11–20 of 28 posts
Depends on definition of "notebook". I would assume it is different from laptop, netbook, ultabook and tablet.
And yet, as Gruber points out, they are just a rounding error in web browser usage. [1] If they're that successful, why don't Chromebooks appear in usage stats? 1. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/12/28/chromebooks
Because the stat is unreliable.
Great! Now, where are the mid-range chromebooks? With a decent display and some additional processing power?
[0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebook-pix...
Bought Chromebooks (and Chromecasts) for all my tech-illiterate family members in order to cut down on having to provide tech support, and it's been amazing. No issues so far, and everything just works. I think that actually is just fine for most companies -- less tech support, and does everything they need (collaborative documents, email, web searches, etc).
My suggestions to consider using OS X rather than Windows have never worked because there are no low-cost OS X options.
...in "commercial markets". As far as I can tell, that does not include consumer and would make the headline extremely misleading. So a bunch of companies decided to buy ChromeBooks, presumably without asking their employees.
This is HN and many of us run sites. Why don't we post ChromeOS stats?
I'll start. For a completely nontech related site, for the last month, out of 117K visits, here is the breakdown for #7 to 10
Linux 782
Windows Phone 565
Series40 407
Chrome OS 224
Great! Now, where are the mid-range chromebooks? With a decent display and some additional processing power?
Check out the Pixel[0]. It has a great display but is horribly overpriced in my opinion [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebook-pix...
I was hoping for something between the Rolls and the Yugo
Great! Now, where are the mid-range chromebooks? With a decent display and some additional processing power?
Check out the Pixel[0]. It has a great display but is horribly overpriced in my opinion [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebook-pix...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the stat is unreliable.
How is it unreliable, and how is the margin of error so bad that these are a no-show?
To get a reliable sample of web traffic as a whole you'll need to recruit most of the larger websites (Yahoo!, Google, Wikipedia, etc.), and a sampling of second and third tier sites and then process the data taking into account that browsers lie and that all of your sites that you are sampling are going to be biased in one direction or another. Google for instance probably sees a higher share of chrome than similar sized sites. Add to which there is no standard way of distinguishing browsers other than by looking at the User-Agent string which is error prone and not guaranteed to be an accurate representation.