Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chromebox

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#91

Post by jeffool »

cooldeal wrote: post #29

Looks like there's major spin on this on that page. Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies. Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD. The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issue…

>Looks like there's major spin on this on that page.

To be fair, it is Google's page. I don't expect anyone trying to sell me anything to tell me the negatives unless they're legally obligated to do so.

Re: Chromebox

#92

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

magicalist wrote: post #79
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't strictly "download" or "install" web apps, Chrome's "installed" apps are glorified shortcuts. There is a Chrome store full of web apps. However, thanks the HTML5 and app caching, these applications will work offline.

That's not really true, it's more that installable apps can just be a glorified shortcut. The majority of apps that did that at launch of the store hurt them on that perception, I think. Installable apps, like extensions, usually reside mostly locally and can have elevated permissions on some things: https://developers.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/developers_gu...

Well yes, that's true. They do have elevated permissions. I didn't know they resided locally though, I thought they just used cache manifests.

Re: Chromebox

#93

Post by esun »

"Chrome devices are available in select countries."

2% of all available countries.

I wish Google understood how badly this undermines their international marketing. Apple understands this better.

Re: Chromebox

#94

Post by mtgx »

fruchtose wrote: post #23

Everything about this product is bizarre. My prediction: low sales. Google does not understand physical products very well.

There's no bad product, just bad pricing. I think Google and their partners really don't know how to price a new category product. They should be priced aggressively like the iPad was (when people expected it to be $800-$1000), and also as the iPhone, even though in the beginning Apple tried to sell to the "early adopters" with a higher price, too. But they quickly learned their lesson after just 2 months.

Google has already been through a few of these situations already ($300 Google TV set top box, $430 Chromebook at launch, $800 Honeycomb tablet at launch) and they still haven't learned anything. They haven't learned that the "early adopter price" tactic doesn't work well anymore. You need to price it for mainstream from day one, maintain the price throughout the year, and then just update the hardware for the same price every year. Consumers don't want to be cheated into buying a product that is twice as much at launch, compared to 6 months later.

Re: Chromebox

#95

Post by jeffool »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #82
josteink wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Chrome OS is definitely the most web-first platform out there, right now that does not really work to its advantage. Right now Android has the massive advantage in being able to work reasonably well while offline, something you can just forget with most web apps run on top of Chrome OS. For a "desktop PC" I'm sure Chrome OS will be more than sufficient, since internet connectivity is not going to be an issue. F…

What are you implying? I think almost all modern browsers support app caching manifests, meaning web apps work offline.

I think joestink could've instead said:

When web-app DEVELOPERS finally get the whole offline thingie working, a web-first option will become much more of a real option...

/edit: Then again, I'm not positive if Google Chrome's "intalled web apps" often being shortcuts are developer's fault or Google's? I'd love someone with insight to tell us.

Re: Chromebox

#96

Post by jyap »

chmike wrote: post #89
platinum1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h... Is that better? edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos) http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features.html http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.ht... http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-device...…

> Intel Core Processor Why not specifying what processor and hardware is in the box ?

It's marketing. The emphasis is on the simplicity of the product.

That being said, it's a 1.9ghz Celeron CPU. That can give negative connotations since Celeron is Intel's cheap line of processors.

Re: Chromebox

#97

Post by josteink »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #82
josteink wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Chrome OS is definitely the most web-first platform out there, right now that does not really work to its advantage. Right now Android has the massive advantage in being able to work reasonably well while offline, something you can just forget with most web apps run on top of Chrome OS. For a "desktop PC" I'm sure Chrome OS will be more than sufficient, since internet connectivity is not going to be an issue. F…

What are you implying? I think almost all modern browsers support app caching manifests, meaning web apps work offline.

Not all apps have been designed to work when offline and use local storage, local services etc. Most web apps will expect you to have constant connectivity in order to work or be useful.

IOW: Just because web-browsers support offline, doesn't mean the apps does it.

Re: Chromebox

#98

Post by j_col »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #44
arihant wrote: post #38

I installed ChromeOS on my old VAIO recently. It is definitely not bad in the sense that things it cannot do don't fall in the 99%. I would be happier if Google manages to bring the Play store and run android apps on it. Anything I could imagine the machine couldn't do, there's an app on Android that does it. If this could run Android apps too, $329 would appear to be a bargain.

Eventually there's going to have to be some merger. I think it could be Chrome OS becoming a variant of Android, considering there's now Chrome for Android. That said, personally, I'd rather see Chrome OS on phones and tablets, and Android die off, since Chrome OS is the most web-first platform out there.

Agree that Chrome OS is more web-centric than Android, but webOS is more web-centric than both.

Re: Chromebox

#99

Post by revorad »

i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

Come on, it's clearly aimed at tech geeks. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Re: Chromebox

#100

Post by Angostura »

gojomo wrote: post #86
i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

It's still early (in the life of this device). Early adopters will be techies. It's OK to be geeky at this stage. They can dumb-it-down later.

Ummm, I'm pretty geeky. But I haven't been following Chrome in detail, so I don't have a clue what this box is for or what it actually does.

Reminded me of this: http://www.theonion.com/video/sony-releases-new-stupid-piece...

Post reply on HN