcome quality. Google knows nothing about branding or image, two very important features to help sell your companies products. They have a long way to go to even becoming "Intel Inside". Look at the current Google phones, they have a big/ ugly Verizon logo on them. Where's Google?
Google has gained the trust of people in Gerald whether rightly or otherwise. They will never be a company that opens up their own store nor will they change their culture. They will never put design over engineering. A lead designer quit over there a few months back because he felt he wasn't being listened to. They are a company that is built solely on engineers and their products reflect that. Their products are efficient and have plenty of features but they look horrible and can be unwieldy to deal with.
for free i'd buy it for my 2 year old to teach him how to read
They have books for that now days.
flash 10.1 needs a recent GPU for hardware acceleration which means that any netbooks running Chrome will have decent hardware. at least as good as any Macbook
Flash has no barring on what systems Chrome OS willl run. Despite the fact that Flash currently has no GPU acceleration for Linux or OS X Chrome OS uses open webcode for the UI, not Flash. WebGL is being worked to make acceleration and may likely be what will drive Flash video, along with HTTP Secure Streaming, in the future.
As long as google software is available (or preinstalled) in the majority of mobile phones Google wins. The iPhone has Google maps, search and mail support built in. Now Google have bought Admob, truly hedging their bets. Now Google has its own OS on the horizon as well. Sure we could compare it to Windows and Mac OS X (I'm sure such a series would be quite popular) - but that isn't really the point.
Unfortunetly, the your ISP and cell phone providers have the US consumers 'trained' to the limited bandwidth that they offer. Look at the fine print of your "unlimited" cell phone plan. I have a friend that lived in Seoul 5 years ago. He used to watch his daily shows on his cell phone, while riding the mass transit system via his cell phone provider. And, he is not a geek. He felt like a Luddite when he moved back to the US. World ranking for broad band speed of US? Look em' up yourself (reading that we are between 17th and 24th). Average broad band speed? 5 mb/sec vs Japan's 60 mb/sec.
Lots of lies and half-lies in such a short article. Such as Android is completely insecure or you can only install 20 apps at 10MB each. In fact, BFU has the same level of security, as all of applications he gets are through the Android Market. Applications can save their data to the SD card, so it is no problem to have 20 apps at 100MB or even more, just as on iPhone. And the list of lies goes on...
Thanks for pointing out what you think a "lie" is so it's obvious you are simply wrong.
As for 20 apps at 10MB, that's true. There's only around 200MB of space available for installing apps from Android Market. And while you can hope for vaporware dreams that someday those apps will save data to your SD card, that's currently not the case among real apps (which is why there's no real games, certainly none that weigh in at 200MB or more!), and it's not likely to happen because developers are leaving Android because the sales aren't there.
Gameloft says it, others reining in Android plans
"We have significantly cut our investment in Android platform, just like ... many others," Gameloft finance director Alexandre de Rochefort said at an investor conference.
Rochefort said the company has cut back on investment mostly due to weaknesses of Android's application store.
"It is not as neatly done as on the iPhone. Google has not been very good to entice customers to actually buy products. On Android nobody is making significant revenue," Rochefort said.
Games for iPhone generated 13 percent of Gameloft's revenue in the last quarter. "We are selling 400 times more games on iPhone than on Android."
Yet, Google's "kill switch" was reported on some time back.
? Google notes however, that each application is "sandboxed", that it has a "kill switch" and that it uses certificate signing (for each super-cheap, one-time $25 fee developer account set-up). I'm left thinking there is an untold story there.
So there are two scenarios on Android: apps from the store are restricted and signed and only work in a sandbox, somewhat similar to iPhone apps (although they are modified Java VM applets, and can run concurrently, and so on). But Google also allows users to download and install their own apps, similar to jailbroken apps on the iPhone.
You can't have the benefits of a secured iPhone and the joys of a jailbroken iPhone at the same time, because the issues of the second negate the engineering of the first.
Essentially, Android phones are tantamount to jailbroken iPhones that also run official store apps. That means you can get duped into installing adware/spyware that Google can't "kill switch" (because it's self-signed stuff you installed yourself). That becomes a problem when, like Windows, the problem isn't your phone but millions of doufus people installing crap and ending up with spambot networks that hose their phones and steal their data (including data you sent them, or your contacts, etc). IE, no security.
It also opens up security problems that the Android Market is trying to half close - including piracy. If you can install your own apps, why not install cracked versions of any commercial software that does appear in the official Android Market, and that being the case, why would developers put any efforts into real software that can be easily pirated (unlike the iPhone, without jailbreaking)?
There's two sides to Google's platform, and people only ever talk about one at a time. That makes it possible to describe it like its as secure as the iPhone and also that it's as fun and unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone. But the reality is that both sides are there, and so it's neither as secure as an iPhone nor as unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone.
You know that saying, "You can't have it both ways"? Well Google tried to have it both ways, and the result is something that's not going to work.
Also, notice that people who support Android aren't explaining away these "alleged issues" because those who know what's up and are rational know the issues are real, while those who are just excited about Android and hope it works out don't have anything to say other than fanboyish "you suck for criticizing my party" comments.
It would be awesome if Google actually offered some competitive pressure for Apple, but the article is right -- Google isn't trying to deliver an iPhone killer, it's trying to kill WiMo, and that doesn't require a high bar. Or even a different phone spec than the crippled hardware with scant RAM that Microsoft came up with for the smartphone world pre-iphone.
Uh, yeah, it?s free and open source.
How many people have Wiis? How many people are there in the world? How many of them have a system capable of accessing the internet. Chrome OS will run on machines much lower powered than your Wii and will be able to do a lot more stuff than Opera on your Wii as it?s designed to access local storage, too.
Mmm...
From this, and your last few posts on this thread, you seem to be suggesting that the time for an "Internet Appliance" is about to arrive.
I had looked at chrome and decided that there was not much to it (for me).
You seem to be saying that:
1) Internet connections (and WiFi LANs) will become as ubiquitous as cable TV or home phone/electrical service-- probably included in a package with these services.
2) many devices will become Internet-savy: Phones; TVs; Friges; Thermostats; Security...
3) an Internet OS, such as chrome, will power many (if not most) of these devices
I hadn't considered this, but you may be on to something.
That said, there needs to be some capability to setup/monitor/control all these disparate "Internet Appliances" and their OSes, with their unique device and human UIs.
I am interested in what you think will be the master control for this?
Surely, it can't be a netbook or GP computer, or TV with a remote.
P.S. Luv your sig
*
You seem to be saying that:
1) Internet connections (and WiFi LANs) will become as ubiquitous as cable TV or home phone/electrical service-- probably included in a package with these services.
2) many devices will become Internet-savy: Phones; TVs; Friges; Thermostats; Security...
3) an Internet OS, such as chrome, will power many (if not most) of these devices
We may be using the term ?appliance? differently. In regards to the home entertainment appliances? such as optical media players, DVRs, cable boxes and TVs?these could all get browsers to have access to the internet. After all, they all have CPUs and are connected to monitors already. Some of them even have networking capabilities. Game consoles already have web browsers.
I really don?t see a new for a fridge or thermostat to have Chrome OS or another browser running on it when an embedded OS to run the device seems to be the most efficient method. However, there is at least one fridge and one washer/dryer with an iPod dock on the market.
I would like to see home devices more connected using Zeroconf networking. Apple markets it as Bonjour. It?s a service discovery protocol that would be ideal for getting local and remote system checks and configurations of your home?s appliances. This seems like a likely evolution even if Zeroconf is not the protocol to bring it.
So there are two scenarios on Android: apps from the store are restricted and signed and only work in a sandbox, somewhat similar to iPhone apps (although they are modified Java VM applets, and can run concurrently, and so on). But Google also allows users to download and install their own apps, similar to jailbroken apps on the iPhone.
You can't have the benefits of a secured iPhone and the joys of a jailbroken iPhone at the same time, because the issues of the second negate the engineering of the first.
Essentially, Android phones are tantamount to jailbroken iPhones that also run official store apps. That means you can get duped into installing adware/spyware that Google can't "kill switch" (because it's self-signed stuff you installed yourself). That becomes a problem when, like Windows, the problem isn't your phone but millions of doufus people installing crap and ending up with spambot networks that hose their phones and steal their data (including data you sent them, or your contacts, etc). IE, no security.
It also opens up security problems that the Android Market is trying to half close - including piracy. If you can install your own apps, why not install cracked versions of any commercial software that does appear in the official Android Market, and that being the case, why would developers put any efforts into real software that can be easily pirated (unlike the iPhone, without jailbreaking)?
There's two sides to Google's platform, and people only ever talk about one at a time. That makes it possible to describe it like its as secure as the iPhone and also that it's as fun and unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone. But the reality is that both sides are there, and so it's neither as secure as an iPhone nor as unrestricted as a jailbroken iPhone.
You know that saying, "You can't have it both ways"? Well Google tried to have it both ways, and the result is something that's not going to work.
Also, notice that people who support Android aren't explaining away these "alleged issues" because those who know what's up and are rational know the issues are real, while those who are just excited about Android and hope it works out don't have anything to say other than fanboyish "you suck for criticizing my party" comments.
It would be awesome if Google actually offered some competitive pressure for Apple, but the article is right -- Google isn't trying to deliver an iPhone killer, it's trying to kill WiMo, and that doesn't require a high bar. Or even a different phone spec than the crippled hardware with scant RAM that Microsoft came up with for the smartphone world pre-iphone.
I don't know enough about the technical issues to be able to say whether what you're saying here is dead on or somewhat biased or what, but: you write clearly and persuasively and I can discern exactly what you mean. Given the signal to noise ration on this board as of late, that makes me jump up and applaud. Thanks.
But in this scenario the "very average consumer" you're positing is apparently fairly dim-witted, what with their Pavlovian reaction to a computer "running Google."
I've seen it many times, and it's easy to imagine several people I know of, saying: "my new computer runs Google..". This is totally the way some (roughly 10% of) people think.
There's a number of people out there who just want Google.com, Facebook.com, Wikipedia.com, Facebook apps and their e-mail.
I say they freak out, and suddenly Chrome has an image problem. That is, if you're right about the target demographic being computer illiterate morons.
The main things I can see issue with is things like iTunes and iPods etc. But they will be told in the shops that you can't get iTunes, just the internet. My point is the market for people who just want the internet is a lot bigger than you seem to think.
The main things I can see issue with is things like iTunes and iPods etc. But they will be told in the shops that you can't get iTunes, just the internet. My point is the market for people who just want the internet is a lot bigger than you seem to think.
I think that people who think that they "just want the internet" will be angry when they find out that their "computer" doesn't work when they don't have an internet connection.
And I think that throwing around figures like "roughly 10%" is pointless.
And I think that throwing around figures like "roughly 10%" is pointless.
It's not pointless, it's pointed. I know of people who just use the internet and don't have an iPod, and for those people it would do all they need. If you cannot grasp that then you may have a listening problem. The figure 10% was a guess, the point is there's a number of people for this system.
My point is people know and generally trust Google. When they have computers "running Google" in stores they will sell, especially considering the market they are going after. They are targeting the "very average" user, and that user will buy. Will I buy one? No, but they aren't targeting the type of user I am. I know of several people will get a computer that "runs Google".
The "very average" user, LOL
Yes but surely, your comment os for a different article, right? This was about smartphones, in particular iphone and those smartphones running android. Your comments seem to be only relevant to Chrome and "computers" perhaps netbooks, but not phones...
I wonder if you actually read the article (it was loooong).
From my POV 90% of folks on AI fail to see the bigger picture here with regards to chrome OS. And from what I gather they'll continue to try to persaude themselves why Google hasn't a hope until Google sells a lot of Google computers and they change their minds with a lot "yeah but's...". For 10% of the people on this planet Google's system, when finished will be good enough. And not only that, but it will do what they want from a computer faster. Up and running Reading their e-mail, using their chat and playing their Farmville. For some people this will be their only computer, and as the years progress the web and a system like this only gets more powerful. There will be more people who know very little about computers who used to say: "why is my computer so slow..." saying: "hello my facebook".
But I insist. The article was not about Chrome. Why do you keep hammering it in?