Google makes money off advertising. There is no free lunch. I don't want my documents sharing screen space with a bunch of banner ads based on the key words appearing in my document.
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.
Your in a minority.
Quote:
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?
Never gonna happen. The web will never supplant applications directly running on top of hardware. Yes, the web can do lots of things, but for all that it is, it's still just the modern equivalent of a 3270 terminal.
All the reasons people criticized the web only strategy of the first iPhone still apply - or are those criticisms moot simply because Chrome is from Google?
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?
It’s not about “want” it’s about was it feasible. I want a Bugatti Veyron and a G6 but I’m not getting either. If you look at what the average family in a world can afford to spend on a “computer” a $500 iPad isn’t even an option. It’s also not designed to be a household’s sole computing device as noted by the initial tethering to a PC running iTunes.
I, as an affluent American, think the iPad is an inexpensive device, but it’s several times more the cost than PCs costs people in much of the world. I’ve seen this first hand!
Chrome OS, on the other hand, has the potential to be run on very inexpensive, low-power HW and yet still offer people a great resource for education that was never possible with the few used and outdated books many schools of the world have.
PS: I’ve stated what Chrome OS has to offer at every turn. if you can’t see how a free OS on cheap HW people can put together themselves could be a benefit to developing nations over a $500+ iPad (plus a PC) I don’t know what to tell you.
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?
Screw that! I want local apps, local content; you can keep your 404 NOT FOUND error. I want a reliable user experience. Until the Web works right 100% of the time and never goes down (gives tumblr the evil eye), no "server is not responding" (WikiLeaks), no "server is overcapacity" (Twitter, AT&T iPhone upgrade eligibility check), or server unreachable (AppleInsider), you can keep your web based app future, Andy!
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.
Just goes to show that the open source community is nothing but a bunch of complete and utter hypocrites.
Yeah - Google is "open", and Apple is "closed". Right.
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.
If they are cheap, will access the web in a reasonable manner, and are cheap, I think that they have a place in a lot of places in a lot of homes.
Screw that! I want local apps, local content; you can keep your 404 NOT FOUND error. I want a reliable user experience. Until the Web works right 100% of the time and never goes down (gives tumblr the evil eye), no "server is not responding" (WikiLeaks), no "server is overcapacity" (Twitter, AT&T iPhone upgrade eligibility check), or server unreachable (AppleInsider), you can keep your web based app future, Andy!
Note that ?web apps? is synonomous with ?browser-based apps? in most cases, and with HTML5 they can natively be local apps without ever needing an internet connection.
classic desktop applications do/store everything local. pure "cloud" apps do the opposite except for local scripts and plugins running inside the browser. what has made iOS apps, and now Android, so successful is that they mix and match both web/local components flexibly, depending on what they are focused on, to give users the best of both worlds. the user doesn't bother to think about what is web and what is local. it "just works."
it's the focus on specific topics, making that info/activity as easy as possible and satisfying for the user, that makes this new era of apps so potent, so popular, and spreading so rapidly - a true "disruption" in modern computing practice.
but insisting that everything must run inside a browser is too ideological and runs counter to this pragmatic and very adaptable approach that puts user experience first above all other considerations. sure, i suppose there are Chrome OS workarounds for everything somehow, but why should the whole digital world re-organize itself for Google's particular idea? especially now that it has just discovered these last three years the "amazing" (as Jobs would say) advantages of the iOS/Android approach to apps?
which is why i wrote earlier, Chrome OS might have been a good idea three years ago before this app revolution. but now it is a dead end branch of the digital evolutionary tree.
the real "holy grail" as many note, that Chrome OS aspires to, is a drop dead simple OS with as few settings and as little maintenance as possible - none at all would be perfect - but that also hosts such new era hybrid apps, including more complex ones like the iWork apps. and the iPad almost does this, except you still need to plug it into some computer that you must also maintain for setup and updates (i wonder if Apple will ever cut that umbilical cord?). Android goes even further, needing no computer - but you need a telco middleman instead (that's worse!).
what i can speculate Apple might do to get to this Holy Grail first is add an "iOS mode" to OS X Lion for Mac desktops/laptops - it would optionally boot/switch instantly into iOS (like a User) and work just like an iPad, running iOS apps, with the Magic Trackpad/Magic Mouse for UI. after filling in your necessary basic info in that Apple first run start up screen, you would never, ever have to run it in OS X mode if you never wanted to, and Software Update would automatically update both iOS apps and OS X applications in the background with just one click (as the new OS X Application Store will enable in a few weeks).
heck, this makes as much sense as enabling Mac OS to run Windows with Boot Camp in Leopard did three short years ago - more! - and technically can't be as hard as that was. for myself, i'd normally use iOS and just switch into OS X for "power computing" for working with editing video and photos and hobby applications stuff. Chrome OS could never do this.
Screw that! I want local apps, local content; you can keep your 404 NOT FOUND error. I want a reliable user experience. Until the Web works right 100% of the time and never goes down (gives tumblr the evil eye), no "server is not responding" (WikiLeaks), no "server is overcapacity" (Twitter, AT&T iPhone upgrade eligibility check), or server unreachable (AppleInsider), you can keep your web based app future, Andy!
The tools I use are already online so it doesn't matter if I have OS-X or ChromeOS. Even if I had local apps all the data is online. Having a traditional desktop OS provides me with no benefits as I am not using the extra capability.
It is a minority that is getting rapidly bigger. Actually there are lots of business users who just use web based apps. When I go see my bank manager everything is now a web form. Why does he have a PC with all its hidden costs when all he needs is a browser?
I don't think everyone should switch. Photoshop is not going to run in a browser; however, most users don't run Photoshop and there are probably a lot of users, especially within companies who don't need the additional benefits of a traditional OS.
Quote:
All the reasons people criticized the web only strategy of the first iPhone still apply - or are those criticisms moot simply because Chrome is from Google?
The mobile web has become a lot more reliable and a lot faster since the original iPhone.
They can do all the cranking they want, Javascript will never be as fast as C. And to those who say "It's fast enough," - what about battery life, what about mobile gaming (a surprisingly big market)?
"The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers ? again located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud computing ? one day it will rain on your parade."
- I'm assuming this would be cheap such as $100 to $300 per laptop.
- This is "perfect for my mom". She can't virus it or break it. She doesn't have an mp3 or movie collection on her computer and never will. iPad would be great, but then I still need to get a keyboard so she can type email.
- On everywhere again means my mom doesn't have to figure out how someone else's wireless works.
- Practically nothing to support on it.
- If you want to give a workforce laptops so they can use your website. This is great. They can't mess them up and even if they did you could probably wipe it and refresh it from the BIOS or something.
Poor old Google... it had the same insight that Apple did (that today's computers are overkill for 80% of people) but they didn't think big enough in solving it. Their solution did not include a hardware component.
Their solution will work, and they should continue with it, but because of the iPad it has lost a certain coolness...
Firstly, Google have tightened up the hardware requirements for new Android releases. Not that having slightly different button placement matters on a phone that is a highly individual possession that someone has for a long time - a total non-issue. Other Android fragmentation issues also seem to be more based in the realms of FUD than reality, the odd developer whining about having to do a little more work to support a few more resolutions.
The requirements for ChromeOS will be far tighter. It's designed for keyboard use, so comparing to the iPad is disingenuous. Android will have a suitable tablet version soon anyway.
The company who should be worrying is Microsoft - at least when Google Docs gets better. I also presume that locally installable applications will be happening (not HTML5 apps either, they're a given) for games, etc, that require more performance.
There are some pro-Apple facts though - their platform is more mature, their tablet platform is a year ahead already, the ecosystem is massive, the development tools are better and more mature, etc, etc. But that doesn't mean that Google won't get there in the end.
They can do all the cranking they want, Javascript will never be as fast as C. And to those who say "It's fast enough," - what about battery life, what about mobile gaming (a surprisingly big market)?
Many games have been scriptable for a long time, indeed their game logic is implemented in a language like Python or Lua running on an interpreter within the game engine. Javascript won't be an issue here.
So the back-end - the rendering. Web GL exists, hardware accelerated. That that takes care of the performance issues with the visualisation.
So that leaves the actual engine and interpreter itself. Google's Javascript interpreter is already pretty fast, let's not worry about it. So the engine then ... this could be an issue.
But I reckon that Google will eventually allow native applications - once they've got the tools in place and the support in the OS. It could be that the OS is x86 only, but potentially if it runs on ARM as well it could allow for very cheap netbooks and laptops.
And what's with the comparison to the iPad? The consumer market isn't the only one that matters.
Read up on some of the partners Google's working with to get this thing off the ground. I doubt the US DoD or American Airlines are lightweights with technology. There's certainly a market for a connected thin client....the network computer of the old days. That's the market Chrome is aimed at. Android is the competitor to iOS. Chrome is a different paradigm altogether.
A lot of this FUD sounds eerily reminiscent of people saying nobody would buy an iPad just because it was a giant iPod.
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.
+1 for thinking with your head instead of your inner fanboy like the opposite party in this discussion.
Not everything Google does, is about taking on Apple.
This is one example. I think this is Google's way of taking on Microsoft and its Windows monopoly....particularly in the developing world. iOS is entirely inadequate for that task. And Apple really does not care about you unless you're in the 1/5th of the human population that can afford their products. The US centric view in these parts is just ridiculous sometimes. Everybody here acts like everyone in the world can afford an iPad, and iPhone, a Macbook and a USD 100 per month phone bill.
I fully agree with you that this thing could best OLPC. And actually could get quite the traction in the developing world where internet and mobile data are suprisingly (relatively) cheaper and hardware and software (particularly the Microsoft kind) are very expensive. I will bet good money that this will take off in places like India almost immediately, particularly if Google follows up with Indian hardware partners like they are doing for Android (with a stated goal of getting the price of mid-range Android phones to under $200 - the judged threshold of the Indian lower middle class to upgrade to smartphones).
And this is all aside from the corporate market. I really do think that the NC was ahead of its time. Just like the Newton to the iPad. I would much rather be working on a fast (yet cheaper) Chrome machine at work then a Windows machine. And there's scant few companies that are going to go out and buy $1000 Macs for all their employees. We'll see if it pans out. But I do think there's real potential for this thing in corporate markets.
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?
I am starting to wonder if you've ever set foot outside the United States. Have you?
Just go to a cheap cyber-cafe in Mumbai. The nice ones catering to Westerners might have Macs. The cheap ones catering to locals might still be running Pentium 1s with a pirated version of Windows 95. And do their users care? No they don't. They are there to access the internet.
iPod Touchs and iPads are great devices. But they are absolutely unaffordable for 4/5ths of the world's population and do not have the functionality (a kid's going to write his essay on an iPod Touch?) or ruggedness required to survive out of delicate First World homes and businesses. Are you seriously going to suggest that a slum dweller in Mumbai or Calcutta should have an iPad as family computer over their netbook (a not uncommon situation today)?
Once in a while, do make an effort to think of the other 80% of the world that doesn't live your extravagant, pampered Western lifestyle....and I say that as a pampered Westerner.
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.
apple changed everything with the app store and iphone/ipad. google is going to have to adjust. chromeOS will fail. But a chromeOS that could run android apps would be a winner.
Comments
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.
Your in a minority.
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?
Never gonna happen. The web will never supplant applications directly running on top of hardware. Yes, the web can do lots of things, but for all that it is, it's still just the modern equivalent of a 3270 terminal.
All the reasons people criticized the web only strategy of the first iPhone still apply - or are those criticisms moot simply because Chrome is from Google?
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?
It’s not about “want” it’s about was it feasible. I want a Bugatti Veyron and a G6 but I’m not getting either. If you look at what the average family in a world can afford to spend on a “computer” a $500 iPad isn’t even an option. It’s also not designed to be a household’s sole computing device as noted by the initial tethering to a PC running iTunes.
I, as an affluent American, think the iPad is an inexpensive device, but it’s several times more the cost than PCs costs people in much of the world. I’ve seen this first hand!
Chrome OS, on the other hand, has the potential to be run on very inexpensive, low-power HW and yet still offer people a great resource for education that was never possible with the few used and outdated books many schools of the world have.
PS: I’ve stated what Chrome OS has to offer at every turn. if you can’t see how a free OS on cheap HW people can put together themselves could be a benefit to developing nations over a $500+ iPad (plus a PC) I don’t know what to tell you.
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?
Screw that! I want local apps, local content; you can keep your 404 NOT FOUND error. I want a reliable user experience. Until the Web works right 100% of the time and never goes down (gives tumblr the evil eye), no "server is not responding" (WikiLeaks), no "server is overcapacity" (Twitter, AT&T iPhone upgrade eligibility check), or server unreachable (AppleInsider), you can keep your web based app future, Andy!
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.
Just goes to show that the open source community is nothing but a bunch of complete and utter hypocrites.
Yeah - Google is "open", and Apple is "closed". Right.
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.
If they are cheap, will access the web in a reasonable manner, and are cheap, I think that they have a place in a lot of places in a lot of homes.
Screw that! I want local apps, local content; you can keep your 404 NOT FOUND error. I want a reliable user experience. Until the Web works right 100% of the time and never goes down (gives tumblr the evil eye), no "server is not responding" (WikiLeaks), no "server is overcapacity" (Twitter, AT&T iPhone upgrade eligibility check), or server unreachable (AppleInsider), you can keep your web based app future, Andy!
Note that ?web apps? is synonomous with ?browser-based apps? in most cases, and with HTML5 they can natively be local apps without ever needing an internet connection.
it's the focus on specific topics, making that info/activity as easy as possible and satisfying for the user, that makes this new era of apps so potent, so popular, and spreading so rapidly - a true "disruption" in modern computing practice.
but insisting that everything must run inside a browser is too ideological and runs counter to this pragmatic and very adaptable approach that puts user experience first above all other considerations. sure, i suppose there are Chrome OS workarounds for everything somehow, but why should the whole digital world re-organize itself for Google's particular idea? especially now that it has just discovered these last three years the "amazing" (as Jobs would say) advantages of the iOS/Android approach to apps?
which is why i wrote earlier, Chrome OS might have been a good idea three years ago before this app revolution. but now it is a dead end branch of the digital evolutionary tree.
the real "holy grail" as many note, that Chrome OS aspires to, is a drop dead simple OS with as few settings and as little maintenance as possible - none at all would be perfect - but that also hosts such new era hybrid apps, including more complex ones like the iWork apps. and the iPad almost does this, except you still need to plug it into some computer that you must also maintain for setup and updates (i wonder if Apple will ever cut that umbilical cord?). Android goes even further, needing no computer - but you need a telco middleman instead (that's worse!).
what i can speculate Apple might do to get to this Holy Grail first is add an "iOS mode" to OS X Lion for Mac desktops/laptops - it would optionally boot/switch instantly into iOS (like a User) and work just like an iPad, running iOS apps, with the Magic Trackpad/Magic Mouse for UI. after filling in your necessary basic info in that Apple first run start up screen, you would never, ever have to run it in OS X mode if you never wanted to, and Software Update would automatically update both iOS apps and OS X applications in the background with just one click (as the new OS X Application Store will enable in a few weeks).
heck, this makes as much sense as enabling Mac OS to run Windows with Boot Camp in Leopard did three short years ago - more! - and technically can't be as hard as that was. for myself, i'd normally use iOS and just switch into OS X for "power computing" for working with editing video and photos and hobby applications stuff. Chrome OS could never do this.
Screw that! I want local apps, local content; you can keep your 404 NOT FOUND error. I want a reliable user experience. Until the Web works right 100% of the time and never goes down (gives tumblr the evil eye), no "server is not responding" (WikiLeaks), no "server is overcapacity" (Twitter, AT&T iPhone upgrade eligibility check), or server unreachable (AppleInsider), you can keep your web based app future, Andy!
The tools I use are already online so it doesn't matter if I have OS-X or ChromeOS. Even if I had local apps all the data is online. Having a traditional desktop OS provides me with no benefits as I am not using the extra capability.
Your in a minority.
It is a minority that is getting rapidly bigger. Actually there are lots of business users who just use web based apps. When I go see my bank manager everything is now a web form. Why does he have a PC with all its hidden costs when all he needs is a browser?
I don't think everyone should switch. Photoshop is not going to run in a browser; however, most users don't run Photoshop and there are probably a lot of users, especially within companies who don't need the additional benefits of a traditional OS.
All the reasons people criticized the web only strategy of the first iPhone still apply - or are those criticisms moot simply because Chrome is from Google?
The mobile web has become a lot more reliable and a lot faster since the original iPhone.
"The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers ? again located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud computing ? one day it will rain on your parade."
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ive-with-leaks
- I'm assuming this would be cheap such as $100 to $300 per laptop.
- This is "perfect for my mom". She can't virus it or break it. She doesn't have an mp3 or movie collection on her computer and never will. iPad would be great, but then I still need to get a keyboard so she can type email.
- On everywhere again means my mom doesn't have to figure out how someone else's wireless works.
- Practically nothing to support on it.
- If you want to give a workforce laptops so they can use your website. This is great. They can't mess them up and even if they did you could probably wipe it and refresh it from the BIOS or something.
Their solution will work, and they should continue with it, but because of the iPad it has lost a certain coolness...
Firstly, Google have tightened up the hardware requirements for new Android releases. Not that having slightly different button placement matters on a phone that is a highly individual possession that someone has for a long time - a total non-issue. Other Android fragmentation issues also seem to be more based in the realms of FUD than reality, the odd developer whining about having to do a little more work to support a few more resolutions.
The requirements for ChromeOS will be far tighter. It's designed for keyboard use, so comparing to the iPad is disingenuous. Android will have a suitable tablet version soon anyway.
The company who should be worrying is Microsoft - at least when Google Docs gets better. I also presume that locally installable applications will be happening (not HTML5 apps either, they're a given) for games, etc, that require more performance.
There are some pro-Apple facts though - their platform is more mature, their tablet platform is a year ahead already, the ecosystem is massive, the development tools are better and more mature, etc, etc. But that doesn't mean that Google won't get there in the end.
They can do all the cranking they want, Javascript will never be as fast as C. And to those who say "It's fast enough," - what about battery life, what about mobile gaming (a surprisingly big market)?
Many games have been scriptable for a long time, indeed their game logic is implemented in a language like Python or Lua running on an interpreter within the game engine. Javascript won't be an issue here.
So the back-end - the rendering. Web GL exists, hardware accelerated. That that takes care of the performance issues with the visualisation.
So that leaves the actual engine and interpreter itself. Google's Javascript interpreter is already pretty fast, let's not worry about it. So the engine then ... this could be an issue.
But I reckon that Google will eventually allow native applications - once they've got the tools in place and the support in the OS. It could be that the OS is x86 only, but potentially if it runs on ARM as well it could allow for very cheap netbooks and laptops.
And what's with the comparison to the iPad? The consumer market isn't the only one that matters.
Read up on some of the partners Google's working with to get this thing off the ground. I doubt the US DoD or American Airlines are lightweights with technology. There's certainly a market for a connected thin client....the network computer of the old days. That's the market Chrome is aimed at. Android is the competitor to iOS. Chrome is a different paradigm altogether.
A lot of this FUD sounds eerily reminiscent of people saying nobody would buy an iPad just because it was a giant iPod.
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.
+1 for thinking with your head instead of your inner fanboy like the opposite party in this discussion.
Not everything Google does, is about taking on Apple.
This is one example. I think this is Google's way of taking on Microsoft and its Windows monopoly....particularly in the developing world. iOS is entirely inadequate for that task. And Apple really does not care about you unless you're in the 1/5th of the human population that can afford their products. The US centric view in these parts is just ridiculous sometimes. Everybody here acts like everyone in the world can afford an iPad, and iPhone, a Macbook and a USD 100 per month phone bill.
I fully agree with you that this thing could best OLPC. And actually could get quite the traction in the developing world where internet and mobile data are suprisingly (relatively) cheaper and hardware and software (particularly the Microsoft kind) are very expensive. I will bet good money that this will take off in places like India almost immediately, particularly if Google follows up with Indian hardware partners like they are doing for Android (with a stated goal of getting the price of mid-range Android phones to under $200 - the judged threshold of the Indian lower middle class to upgrade to smartphones).
And this is all aside from the corporate market. I really do think that the NC was ahead of its time. Just like the Newton to the iPad. I would much rather be working on a fast (yet cheaper) Chrome machine at work then a Windows machine. And there's scant few companies that are going to go out and buy $1000 Macs for all their employees. We'll see if it pans out. But I do think there's real potential for this thing in corporate markets.
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?
I am starting to wonder if you've ever set foot outside the United States. Have you?
Just go to a cheap cyber-cafe in Mumbai. The nice ones catering to Westerners might have Macs. The cheap ones catering to locals might still be running Pentium 1s with a pirated version of Windows 95. And do their users care? No they don't. They are there to access the internet.
iPod Touchs and iPads are great devices. But they are absolutely unaffordable for 4/5ths of the world's population and do not have the functionality (a kid's going to write his essay on an iPod Touch?) or ruggedness required to survive out of delicate First World homes and businesses. Are you seriously going to suggest that a slum dweller in Mumbai or Calcutta should have an iPad as family computer over their netbook (a not uncommon situation today)?
Once in a while, do make an effort to think of the other 80% of the world that doesn't live your extravagant, pampered Western lifestyle....and I say that as a pampered Westerner.
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.
apple changed everything with the app store and iphone/ipad. google is going to have to adjust. chromeOS will fail. But a chromeOS that could run android apps would be a winner.