That was enjoyable reading those comments.
Just to clear things up:
No, you don't need WiFi. You can do everything you normally would and it gets uploaded to the cloud next time you have a connection.
Many Chromebooks have the option for 4G built in with free data.
The new Haswell Chromebooks are really good. 10+ hours of battery. Cold boot time is 10 seconds. Blazing fast. Many of the sub $200, older Chrombooks are complete crap. Some of the newer ones have build quality as good as the MBA.
Touchscreens available.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I don't see any business use for them. That's obviously not what they were designed for. It's for education and a second household computer.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Keynote presentations are best done using a Chromecast or the HDMI out cable.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Auto updates in the background are great for the casual user.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">They took the number 1 and number 3 spot in Amazon's top selling laptops of 2013. Get ready for them. </span>
Market share<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> of these is going to skyrocket (more than it already has).</span>
Excellent synopsis. I wish I knew how to invest in some part of this developing market.
There's actually no such thing.
Once activated, a device counts forever. Google will still be bragging about that horrible Samsung you got in 2008 in the year 3008.
The most popular Chromebook seems to be the Samsung 11" under $250. This is with an ARM processor.
For business use for basic admin work, this should be fine as it has an HDMI port for a display. Apple could build a MBA with their ARM chip too. The entry Air CPU cost $342 from Intel so $999 Air with 30% margins = $699 - $342 - amount for lower RAM ($70) - amount to go from 128GB SSD to 16GB ($50) + $70 ARM = $307 with 30% margins = $449.
While the Chromebook is still a good bit cheaper, the Air would run iOS and have the nicer trackpad and would hit a much larger volume of potential buyers than the $999 model.
But, the only real difference between it and an iPad is the keyboard/mouse and USB and the 11" iPad has an IPS Retina display. There's also the windowed UI that helps with multi-tasking productive environments but that could be worked around without compromising the full-screen UI.
I'm not sure how well I see Chromebooks surviving when Windows/Bay Trail devices are coming in at such a low price.
I find it hard to believe that web apps on Chromebooks are going to have huge appeal unless the computer industry has changed drastically.
It changed drastically. Specifically, HTML 5, off-line app persistence, and incredible improvements in JavaScript performance and capability happened, such that web apps are now comparable to native for most classes of mobile applications. As a side benefit, they run on virtually any platform if written properly. Steve Jobs had the right idea (as usual), he was just 5 years ahead of web tech.
Quote:
Question: If I have a spreadsheet online and get somewhere with no Internet connection, can I view and edit that spreadsheet if I did not save a copy locally?
Great question! The answer is yes *if* you are using the new Sheets version (currently opt-in only) - see https://support.google.com/drive/answer/3541068?p=try_new_sheets&rd=1 for that and other new features. You can also create new spreadsheets while off-line, and they sync next time you connect.
This is true of most of the other newer apps, since Google introduced off-line capabilities for web apps earlier this year.
I'm not a "Mac guy" (though I used an original iPad for several years), but am more of a FOSS fan (using Ubuntu, Chrome, and Android at home, and SUSE with a Windows VM at work). Here's my perspective, for what it's worth.
I think Chromebooks appeal to three market segments. Principally they appeal to those on a limited budget - for $199 you get a "name brand" laptop (Samsung, Acer, Asus, HP) with a "name brand" platform (Google) that runs fast and doesn't degrade over time like Windows. They also appeal to those of us with heavy investments in the Google space - Gmail, Play, Drive, Chromecast, YouTube - in much the same way that iPhones and iPads appeal to those with heavy investments in iTunes and other Apple infrastructure. Finally, Linux enthusiasts find them (and Nexus devices) imminently hackable, as I can easily run Ubuntu *simultaneous* to ChromeOS, flipping between them with a hot key (identical kernel, don'tcha know), which is really cool IMHO.
I think more "normal" people value Chromebooks' instant configuration to the user. Anyone in our family, or indeed anyone I know, can log into my Chromebook, and it's "theirs" for a while - their apps, their data, their everything (ignoring the local SSD, of course). When I first logged into my Chromebook, all my apps and even my Chromecast were already there, ready to use. Very convenient after having to set up each Microsoft, Apple, Android, and Ubuntu device through the years.
I think from a vendor's perspective, Chromebooks have a very low market entry cost (no license agreements, full source code) and are ridiculously easy to tailor to specific markets. They are processor independent - Samsung's bestselling Chromebook is ARM-based, while my new Acer C720P with multi-touch screen and 32 GB SSD (only $299!) uses one of the new Intel mobile processors (9 hours on a charge actual, which is pretty sweet), and the vast Linux driver set provides tremendous flexibility in support chips and peripherals as well.
Google is targeting the mass market with Chromebooks - thin margin devices for all - while Apple targets the high end - generous margins on fewer top quality devices, but with greater overall profit. Apple's enviously high satisfaction ratings and rabidly loyal fan base makes this strategy profitable and sustainable for them in the long term, in my opinion, and I admire their resilience in not being sucked into a price war while still adapting to market trends (I'm thinking iPad Mini here in particular).
I enjoyed my iPad a lot, but when the choice came down to another iPad or a touch Chromebook for half the price, given my larger investment in Google's infrastructure than in Apple's, it was an easy choice. My brother went with an iPhone, and is delighted, and I continue to recommend Apple laptops and mobile devices without hesitation to those for whom they are suitable. I like having choices, and wish Apple and its fans all the best.
thanks for a rational analysis!
of course budgets do matter in the mass market, especially for larger families. plus OS simplicity is always desirable too. and the trade-off of Google's massive data mining of their lives' data probably doesn't really trouble many (people are resigned to it - "everyone does it"). so Chromebooks may very well take away a huge chunk of Windows laptop sales. like half - most of the consumer market, leaving only businesses still buying W7 laptops. and compared to an Android tablet at about the same price, the choice really comes down to prioritizing a keyboard vs. all the entertainment options tablets have.
Apple customers are certainly less budget sensitive for whatever reasons and clearly more serious about using apps and their ecosystem a lot. there is also the status symbol effect. which is why the NPD's story line about Chromebooks taking sales away from Apple - instead of Windows - is such BS (based on their intentionally incomplete Apple counting i note above). they are punishing Apple of for not paying their bribe contracting for their "research."
years ago my screen name was maccat and i made the avatar i was using fatcow as a web server and they sent my renewal notice for the domain to a non existent address and some Russians scooped the domain and set up a porn link . I miss that domain and screen name ! waahhhhh!
He goes through all these numbers and shows how they are incomplete and misrepresented. It's too bad Apple Insider didn't give the same thought to them before blindly posting skewed, inaccurate data.
I'm sick of all this cheap trash google brings out. In a few months chromebooks will be Netbooks 2.0. My wish is Apple roll out a search engine to go head to head with Google and charge low rates for ads to erode Googles ad profits
Me too. Apple should have bought Yahoo months back when it was valued at about $20 bn.
You also get $1500 worth of google drive storage, which some people care about. A lot. So, don't be so quick to judge.
Since when a cloud storage is a valuable assets? Local storage will be forever more efficient (performance and cost wise) for working and archiving stuffs than having data stored thousand miles away from our computers. I think there is more hype than real application to cloud storage services, for me Dropbox is the sweet spot for providing a free basic service that people mostly uses for sharing stuff, I'll never paid for a private online storage, my mac mini at home with back to my mac offers me much greater flexibility than a plain storage service.
Since when a cloud storage is a valuable assets? Local storage will be forever more efficient (performance and cost wise) for working and archiving stuffs than having data stored thousand miles away from our computers. I think there is more hype than real application to cloud storage services, for me Dropbox is the sweet spot for providing a free basic service that people mostly uses for sharing stuff, I'll never paid for a private online storage, my mac mini at home with back to my mac offers me much greater flexibility than a plain storage service.
So, Netflix sucks, and you just have Blue Rays of all the Breaking Bad and Dexter seasons? Sounds awesome.
As a sidenote; The Chromebook Pixel has the highest resolution display available on a notebook anywhere close to it's size (2560 x 1600), a touchscreen, and the best build quality I have ever seen on any notebook (including my family's several new Macbooks).
The Chromebook Pixel has a 12.85" display with a resolution of 2560x1700 (239.15 PPI).
The Lenovo Yoga Pro 2 has a 13.3" display with a resolution of 3200x1800 (276.05 PPI).
So, Netflix sucks, and you just have Blue Rays of all the Breaking Bad and Dexter seasons? Sounds awesome.
Huh? How do you stretch your mind to compare a personal cloud storage like Dropbox or Google Drive with a media distributing service like Netflix? For sure Netflix, iTunes, Steams and other online media stores has their purpose, but I'll will not archive my personal medias (docs, photos, videos) on the cloud only like the Chromebook required.
And what if wifi is down or you are out on a field trip? Not everyone has wifi at home either. what about software? It's basically a useless brick without wifi
They typically have 3G or 4g. Mine had 3G with a few hundred megs of free 3G data for 2 years. This was several years ago when I got mine.
Since when a cloud storage is a valuable assets? Local storage will be forever more efficient (performance and cost wise) for working and archiving stuffs than having data stored thousand miles away from our computers. I think there is more hype than real application to cloud storage services, for me Dropbox is the sweet spot for providing a free basic service that people mostly uses for sharing stuff, I'll never paid for a private online storage, my mac mini at home with back to my mac offers me much greater flexibility than a plain storage service.
Yes, dear. Cloud storage (and the surrounding services stack) is only useful for people who have what they call "a clue". I am glad your setup makes you happy.
Huh? How do you stretch your mind to compare a personal cloud storage with a media distributing service? For sure Netflix, iTunes, Steams and other online media stores has their purpose, but I'll will not archive my personal medias (docs, photos, videos) on the cloud only like the Chromebook required.
Sorry for misinterpreting your post as a sweeping dismissal of cloud storage/services. You're talking about only your created works then? Certainly remote storage services are not appropriate for everything or everyone, but they are for most of the data that people use.
There is a lot of trouble around the term "cloud," with different definitions. Netflix and Spotify are cloud services, by any definition.
Yes, dear. Cloud storage (and the surrounding services stack) is only useful for people who have what they call "a clue". I am glad your setup makes you happy.
I was already doing "Cloud storage" with a private FTP server 15 years ago and I've seen many people since praising cloud backups and online storage until they as been confronts with how much painful it is to get back your data at such a slow connection when compared to local access. Even with a 30mbps internet connection, it took multiple hours to copy 1Tb over the internet.
Cloud storage works well for small files with intermittent access you need to share in collaborative work when you can't provide your own infrastructure which can be resume of using an old computer with a bunch of disk.
I was already doing "Cloud storage" with a private FTP server 15 years ago and I've seen many people since praising cloud backups and online storage until they as been confronts with how much painful it is to get back your data at such a slow connection when compared to local access. Even with a 30mbps internet connection, it took multiple hours to copy 1Tb over the internet.
Cloud storage works well for small files with intermittent access you need to share in collaborative work when you can't provide your own infrastructure which can be resume of using an old computer with a bunch of disk.
I disagree completely. I have multiple servers, and it is MUCH more convenient to use dropbox/google drive/SkyDrive to have the data instantly accessible from everwhere, backed-up automatically, easily shareable without giving people access to your machines, usable painlessly from mobile devices, easily hook-uppable to blog posts, presentations, and so on. And all this with 100% uptime. But of course, if you don't need this, you don't need this. I do, so I use it.
I disagree completely. I have multiple servers, and it is MUCH more convenient to use dropbox/google drive/SkyDrive to have the data instantly accessible from everwhere, backed-up automatically, easily shareable without giving people access to your machines, usable painlessly from mobile devices, easily hook-uppable to blog posts, presentations, and so on. And all this with 100% uptime. But of course, if you don't need this, you don't need this. I do, so I use it.
Beside the sharing aspect of it, which is nothing more than files synchronization and mirroring easily replaceable with some shell script (Dropbox is a bunch of PHP script himself), I said this is a good free service like Google search, but hardly an asset with big monetization, I wonder how much money Microsoft is making with there SkyDrive services.
Comments
Excellent synopsis. I wish I knew how to invest in some part of this developing market.
There's actually no such thing.
Once activated, a device counts forever. Google will still be bragging about that horrible Samsung you got in 2008 in the year 3008.
Google doesn't count deactivations.
The most popular Chromebook seems to be the Samsung 11" under $250. This is with an ARM processor.
For business use for basic admin work, this should be fine as it has an HDMI port for a display. Apple could build a MBA with their ARM chip too. The entry Air CPU cost $342 from Intel so $999 Air with 30% margins = $699 - $342 - amount for lower RAM ($70) - amount to go from 128GB SSD to 16GB ($50) + $70 ARM = $307 with 30% margins = $449.
While the Chromebook is still a good bit cheaper, the Air would run iOS and have the nicer trackpad and would hit a much larger volume of potential buyers than the $999 model.
But, the only real difference between it and an iPad is the keyboard/mouse and USB and the 11" iPad has an IPS Retina display. There's also the windowed UI that helps with multi-tasking productive environments but that could be worked around without compromising the full-screen UI.
I'm not sure how well I see Chromebooks surviving when Windows/Bay Trail devices are coming in at such a low price.
Intel's Q4 2013/Q1 2014:
So far this is holding true for Bay Trail:
Dell Venue 8 Pro (tablet - $299 MSRP)
ASUS T100 (2-in-1 - $349 MSRP)
It changed drastically. Specifically, HTML 5, off-line app persistence, and incredible improvements in JavaScript performance and capability happened, such that web apps are now comparable to native for most classes of mobile applications. As a side benefit, they run on virtually any platform if written properly. Steve Jobs had the right idea (as usual), he was just 5 years ahead of web tech.
Great question! The answer is yes *if* you are using the new Sheets version (currently opt-in only) - see https://support.google.com/drive/answer/3541068?p=try_new_sheets&rd=1 for that and other new features. You can also create new spreadsheets while off-line, and they sync next time you connect.
This is true of most of the other newer apps, since Google introduced off-line capabilities for web apps earlier this year.
I'm not a "Mac guy" (though I used an original iPad for several years), but am more of a FOSS fan (using Ubuntu, Chrome, and Android at home, and SUSE with a Windows VM at work). Here's my perspective, for what it's worth.
I think Chromebooks appeal to three market segments. Principally they appeal to those on a limited budget - for $199 you get a "name brand" laptop (Samsung, Acer, Asus, HP) with a "name brand" platform (Google) that runs fast and doesn't degrade over time like Windows. They also appeal to those of us with heavy investments in the Google space - Gmail, Play, Drive, Chromecast, YouTube - in much the same way that iPhones and iPads appeal to those with heavy investments in iTunes and other Apple infrastructure. Finally, Linux enthusiasts find them (and Nexus devices) imminently hackable, as I can easily run Ubuntu *simultaneous* to ChromeOS, flipping between them with a hot key (identical kernel, don'tcha know), which is really cool IMHO.
I think more "normal" people value Chromebooks' instant configuration to the user. Anyone in our family, or indeed anyone I know, can log into my Chromebook, and it's "theirs" for a while - their apps, their data, their everything (ignoring the local SSD, of course). When I first logged into my Chromebook, all my apps and even my Chromecast were already there, ready to use. Very convenient after having to set up each Microsoft, Apple, Android, and Ubuntu device through the years.
I think from a vendor's perspective, Chromebooks have a very low market entry cost (no license agreements, full source code) and are ridiculously easy to tailor to specific markets. They are processor independent - Samsung's bestselling Chromebook is ARM-based, while my new Acer C720P with multi-touch screen and 32 GB SSD (only $299!) uses one of the new Intel mobile processors (9 hours on a charge actual, which is pretty sweet), and the vast Linux driver set provides tremendous flexibility in support chips and peripherals as well.
Google is targeting the mass market with Chromebooks - thin margin devices for all - while Apple targets the high end - generous margins on fewer top quality devices, but with greater overall profit. Apple's enviously high satisfaction ratings and rabidly loyal fan base makes this strategy profitable and sustainable for them in the long term, in my opinion, and I admire their resilience in not being sucked into a price war while still adapting to market trends (I'm thinking iPad Mini here in particular).
I enjoyed my iPad a lot, but when the choice came down to another iPad or a touch Chromebook for half the price, given my larger investment in Google's infrastructure than in Apple's, it was an easy choice. My brother went with an iPhone, and is delighted, and I continue to recommend Apple laptops and mobile devices without hesitation to those for whom they are suitable. I like having choices, and wish Apple and its fans all the best.
thanks for a rational analysis!
of course budgets do matter in the mass market, especially for larger families. plus OS simplicity is always desirable too. and the trade-off of Google's massive data mining of their lives' data probably doesn't really trouble many (people are resigned to it - "everyone does it"). so Chromebooks may very well take away a huge chunk of Windows laptop sales. like half - most of the consumer market, leaving only businesses still buying W7 laptops. and compared to an Android tablet at about the same price, the choice really comes down to prioritizing a keyboard vs. all the entertainment options tablets have.
Apple customers are certainly less budget sensitive for whatever reasons and clearly more serious about using apps and their ecosystem a lot. there is also the status symbol effect. which is why the NPD's story line about Chromebooks taking sales away from Apple - instead of Windows - is such BS (based on their intentionally incomplete Apple counting i note above). they are punishing Apple of for not paying their bribe contracting for their "research."
Get a few hundred shares of GOOG
years ago my screen name was maccat and i made the avatar i was using fatcow as a web server and they sent my renewal notice for the domain to a non existent address and some Russians scooped the domain and set up a porn link . I miss that domain and screen name ! waahhhhh!
http://macosken.squarespace.com/listen-up/
He goes through all these numbers and shows how they are incomplete and misrepresented. It's too bad Apple Insider didn't give the same thought to them before blindly posting skewed, inaccurate data.
Me too. Apple should have bought Yahoo months back when it was valued at about $20 bn.
You also get $1500 worth of google drive storage, which some people care about. A lot. So, don't be so quick to judge.
Since when a cloud storage is a valuable assets? Local storage will be forever more efficient (performance and cost wise) for working and archiving stuffs than having data stored thousand miles away from our computers. I think there is more hype than real application to cloud storage services, for me Dropbox is the sweet spot for providing a free basic service that people mostly uses for sharing stuff, I'll never paid for a private online storage, my mac mini at home with back to my mac offers me much greater flexibility than a plain storage service.
Since when a cloud storage is a valuable assets? Local storage will be forever more efficient (performance and cost wise) for working and archiving stuffs than having data stored thousand miles away from our computers. I think there is more hype than real application to cloud storage services, for me Dropbox is the sweet spot for providing a free basic service that people mostly uses for sharing stuff, I'll never paid for a private online storage, my mac mini at home with back to my mac offers me much greater flexibility than a plain storage service.
So, Netflix sucks, and you just have Blue Rays of all the Breaking Bad and Dexter seasons? Sounds awesome.
As a sidenote; The Chromebook Pixel has the highest resolution display available on a notebook anywhere close to it's size (2560 x 1600), a touchscreen, and the best build quality I have ever seen on any notebook (including my family's several new Macbooks).
The Chromebook Pixel has a 12.85" display with a resolution of 2560x1700 (239.15 PPI).
The Lenovo Yoga Pro 2 has a 13.3" display with a resolution of 3200x1800 (276.05 PPI).
So, Netflix sucks, and you just have Blue Rays of all the Breaking Bad and Dexter seasons? Sounds awesome.
Huh? How do you stretch your mind to compare a personal cloud storage like Dropbox or Google Drive with a media distributing service like Netflix? For sure Netflix, iTunes, Steams and other online media stores has their purpose, but I'll will not archive my personal medias (docs, photos, videos) on the cloud only like the Chromebook required.
They typically have 3G or 4g. Mine had 3G with a few hundred megs of free 3G data for 2 years. This was several years ago when I got mine.
Since when a cloud storage is a valuable assets? Local storage will be forever more efficient (performance and cost wise) for working and archiving stuffs than having data stored thousand miles away from our computers. I think there is more hype than real application to cloud storage services, for me Dropbox is the sweet spot for providing a free basic service that people mostly uses for sharing stuff, I'll never paid for a private online storage, my mac mini at home with back to my mac offers me much greater flexibility than a plain storage service.
Yes, dear. Cloud storage (and the surrounding services stack) is only useful for people who have what they call "a clue". I am glad your setup makes you happy.
Huh? How do you stretch your mind to compare a personal cloud storage with a media distributing service? For sure Netflix, iTunes, Steams and other online media stores has their purpose, but I'll will not archive my personal medias (docs, photos, videos) on the cloud only like the Chromebook required.
Sorry for misinterpreting your post as a sweeping dismissal of cloud storage/services. You're talking about only your created works then? Certainly remote storage services are not appropriate for everything or everyone, but they are for most of the data that people use.
There is a lot of trouble around the term "cloud," with different definitions. Netflix and Spotify are cloud services, by any definition.
Yes, dear. Cloud storage (and the surrounding services stack) is only useful for people who have what they call "a clue". I am glad your setup makes you happy.
I was already doing "Cloud storage" with a private FTP server 15 years ago and I've seen many people since praising cloud backups and online storage until they as been confronts with how much painful it is to get back your data at such a slow connection when compared to local access. Even with a 30mbps internet connection, it took multiple hours to copy 1Tb over the internet.
Cloud storage works well for small files with intermittent access you need to share in collaborative work when you can't provide your own infrastructure which can be resume of using an old computer with a bunch of disk.
I was already doing "Cloud storage" with a private FTP server 15 years ago and I've seen many people since praising cloud backups and online storage until they as been confronts with how much painful it is to get back your data at such a slow connection when compared to local access. Even with a 30mbps internet connection, it took multiple hours to copy 1Tb over the internet.
Cloud storage works well for small files with intermittent access you need to share in collaborative work when you can't provide your own infrastructure which can be resume of using an old computer with a bunch of disk.
I disagree completely. I have multiple servers, and it is MUCH more convenient to use dropbox/google drive/SkyDrive to have the data instantly accessible from everwhere, backed-up automatically, easily shareable without giving people access to your machines, usable painlessly from mobile devices, easily hook-uppable to blog posts, presentations, and so on. And all this with 100% uptime. But of course, if you don't need this, you don't need this. I do, so I use it.
I disagree completely. I have multiple servers, and it is MUCH more convenient to use dropbox/google drive/SkyDrive to have the data instantly accessible from everwhere, backed-up automatically, easily shareable without giving people access to your machines, usable painlessly from mobile devices, easily hook-uppable to blog posts, presentations, and so on. And all this with 100% uptime. But of course, if you don't need this, you don't need this. I do, so I use it.
Beside the sharing aspect of it, which is nothing more than files synchronization and mirroring easily replaceable with some shell script (Dropbox is a bunch of PHP script himself), I said this is a good free service like Google search, but hardly an asset with big monetization, I wonder how much money Microsoft is making with there SkyDrive services.
There is a lot of trouble around the term "cloud," with different definitions. Netflix and Spotify are cloud services, by any definition.
I agree, the term "Cloud" is another buzz word for Internet.