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

141–150 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#141

Post by rodolphoarruda »

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 reminds me "HP Invent" motto. One thing that Mark Hurd made very clear during his tenure was that "invent", at that point, was less than "sell" (or "market", maybe). Hurd's point was that people were spending too much time on the lab and less time talking to customers. "If innovation is fuel, selling it is oxygen".

Re: Chromebox

#142

Post by Fabimaru »

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 ?

At least it informs that it's not an ARM processor, so it should be a magnitude faster (more like a PC than a phone).

Re: Chromebox

#143

Post by nik61 »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #42
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…

>Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead? I think you have been downvoted _because_ you made a good point and the Google fanboys armed with downmods want to bury the comment. Unfortunate trend on HN here.

You should also realise that HN is run by Sheldon Coopers with the assistance of Ayn Rand, so don't expect any favours.

Re: Chromebox

#144

Post by hollerith »

corin_ wrote: post #58
AntiRush wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Raspberry Pi is targeted squarely at enthusiasts (which, granted, is probably most people here). It comes without an operating system, any storage, a case, or even a power supply. This is a huge, if not insurmountable, barrier to entry for a large portion of the population. The Chromebox is a turnkey, plug in power, plug in TV, surf the web product. They couldn't be more dissimilar.

> plug in TV Just a quick note: The biggest piece of feedback I got from a journo friend of mine who just reviewed this chromebox is actually that out of the box it won't do HDMI or VGA (without buying an adapter separately that is), which seemed odd to me (and to him) given being easy to connect to a TV seems like a big use case for the chromebox. edit: In case anyone wants to see his hands-on piece, it's at http://…

>out of the box it won't do HDMI or VGA (without buying an adapter separately that is)

Some DVI ports can send VGA signals, in which case it would just be a matter of getting a cable with DVI pins on one end and VGA pins on the other.

In other words, the DVI spec contains a VGA-compatible part and an HDMI-like part so that a single DVI port can send VGA signals or HDMI-like "DVI-D" (DVI digital) signals.

Moreover, DVI-HDMI cables are common although some DVI ports cannot provide audio to go along with the video and others cannot speak the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection protocol.

Re: Chromebox

#146

Post by phase_9 »

stef25 wrote: post #133

I desperately want a thin client "device" I can hook up to my tv / stereo to stream in music and movies from my network storage downstairs. If this can do it with nice to use software then I'll definitely but it if it saves me a couple hundred bucks compared to a mac mini.

AppleTV + XBMC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4iEl3BqhUI

Re: Chromebox

#147

Post by withad »

aristidb wrote: post #140
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…

Yes, Apple shows that showing specs is not necessary: http://www.apple.com/macmini/ If specs help sell the things, by all means Google should include them. Whether they are "relevant" or not. Also note that the info that it is _not_ an Intel Atom CPU is highly relevant IMO, because the Atom is slow as molasses.

But Apple's page doesn't give nearly as much focus to the tech specs as Google's does. Most of the page "above the fold" is given over to a description of what it can do and the details they do give are more about relative improvements (2x faster, etc.) than raw numbers. The specs are available and it's clear where to see them but they're not the first thing the eye is drawn to.

Re: Chromebox

#148

Post by kamjam »

jeffool wrote: post #103
gojomo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the complaint (and a legit one I feel) is that this page is the opposite. This page has very little information that techies want (as seen by all the complaining here.)

I think he's agreeing with the parent...

Re: Chromebox

#149

Post by aristidb »

withad wrote: post #147
aristidb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Apple shows that showing specs is not necessary: http://www.apple.com/macmini/ If specs help sell the things, by all means Google should include them. Whether they are "relevant" or not. Also note that the info that it is _not_ an Intel Atom CPU is highly relevant IMO, because the Atom is slow as molasses.

But Apple's page doesn't give nearly as much focus to the tech specs as Google's does. Most of the page "above the fold" is given over to a description of what it can do and the details they do give are more about relative improvements (2x faster, etc.) than raw numbers. The specs are available and it's clear where to see them but they're not the first thing the eye is drawn to.

Perhaps they should change the emphasis. But IMHO they should change it in the way that maximizes conversions.

What I took offense at was the suggestion that the specs are irrelevant and by consequence should not be shown _at all_.

(Also note that on my screen, the "fold" is below the Core i5/i7, Radeon HD and Thunderbolt blurbs. Meanwhile even above that, it emphasises "2x faster processors", "Thunderbolt I/O", "upgradeable memory", as well as physical size and software.)

Re: Chromebox

#150

Post by GFischer »

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…

Indeed.. Why would I buy this instead of, for example, a MUCH cheaper Android set top? (as in, four times cheaper).

Does it do anything different?

I'm in tech and I don't know anything about Chrome OS, and I wouldn't buy even if I had disposable income (and I do want a media player/home theater PC someday). Heck, I could probably buy an equivalent Windows-based HTPC for a similar price.

See http://s.dealextreme.com/search/android+set+top or alibaba prices.

Edit: once again, why the downvote? Also, I showed it to my coworkers, one of them was quite receptive to the Chromebox.

Post reply on HN