Google plan touchscreen Chromebook

[aj654987]

Uh, isn't Chrome OS basically just the desktop version of Chrome? How many of the Chrome apps (including desktop Chrome itself) are touch optimized?

Honestly Google needs to just give it up, incorporate desktop Chrome into Android and sell AndroidBooks.

This, there is overlap between their products and android is clearly better and more supported.

Seems like someone high up in google is afraid to kill off chrome OS as if its admitting its a failure. But you can still use the tech developed in making it and incorporate that into making a full chrome browser that runs on android. Like intel killing off their GPU card but using the tech in their cpus.

 

[Eug]

If the Chromebook ran a tarted up Android, I would have already bought one, as a kitchen replacement to my wife's iBook.

But since the Chromebook just runs Chrome OS, I'm looking for something else completely. Sorry, but not even a $199 price tag has won me over.

Acer's C7 Chromebook is $199 and feelin' fine (relatively)

BTW, my Window 7 Acer 11.6" laptop kinda sucks, but it sucks less after I put a cheap SSD in it. But it still kinda sucks. I was almost tempted to just install Linux on it instead, but Linux for it supposedly hit and miss. Unfortunately, Chrome OS is even more limited from what I gather. If I could install Android on it and have all the Android features run perfectly I might have done that though. It's not as if Google would care that much it's not a Google product, as long as they can mine their data from me.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

If the Chromebook ran a tarted up Android, I would have already bought one, as a kitchen replacement to my wife's iBook.

But since the Chromebook just runs Chrome OS, I'm looking for something else completely. Sorry, but not even a $199 price tag has won me over.

Acer's C7 Chromebook is $199 and feelin' fine (relatively)

BTW, my Window 7 Acer 11.6" laptop kinda sucks, but it sucks less after I put a cheap SSD in it. But it still kinda sucks. I was almost tempted to just install Linux on it instead, but Linux for it supposedly hit and miss. Unfortunately, Chrome OS is even more limited from what I gather. If I could install Android on it and have all the Android features run perfectly I might have done that though. It's not as if Google would care that much it's not a Google product, as long as they can mine their data from me.

why do people keep saying they want android instead of chromeos. the purpose of chrome is to give you the full web experience (with multiple windows and tabs) in a slick environment, something android doesnt do. why would you want cell phone surfing at home?

 

[Mopetar]

*Totally* different market. Chrome is a grandma-proof OS. If a reader of this forum buys it, it's to have a third/fourth/fifth device you don't have to ever think about maintaining.

There's probably a Linux distro that can be configured to act similarly. Also, Google could have just spun a similarly restricted and grandma-friendly version of Android.

why do people keep saying they want android instead of chromeos. the purpose of chrome is to give you the full web experience (with multiple windows and tabs) in a slick environment, something android doesnt do. why would you want cell phone surfing at home?

I can't speak for everyone, but what I've been saying is that rather than spending a whole lot of development time on ChromeOS, Google could have spend just as much time to adapt Android to accomplish the same task. As a bonus, it would have a huge app ecosystem and a lot more developer interest.

 

[podspi]

why do people keep saying they want android instead of chromeos. the purpose of chrome is to give you the full web experience (with multiple windows and tabs) in a slick environment, something android doesnt do. why would you want cell phone surfing at home?

I don't want either but I am guessing apps.
I happen to own a lapdock for my Motorola, and if the performance wasn't so bad I think it'd be great, so...

 

[thecapsaicinkid]

Companies don't want to be hiring developers for native apps on each platform. Lots of modern apps are just html 5 pages slung in native containers, Facebook for example. If this isn't a sign that android is converging towards chrome then I don't know what is. People are obsessed with apps though, if you can't download it from an app store and stick a colorful icon on a desktop, people aren't interested. Chrome 'apps' seemingly a bizarre attempt to solve this.

 

[Geekbabe]

I have a MacBook Air, an ipad, and SGIII phone, the husband also has Windows laptops. I'm trying to figure out what place a Samsung Chromebook would have in our ecosystem here & drawing a complete blank.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

I don't want either but I am guessing apps.
I happen to own a lapdock for my Motorola, and if the performance wasn't so bad I think it'd be great, so...

jesus those lapdocks are lame. they are a total embarrassment to technology

 

[Eug]

why do people keep saying they want android instead of chromeos. the purpose of chrome is to give you the full web experience (with multiple windows and tabs) in a slick environment, something android doesnt do.

Well, by most reports, Android does it better than Chrome, which is the point. Chrome is just way too immature... to the point it maybe just should be scrapped and incorporated into Android.

why would you want cell phone surfing at home?

I get the impression you've never used a recent (2012) Android tablet for any length of time. Think iPad, but also with full support for keyboards and wired networking, etc.

It would be straightforward to build an 11.6" netbook that runs Android and have it be a grandma machine. It would work way better than Windows Starter netbooks, and even now it would be better in many ways than Chrome OS. However, if Chrome OS were incorporated into Android, that'd give Google a huge leg up on the competition with essentially dominance of a real netbook market, and a great kick start to the Android tablet market.

There's probably a Linux distro that can be configured to act similarly.

Yeah, it's called Android...

Also, Google could have just spun a similarly restricted and grandma-friendly version of Android.

...as you are already aware.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

you really want to web surf on a machine that can only run one full screen app at a time? really?

 

[gorcorps]

you really want to web surf on a machine that can only run one full screen app at a time? really?

Not that I want one, but to be frank... yeah that's all I'd need. When I'm lounging on the couch or something browsing I'm only using the browser. If I want to open something else I can. Not really any different than on Android. If I wanted to bounce into a game or something on Android I can, and my browser stays where I was.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

you really want to web surf on a machine that can only run one full screen app at a time? really?

I'm betting we will see multi window support in Key Lime Pie or whatever the next major release of Android is. Samsung already has split screen multitasking on the Note 2 that works very well. Plus the Nexus 10 would be able to run two full 1280x800 apps side by side so resolution wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Eug]

you really want to web surf on a machine that can only run one full screen app at a time? really?

I'd rather do that than run an OS that has no 3rd party support whatsoever. In fact, I've done it, with an attached keyboard, and it ran quite well.

However, what I'm actually saying is they should just implement that feature in Android. Android already supports tabbed browsing as well as multiple user accounts. And third party apps have already implemented windowed background applications. To reiterate: Integrate Chrome's advantages into Android, and scrap Chrome as a separate OS.

 

[ponyo]

I think ChromeOS and Android will be merged at some point. Touchscreen Chromebook will probably work better with Android than ChromeOS since Android is touch based.

I view Chromebook as cheaper and less powerful Macbook Air. Great primary laptop for kids and older parents. Great second laptop for tech users.

 

[thecapsaicinkid]

I think some of you are missing the point, this isn't Android vs Chrome, it's native vs web. To say Google should just ditch ChromeOS is basically saying we should ditch html5.

There's no doubt that web technology isn't quite there yet but you can bet your ass that A. it will be soon and B. as soon as it is, companies will ditch native as soon as physically possible. No one wants to maintain a web application and hire (expensive) native developers to build Android/OS apps. Like I said earlier, we're almost there already, Android is closer to Chrome than you think, Facebook being one example of a web app stuffed inside a native wrapper.

I'd totally agree that we're not there yet (I've just ordered a Nexus 7, would I want a ChromeOS 7" tab? No way) and for some people, ChromeOS makes no sense but it will start making more and more sense to more people as web technologies allow developers to do everything a native app can do but at a fraction of the development cost.

Take Gmail for example. There is no web version of Gmail which works well on a modern, say 4.3" smartphone or 7" tablet. Full-fat gmail.com is unusable on a phone, especially with the new compose. m.gmail.com looks terrible on anything with a half decent screen size. The app on the other hand is perfect for these devices and yet there's nothing really stopping them from replicating the app's layout in pure web technologies and html5. Ok admittedly the browser is seriously lacking in the unified notifications department, something Chrome needs to take from Android. Google could develop a single web version of gmail which dynamically altered to suit say, 3 common device sizes, but that's unlikely when Android is so tailored to running 'desktop & icon' native apps.

 

[s44]

Lots of modern apps are just html 5 pages slung in native containers, Facebook for example.

That's not the future, it's the past: this is why the Facebook app sucks and they've promised to fix it by going native.

 

[thecapsaicinkid]

That's not the future, it's the past: this is why the Facebook app sucks and they've promised to fix it by going native.

I think the full quote was

“When I’m introspective about the last few years I think the biggest mistake that we made, as a company, is betting too much on HTML5 as opposed to native… because it just wasn’t there. And it’s not that HTML5 is bad. I’m actually, on long-term, really excited about it. One of the things that’s interesting is we actually have more people on a daily basis using mobile Web Facebook than we have using our iOS or Android apps combined. So mobile Web is a big thing for us.”

 

[Mopetar]

you really want to web surf on a machine that can only run one full screen app at a time? really?

If surfing is one of the only things you can do, how much use is an extra window? Also, if it's a device that's supposed to be grandma-friendly, why does it even have multiple windows? That's probably going to cause more problems than not for the technologically illiterate.

If you want multiple windows, just get a netbook, as you'll probably also want a long list of other features that can be had on a netbook, but not a Chromebook.

 

[iahk]

I'd get an asus transformer running chromeOS. That would be perfect.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

If surfing is one of the only things you can do, how much use is an extra window? Also, if it's a device that's supposed to be grandma-friendly, why does it even have multiple windows? That's probably going to cause more problems than not for the technologically illiterate.

If you want multiple windows, just get a netbook, as you'll probably also want a long list of other features that can be had on a netbook, but not a Chromebook.

i dont like netbooks, they are too sluggish with win7. basically i want a machine designed for what netbooks do (web, email etc...) but with better performance

i think of the celeron 550 chromebooks as almost the perfect chrome machine. a first rate trackpad, a nice size/weight, decent battery llife, fast and slick. if they just put in a slightly faster chip and a higher res screen it would be awesome

 

[Eug]

I think some of you are missing the point, this isn't Android vs Chrome, it's native vs web. To say Google should just ditch ChromeOS is basically saying we should ditch html5.

Like I already said several times, I think they should integrate Chrome's features into Android, not scrap them. They can scrap Chrome as a separate OS, but not all the features of Chrome. That's a pretty big difference to what you're claiming we're saying.

There's no doubt that web technology isn't quite there yet but you can bet your ass that A. it will be soon and B. as soon as it is, companies will ditch native as soon as physically possible. No one wants to maintain a web application and hire (expensive) native developers to build Android/OS apps. Like I said earlier, we're almost there already, Android is closer to Chrome than you think, Facebook being one example of a web app stuffed inside a native wrapper.

Well, pundits have been saying this for the last decade. What you're saying isn't new at all, and it's not anymore right now than it was a few years ago. Remember the web appliance craze? No? That's because just about everyone who used one thought web appliances just sucked. Fast forward to 2012, and it's still the same.

 

[Eug]

I can see the draw of a 2.4 lb 11.6" machine, but given the performance and software limitations, I can only see that in the < $300 category. Otherwise I'd just rather spend more money and get a proper laptop.

BTW, I'm currently typing this on an 11.6" Windows 7 laptop with dual-core Core 2 class Intel CPU (see sig). Even with the aftermarket SSD I installed, the price of the machine is under $500... and I bought the thing years ago. Today, it'd be closer to $300, plus the cost of an SSD. That kind of explains the Acer Chromebook for $199, which comes with a "free" OS, and limited specs.