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

171–180 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#171

Post by dsawler »

webignition wrote: post #78
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…

The Chromebox is a fast, compact home or office device. The first sentence describes this as a device not a computer . This seems like a poor choice, as is that the page mentions the word 'computer' not once.

I can't even figure out what it is/does.

"The Chromebox is a fast, compact home or office device." That means nothing to me.

Re: Chromebox

#172

Post by bane »

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…

I disagree (mostly). Technical specs do tell you what a device is capable of.

However, putting the specs up front and not under the specs tab (which is strangely almost empty) is poor. The overview should be pushed up to the top and expanded upon a la Apple's products pages.

Even with all the specs, there's one I care about that's not on here, how much can I store on the device? All the USB ports aren't doing me any good if I can't jam my photos or some movies onto it.

Re: Chromebox

#173

Post by rglover »

It'd be nice if it was just "Chromebox" and not "Samsung Chromebox." Seems like a product that could have been decent but got rushed out the door and manipulated by bureaucracy. Google needs to stop letting things like this leak out, it's embarrassing.

Re: Chromebox

#174

Post by icebraining »

corin_ wrote: post #67
sherwin wrote: post #56

I used a Chromebook (Samsung Series 5) for an entire academic year as a student. The biggest benefits were having everything synced in the cloud (so you're not too attached to it), extreme portability (super thin and super light, instant on is fantastic) and ~10 hours of battery life. I charged the thing about once a week! However, I question who would get a Chromebox though, because the portability + battery life +…

> who would get a Chromebox though Instant on is still a factor, maybe not for you and certainly not for me (my home PC runs 24/7), but there's plenty of people who don't leave computers running when not using them, and still would enjoy not having to wait while it boots up. The biggest use-case I see for the future is as a media centre connected to your TV. Google are already trying to replace computer software with…

Is Intant-on really a feature now that suspension works reasonably well?

Re: Chromebox

#175

Post by Toenex »

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…

Lets face it the technical specs are needed because you are just going to hack this baby and turn it into a media server or something.

Re: Chromebox

#176

Post by metatronscube »

tomflack wrote: post #128

"...and don’t slow down over time." ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h... ) That is a huge claim and one that will be false as web technologies continue to need more power.

Exactly, I get to 10 tabs and it grinds to a halt. That's 10 sites with nothing more than text and a few images (hardly 5 plugins)....its seriously underpowered as is and with the new UI update its as slow as a dog on the Acer.

Re: Chromebox

#177

Post by bradleyland »

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.

Agreeing with you here.

Apple is great at identifying context. A lot of people don't realize that Apple does "sell specifications", because they're mostly exposed to Apple's advertising, which rarely uses specification. However, when you get to their website, they recognize that you're probably looking for more detail. That shows an understanding of context.

There's another contextual difference they play as well. Have a look at their pages for traditional computing hardware, then have a look at their pages for iOS devices.

Traditional computers:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/

http://www.apple.com/macmini/

iOS:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/

Notice the difference in pitch? There are even identifiable differences in the iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad pages. Which one is closer to a traditional computing device? The iPad. Which page is more specification oriented? The iPad.

A lot of lip service is given to Apple's avoidance of specification, but I think too many people treat it as a black & white scenario: you either do talk about specification, or you don't. Like many stereotypes, this focuses on the wrong distinction. It's not a matter of do or don't, but a matter of when and why. Specification isn't the best way to get customers interested in your product, but once the customer is in the door, you do need to be prepared to communicate the specifications clearly and in a relatable way. Apple is very adept at identifying that transition and guiding the customer on their way to a sale.

Re: Chromebox

#178

Post by tomflack »

metatronscube wrote: post #176
tomflack wrote: post #128

"...and don’t slow down over time." ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h... ) That is a huge claim and one that will be false as web technologies continue to need more power.

Exactly, I get to 10 tabs and it grinds to a halt. That's 10 sites with nothing more than text and a few images (hardly 5 plugins)....its seriously underpowered as is and with the new UI update its as slow as a dog on the Acer.

Being slow because it is underpowered is different to what I'm referring to - becoming slower over time because web technologies move past the capabilities of the hardware.

Re: Chromebox

#179

Post by recycleme »

SandB0x wrote: post #106

What a travesty of a launch. What can it actually do ? Stop telling me about "multiple USB ports and multiple display options". Should I get one instead of an iPad or a new laptop? Is it a new name for a Google TV device? "Place it anywhere" ? As opposed to what? Buy now? OK I'm in the United Kingdom, that's lucky. Let me buy it from...PC World? This leads to a page with a screenshot of a netbook/Chromebook and a Chr…

Don't even try searching for a "chromebox" on bestbuy.com

Re: Chromebox

#180

Post by ramses0 »

netcan wrote: post #70
stickfigure wrote: post #45

I used the Chromebook I got from Google I/O for a while. You have to understand that it's not designed to be a hacker's computer or even really a consumer device. It's designed to be a cheap, low-maintenance terminal for generic business computing. This is the new 3270. I actually think it's a pretty good product for that purpose. The economics are compelling if you maintain hundreds of desktops. Instead of PC + Wind…

There is a lot of crossover between the anti-power user at work and the anti-power user at home. The former gets a locked down machine managed by IT to keep it running and uses the browser and a contant handful of apps. The latter uses a machine that runs poorly because no one is managing it. Making a disruptive improvement for one market would probably end up being compelling to both so you focus on either for a sta…

I've been using a chromebook at home as a mostly-primary computer, replacement for a 13" MBP w/ SSD (which cost ~$2000 when it was new).

The only thing that's weird is printing, but for 90% of "generic internet stuff" it works fantastic. ChromeOS just updated last night and I haven't even had a chance to mess with it.

It will even work mostly-ish as a web-dev terminal as it'll do SSH as well as chrome developer tools (although it is slightly hokey).

I'm a 15+ year linux user and I don't mind using the chromebook at all AS AN ADJUNCT TO A REAL COMPUTER!

A ChromeBook is ~1/10th the cost of a "real" computer, is SSD by default (only I think), is great for "kitchen computing", great for travel (just turn on password-protection and it gets very good battery life, and you don't mind if it gets lost, stolen, or damaged and it's very lightweight).

It's got a lot of advantages even for a power-user, although it doesn't (yet) replace a "real" computer / linux / osx box.

The things I've used my "real" computer for since then have been seashore (gimp), inkscape, video editing, printing, and some minor gaming, and I've had the MBP for 1-2 years and the chromebook for ~6 mo.

Post reply on HN