Will Google's Chromebook go some way in making IBM clones obsolete?

[Patranus]

Has anyone here who is pro/anti Chromebook actually used one for an extended period of time?

I have been using a CR-48 for the past 3 months and it is a straight up POS.
It is designed to do one thing and that is go on the internet and it cannot even do that well.

Hell, Googles own services do not work well with Chromebooks and if Google cannot even get their shit together what makes them think they are going to get developers on board.

If Android tablets are anything like Chromebooks.....well......I feel sorry for those users.

 

[corkyg]

Yeah - tablets are currently the fastest growing market segment. But, they are still for entertainment, not work. Bottom line - toys vs. tools.

 

[WelshBloke]

Mobile networks are going to have to get a lot faster first.

Everyone has HDcamcorders and HD video libraries. Good luck storing them in the cloud when your travelling through the sticks.

What about if I'm in a different country and have to access my stuff, how much will that cost with international data rates?

It would be ok for email, and maybe photos but we do that already.

 

[iahk]

Has anyone here who is pro/anti Chromebook actually used one for an extended period of time?

I have been using a CR-48 for the past 3 months and it is a straight up POS.
It is designed to do one thing and that is go on the internet and it cannot even do that well.

Hell, Googles own services do not work well with Chromebooks and if Google cannot even get their shit together what makes them think they are going to get developers on board.

If Android tablets are anything like Chromebooks.....well......I feel sorry for those users.

Yea, I've been using it for almost 3 months now. It works OK, but lacks the power to even play youtube videos at 480. Standard web browsing is OK though. Can't complain since it was free, but it's really not worth more than $100.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Not even close to ready for prime time. Weak hardware and immature cloud 1.0 offerings make it a poor choice as your single computing choice, regardless of user bracket. IMHO.

 

[Patranus]

Yea, I've been using it for almost 3 months now. It works OK, but lacks the power to even play youtube videos at 480. Standard web browsing is OK though. Can't complain since it was free, but it's really not worth more than $100.

Thats what I don't get.

Google designed the CR-48 and it doesn't even work well with Google services.

 

[rockyct]

It's a pretty small market for the group that lives online, can't afford a smart phone, and doesn't like the tablet form factor. I'm not crazy about tablets, but I much rather have one than a chromebook.

 

[alent1234]

Has anyone here who is pro/anti Chromebook actually used one for an extended period of time?

I have been using a CR-48 for the past 3 months and it is a straight up POS.
It is designed to do one thing and that is go on the internet and it cannot even do that well.

Hell, Googles own services do not work well with Chromebooks and if Google cannot even get their shit together what makes them think they are going to get developers on board.

If Android tablets are anything like Chromebooks.....well......I feel sorry for those users.

the real hardware will probably fix these problems but it's still a paperweight without internet access. my ipad 2 works perfectly in the NYC subway and without wifi with local content.

$500 for ipad 16GB - works with or without a network connection
$500 for chromebook - needs a network connection

and there is a long list of other features that the ipad does that chrome doesn't

 

[Looney]

Personally, I don't understand their adversity to having local drives. I love the concept of ChromeOS, but i would still like the option of local drives. There are just some moments when i don't have online access. On airplanes or in blackouts, i would still like my computer to have some functionality, even if it is to play solitaire or watch a movie.

But the beauty of ChromeOS is that it's basically Chrome the Browser. So you can have Chrome on any computer that can install it, whether it's Windows, Mac, or anything else.

So what's the point in Chromebook again?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Personally, I don't understand their adversity to having local drives. I love the concept of ChromeOS, but i would still like the option of local drives. There are just some moments when i don't have online access. On airplanes or in blackouts, i would still like my computer to have some functionality, even if it is to play solitaire or watch a movie.

But the beauty of ChromeOS is that it's basically Chrome the Browser. So you can have Chrome on any computer that can install it, whether it's Windows, Mac, or anything else.

So what's the point in Chromebook again?

IIRC, it's so Google can sift through everything you do and pull consumer data from it.

 

[Patranus]

the real hardware will probably fix these problems but it's still a paperweight without internet access. my ipad 2 works perfectly in the NYC subway and without wifi with local content.

$500 for ipad 16GB - works with or without a network connection
$500 for chromebook - needs a network connection

and there is a long list of other features that the ipad does that chrome doesn't

It does have 16gb of local storage and can access USB drives. You can have 'some' local content.

The frustrating thing is that the media player in the browser flat out sucks while the local media player plays media fine.

The CR-48 also comes with free Verizon.

IIRC, it's so Google can sift through everything you do and pull consumer data from it.

I can't wait for Google NFC credit card purchases!

 

[s44]

Pretty sure this will go the way of Google Wave. Again, it was a Schmidt idea from before Honeycomb was anywhere.

Now that the Transformer exists, a Chromebook actually gives *less* functionality than Google's own mobile product. There just isn't the gap between home box and full mobile for Chrome to slot in any more: Android and its mobile OS competitors are going to take all of it.

 

[alent1234]

Personally, I don't understand their adversity to having local drives. I love the concept of ChromeOS, but i would still like the option of local drives. There are just some moments when i don't have online access. On airplanes or in blackouts, i would still like my computer to have some functionality, even if it is to play solitaire or watch a movie.

But the beauty of ChromeOS is that it's basically Chrome the Browser. So you can have Chrome on any computer that can install it, whether it's Windows, Mac, or anything else.

So what's the point in Chromebook again?

they want to sell you the service at $20 a month for cloud storage and whatever. why would they give you local storage?

 

[zerocool84]

Pretty sure this will go the way of Google Wave. Again, it was a Schmidt idea from before Honeycomb was anywhere.

Now that the Transformer exists, a Chromebook actually gives *less* functionality than Google's own mobile product. There just isn't the gap between home box and full mobile for Chrome to slot in any more: Android and its mobile OS competitors are going to take all of it.

It's a cool idea but with better alternatives that are slightly more expensive now, there's no reason really to get one. It's years too late.

 

[rockyct]

It's a cool idea but with better alternatives that are slightly more expensive now, there's no reason really to get one. It's years too late.

Yeah, the Chromebook is a good idea but with horrible timing. It never really could fit at any time though. Maybe before netbooks become popular, but that was also a time before the iPhone and living on the internet so it probably wouldn't have worked then. I can see Chromebooks being used as student computers that the school could manage or something. $20/month wouldn't be a bad price for schools considering the management tools and built in licensing for basic applications.