Funny, but when the issue was whether MacBooks were too expensive, people like you were denying numbers like that. Now that it's convenient, you are suddenly sure that the numbers are real.
You're using a bogus imaginary argument. IT costs for a company do not go to zero simply because they use a crapbook. They still need to develop custom apps. Still need to support user problems. Still need to train users. Still need to manage their servers. Still need to support the network infrastructure.
Claiming that IT support costs go to zero is absolute proof that you don't have ANY idea what you're talking about.
I see you're still ignoring the fact that I can buy a REAL laptop for much less than a crapbook. Oh, I get it - you want everyone to accept Google's inane proposition that no one will ever need an IT group again? Sorry, I'm not buying.
I never said that it was for individuals. In fact, all of my arguments were specifically directed at business use.
And I'm not interested in your expectations of price. You can't even get the facts right - why should I pay any attention to your delusions?
Not according to Google (see the quote above). Mail is only offline capable if you're running Outlook or something equivalent - and that won't work on a crapbook. Docs works the same way.
I see. So businesses are support to throw out their entire IT infrastructure and jump into using crapbooks simply because Google promises that some day they'll be useful? :roll eyes:
You Google shills must really think that users are stupid.
Google admitted that they DO mine data from Google Apps. See above.
So who do we believe - a published statement from Google or the whining of a Google shill?
Better in what way?
Security? No way
Reliability? Nope
Speed? Nope
Are you purposefully obtuse or just a really loud idiot?
It is not that hard to understand but you refuse to even try...
I will waste my time once more and then at your uniquely ridiculous riposte I shall quit while I retain some sanity.
1. TCO - it is what it is - your inane rant about macbooks is irrelevant. If you look up Gartner or other reputable TCO calcs and you will see that desktop support NOT all internal IT is $3900-5300 per PC over 3 years. It is just fact.
2. NONE OF THIS INCLUDES INTERNAL IT DEV. That is all separate $s. (All those apps will work fine on Chrome). I didn't claim that IT support costs went to zero - you just inferred that. I just stated that whatever the Google TCO is, it won't be anything near to the standard cost. Even just using virtual desktop saves 20% over standard TCO and that is with the expensive hardware and fat MS licenses that go away with a Chrome solution. Many of the desktop support activities I mention do go away. You just walk up with another box, plug it in and don't have to do anything else. When one of our PC's breaks or at a client, it is a 2-3 day process to get a replacement, move data, reconfig the machine, etc.
3. Your argument seemed to be that $1008 is basically hardware cost, not what it is - hardware, 3-year warranty, tech support, and several cloud services. Businesses don't buy cheap laptops - they mostly buy $1000 Lenovo's HPs and Dells with expensive 3 year service contracts. The fact that you can find some cheap PCs with decent specs is irrelevant.
4. The Chromebooks cost what a netbook costs $349-429 base. Thus my estimate for a desktop is based on what the same spec nettop costs today - $150-250. Fair assumption. You are an idiot if you can't see what an Atom net-top machine costs today.
5. Google Apps had offline with Gears which they ended last year and has committed to HTML5 based offline capability this year. Yes they are late but we have no reason not to believe that Google will deliver what they have said and delivered in the past via HTML5 soon.
6. Enterprise IT is constantly redesigning its infrastructure. Most of our clients are at some stage of radically moving to cloud based infrastructure, refactoring their enterprise apps to be virtualized and many of them are outsourcing their cloud to hosters. If the cloud backs up all your desktop data, you can ditch that legacy cost of local backup, file shares, etc. Simple really. Chrome has nothing to do with a company's SAP or Siebel, Oracle, Autonomy or any other unrelated enterprise system.
7. I am not a Google shill. I barely use their consumer services for many of the mildly paranoid reasons you espouse. I bleed multi-colored Apple. I just see the massive potential for this approach to enterprise desktop management regardless of whether it is offered by Google, HP, Apple or JRag Industries. You are some kind of massive Google hater which seems to massively impair your cognitive faculties.
8. Google does not data mine corporate Apps "(Note that there is no ad-related scanning or processing in Google Apps for Education or Business with ads disabled)" - from the Privacy policy. Many reputable companies already use Google Apps including Genentech/Roche Pharmaceuticals:
From InformationWeek:
"Pierce [Genentech CIO] thinks a lot of CIOs are operating on "urban legends or rumor or misinformation" when they dismiss Google software for security and privacy reasons. That's a mistake, he says, "because this, in my opinion, is a major, major shift in technology and tools and capability. It's meeting a big unmet need. In these times, where people are really trying to figure out how can I control costs, how can I keep up with life-cycle management while managing cost--this is a dream come true. This level of functionality and ease of use at $50 per user per year: What's another example of a tool that has those properties in the enterprise?"
It's not right for everyone but it is right for many. Your opinion is irrelevant to reality.
9. Security - most security failures are from Users, not hackers. Google is fully SAS70 compliant and is less likely to be hacked than all but the most paranoid of enterprises. If users lose data or give away their passwords they will do it regardless of platform except that under Chrome/Cloud people aren't moving files by USB drive and leaving it somewhere. On the flipside - giving away your password could be more dangerous under Chrome.
Speed - Chrome will run better than MS Virtual Desktop on WinXP or 7 on lesser hardware for the basic desktop tasks that this is designed for.
Like all the others, I will end my side of the debate here. You are welcome to rant on like the lunatic you are. Nighty night.
Compared to $3000 for a leased device that only needs a web browser on the LAN, then that is a steal for the enterprise. For the consumer $349 will get you full-sized notebook and oversized-multitouch trackpad. You know this but you keep fudging the facts for some odd hatred of Google.
This is a good deal vs $449 for a 14" 2.53GHz Core i3 Win 7 home premium laptop from Dell? That can't run any apps but what Google provides?
Hint: The $449 laptop can still run Google Apps and apps from their marketplace.
What frigging planet are you guys pushing chomebooks as a good consumer deal living on? One without cheap Win7 laptops evidently.
And hey look...enterprise and edu chromebooks subscriptions require a 3 year contract, min qty 10.
The Samsung Series 5 3G runs $33/month (business) and comes with 100MB data per month. 100MB...wooohoooo!
The ETF? Pay out the remaining months. Congrats...your $28 netbook just cost you $1008. AND YOU CAN'T CANCEL.
Assuming you can fire 90% of your IT staff and have zero dependency on MS Office and other productivity and business apps this makes great sense and represents a huge cost savings.
On paper.
Ask Munich how well their Linux thing worked out for them. On paper it looked amazing to get rid of Micro$oft and their virus ridden stuff, huge IT infrastructure, etc.
This could be brilliant.
On the other hand that's what a lot of really smart folks said about Google Wave.
Actually I cannot work on a plane because I do need network access. I consider this a blessing when travelling.
However, this is back to the argument that ChromeOS will fail unless it handles 100% of people's requirements no matter how extreme. But that is not true. There are categories of workers who already spend all day in the browser, do not fly around the country, are not regularly editing massive video files etc. These people could switch to ChromeOS right away.
ChromeOS isn't a threat to OS-X but it could take a similar 5% or 10% of the market from Windows (those numbers are pure guesses by me). That must be worrying for MS being attacked from the top and now the bottom.
So you can pick up ANY device running your OS of choice, log into it and have access to all your information without configuring it?
Sure, for $50 a year. Or $72 a year. Cloud based services all do this. This is the primary advantage.
The primary disadvantage appears when the cloud is down or otherwise unavailable.
Quote:
Not the same thing. I won't bother explaining it because that's what we've been doing for multiple pages already.
Please, you're claiming that this is some huge advantage that was impossible before because your school didn't set up file shares...and you mentioned ZIP drives so I'm wondering which decade you're talking about...
ChromeOS will fail because it will not reach critical mass of sales 200K per month by 12/31/11.
Why?
Not because it is a thin-client that can run local apps -- rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable and the data you need is on the network.
ChromeOS forces this situation -- and is not robust enough to compensate for network unavailability.
Really, IT Director to ChromeOS Salesman: "you're gonna' pay me how much per month per seat to use this?:
5-10 years down the road maybe -- but not now.
A Xoom (or PlayBook or Galaxy Tab) running Android apps is a better solution!
...rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable...
You are sounding like a typical troll who is making shit up despite the truth being stated and shown multiple times over. You know very well it uses HTML5’s local DB options to have any and all apps and data stored with the user.
I don’t complain 30k feet up if I can’t get Netflix because I know that is not local. I don’t complain that I can’t get new mail or do a google search because I know that is not local. Why are you choosing not to understand what this OS can do?
The offline support is part of html5. It has nothing to do with ChromeOS and should work with Safari and on the iPad/iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don?t see what parts of Android and Chrome can merge.
If not in code then at least in function.
Syncing needs to be a function of the OS (or at least the browser), not at the application layer.
I need to some more testing on ChromeOS (they might have already implemented it!!) but it fails on Chrome (the browser).
A great example of what I'm talking about is Angry Birds which, with all the fanfare and its prominent position on the Chrome Web Store I'm sure you will agree is one of the "premier" apps for ChromeOS.
When you play a game on one browser, then log in to a browser on a separate PC you get the app installed automatically... but you don't get the saved games.
I need to test in Chrome OS itself (not just the browser), but the idea that an app might work offline (or it might not) and that it might sync its data (or it might not) and that if it does sync you don't really know where or how highlights a current failure of the entire concept and shows it's not ready for "prime time".
Of course Google can (will?) fix this. Like I said Google Music shows the kind of syncing functionality they need to shift to the entire system.
Syncing needs to be a function of the OS (or at least the browser), not at the application layer.
I need to some more testing on ChromeOS (they might have already implemented it!!) but it fails on Chrome (the browser).
A great example of what I'm talking about is Angry Birds which, with all the fanfare and its prominent position on the Chrome Web Store I'm sure you will agree is one of the "premier" apps for ChromeOS.
When you play a game on one browser, then log in to a browser on a separate PC you get the app installed automatically... but you don't get the saved games.
I need to test in Chrome OS itself (not just the browser), but the idea that an app might work offline (or it might not) and that it might sync its data (or it might not) and that if it does sync you don't really know where or how highlights a current failure of the entire concept and shows it's not ready for "prime time".
Of course Google can (will?) fix this. Like I said Google Music shows the kind of syncing functionality they need to shift to the entire system.
In all fairness, you don?t get this with any disparate version of iOS. The only way this would work is if you have both an iPhone or iPod Touch, or more than one of each iOS device type by screen size.
I?m surprised that Apple hasn?t added APIs that tie app data between devices.
You are sounding like a typical troll who is making shit up despite the truth being stated and shown multiple times over. You know very well it uses HTML5’s local DB options to have any and all apps and data stored with the user.
I resent that!
In over 5,000 AI posts (some under the dicklacara name) you are the first to insinuate that I am a troll.
BTW, Dick Applebaum is my real name.
I have tried in good faith to:
-- be open minded
-- to test Chrome Browser on 2 Macs
-- to educate myself by reading the announcements and reviews
-- by participating in this discussion forum
All-in-all I have spent over 20 hours trying to understand the claims of others -- and to try to make Chrome Browser work on two Intel iMacs -- with all the OS and software updates current.
Chrome Browser did not work acceptably on either Mac.
I am not naive nor stupid nor technically challenged-- I tried to make it work -- but I couldn't!
Sooner or later you must recognize an effort as a lost cause an abandon it.
That's what I have done.
The burden of proof is now the responsibility of others.
-- to educate myself by reading the announcements and reviews
-- by participating in this discussion forum
All-in-all I have spent over 20 hours trying to understand the claims of others -- and to try to make Chrome Browser work on two Intel iMacs -- with all the OS and software updates current.
Chrome Browser did not work acceptably on either Mac.
I am not naive nor stupid -- I tried to make it work -- but I couldn't!
Sooner or later you must recognize an effort as a lost cause an abandon it.
That's what I have done.
The burden of proof is now the responsibility of others.
I know your’e not naive or stupid, and I worded my comment very carefully to say “sounding like”, not saying that you are.
I posted info right from Googles Chrome OS page:
Every Chromebook runs millions of web apps, from games to spreadsheets to photo editors. Thanks to the power of HTML5, many apps keep working even in those rare moments when you're not connected.
So you either you think Google is lying in that you can run apps and play videos and open documents (just like on WebOS) when you’re in Airplane Mode (or 30k ft up) or you’re choosing to ignore all these data that has been presented to you. But why? You’re ability to test it yourself should have no barring on these facts.
I know your’e not naive or stupid, and I worded my comment very carefully to say “sounding like”, not saying that you are.
I posted info right from Googles Chrome OS page:
Every Chromebook runs millions of web apps, from games to spreadsheets to photo editors. Thanks to the power of HTML5, many apps keep working even in those rare moments when you're not connected.
So you either you think Google is lying in that you can run apps and play videos and open documents (just like on WebOS) when you’re in Airplane Mode (or 30k ft up) or you’re choosing to ignore all these data that has been presented to you. But why? You’re ability to test it yourself should have no barring on these facts.
To the latter:
Why?
If you/they/anyone claims that people can do things -- why shouldn't I be able to prove to myself that what they claim is true -- If not, then you/they should be touting MS Cairo.
I believe nothing I read -- until it can be proven.
In all fairness, you don’t get this with any disparate version of iOS. The only way this would work is if you have both an iPhone or iPod Touch, or more than one of each iOS device type by screen size.
I’m surprised that Apple hasn’t added APIs that tie app data between devices.
Syncing between different devices (like PC/tablet/phone/TV... car?) is a different problem altogether - although it's one that needs to be addressed as well.
Here I'm talking about plugging your username/password into two ChromeOS notebooks and not having your data synced between the two. When I download an app I have no way of knowing if it's going to work offline or not, if it's going to sync its data or not, and if it does sync its data where it does this to and how it does it (i.e. how it deals with sync conflicts).
As long as these kind of inconsistencies exist the concept around ChromeOS is a failure.
That's not to say Google can't fix it (I believe they will) but as it stands Chrome OS is not ready for a production environment. They might only be a couple of major releases away from something that's functional - and looking at Google's development cycles that might only be 1 or 2 years away.
There are a couple of other issues I just thought of that I haven't researched yet.
One is backup. If my Angry Birds saved data isn't synced between devices... then where the heck is it?
On Windows you have Live Mesh (or a 3rd party app) to sync between devices and backup to the cloud, on OSX you have Time Machine. What happens to my local data if my Chrome Book dies?
The second is file sharing between apps. From memory the Indexed DB is sand boxed between domains (I need to double check this) so if, for example, your Google docs are stored offline and you have an image editor app you want to use you need to either:
Open your Google docs, save the image to disk, open the image editor, edit the image, save back to disk, open Google docs again and re upload the file or
Have the image editor hook directly into Google docs and re-download the image (not fun on a 3G connection) and which I think will only work online (more investigation needed!).
I’m fully expecting something that works like Dropbox to be part of Chrome OS and every modern “cloud”.
Meaning your data is stored locally and in the cloud by default with the options to not share folders to others across OSes or just retain online. Of course you’ll have your typical local data options that don’t interact with the cloud, too.
On top of that you’ll get other features in Dropbox, like quickly searching for previous revisions of files and deleted files that you can restore, with only the changes of the files being pushed out to minimize the amount of data and time to sync.
Believe me when I say Dropbox can work on Chrome OS just like it does on Windows or Mac OS. The data in apps aren’t like in iOS and only regulated to the apps that are using them.
I?m fully expecting something that works like Dropbox to be part of Chrome OS and every modern "cloud".
I totally agree with that. I also think Chrome OS must have that functionality to gain wide acceptance.
I like the way Google Music has "smart" syncing for devices with limited local storage. If Google persist with this limited storage model I think they will need a hybrid between Dropbox and Google Music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Believe me when I say Dropbox can work on Chrome OS just like it does on Windows or Mac OS. The data in apps aren?t like in iOS and only regulated to the apps that are using them.
Are you referring to the local file system or the Indexed DB? I was thinking about the Indexed DB.
I've been mulling over the problem and I don't think simply syncing the Indexed DB for each app is the solution... however the storage of application settings and configuration isn't something you want saved in a file either (as the Chrome needs to ask for permission each time it saves).
I'm thinking now Google might need another API into Google Docs to store configuration and settings for apps on the Chrome Web Store.
The only problem is that would tie Chrome Web Apps to Google (maybe not such a bad thing in Google's eyes)
5) I doubt that would include any 3G service for that price when a smartphone is $30/month just fo unlimited internet access.
I've read somewhere it will include some basic 3G data plan - 100MB or so. Good enough for urgent email over 3G, especially if user is living in wifi rich environment.
I think it is interesting idea, but would like to see all the details. Details about local caching of apps and local data storage (with option to sync with online storage when in wifi coverage). And of course, there is always a question of available apps (and quality) for specific needs in education and business. Also collaboration with PCs and tablets (I don't think unis will get rid of their existing IT infrastructure, likewise corporations) so this thing will have to speak some Microsoft standards, if nothing else.
Are you purposefully obtuse or just a really loud idiot?
It is not that hard to understand but you refuse to even try...
You used a lot of words but didn't refute anything I said. You just keep repeating the same old debunked arguments. The crapbook is more expensive than a real laptop and does far less.
As for the rest, it's really sad how the Google shills accept everything Google tells them so uncritically. Google makes a statement and it's suddenly gospel - without any proof or evidence of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
Like all the others, I will end my side of the debate here. You are welcome to rant on like the lunatic you are. Nighty night.
Funny how the people like you who can't logically or rationally refute my arguments always have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Not because it is a thin-client that can run local apps -- rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable and the data you need is on the network.
Thick client or thin client, if you are using browser based apps - as many companies already are - they are both worthless when the network goes down.
Dick, where is the current version of the file you are working on:
1) In the cloud
2) on your iMac
3) on an external USB Drive
Pick one!
Same damn thing. Files can be stored in multiple places for multiple reasons. That?s how modern computers function.
Like it or not, you?re still ignoring that Chrome OS doesn?t have to be tethered to anything to work.
You?re inventing a problem that doesn?t exist. If it exists then tell me how one can still play video, read emails, listen to music, and edit documents on a Palm Pre when Airplane Mode is enabled.
Like it or not, you're still ignoring that ChomeBook is far more degraded when not connected than a $450 netbook/laptop. Apps designed for local processing vs cloud processing will behave the same whether connected of not. A chrome webapp missing the backend processing will be far more limited.
Sure, you wont see this in angrybirds or most of google apps but not even the proverbial grandma or the average student is limited to just those sets of apps.
16GB for data and apps vs 250GB (typical 12" netbook HDD size) for data and apps makes a pretty big difference when off the network.
So I'd still rather have a HP Pavillion dm1z which is faster and costs about the same as the Samsung Series 5 WiFi.
Comments
Funny, but when the issue was whether MacBooks were too expensive, people like you were denying numbers like that. Now that it's convenient, you are suddenly sure that the numbers are real.
You're using a bogus imaginary argument. IT costs for a company do not go to zero simply because they use a crapbook. They still need to develop custom apps. Still need to support user problems. Still need to train users. Still need to manage their servers. Still need to support the network infrastructure.
Claiming that IT support costs go to zero is absolute proof that you don't have ANY idea what you're talking about.
I see you're still ignoring the fact that I can buy a REAL laptop for much less than a crapbook. Oh, I get it - you want everyone to accept Google's inane proposition that no one will ever need an IT group again? Sorry, I'm not buying.
I never said that it was for individuals. In fact, all of my arguments were specifically directed at business use.
And I'm not interested in your expectations of price. You can't even get the facts right - why should I pay any attention to your delusions?
Not according to Google (see the quote above). Mail is only offline capable if you're running Outlook or something equivalent - and that won't work on a crapbook. Docs works the same way.
I see. So businesses are support to throw out their entire IT infrastructure and jump into using crapbooks simply because Google promises that some day they'll be useful?
You Google shills must really think that users are stupid.
Google admitted that they DO mine data from Google Apps. See above.
So who do we believe - a published statement from Google or the whining of a Google shill?
Better in what way?
Security? No way
Reliability? Nope
Speed? Nope
Are you purposefully obtuse or just a really loud idiot?
It is not that hard to understand but you refuse to even try...
I will waste my time once more and then at your uniquely ridiculous riposte I shall quit while I retain some sanity.
1. TCO - it is what it is - your inane rant about macbooks is irrelevant. If you look up Gartner or other reputable TCO calcs and you will see that desktop support NOT all internal IT is $3900-5300 per PC over 3 years. It is just fact.
2. NONE OF THIS INCLUDES INTERNAL IT DEV. That is all separate $s. (All those apps will work fine on Chrome). I didn't claim that IT support costs went to zero - you just inferred that. I just stated that whatever the Google TCO is, it won't be anything near to the standard cost. Even just using virtual desktop saves 20% over standard TCO and that is with the expensive hardware and fat MS licenses that go away with a Chrome solution. Many of the desktop support activities I mention do go away. You just walk up with another box, plug it in and don't have to do anything else. When one of our PC's breaks or at a client, it is a 2-3 day process to get a replacement, move data, reconfig the machine, etc.
3. Your argument seemed to be that $1008 is basically hardware cost, not what it is - hardware, 3-year warranty, tech support, and several cloud services. Businesses don't buy cheap laptops - they mostly buy $1000 Lenovo's HPs and Dells with expensive 3 year service contracts. The fact that you can find some cheap PCs with decent specs is irrelevant.
4. The Chromebooks cost what a netbook costs $349-429 base. Thus my estimate for a desktop is based on what the same spec nettop costs today - $150-250. Fair assumption. You are an idiot if you can't see what an Atom net-top machine costs today.
5. Google Apps had offline with Gears which they ended last year and has committed to HTML5 based offline capability this year. Yes they are late but we have no reason not to believe that Google will deliver what they have said and delivered in the past via HTML5 soon.
6. Enterprise IT is constantly redesigning its infrastructure. Most of our clients are at some stage of radically moving to cloud based infrastructure, refactoring their enterprise apps to be virtualized and many of them are outsourcing their cloud to hosters. If the cloud backs up all your desktop data, you can ditch that legacy cost of local backup, file shares, etc. Simple really. Chrome has nothing to do with a company's SAP or Siebel, Oracle, Autonomy or any other unrelated enterprise system.
7. I am not a Google shill. I barely use their consumer services for many of the mildly paranoid reasons you espouse. I bleed multi-colored Apple. I just see the massive potential for this approach to enterprise desktop management regardless of whether it is offered by Google, HP, Apple or JRag Industries. You are some kind of massive Google hater which seems to massively impair your cognitive faculties.
8. Google does not data mine corporate Apps "(Note that there is no ad-related scanning or processing in Google Apps for Education or Business with ads disabled)" - from the Privacy policy. Many reputable companies already use Google Apps including Genentech/Roche Pharmaceuticals:
From InformationWeek:
"Pierce [Genentech CIO] thinks a lot of CIOs are operating on "urban legends or rumor or misinformation" when they dismiss Google software for security and privacy reasons. That's a mistake, he says, "because this, in my opinion, is a major, major shift in technology and tools and capability. It's meeting a big unmet need. In these times, where people are really trying to figure out how can I control costs, how can I keep up with life-cycle management while managing cost--this is a dream come true. This level of functionality and ease of use at $50 per user per year: What's another example of a tool that has those properties in the enterprise?"
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...apps/224202359
It's not right for everyone but it is right for many. Your opinion is irrelevant to reality.
9. Security - most security failures are from Users, not hackers. Google is fully SAS70 compliant and is less likely to be hacked than all but the most paranoid of enterprises. If users lose data or give away their passwords they will do it regardless of platform except that under Chrome/Cloud people aren't moving files by USB drive and leaving it somewhere. On the flipside - giving away your password could be more dangerous under Chrome.
Speed - Chrome will run better than MS Virtual Desktop on WinXP or 7 on lesser hardware for the basic desktop tasks that this is designed for.
Like all the others, I will end my side of the debate here. You are welcome to rant on like the lunatic you are. Nighty night.
Good luck with that @ 30,000 ft...
+++ best post in This thread!
Compared to $3000 for a leased device that only needs a web browser on the LAN, then that is a steal for the enterprise. For the consumer $349 will get you full-sized notebook and oversized-multitouch trackpad. You know this but you keep fudging the facts for some odd hatred of Google.
This is a good deal vs $449 for a 14" 2.53GHz Core i3 Win 7 home premium laptop from Dell? That can't run any apps but what Google provides?
Hint: The $449 laptop can still run Google Apps and apps from their marketplace.
What frigging planet are you guys pushing chomebooks as a good consumer deal living on? One without cheap Win7 laptops evidently.
http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-14...-14r-combo-mod
Oh, hey look...$20 per month on lease from Dell.
And hey look...enterprise and edu chromebooks subscriptions require a 3 year contract, min qty 10.
The Samsung Series 5 3G runs $33/month (business) and comes with 100MB data per month. 100MB...wooohoooo!
The ETF? Pay out the remaining months. Congrats...your $28 netbook just cost you $1008. AND YOU CAN'T CANCEL.
Assuming you can fire 90% of your IT staff and have zero dependency on MS Office and other productivity and business apps this makes great sense and represents a huge cost savings.
On paper.
Ask Munich how well their Linux thing worked out for them. On paper it looked amazing to get rid of Micro$oft and their virus ridden stuff, huge IT infrastructure, etc.
This could be brilliant.
On the other hand that's what a lot of really smart folks said about Google Wave.
Good luck with that @ 30,000 ft...
Actually I cannot work on a plane because I do need network access. I consider this a blessing when travelling.
However, this is back to the argument that ChromeOS will fail unless it handles 100% of people's requirements no matter how extreme. But that is not true. There are categories of workers who already spend all day in the browser, do not fly around the country, are not regularly editing massive video files etc. These people could switch to ChromeOS right away.
ChromeOS isn't a threat to OS-X but it could take a similar 5% or 10% of the market from Windows (those numbers are pure guesses by me). That must be worrying for MS being attacked from the top and now the bottom.
So you can pick up ANY device running your OS of choice, log into it and have access to all your information without configuring it?
Sure, for $50 a year. Or $72 a year. Cloud based services all do this. This is the primary advantage.
The primary disadvantage appears when the cloud is down or otherwise unavailable.
Not the same thing. I won't bother explaining it because that's what we've been doing for multiple pages already.
Please, you're claiming that this is some huge advantage that was impossible before because your school didn't set up file shares...and you mentioned ZIP drives so I'm wondering which decade you're talking about...
ChromeOS will fail because it will not reach critical mass of sales 200K per month by 12/31/11.
Why?
Not because it is a thin-client that can run local apps -- rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable and the data you need is on the network.
ChromeOS forces this situation -- and is not robust enough to compensate for network unavailability.
Really, IT Director to ChromeOS Salesman: "you're gonna' pay me how much per month per seat to use this?:
5-10 years down the road maybe -- but not now.
A Xoom (or PlayBook or Galaxy Tab) running Android apps is a better solution!
...rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable...
You are sounding like a typical troll who is making shit up despite the truth being stated and shown multiple times over. You know very well it uses HTML5’s local DB options to have any and all apps and data stored with the user.
I don’t complain 30k feet up if I can’t get Netflix because I know that is not local. I don’t complain that I can’t get new mail or do a google search because I know that is not local. Why are you choosing not to understand what this OS can do?
The offline support is part of html5. It has nothing to do with ChromeOS and should work with Safari and on the iPad/iPhone.
I don?t see what parts of Android and Chrome can merge.
If not in code then at least in function.
Syncing needs to be a function of the OS (or at least the browser), not at the application layer.
I need to some more testing on ChromeOS (they might have already implemented it!!) but it fails on Chrome (the browser).
A great example of what I'm talking about is Angry Birds which, with all the fanfare and its prominent position on the Chrome Web Store I'm sure you will agree is one of the "premier" apps for ChromeOS.
When you play a game on one browser, then log in to a browser on a separate PC you get the app installed automatically... but you don't get the saved games.
I need to test in Chrome OS itself (not just the browser), but the idea that an app might work offline (or it might not) and that it might sync its data (or it might not) and that if it does sync you don't really know where or how highlights a current failure of the entire concept and shows it's not ready for "prime time".
Of course Google can (will?) fix this. Like I said Google Music shows the kind of syncing functionality they need to shift to the entire system.
If not in code then at least in function.
Syncing needs to be a function of the OS (or at least the browser), not at the application layer.
I need to some more testing on ChromeOS (they might have already implemented it!!) but it fails on Chrome (the browser).
A great example of what I'm talking about is Angry Birds which, with all the fanfare and its prominent position on the Chrome Web Store I'm sure you will agree is one of the "premier" apps for ChromeOS.
When you play a game on one browser, then log in to a browser on a separate PC you get the app installed automatically... but you don't get the saved games.
I need to test in Chrome OS itself (not just the browser), but the idea that an app might work offline (or it might not) and that it might sync its data (or it might not) and that if it does sync you don't really know where or how highlights a current failure of the entire concept and shows it's not ready for "prime time".
Of course Google can (will?) fix this. Like I said Google Music shows the kind of syncing functionality they need to shift to the entire system.
In all fairness, you don?t get this with any disparate version of iOS. The only way this would work is if you have both an iPhone or iPod Touch, or more than one of each iOS device type by screen size.
I?m surprised that Apple hasn?t added APIs that tie app data between devices.
You are sounding like a typical troll who is making shit up despite the truth being stated and shown multiple times over. You know very well it uses HTML5’s local DB options to have any and all apps and data stored with the user.
I resent that!
In over 5,000 AI posts (some under the dicklacara name) you are the first to insinuate that I am a troll.
BTW, Dick Applebaum is my real name.
I have tried in good faith to:
-- be open minded
-- to test Chrome Browser on 2 Macs
-- to educate myself by reading the announcements and reviews
-- by participating in this discussion forum
All-in-all I have spent over 20 hours trying to understand the claims of others -- and to try to make Chrome Browser work on two Intel iMacs -- with all the OS and software updates current.
Chrome Browser did not work acceptably on either Mac.
I am not naive nor stupid nor technically challenged-- I tried to make it work -- but I couldn't!
Sooner or later you must recognize an effort as a lost cause an abandon it.
That's what I have done.
The burden of proof is now the responsibility of others.
I resent that!
I have tried in good faith to:
-- be open minded
-- to test Chrome Browser on 2 Macs
-- to educate myself by reading the announcements and reviews
-- by participating in this discussion forum
All-in-all I have spent over 20 hours trying to understand the claims of others -- and to try to make Chrome Browser work on two Intel iMacs -- with all the OS and software updates current.
Chrome Browser did not work acceptably on either Mac.
I am not naive nor stupid -- I tried to make it work -- but I couldn't!
Sooner or later you must recognize an effort as a lost cause an abandon it.
That's what I have done.
The burden of proof is now the responsibility of others.
I know your’e not naive or stupid, and I worded my comment very carefully to say “sounding like”, not saying that you are.
I posted info right from Googles Chrome OS page:So you either you think Google is lying in that you can run apps and play videos and open documents (just like on WebOS) when you’re in Airplane Mode (or 30k ft up) or you’re choosing to ignore all these data that has been presented to you. But why? You’re ability to test it yourself should have no barring on these facts.
I know your’e not naive or stupid, and I worded my comment very carefully to say “sounding like”, not saying that you are.
I posted info right from Googles Chrome OS page:So you either you think Google is lying in that you can run apps and play videos and open documents (just like on WebOS) when you’re in Airplane Mode (or 30k ft up) or you’re choosing to ignore all these data that has been presented to you. But why? You’re ability to test it yourself should have no barring on these facts.
To the latter:
Why?
If you/they/anyone claims that people can do things -- why shouldn't I be able to prove to myself that what they claim is true -- If not, then you/they should be touting MS Cairo.
I believe nothing I read -- until it can be proven.
In all fairness, you don’t get this with any disparate version of iOS. The only way this would work is if you have both an iPhone or iPod Touch, or more than one of each iOS device type by screen size.
I’m surprised that Apple hasn’t added APIs that tie app data between devices.
Syncing between different devices (like PC/tablet/phone/TV... car?) is a different problem altogether - although it's one that needs to be addressed as well.
Here I'm talking about plugging your username/password into two ChromeOS notebooks and not having your data synced between the two. When I download an app I have no way of knowing if it's going to work offline or not, if it's going to sync its data or not, and if it does sync its data where it does this to and how it does it (i.e. how it deals with sync conflicts).
As long as these kind of inconsistencies exist the concept around ChromeOS is a failure.
That's not to say Google can't fix it (I believe they will) but as it stands Chrome OS is not ready for a production environment. They might only be a couple of major releases away from something that's functional - and looking at Google's development cycles that might only be 1 or 2 years away.
There are a couple of other issues I just thought of that I haven't researched yet.
One is backup. If my Angry Birds saved data isn't synced between devices... then where the heck is it?
On Windows you have Live Mesh (or a 3rd party app) to sync between devices and backup to the cloud, on OSX you have Time Machine. What happens to my local data if my Chrome Book dies?
The second is file sharing between apps. From memory the Indexed DB is sand boxed between domains (I need to double check this) so if, for example, your Google docs are stored offline and you have an image editor app you want to use you need to either:
I’m fully expecting something that works like Dropbox to be part of Chrome OS and every modern “cloud”.
Meaning your data is stored locally and in the cloud by default with the options to not share folders to others across OSes or just retain online. Of course you’ll have your typical local data options that don’t interact with the cloud, too.
On top of that you’ll get other features in Dropbox, like quickly searching for previous revisions of files and deleted files that you can restore, with only the changes of the files being pushed out to minimize the amount of data and time to sync.
Believe me when I say Dropbox can work on Chrome OS just like it does on Windows or Mac OS. The data in apps aren’t like in iOS and only regulated to the apps that are using them.
I?m fully expecting something that works like Dropbox to be part of Chrome OS and every modern "cloud".
I totally agree with that. I also think Chrome OS must have that functionality to gain wide acceptance.
I like the way Google Music has "smart" syncing for devices with limited local storage. If Google persist with this limited storage model I think they will need a hybrid between Dropbox and Google Music.
Believe me when I say Dropbox can work on Chrome OS just like it does on Windows or Mac OS. The data in apps aren?t like in iOS and only regulated to the apps that are using them.
Are you referring to the local file system or the Indexed DB? I was thinking about the Indexed DB.
I've been mulling over the problem and I don't think simply syncing the Indexed DB for each app is the solution... however the storage of application settings and configuration isn't something you want saved in a file either (as the Chrome needs to ask for permission each time it saves).
I'm thinking now Google might need another API into Google Docs to store configuration and settings for apps on the Chrome Web Store.
The only problem is that would tie Chrome Web Apps to Google (maybe not such a bad thing in Google's eyes)
1)
5) I doubt that would include any 3G service for that price when a smartphone is $30/month just fo unlimited internet access.
I've read somewhere it will include some basic 3G data plan - 100MB or so. Good enough for urgent email over 3G, especially if user is living in wifi rich environment.
I think it is interesting idea, but would like to see all the details. Details about local caching of apps and local data storage (with option to sync with online storage when in wifi coverage). And of course, there is always a question of available apps (and quality) for specific needs in education and business. Also collaboration with PCs and tablets (I don't think unis will get rid of their existing IT infrastructure, likewise corporations) so this thing will have to speak some Microsoft standards, if nothing else.
Are you purposefully obtuse or just a really loud idiot?
It is not that hard to understand but you refuse to even try...
You used a lot of words but didn't refute anything I said. You just keep repeating the same old debunked arguments. The crapbook is more expensive than a real laptop and does far less.
As for the rest, it's really sad how the Google shills accept everything Google tells them so uncritically. Google makes a statement and it's suddenly gospel - without any proof or evidence of any kind.
Like all the others, I will end my side of the debate here. You are welcome to rant on like the lunatic you are. Nighty night.
Funny how the people like you who can't logically or rationally refute my arguments always have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Not because it is a thin-client that can run local apps -- rather because it is totally worthless if the network is unavailable and the data you need is on the network.
Thick client or thin client, if you are using browser based apps - as many companies already are - they are both worthless when the network goes down.
Dick, where is the current version of the file you are working on:
1) In the cloud
2) on your iMac
3) on an external USB Drive
Pick one!
Same damn thing. Files can be stored in multiple places for multiple reasons. That?s how modern computers function.
Like it or not, you?re still ignoring that Chrome OS doesn?t have to be tethered to anything to work.
You?re inventing a problem that doesn?t exist. If it exists then tell me how one can still play video, read emails, listen to music, and edit documents on a Palm Pre when Airplane Mode is enabled.
Like it or not, you're still ignoring that ChomeBook is far more degraded when not connected than a $450 netbook/laptop. Apps designed for local processing vs cloud processing will behave the same whether connected of not. A chrome webapp missing the backend processing will be far more limited.
Sure, you wont see this in angrybirds or most of google apps but not even the proverbial grandma or the average student is limited to just those sets of apps.
16GB for data and apps vs 250GB (typical 12" netbook HDD size) for data and apps makes a pretty big difference when off the network.
So I'd still rather have a HP Pavillion dm1z which is faster and costs about the same as the Samsung Series 5 WiFi.
Thick client or thin client, if you are using browser based apps - as many companies already are - they are both worthless when the network goes down.
Except that a similar cost netbook can run both cloud and native applications AND companies do not EXCLUSIVELY run cloud based apps.