Google commits to their hardware very, very lightly. They can't seem to really put some muscle and marketing into anything beyond their bread and butter advertising.
How long till Google drops Google Home - its Echo Competitor? I'm thinking two years or less if Apple comes out with a Hub product.
"...a new version of ChromeOS with the ability to host Android apps in addition to web apps running in the Chrome browser."
Is the writer aware that this is already shipping? And that it was first released to Chromebook Pixel?
I think you missed the first part of that sentence? The Author clearly implied it to eventually replacing Android.
Nope. Didn't miss it.
The post is cumbersome and full of old news.
It is significant that half of his compound statement is already fulfilled. Just wondering if he knew--because it would be a strange thing to omit if he did.
Additionally, it is an incredibly terse statement for something that would actually be a monumental brand shift for Google.
The post is recycled filler with incomplete or blatantly silly analysis.
How does Chromebook Pixel differ from the Chromebook models that we hear have sold well to schools over the past few years?
Because of price. Schools are going to be buying the cheap chromebooks. Google on the other hand were trying to price theirs like a Mac. The same thing they're trying to do now with phones. Trying to price them like a iPhone. Might as well as they copied so much. Problem is all this time Google and everyone else is advertising Android as the cheap devices. How can they then turn around and try to price them higher at this point in time?. Suu they don't sell. Android devices at this point are pretty much a commodity. Razer tub profits to losing money. There is very little money to be made making and selling Android or chromebook hardware. The real only winner is Google on the software side of things. Services and ad's.
Slapping a pixel name on it and trying to charge Apple prices when everyone knows it's really just a newer nexus device is not fooling many people.
Arguably, the Chromebook pixel isn't necessary anymore because there are so many high end chromebooks right now. There is the Asus flip 2, the HP 13, the Samsung pro etc. All of them with metal body, HD screen etc and costing between 500 and 1000 dollars. Plus all the school models.
Btw schools do not buy these machines only because of hardware price but because they come with Google apps and are easy to manage. The iPad even with recent school upgrades isn't as easy to manage even though they are pricewise not that far off chromebooks (schools often buy sturdy mid range models for 400 instead of the cheap Walmart chromebooks).
Do Google majority shareholders trade using real money? If Apple releases an AC adapter that isn't to their investors' liking, they revolt; Google, on the other hand, releases turd after turd...and crickets.
Google's majority shareholders are the founders themselves. They created a shareholder structure that gives them unchallenged control of the company. To this day, I am amazed that Google's founders got away with basically saying to shareholders "we are trying to protect ourselves from the likes of you."
Hahahahaha!
Should've called it the "Pinocchio". Now that Pixel has flopped, and that the courts gave Oracle's IP to goog for free, maybe Android will finally be furnished with a functional software development roadmap for third parties...
Today, however, Lardinois writes that Google "never intended to sell in high numbers" and that "Pixel was always meant to be aspirational"
Hahahahaha, right... so product flops are aspirational? then again, this is the company that brought us wave, buzz, google+ and of course...google glass.
Pointless. The Gospel According to Lardinois has been handed to him already. He will say what he said about the Nexus phones - "never intended to sell in volumes. Aspirational".
BTW, why did Lardinois not mention "reference design"? That's the Google thing, right?
I think that it's really interesting that the same people who panned and bitched and moaned about the "lackluster" Macbook Pro now talk about it being "taken into premium territory". Pretty much only on price, admittedly, but I find it interesting how sentiment can turn around so fast.
Today, however, Lardinois writes that Google "never intended to sell in high numbers" and that "Pixel was always meant to be aspirational," describing it as "the first hardware device that showed that Google could build vertically integrated devices that could compete with the likes of Apple," even though Pixel make it clear that Google could not, in fact, compete with Apple.
Gotta love that line above. Maybe they're employing the same strategy with their Pixel phone. Never meant to sell in high numbers. Wonder how Vlad Savov and other Verge writers explain this?
Yeah, that's an embarrassing quote. It sure did prove that Google could build "vertically integrated devices that could compete with the likes of Apple" if and only if cost is no object, losses don't count, and commercial sales of one unit is deemed to signal market acceptance. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Yeah, that quote doesn't make sense. They start making a hardware line just to see if they can but never plan on continuing it long term? What kind of business strategy is that?
and what does it say for future hardware customers... buy our new *insert product here*, it's the best one ever, better than apple's and half the price. Oh by the way, in a year or so, we'll give up on it and you'll be stuck with a paperweight, but please buy it, it's good, look at all the reviews!
The only thing in defence of the Pixel Chromebook is that it was a really nice piece of hardware with a great build. However the appetite for people to spend big on hardware for a limited OS was just not there. I would still consider picking up a used fully specced 2015 version and convert to robust dedicated Linux machine. Sadly though they don't come up often probably due to numbers sold and also users holding onto them.
The only thing in defence of the Pixel Chromebook is that it was a really nice piece of hardware with a great build. However the appetite for people to spend big on hardware for a limited OS was just not there. I would still consider picking up a used fully specced 2015 version and convert to robust dedicated Linux machine. Sadly though they don't come up often probably due to numbers sold and also users holding onto them.
You sound like an Amiga fan from decades ago. Even though the product failed it was touted as the be-all, end-all of personal computers. Even after the Amiga ceased production the Amiga fanatics continued to taunt Apple ][ owners over how much better it was.
The only thing that really should be added is... the entire article is based on two false premises:
The Pixel was never meant as a Macbook competitor in the first place, unless the author is going simply by price. It wasn't even built for the public, only intended for developers. Google themselves said that from the get-go and reiterated the point when the second one was announced. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/199811-google-confirms-chromebook-pixel-2-but-tempers-expectations I'll assume the author simply chose not to mention that, and he surely knew it, as it didn't fit with his intended article tone. As articles at the time they were released mentioned, the Pixel was used for raising awareness and development of Chrome OS capabilities, and to encourage OEM's to put more effort into better hardware to run it on. It accomplished both.
2nd and of more important note: Google isn't getting out of laptop design anyway. They just have nothing they wish to share about it at the moment. Laptops with a Google name on them are still presumably in the works and so the author was just a tad premature on declaring their demise. Could those be Bison on the horizon.
Google just doesn't get it. If they are serious, they need to focus and go about things in a disciplined fashion.
Despite all of the talk about Brin and Page being visionaries, they are not. They are two guys who got lucky, much like Gates and Allen did.
Jobs was the true visionary in which MSFT and GOOGL stole their ideas and products. And Android would have died if it weren't for Samsung who are true hardware innovators.
Samsung will eventually move off of Amdroid and Google will not be able to follow. Google had better hope that LG and Huawei can keep up.
3 million pixel phones is inconsequential. Samsung sells more smartwatches than that. They also sell more Tizen based Z series phones. Samsung innovated the rotating bezel on their smartwatch. Google has since copied it. Samsung invested heavily in NVM, OLED and CPU fabrication technology. Where's Google in all of this? Apple purchased PA Semi and pushed advanced CPU development; moving forward at an unheard of pace and even taking Intel itself by surprise.
Google's best hardware product is glass and that was a failure. Building a laptop with generic components, slapping a non-standard OS on it with few applications is a recipe for failure. Putting Android on the desktop won't drive the adoption of a third desktop OS either.
At least Google gets part of it. Hardware development can drive a new computing paradigm. After all, Apple eliminated Microsoft's monopoly. But if Google wants to do that, they need to truly get serious about it. By all indications, they appear utterly incapable.
The only thing that really should be added is... the entire article is based on two false premises:
The Pixel was never meant as a Macbook competitor in the first place, unless the author is going simply by price. It wasn't even built for the public, only intended for developers. Google themselves said that from the get-go and reiterated the point when the second one was announced. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/199811-google-confirms-chromebook-pixel-2-but-tempers-expectations I'll assume the author simply chose not to mention that, and he surely knew it, as it didn't fit with his intended article tone. As articles at the time they were released mentioned, the Pixel was used for raising awareness and development of Chrome OS capabilities, and to encourage OEM's to put more effort into better hardware to run it on. It accomplished both.
2nd and of more important note: Google isn't getting out of laptop design anyway. They just have nothing they wish to share about it at the moment. Laptops with a Google name on them are still presumably in the works and so the author was just a tad premature on declaring their demise. Could those be Bison on the horizon.
Your first comment is obviously untrue. The Verge (Google's purest propaganda channel) stated in its 2013 review that "Google's putting its cards on the table and betting it can measure up [with Windows and MacBook Air]. Perhaps even more audacious, it's betting that what we need from our laptops has changed, too."
Google Pixel rather arrogantly tried to measure up. It "bet" on being capable of disruption. However, Pixel failed every year for four years until it was discontinued.
Your second assertion is also false. The article doesn't "declare a demise," it just states that Google's Chromebook Pixel was a failure every year for four years until it was discontinued, much like the G1/Nexus/Pixel phones were every year they were rolled out.
Motorola was also a failure. Nest was a failure. Buying up robotics firms was a failure. No amount of fact-free spin from apologists changes the reality that Google has failed spectacularly in its attempts to be like Apple.
Now, you can turn the conversation to Apple and say that it hasn't been as good at internet services as Google, but the difference is that Apple has been successfully selling its hardware with said inferior services, while Google's supposedly superior services haven't been able to similarly sell its inferior hardware and platform.
The prospect of some future new hardware designs from Google doesn't change the fact that it has repeatedly failed every time it has tried over the past decade, and makes the potential possibility of it not really that important going forward.
The only thing that really should be added is... the entire article is based on two false premises:
The Pixel was never meant as a Macbook competitor in the first place, unless the author is going simply by price. It wasn't even built for the public, only intended for developers. Google themselves said that from the get-go and reiterated the point when the second one was announced. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/199811-google-confirms-chromebook-pixel-2-but-tempers-expectations I'll assume the author simply chose not to mention that, and he surely knew it, as it didn't fit with his intended article tone. As articles at the time they were released mentioned, the Pixel was used for raising awareness and development of Chrome OS capabilities, and to encourage OEM's to put more effort into better hardware to run it on. It accomplished both.
2nd and of more important note: Google isn't getting out of laptop design anyway. They just have nothing they wish to share about it at the moment. Laptops with a Google name on them are still presumably in the works and so the author was just a tad premature on declaring their demise. Could those be Bison on the horizon.
Your first comment is obviously untrue. The Verge (Google's purest propaganda channel) stated in its 2013 review that "Google's putting its cards on the table and betting it can measure up [with Windows and MacBook Air]. Perhaps even more audacious, it's betting that what we need from our laptops has changed, too."
Google Pixel rather arrogantly tried to measure up. It "bet" on being capable of disruption. However, Pixel failed every year for four years until it was discontinued.
Your second assertion is also false. The article doesn't "declare a demise," it just states that Google's Chromebook Pixel was a failure every year for four years until it was discontinued, much like the G1/Nexus/Pixel phones were every year they were rolled out.
Motorola was also a failure. Nest was a failure. Buying up robotics firms was a failure. No amount of fact-free spin from apologists changes the reality that Google has failed spectacularly in its attempts to be like Apple.
Now, you can turn the conversation to Apple and say that it hasn't been as good at internet services as Google, but the difference is that Apple has been successfully selling its hardware with said inferior services, while Google's supposedly superior services haven't been able to similarly sell its inferior hardware and platform.
The prospect of some future new hardware designs from Google doesn't change the fact that it has repeatedly failed every time it has tried over the past decade, and makes the potential possibility of it not really that important going forward.
Daniel, rather than mentioning some article at the Verge why wouldn't you tell us who Google themselves said the Chromebook Pixels were for? I think I know why.
When the first one was released back in 2013 the Guardian asked Google's current CEO abaout what the intent was:
Sundar Pichai said Google's aim had been to make a device to satisfy developers and early adopters.
"This is about power users. Some of them buy Mac, some buy Windows 8. We wanted to make sure Chrome OS is in that segment," said Pichai. The high resolution touchscreen is designed to help developers build apps and services that work seamlessly across multiple devices. "This is the future - high resolution and touchscreen, and we're behind in the laptop world," he said. "We want to push the ecosystem and web development forward, so this can be thought of as a reference device, in the same way as the Nexus, that will inspire a whole new generation of devices."
And Version 2? Before its 2015 release Google’s Renee Nieme commented about that upcoming Chromebook Pixel 2, I think during a developers's conference:
"We do have a new Pixel coming out and it will be coming out soon. We will be selling it but I just have to set your expectations: this is a development platform. This is really a proof of concept. We don’t make very many of these — we really don’t. And […] our developers and our Googlers consume 85% of what we produce. But yes, we do have a new Pixel coming out."
Not only does this statement appear to announce the imminent release of a Chromebook Pixel 2, it also confirms the true purpose of the expensive original - not as a consumer device, but as an advanced tool for developers."
I don't think for a second believe that a random guy on the internet such as myself would know this while a well-connected journalist such as yourself and priding himself on his research skills (yes I mean that as a complement to you) would feign ignorance. You knew the purpose of the Chromebook Pixels and if you truly did not you should have IMHO.
So it wasn't a fail, it's just not needed anymore with OEM's now selling well-built and well-spec'd Chromebooks such as Samsung's new Chromebook Pro (co-developed in partnership with Google), Asus' Chromebook Flip and Dell's Chromebook 11 and the platform itself surprisingly (to me) successful, particularly in education.
Daniel, rather than mentioning some article at the Verge why wouldn't you tell us who Google themselves said the Chromebook Pixels were for? I think I know why.
Your argument is familiar because you repeat it often. Essentially: Google doesn't intent to be successful in any area it fails in, and paid $15 billion for two hardware companies because it was planning to fail and just wanted to give licensees ideas they could implement on their own, even though those licensees were failing before, during and after Google's $$$, years long efforts went nowhere. But that's ridiculous and not supported by facts.
"This is about power users. Some of them buy Mac, some buy Windows 8. We wanted to make sure Chrome OS is in that segment"
That didn't happen. Power users don't use ChromeOS in any meaningful way despite years of trying.
Chromebook was conceptually floated before iPad, if you recall. Partners released failed Chromebooks a year after iPad, and it went nowhere. Pixel was supposed to make it mainstream, and as you quoted Pichai as saying, it failed to achieve Google's stated goals.
There was slightly less arrogance after two more years of Chromebook Pixel failure, but it was still positioned as a platform that never materialized.
Since then, Google has only dumped cheap Chromebooks on US edu, resulting in "market share" but not a financial success for the company or its licensees. There's nothing sticky about ChromeOS, and Android has almost no market share left in edu. Apple hasn't grown in the edu, but also hasn't lost much ground, despite 4x times the cheap units dumped by Chrome partners.
You can claim that "the platform itself surprisingly successful" but that's simply not true.
Also, nothing you said contradicts the fact that Google's Chromebook Pixel ended up another F for Alphabet.
Comments
Is the writer aware that this is already shipping? And that it was first released to Chromebook Pixel?
Nope. Didn't miss it.
The post is cumbersome and full of old news.
It is significant that half of his compound statement is already fulfilled. Just wondering if he knew--because it would be a strange thing to omit if he did.
Additionally, it is an incredibly terse statement for something that would actually be a monumental brand shift for Google.
The post is recycled filler with incomplete or blatantly silly analysis.
Btw schools do not buy these machines only because of hardware price but because they come with Google apps and are easy to manage. The iPad even with recent school upgrades isn't as easy to manage even though they are pricewise not that far off chromebooks (schools often buy sturdy mid range models for 400 instead of the cheap Walmart chromebooks).
Hahahahaha, right... so product flops are aspirational? then again, this is the company that brought us wave, buzz, google+ and of course...google glass.
Pointless. The Gospel According to Lardinois has been handed to him already. He will say what he said about the Nexus phones - "never intended to sell in volumes. Aspirational".
BTW, why did Lardinois not mention "reference design"? That's the Google thing, right?
the entire article is based on two false premises:
The Pixel was never meant as a Macbook competitor in the first place, unless the author is going simply by price. It wasn't even built for the public, only intended for developers. Google themselves said that from the get-go and reiterated the point when the second one was announced.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/199811-google-confirms-chromebook-pixel-2-but-tempers-expectations
I'll assume the author simply chose not to mention that, and he surely knew it, as it didn't fit with his intended article tone. As articles at the time they were released mentioned, the Pixel was used for raising awareness and development of Chrome OS capabilities, and to encourage OEM's to put more effort into better hardware to run it on. It accomplished both.
2nd and of more important note: Google isn't getting out of laptop design anyway. They just have nothing they wish to share about it at the moment. Laptops with a Google name on them are still presumably in the works and so the author was just a tad premature on declaring their demise. Could those be Bison on the horizon.
Despite all of the talk about Brin and Page being visionaries, they are not. They are two guys who got lucky, much like Gates and Allen did.
Jobs was the true visionary in which MSFT and GOOGL stole their ideas and products. And Android would have died if it weren't for Samsung who are true hardware innovators.
Samsung will eventually move off of Amdroid and Google will not be able to follow. Google had better hope that LG and Huawei can keep up.
3 million pixel phones is inconsequential. Samsung sells more smartwatches than that. They also sell more Tizen based Z series phones. Samsung innovated the rotating bezel on their smartwatch. Google has since copied it. Samsung invested heavily in NVM, OLED and CPU fabrication technology. Where's Google in all of this? Apple purchased PA Semi and pushed advanced CPU development; moving forward at an unheard of pace and even taking Intel itself by surprise.
Google's best hardware product is glass and that was a failure. Building a laptop with generic components, slapping a non-standard OS on it with few applications is a recipe for failure. Putting Android on the desktop won't drive the adoption of a third desktop OS either.
At least Google gets part of it. Hardware development can drive a new computing paradigm. After all, Apple eliminated Microsoft's monopoly. But if Google wants to do that, they need to truly get serious about it. By all indications, they appear utterly incapable.
Google Pixel rather arrogantly tried to measure up. It "bet" on being capable of disruption. However, Pixel failed every year for four years until it was discontinued.
Your second assertion is also false. The article doesn't "declare a demise," it just states that Google's Chromebook Pixel was a failure every year for four years until it was discontinued, much like the G1/Nexus/Pixel phones were every year they were rolled out.
Motorola was also a failure. Nest was a failure. Buying up robotics firms was a failure. No amount of fact-free spin from apologists changes the reality that Google has failed spectacularly in its attempts to be like Apple.
Now, you can turn the conversation to Apple and say that it hasn't been as good at internet services as Google, but the difference is that Apple has been successfully selling its hardware with said inferior services, while Google's supposedly superior services haven't been able to similarly sell its inferior hardware and platform.
The prospect of some future new hardware designs from Google doesn't change the fact that it has repeatedly failed every time it has tried over the past decade, and makes the potential possibility of it not really that important going forward.
When the first one was released back in 2013 the Guardian asked Google's current CEO abaout what the intent was:
Sundar Pichai said Google's aim had been to make a device to satisfy developers and early adopters.
"This is about power users. Some of them buy Mac, some buy Windows 8. We wanted to make sure Chrome OS is in that segment," said Pichai. The high resolution touchscreen is designed to help developers build apps and services that work seamlessly across multiple devices. "This is the future - high resolution and touchscreen, and we're behind in the laptop world," he said. "We want to push the ecosystem and web development forward, so this can be thought of as a reference device, in the same way as the Nexus, that will inspire a whole new generation of devices."
And Version 2? Before its 2015 release Google’s Renee Nieme commented about that upcoming Chromebook Pixel 2, I think during a developers's conference:
"We do have a new Pixel coming out and it will be coming out soon. We will be selling it but I just have to set your expectations: this is a development platform. This is really a proof of concept. We don’t make very many of these — we really don’t. And […] our developers and our Googlers consume 85% of what we produce. But yes, we do have a new Pixel coming out."
Not only does this statement appear to announce the imminent release of a Chromebook Pixel 2, it also confirms the true purpose of the expensive original - not as a consumer device, but as an advanced tool for developers."
I don't think for a second believe that a random guy on the internet such as myself would know this while a well-connected journalist such as yourself and priding himself on his research skills (yes I mean that as a complement to you) would feign ignorance. You knew the purpose of the Chromebook Pixels and if you truly did not you should have IMHO.
So it wasn't a fail, it's just not needed anymore with OEM's now selling well-built and well-spec'd Chromebooks such as Samsung's new Chromebook Pro (co-developed in partnership with Google), Asus' Chromebook Flip and Dell's Chromebook 11 and the platform itself surprisingly (to me) successful, particularly in education.
Your argument is familiar because you repeat it often. Essentially: Google doesn't intent to be successful in any area it fails in, and paid $15 billion for two hardware companies because it was planning to fail and just wanted to give licensees ideas they could implement on their own, even though those licensees were failing before, during and after Google's $$$, years long efforts went nowhere. But that's ridiculous and not supported by facts.
"This is about power users. Some of them buy Mac, some buy Windows 8. We wanted to make sure Chrome OS is in that segment"
That didn't happen. Power users don't use ChromeOS in any meaningful way despite years of trying.
Chromebook was conceptually floated before iPad, if you recall. Partners released failed Chromebooks a year after iPad, and it went nowhere. Pixel was supposed to make it mainstream, and as you quoted Pichai as saying, it failed to achieve Google's stated goals.
There was slightly less arrogance after two more years of Chromebook Pixel failure, but it was still positioned as a platform that never materialized.
Since then, Google has only dumped cheap Chromebooks on US edu, resulting in "market share" but not a financial success for the company or its licensees. There's nothing sticky about ChromeOS, and Android has almost no market share left in edu. Apple hasn't grown in the edu, but also hasn't lost much ground, despite 4x times the cheap units dumped by Chrome partners.
You can claim that "the platform itself surprisingly successful" but that's simply not true.
Also, nothing you said contradicts the fact that Google's Chromebook Pixel ended up another F for Alphabet.