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

261–270 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#261

Post by DFDFDFDFD »

platinum1 wrote: post #76
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…

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...…

BFHGFHJFGHJGFHFJGFHFJGFTHGFHFTJFGH

Re: Chromebox

#262

Post by Achshar »

etherealG wrote: post #139
vlad wrote: post #18

For only $70 more, Google also sells the Galaxy Nexus, which is a similar Samsung device but contains more storage, runs a lot more apps, can make or receive phone calls and data over a cell phone connection, and even includes a high definition display, and a (removable) battery, and NFC, and all in a smaller package. Since the Galaxy Nexus can use a keyboard and mouse over Bluetooth and run a 1080p display over HDMI…

I think your point about the hardware is a good one. All these "small pc equivalent" boxes seem to be overpriced to me, especially the arm-based ones that are essentially competing with smart phones. From the software side, it's a whole different animal. ChromeOS is intended to be very different from Android. I don't think you can compare some of the features like verified boot or integrated cloud services. Also, you…

>I'm pretty sure "installing an app" and "bookmarking a website" are the same thing in ChromeOS.

Not quiet so. I write chrome apps myself and there is is difference between websites and installable apps. Mostly they have more API access and features such as background processes. But the underlying technology is exactly same as websites. It's essentially a local website that is not hosted on any server but in browser's environment.

If you are interested to know exact differences then allow me to make a shameless plug. This is a media player but is installable instead of hosted. This makes it possible for the app to have a background page which runs even if the browser is closed. Being instalable instead of hosted also has an advantage of more flexible file API. But that is bound to change soon.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fddboknafkepdchido...

Re: Chromebox

#263

Post by DFDFDFDFD »

platinum1 wrote: post #76
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…

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...…

No post body was provided.

Re: Chromebox

#264

Post by tmzt »

shpoonj wrote: post #238
huggyface wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this stage in its life, the Chromebox is most certainly geared to people who very much care about specs. It is not going to be Sally Average who's signing up for one, and really if they did they would likely be disappointed . Every ad doesn't need to ape Apple, you know.

With advertising and spec sheets like this, you're right. But if they tried a little, their demographic could be massive.

Come on Google, use an ARM processor, make it a dongle with a HDMI plug that attaches to the majority of cheap LCD displays, and price it at $99 or free with the first year (per seat) of a Google Apps Enterprise Account. Now add a local ActiveDirectory proxy as a stadalone router-like box and hit Microsoft where it hurts. (Before Larry does).

Re: Chromebox

#265

Post by DFDFDFDFD »

platinum1 wrote: post #76
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…

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...…

BEN10

Re: Chromebox

#266

Post by wsetchell »

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…

You are assuming that mainstream consumers are the target audience. I think the audience is actually A) Businesses B) tech savy users.

I suspect both of those users care a little bit more about the tech specs than an average user.

Re: Chromebox

#267

Post by jonursenbach »

DFDFDFDFD wrote: post #263
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...…

Quoted post unavailable.

Can an admin or somebody fix this comment? It's breaking the page layout.

Re: Chromebox

#268

Post by lachyg »

loceng wrote: post #212
randomdrake wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) When I search Google for chromebox the first result is the link that was submitted. I concur: it is a terrible landing page for a product. Consider the first page results for things like macbook , ipad , or mac mini and you can see where the failure lies. They do, af…

http://www.apple.com/ vs http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ vs https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html I'd say Google's doing a better job.

The two products are incomparable. One is unknown, the other is known by pretty much anyone who would be interested in buying a smart phone.

Re: Chromebox

#269

Post by hollerith »

robin_reala wrote: post #6

I’d assumed Displayport had died off in favour of mini-Displayport. Is this common any more?

Maybe they do not want to take the support calls from users who would have mistaken the mini-Displayport for Thunderbolt. (Not that I approve of the effect of such a decision on the proliferation of port types, just that I can see it from Google's point of view.)

Re: Chromebox

#270

Post by maratd »

tmzt wrote: post #264
shpoonj wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With advertising and spec sheets like this, you're right. But if they tried a little, their demographic could be massive.

Come on Google, use an ARM processor, make it a dongle with a HDMI plug that attaches to the majority of cheap LCD displays, and price it at $99 or free with the first year (per seat) of a Google Apps Enterprise Account. Now add a local ActiveDirectory proxy as a stadalone router-like box and hit Microsoft where it hurts. (Before Larry does).

No, no, that just makes too much sense to actually happen.
Post reply on HN