Google delays netbook plans for Chrome OS to mid 2011

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Google's plan to bring a web-centric, open operating system to netbooks has been delayed until the first half of 2011 as the company continues to work on Chrome OS, originally expected to launch this summer. The OS is held up on a wide variety of problems, from missing hardware support to Android-like fragmentation.



In an announcement earlier today, Google noted that its free Chrome browser, based on the WebKit open source project maintained by Apple, has tripled from 40 million to 120 million users. The Chrome browser is the basis for Google's forthcoming Chrome OS, which pairs the Linux kernel with a web-based app environment.



Google originally intended to ship Chrome OS on both Intel x86 and ARM-based netbooks by the middle of 2010 in a parallel effort to the company's Android operating system, which uses native and Java-like apps rather than being a web-based platform.



Chrome OS imagines an iPad-like future



"Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems," the company blogged last summer.



"We hear a lot from our users and their message is clear ? computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up," the company explained.



"They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them. They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files. Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates. And any time our users have a better computing experience, Google benefits as well by having happier users who are more likely to spend time on the Internet."



While Google continues to work the bugs out of Chrome OS, Apple has already answered the problems Chrome OS was intended to address with the iPad, a simple new rethinking of the the PC which has vaulted Apple into position as the first place US mobile PC maker and third in mobile PC sales worldwide.



Apple also delivers a range of Mac notebooks from the light MacBook Air to professional MacBook Pros and its desktop line of Mac mini, iMacs and Mac Pros. Unlike the Chrome OS, these machines can run native Mac apps, can host X11 Linux apps, and can even run Windows apps in a virtualization environment.



New beta Chrome OS hardware



In anticipation of the launch of Chrome OS with partners Acer and Samsung next year, Google is making available test hardware for interested users. Noting that "some of the features of Chrome OS require new hardware," Google will offer its Chrome OS testers netbooks with "full-sized keyboards and touch pads, integrated 3G from Verizon, eight hours of battery life and eight days of standby time."



Hinting at new hardware-level security, Google's Chrome Blog also states, "even at this early stage, we feel there is no consumer or business operating system that is more secure" than Chrome OS. Part of that security may also come from the fact that Chrome OS lacks (by design) core support for typical operating services, as well as basic support for hardware, ranging from printing to USB devices.



The company's description of its netbook-like test hardware for Chrome OS also muddles the idea of whether Google plans to take on the iPad with Chrome OS tablets (as many pundits have projected), or whether it still plans to resurrect the netbook, a form factor that was all the rage when the company first announced the Chrome OS as an initiative back in July 2009, before the iPad deflated the netbook as a market segment and began eating into conventional PC sales.



Google may attempt both, allowing its licensees to experiment with a variety of devices to see which can gain traction. Such an effort would likely fractionalize Chrome OS as a platform just as it enters the market in competition against the second generation of iPad. Apple is also working to deliver a new Mac App Store to deliver apps driving sales of the thin, light MacBook Air and its full sized notebooks and desktops.



The difference is that Apple already has a large installed base of Mac users to market apps toward. Chrome OS will only run web apps, and offers no backwards compatibility with Android, or Windows, or even existing Linux apps.







On page 2 of 3: Where's the apps for that? More Android-style fragmentation



Where's the apps for that?



While Apple launched the iPad as both compatible with existing iPhone apps and capable of running a new class of iOS apps optimized to fill its larger screen, Google has struggled with its own strategy for devices outside of the conventional smartphone form factor.



Hardware partners like Samsung have already shipped tabled devices such as the Galaxy Tab using Android, something Google itself recommended against doing before the release of Android OS 3.0 next year. Google also offers no support for Android Market on tablet systems.



Once Android 3.0 ships, it will compete against Chrome OS for attention among device makers. The two options will also compete for attention among developers, who will have to weigh the installed base of each against the likelihood of users buying apps for each platform. Unlike Apple's iPhone, iPad, and upcoming Mac App Stores, Android and Chrome OS use completely different development models. Apple's iOS and Mac OS X use the same Cocoa development model and their apps are built using the same tools and very similar frameworks.



Also, unlike Apple's iOS App Store, where developers are earning direct revenues from the sales of their software, Android apps are slanted towards advertising-supported models. The most successful iOS game, Angry Birds, launched on Android as an ad-only title, with its developer noting that "was the Google way."



More Android-style fragmentation



Significant fragmentation problems also plague Android, not just in hardware and performance differences but also in the different layers of user experiences created by various Android licensees, hardware makers and mobile service providers, ranging from software "look and feel" skins to seemingly random button placement.







Combined with the conflict between Android and Chrome OS, these fragmentation issues (inherent in any broadly-licensed platform) threaten to prevent Google from ever catching up to Apple in the range and quality of apps that are already available for the iOS. Similar fragmentation problems have plagued Sun's JavaME, Microsoft's Windows Mobile, and the three major versions of Symbian in smartphones, and Microsoft's PlaysForSure program among media players.



In recognition of this, Microsoft has sought to remake Windows Mobile into a form more similar to Apple's iOS, with a curated, paid app store and strict hardware platform guidelines for licensees in its latest Windows Phone 7 program. Microsofts previous Zune HD platform, struggling under a heavy dose of ad-supported software, has been a notable failure over the last year.



On page 3 of 3: Apps before the OS, Google's new version of open



Apps before the OS



In an effort to make sure there are apps for the Chrome OS when the first netbooks using it launch next year, Google has worked to improve its Chrome browser as the core platform for these web apps. However, the web browser is seen by most users as a way to access apps in a pinch, rather than as delivering an equal experience to native apps running on Windows or Mac OS X.



Users' preference for "real apps" is indicated by the rapid uptake of iPhone and iPad apps, and the very limited role web apps have played on mobile devices. One negative aspect of web apps is related to performance.



To address this, Google has announced Crankshaft, a fast new compilation infrastructure for its V8 JavaScript engine in Chrome, which is intended to speed the performance of web apps by 50 percent and enable them to launch as much as 12 percent faster.



The company also launched its Chrome Web Store (shown below), a new website modeled to look identical to Apple's iTunes App Store. Google plans to use the new market to distribute free and paid apps, extensions and themes for its Chrome browser, and in the future, netbooks running Chrome OS exclusively.







Limited enthusiasm for web apps



This is nearly the opposite of Apple's rollout of the iPhone and iPad. The iPhone hit the market a year before any third party apps were available, but its installed base created a instant market for mobile apps once the store was ready to open. The iPad was also released with only a few apps available at launch (notably including Apple's own iWork suite), but the new device rapidly filled out a large portfolio of optimized software for itself based on its association with the popular iOS platform.



Google is banking that its existing desktop Chrome web browser users will download (and buy) web apps in sufficient volume to support the software demands of a new class of web-only netbook devices next year, a strategy that could backfire if users continue to respond to web apps with the limited enthusiasm seen so far.



In contrast to the blockbuster success of the iPhone and iPad App Stores, Apple's own Safari Extensions program has only seen limited interest, something the company appears to have anticipated given its measured efforts in supporting Extensions in a simple gallery as opposed to a full fledged App Store of its own.



Instead of attempting to sell web apps, Apple is now concentrating on opening a new Mac App Store to deliver native apps for its desktop users with the same kind of simplicity in shopping, installation and updating as introduced by the iPhone and iPad.



Google's new version of open



Apps in the Chrome Web Store are interactive web apps built using HTML5, but are only designed to run within Google's Chrome browser. The open source community was outraged when Apple introduced demonstrations of HTML5 features that assumed the use of its Safari browser, but so far there does not seem to be any issues with Google's construction of a proprietary subset of HTML5 as a platform that only runs on Google's own browser.



Apple was similarly taken to task for releasing its own WebKit as an open fork of KHTML in a way that did not make it easy enough for KHTML developers to rapidly reuse Apple's own code contributions, but Google has so far not been criticized for adding features to Chrome in a way that can't be readily used by other WebKit browsers.



One example is Chrome's novel multiprocess architecture, which isolates web plugins and web site instances in tabs, preventing crashes or security exploits in one tab or plugin from affecting what is happening in the rest of the browser. Google didn't contribute this back to WebKit, so Apple is now working to add its own split process isolation model to WebKit2 in a way all users of WebKit can benefit from.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Google wants an OS that totally depends on the Google "cloud." but no one else except total Google fanboys does. heck, they'll even be competing with Android as they attempt to scale it up to tablet size as well.



    Meanwhile, Apple at the same time next year will likely be bringing a lot of iOS into the Mac desktop/laptop Lion OS. which is exactly what people do want - a much simpler desktop OS for the 90% of the time they don't need all the complexity of a desktop OS X (or Windows or Linux).



    maybe this sounded smart three years ago when Google started on Chrome. iOS was just beginning then. but now it's really dumb.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    kreshkresh Posts: 379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    Google wants an OS that totally depends on the Google "cloud." but no one else except total Google fanboys does ...snip... likely be bringing a lot of iOS into the Mac desktop/laptop Lion OS. which is exactly what people do want



    I don't want either one!
  • Reply 3 of 46
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    Google wants an OS that totally depends on the Google "cloud." but no one else except total Google fanboys does. heck, they'll even be competing with Android as they attempt to scale it up to tablet size as well.



    Meanwhile, Apple at the same time next year will likely be bringing a lot of iOS into the Mac desktop/laptop Lion OS. which is exactly what people do want - a much simpler desktop OS for the 90% of the time they don't need all the complexity of a desktop OS X (or Windows or Linux).



    maybe this sounded smart three years ago when Google started on Chrome. iOS was just beginning then. but now it's really dumb.



    I couldn?t disagree more. I can see a use for a simple, browser-based OS for cheap and simple HW, an area that Apple doesn?t want to play in.. There are billions of people in developing nations Google could target with type of OS. With HW leases or purchased from ISPs that allow some form of internet access.



    By being browser-based, doesn?t mean that users are SOL is they don?t have internet access. There are several offline DB storage options that Google has are part of HTML5. Google even jumped on this years ago with Google Gears. These types of systems could be loaded with a completely localized version of Google Docs that could print to a printer without ever needing to connect to the internet and do it for a fraction of what a PC cost today.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    pwjpwj Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    While Google continues to work the bugs out of Chrome OS, Apple has already answered the problems Chrome OS was intended to address with the iPad, a simple new rethinking of the the PC which has vaulted Apple into position as the first place US mobile PC maker and third in mobile PC sales worldwide.



    Chrome OS devices and iPads aren't really that comparable, since Chrome OS provides a WIMP desktop UI experience (with keyboard, mouse, etc.) and the iPad provides a fully touch-driven experience. Each has its advantages.

    For instance, I wouldn't mind doing heavy word processing on a hard keyboard on a Chrome OS device, but would not do so on an iPad.



    Quote:

    Apple also delivers a range of Mac notebooks from the light MacBook Air to professional MacBook Pros and its desktop line of Mac mini, iMacs and Mac Pros. Unlike the Chrome OS, these machines can run native Mac apps, can host X11 Linux apps, and can even run Windows apps in a virtualization environment.



    Apple's implementation of X is a pain in the ass. I wouldn't advertise it



    Quote:

    While Apple launched the iPad as both compatible with existing iPhone apps and capable of running a new class of iOS apps optimized to fill its larger screen, Google has struggled with its own strategy for devices outside of the conventional smartphone form factor.



    As far as I know, Google has NO public strategy. In fact, Google outright has said that Android 2.2 isn't for tablets. Not their fault if dumbass hardware companies slap Android on top of shitty tablet hardware; Google can't stop them.



    Quote:

    Significant fragmentation problems also plague Android, not just in hardware and performance differences but also in the different layers of user experiences created by various Android licensees, hardware makers and mobile service providers, ranging from software "look and feel" skins to seemingly random button placement. Combined with the conflict between Android and Chrome OS, these fragmentation issues (inherent in any broadly-licensed platform) threaten to prevent Google from ever catching up to Apple in the range and quality of apps that are already available for the iOS.



    Ok, this is ridiculous.



    First, fragmentation isn't "inherent in any broadly licensed platform." If you buy a Windows box at a store (or build a windows box at home for that matter), it will run any Windows applications for which it has the minimum hardware necessary. Just like with OSX apps

    Sure, Windows doesn't play as nicely with various hardware drivers as does OS X, but characterizing Windows as "fragmented" (as this article does implicitly) is flat out ridiculous



    Also, the buttons? Really? How does the placement of buttons substantively affect the usability or app compatibility of any given handset? Migrating between handsets, sure, but on a single handset?



    And lastly, all of the differences you list here are examples of inconsistence experiences between handsets. If you actually want to talk about fragmentation, talk about how shitty handset manufacturers (AHEM SAMSUNG) aren't updating their phones. THAT's the issue

    Remember, there is value in the Android ecosystem for the differences in experience. I can get a phone with some OEM's dumb skin on top of it, or I don't have to. I can buy a phone with a keyboard, or one without. I can buy a phone on any network. Etc.



    Quote:

    In an effort to make sure there are apps for the Chrome OS when the first netbooks using it launch next year, Google has worked to improve its Chrome browser as the core platform for these web apps. However, the web browser is seen by most users as a way to access apps in a pinch, rather than as delivering an equal experience to native apps running on Windows or Mac OS X.



    Here, the connotation of using apps in a web browser is clearly negative.



    Yet two pages before, you compared Chrome OS to the iPad, whose value derives from quickly accessing apps in a pinch. Consistency please



    Quote:

    One example is Chrome's novel multiprocess architecture, which isolates web plugins and web site instances in tabs, preventing crashes or security exploits in one tab or plugin from affecting what is happening in the rest of the browser. Google didn't contribute this back to WebKit, so Apple is now working to add its own split process isolation model to WebKit2 in a way all users of WebKit can benefit from.





    This statement is ridiculous



    I can build a browser around the WebKit codebase that uses multiprocess rendering. Or I can build a browser that does not. There's a large and (what I thought was) an obvious difference between a browser and the rendering engine it uses.



    Don't bitch Google out for not giving away its investment in Chrome for free. I certainly don't see Apple doing so for the proprietary bits of Safari.







    Sorry, but I expect better from Apple Insider
  • Reply 5 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pwj View Post


    Chrome OS devices and iPads aren't really that comparable, since Chrome OS provides a WIMP desktop UI experience (with keyboard, mouse, etc.) and the iPad provides a fully touch-driven experience. Each has its advantages.

    For instance, I wouldn't mind doing heavy word processing on a hard keyboard on a Chrome OS device, but would not do so on an iPad.







    Apple's implementation of X is a pain in the ass. I wouldn't advertise it







    As far as I know, Google has NO public strategy. In fact, Google outright has said that Android 2.2 isn't for tablets. Not their fault if dumbass hardware companies slap Android on top of shitty tablet hardware; Google can't stop them.







    Ok, this is ridiculous.



    First, fragmentation isn't "inherent in any broadly licensed platform." If you buy a Windows box at a store (or build a windows box at home for that matter), it will run any Windows applications for which it has the minimum hardware necessary. Just like with OSX apps

    Sure, Windows doesn't play as nicely with various hardware drivers as does OS X, but characterizing Windows as "fragmented" (as this article does implicitly) is flat out ridiculous



    Also, the buttons? Really? How does the placement of buttons substantively affect the usability or app compatibility of any given handset? Migrating between handsets, sure, but on a single handset?



    And lastly, all of the differences you list here are examples of inconsistence experiences between handsets. If you actually want to talk about fragmentation, talk about how shitty handset manufacturers (AHEM SAMSUNG) aren't updating their phones. THAT's the issue

    Remember, there is value in the Android ecosystem for the differences in experience. I can get a phone with some OEM's dumb skin on top of it, or I don't have to. I can buy a phone with a keyboard, or one without. I can buy a phone on any network. Etc.







    Here, the connotation of using apps in a web browser is clearly negative.



    Yet two pages before, you compared Chrome OS to the iPad, whose value derives from quickly accessing apps in a pinch. Consistency please









    This statement is ridiculous



    I can build a browser around the WebKit codebase that uses multiprocess rendering. Or I can build a browser that does not. There's a large and (what I thought was) an obvious difference between a browser and the rendering engine it uses.



    Don't bitch Google out for not giving away its investment in Chrome for free. I certainly don't see Apple doing so for the proprietary bits of Safari.







    Sorry, but I expect better from Apple Insider





    I agree with you man this article is full of MAC/IOS crap, writer should not be biased if Apple really want to market their products they can but should not write crap against completions, i think competition is always healthy for better & improved product.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    "Android-like fragmentation"?



    What is the author smoking to come up with yarn? There is no evidence at all to suggest such a thing. There is a single Chrome notebook model at this point! Does the author understand that Chrome is distinctly different from Android? That two stores can coexist because one is for the web on laptops and one is for smartphones?



    Sheesh!
  • Reply 7 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I couldn?t disagree more. I can see a use for a simple, browser-based OS for cheap and simple HW, an area that Apple doesn?t want to play in.. There are billions of people in developing nations Google could target with type of OS. With HW leases or purchased from ISPs that allow some form of internet access.



    By being browser-based, doesn?t mean that users are SOL is they don?t have internet access. There are several offline DB storage options that Google has are part of HTML5. Google even jumped on this years ago with Google Gears. These types of systems could be loaded with a completely localized version of Google Docs that could print to a printer without ever needing to connect to the internet and do it for a fraction of what a PC cost today.



    The key factor here being inexpensive hardware: something I'm not sure Google can accomplish--especially with internet access being bundled with each netbook.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    While Google continues to work the bugs out of Chrome OS, Apple has already answered the problems Chrome OS was intended to address with the iPad



    LOL - damn straight! While Google has been pontificating and talking it up, Apple shipped.



    Ooops! Inconvenient truth indeed.



    When Chrome does ship, it will be fun watching those who criticized iPhone v1 for it's web-only app approach but now that Google is doing it will claim it's the best thing since sliced bread
  • Reply 9 of 46
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I couldn?t disagree more. I can see a use for a simple, browser-based OS for cheap and simple HW, an area that Apple doesn?t want to play in.. There are billions of people in developing nations Google could target with type of OS. With HW leases or purchased from ISPs that allow some form of internet access.



    A free 3GS next year? What would a dumb box with Chrome realistically offer over a 3GS - even if it is two years old?



    Quote:

    By being browser-based, doesn?t mean that users are SOL is they don?t have internet access. There are several offline DB storage options that Google has are part of HTML5. Google even jumped on this years ago with Google Gears. These types of systems could be loaded with a completely localized version of Google Docs that could print to a printer without ever needing to connect to the internet and do it for a fraction of what a PC cost today.



    Crap, if you are going to go through those hoops you might as well stick with a real mobile OS like the iOS or even Android.



    Chrome - solving a problem that doesn't exist brilliantly!



    Er, at least it will when it ships (!!)
  • Reply 10 of 46
    The truth is Google will win the tablet battle too, like they have won the mobile battle. Android has kicked iPhones butt. And the Google Tabs will take over too. Hey Jobs "ANDROID" lol, that word scares him.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    A free 3GS next year? What would a dumb box with Chrome realistically offer over a 3GS - even if it is two years old?



    Crap, if you are going to go through those hoops you might as well stick with a real mobile OS like the iOS or even Android.



    Chrome - solving a problem that doesn't exist brilliantly!



    Er, at least it will when it ships (!!)



    You lost me, Doc. I’m not talking about a smartphone OS, i’m not even talking about an OS that would be mobile in any way for most users. I’m talking about a resource-easy browser-based OS that would allow people around the world to have access to data on an unprecedented level. OLPC is okay, but there is a relatively high cost for the device compared to what I think Chrome OS can offer the people of these countries.



    PS: Yes, this problem does exist in a very real and very profound way for most of the world’s population.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    "Android-like fragmentation"?



    What is the author smoking to come up with yarn? There is no evidence at all to suggest such a thing. There is a single Chrome notebook model at this point! Does the author understand that Chrome is distinctly different from Android? That two stores can coexist because one is for the web on laptops and one is for smartphones?



    Sheesh!



    If you have ever done mobile development you know fragmentation is very real, even apple can not avoid it. It is just much less severe than android due to limited number of devices and the intrinsic object-c binding. Android suffers much worse problems here, different screen sizes, keyboard layouts, device capabilities, and some very manufacture specific "enhancements". That said, it is still much better than J2me.
  • Reply 13 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post


    The key factor here being inexpensive hardware: something I'm not sure Google can accomplish--especially with internet access being bundled with each netbook.



    That was exactly the battle cry for Nc championed by Eric S, and it failed miserably. The truce is chrome does nothing a net book can not do, and it is not cheaper. On the other end net book can do a lot the chrome can not do.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You lost me, Doc. I?m not talking about a smartphone OS, i?m not even talking about an OS that would be mobile in any way for most users. I?m talking about a resource-easy browser-based OS that would allow people around the world to have access to data on an unprecedented level. OLPC is okay, but there is a relatively high cost for the device compared to what I think Chrome OS can offer the people of these countries.



    But why? What advantage does chrome have over iOS?



    Ease of use? Not when it has to be augmented to work off line.



    Cost? That is where I am going with the old 3GS remark. When Apple can probably beat the cost of a netbook with a 3GS, what exactly does a netbook running Chrome bring to the table?



    Quote:

    PS: Yes, this problem does exist in a very real and very profound way for most of the world?s population.



    OK, but I still say iOS (or Android) is far more valuable than Chrome, and that I think Apple can match anything in the Android ecosystem when it comes to price. Indeed, if the iPad is any indication Apple is so far besting everyone when it comes to economies of production for tablets.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    "Android-like fragmentation"?



    What is the author smoking to come up with yarn? There is no evidence at all to suggest such a thing. There is a single Chrome notebook model at this point! Does the author understand that Chrome is distinctly different from Android? That two stores can coexist because one is for the web on laptops and one is for smartphones?



    Sheesh!



    It still would be better to have the two work together, but you are right, one is a "netbook" or whatever platform. The tablet form factor may not be chrome ever.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    Quote:

    One example is Chrome's novel multiprocess architecture, which isolates web plugins and web site instances in tabs, preventing crashes or security exploits in one tab or plugin from affecting what is happening in the rest of the browser. Google didn't contribute this back to WebKit, so Apple is now working to add its own split process isolation model to WebKit2 in a way all users of WebKit can benefit from.



    Well why should the HTML render code feature this when it should be more upstream so to speak? I don't expect all of Safari's features to be open source (and it isn't).



    Besides, if you want it, there is the Chromium source which is what Chrome is based on, AND is open source.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PS: Yes, this problem does exist in a very real and very profound way for most of the world’s population.



    first-world business models - ad revenue, paid apps, credit cards, broadband wifi access, etc. - do not work in the second and third world where most of that world population still live. Chrome OS is a first world product. (so are all the other new OS's.)



    someday some company in India or China or Indonesia or Brazil may very well make and sell a knock-off Chrome OS tablet for $25, and people will pirate the paid apps and find free/purloined wifi when they can. (just like actually, a majority of the second/third world's PC's probably run on pirate Windows software on very cheap hardware now.)



    yes, actually i think that is a good thing if it is either that or nothing for them. but i don't think that is why Google is creating Chrome OS or the market it intends for it.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    But why? What advantage does chrome have over iOS?



    Ease of use? Not when it has to be augmented to work off line.



    Cost? That is where I am going with the old 3GS remark. When Apple can probably beat the cost of a netbook with a 3GS, what exactly does a netbook running Chrome bring to the table?



    OK, but I still say iOS (or Android) is far more valuable than Chrome, and that I think Apple can match anything in the Android ecosystem when it comes to price. Indeed, if the iPad is any indication Apple is so far besting everyone when it comes to economies of production for tablets.



    1) Apple doesn?t license iOS.



    2) iOS and Android are not desktop OSes.



    3) iOS and Android doesn?t run on x86 hardware.



    4) I?m still not seeing what the iPhone 3GS has to do with my comment about a low cost desktop OS for developing nations. Chrome OS doesn?t have the resource requirements of Windows, which is now the most common desktop OS is developing nations.
  • Reply 19 of 46
    I have a work Macbook Pro, but all the apps I use are now web based (all hosted on our own servers). All I need is a web browser; having the rest of OS-X running seems like a waste. I do think ChromeOS is still a little ahead of its time for most people; but we are rapidly moving towards a future where we spend all out time in a browser at which point why include all the other stuff an OS comes with?
  • Reply 20 of 46
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) Apple doesn?t license iOS.



    2) iOS and Android are not desktop OSes.



    3) iOS and Android doesn?t run on x86 hardware.



    4) I?m still not seeing what the iPhone 3GS has to do with my comment about a low cost desktop OS for developing nations. Chrome OS doesn?t have the resource requirements of Windows, which is now the most common desktop OS is developing nations.



    Why do you think that developing nations want desktop machines or machines running x86? A device like the iPod Touch or iPad makes far more sense. Much simpler, much greater power efficiency.



    Again I come back to - what does Chrome offer that's so compelling?
Sign In or Register to comment.