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 better with it.
What most people going to ask:
Can I use my social networks?
Can I do my internet banking?
Can I get my photos off of my camera and share them?
What about my music?
Can I watch movies?
How about spreadsheets and word documents?
So, we're looking at a relatively deep link, which assumes the reader has been shown the main OS features and is looking for which specific product to buy. That said, I agree that this page doesn't do much except show pretty pictures and throw out a few tech specs, and won't sell the product on its own.
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.
Exactly, this is why I always tell people that if you let technical people run companies you'll run into huge failures like you see with companies like Google and Facebook.
That's not the first page of the site, It's a link to a spec page comparing the different models available.
IMHO, it doesn't differ significantly from this page: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
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.
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.
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".
The imagemap to the right of the specs is horrible as well, you have to hover over their tiny "+" icons to see the quick selling points which are actually of interest to consumers. Saying "boots in 7 seconds" is great, but only if the user can see it right away.
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.
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 + Windows + Office + McAffee + a large desktop support organization, you just have ChromeOS devices and Google Apps. It's not sexy but 99% of the employees at the DMV don't need sexy, they just need to run a handful of basic apps.
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 start.
I don't like the decision to focus on office staff first. Google's in a great position to sell to consumers. Also I think Apple demonstrated that going through consumers first encourages better products.
> PC + Windows + Office + McAffee + a large desktop support organization, you just have ChromeOS devices and Google Apps
I think if you put a Chromebook/Chromebox in front of most business users, the organization has to be using Citrix. Google Apps is not even remotely viable as a replacement for Office except in cost or for very basic work.
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, the advantage of the Chromebox is that it can run multiple displays and connect external storage devices.
With Ubuntu for Android scheduled to be released later this year, a logical progression is that Google's future home appliances and mobile devices will run the same exact operating system, rather than two different ones.
However, Android is supposed to be open and has many different App Stores like Amazon Appstore that compete with Google's Android Play (Android Market), while Chrome O.S. will allow Google to own the entire purchase process (like Apple), which benefits the consumer by allowing them to purchase an app they already own on their iPad, Android phone, Mac, PC, and XBox a 6th time.
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 Chromebox somewhere in the background. The word "Chromebox" doesn't even appear on the page.
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 + instant on are no longer relevant in this case, and those were by far the biggest benefits for the Chromebook. For a little more (~400), you could get a very respectable machine running a more powerful OS.
Some general thoughts on my experiences with the Chromebook:
As a general computing device, I thought it was more or less completely sufficient. I used it to take notes (google docs / evernote) in class and it was awesome for that (light and portable).
With more than 7-8 tabs, things can get slightly sluggish (read: not instantaneous). Running more than 15 or so and you start getting serious performance issues. This is less of a problem than I thought because it forces me to maintain focus (I regularly can have >100 tabs when using my desktop). Full screen 1080p video also was sluggish.
It has a shell, so you can SSH and code also.
Frequently less technical friends would ask "but ... it only runs chrome?" to which I respond "well what can you not do in chrome?" and they have a very hard time giving an example. With gmail / calendar / docs / evernote / your music web app service of choice / etc, almost everything can be done in the browser.
To be fair, I also use a powerful desktop for more intense tasks (photo editing, coding, and occasional gaming). I doubt I would use the chromebook/box as my primary computer.
Try answering the question "What does it do?" by reading the copy on the website. Almost impossible. The questions I wanted to know were: Will VLC run on this? Can I download stuff and put on a hard drive? The website does not seem to indicate this.
edit the second: it seems pretty competitive with a Mac mini, actually. 1.9ghz Celeron instead of 2.3 i5, same RAM, and same graphics card. The 16gb SSD vs 500gb HDD might make the Chromebox feel snappier, though. And at $329 vs $599, it's quite a bit cheaper.
Afraid a Celeron isn't very competitive with an i5, even at the same speed. At least not comparing to similarly clocked computers running here. A dual-core Celeron based PC here is significantly slower than a similarly clocked i5 Mac Mini.
>it seems pretty competitive with a Mac mini, actually. . . . same RAM
Actually, the Chromebox has 4 GB of RAM whereas the mini with the $599 list price has only 2 GB. So, technically your statement "same RAM" is incorrect even though upgrading the RAM on the mini to 4 GB will not cost very much.
There's a tiny little thing called the operating system which makes significantly more of a difference to the overall experience, performance and value of a computer than a few GHz.
This is absolutely perfect for my business' use case: 4 customer support advisers who currently use Win7 with just browsers open to our custom built web app. This will be so much cheaper and less maintenance. Only downside is that while it supports 2 screens currently (I'm hoping an update fixes this real soon) it can ridiculously only show the same thing on both screens! No extended desktop.
I was first to buy one at PCWorld on Tottenham Court Road in London yesterday for £279. Will be testing it out next week.
I think $150-$200 would've been the sweet spot for a ChromeBox, and $200-$300 the sweetspot for a Chromebook, depending on the configuration, quality of materials, etc.
Also, I see no reason why these shouldn't be running ARM chips. All you're using is the web, so it's not tied down to the x86 architecture like Windows is.
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.
I prefer to add 270 dollars and get a Mac Mini, that may even run as a server If I want to. (I can even install Chrome on it).
There is maybe a market for Chromebox, but for sure we are not that market. :)
I prefer to subtract 100 $ and get a zotac zbox or acer veriton that may even run as a server if I want to. They also are "fast, compact home or office device[s] [that can be] Set up [...] the way you want with multiple USB ports and versatile display options."
While definitely an interesting development in computing, I find the advertising used disingenuous.
They advertise "built-in anti virus" all over, when the truth probably is that there is no anti-virus at all. You can argue that there is a lack of need for this and as such advertising for a device without mentioning anti virus at all would make it seem "unsafe" or confusing for the less technically inclined.
But still claiming it has things it doesn't just to make the marketing department's job easier is in my books disingenuous. It's factually inaccurate. It's a lie.
To me it sounds like "Macs can't have viruses" all over again: It supposedly is safe and "has anti-virus" because it isn't Windows. That's pretty cheap and far from factual.
Where is the target of this device? Certainly I won't buy this, but neither can I think of any reason for a sane people to pay more than 100$ for this box.
People will get an iPad instead, rather than paying 3xx$ for a dumb box.
I think this would be a great product, in a world where iPad and tablets with Android and Windows Mobile don't exist.
Google should work on fixing and polishing Google TV instead instead of this if they want to work on set top boxes. Even with the updates late last year, Google TV compared to the competition is still lagging especially in the UI / UX department.
I don't question the usability of this, but I really don't get the price, which I think is too high. I guess that for the same price one could buy 15" laptop with the roughly same components, so you would effectively get a screen and a keyboard for free. Where does the additional cost come from? Stripped down OS?
Small storage, cheaper Celeron processor, cheap amount of RAM. The additional cost I'm guessing would be a hefty mark up. Perhaps they are trying to achieve Apple levels of profitability.
How does Google manage to only have one retailer who actually sells the device in Europe. It feels as if every time they [Google] introduce something new and cool (phone, computer ...) it is only available for a selected few. Then when we all forgot about it they add a few more retailers.
[+] [-] i386|14 years ago|reply
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 better with it.
What most people going to ask: Can I use my social networks? Can I do my internet banking? Can I get my photos off of my camera and share them? What about my music? Can I watch movies? How about spreadsheets and word documents?
[+] [-] platinum1|14 years ago|reply
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...
http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html
So, we're looking at a relatively deep link, which assumes the reader has been shown the main OS features and is looking for which specific product to buy. That said, I agree that this page doesn't do much except show pretty pictures and throw out a few tech specs, and won't sell the product on its own.
[+] [-] aristidb|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gojomo|14 years ago|reply
Early adopters will be techies. It's OK to be geeky at this stage.
They can dumb-it-down later.
[+] [-] webignition|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MartinCron|14 years ago|reply
Exactly, this is why I always tell people that if you let technical people run companies you'll run into huge failures like you see with companies like Google and Facebook.
[+] [-] theBobMcCormick|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Toenex|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wsetchell|14 years ago|reply
I suspect both of those users care a little bit more about the tech specs than an average user.
[+] [-] revorad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GFischer|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jiggy2011|14 years ago|reply
For example, does it have enough USB to accommodate a mouse/keyboard as well as an external disk and a digital camera?
Can I plug it into my Monitor and my HDTV at the same time?
Or does it have sufficient oomph to run HD video or graphically intensive games?
At this point google will be targeting early adopters who will be more tech savvy, and also hoping that they recommend it to their family and friends.
Until we can offload close to 100% of our computing to the server, specifications for client side machines will still be relevant.
[+] [-] rodolphoarruda|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qxcv|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huggyface|14 years ago|reply
Every ad doesn't need to ape Apple, you know.
[+] [-] stickfigure|14 years ago|reply
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 + Windows + Office + McAffee + a large desktop support organization, you just have ChromeOS devices and Google Apps. It's not sexy but 99% of the employees at the DMV don't need sexy, they just need to run a handful of basic apps.
[+] [-] netcan|14 years ago|reply
Making a disruptive improvement for one market would probably end up being compelling to both so you focus on either for a start.
I don't like the decision to focus on office staff first. Google's in a great position to sell to consumers. Also I think Apple demonstrated that going through consumers first encourages better products.
[+] [-] trimbo|14 years ago|reply
I think if you put a Chromebook/Chromebox in front of most business users, the organization has to be using Citrix. Google Apps is not even remotely viable as a replacement for Office except in cost or for very basic work.
[+] [-] vlad|14 years ago|reply
Since the Galaxy Nexus can use a keyboard and mouse over Bluetooth and run a 1080p display over HDMI, the advantage of the Chromebox is that it can run multiple displays and connect external storage devices.
With Ubuntu for Android scheduled to be released later this year, a logical progression is that Google's future home appliances and mobile devices will run the same exact operating system, rather than two different ones.
However, Android is supposed to be open and has many different App Stores like Amazon Appstore that compete with Google's Android Play (Android Market), while Chrome O.S. will allow Google to own the entire purchase process (like Apple), which benefits the consumer by allowing them to purchase an app they already own on their iPad, Android phone, Mac, PC, and XBox a 6th time.
[+] [-] SandB0x|14 years ago|reply
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 Chromebox somewhere in the background. The word "Chromebox" doesn't even appear on the page.
[+] [-] recycleme|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idleloops|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sherwin|14 years ago|reply
However, I question who would get a Chromebox though, because the portability + battery life + instant on are no longer relevant in this case, and those were by far the biggest benefits for the Chromebook. For a little more (~400), you could get a very respectable machine running a more powerful OS.
Some general thoughts on my experiences with the Chromebook: As a general computing device, I thought it was more or less completely sufficient. I used it to take notes (google docs / evernote) in class and it was awesome for that (light and portable).
With more than 7-8 tabs, things can get slightly sluggish (read: not instantaneous). Running more than 15 or so and you start getting serious performance issues. This is less of a problem than I thought because it forces me to maintain focus (I regularly can have >100 tabs when using my desktop). Full screen 1080p video also was sluggish.
It has a shell, so you can SSH and code also.
Frequently less technical friends would ask "but ... it only runs chrome?" to which I respond "well what can you not do in chrome?" and they have a very hard time giving an example. With gmail / calendar / docs / evernote / your music web app service of choice / etc, almost everything can be done in the browser.
To be fair, I also use a powerful desktop for more intense tasks (photo editing, coding, and occasional gaming). I doubt I would use the chromebook/box as my primary computer.
[+] [-] markessien|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Groxx|14 years ago|reply
edit: Amazon has a lot more info: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE300M22-A01US-Series-3-Chrome...
edit the second: it seems pretty competitive with a Mac mini, actually. 1.9ghz Celeron instead of 2.3 i5, same RAM, and same graphics card. The 16gb SSD vs 500gb HDD might make the Chromebox feel snappier, though. And at $329 vs $599, it's quite a bit cheaper.
[+] [-] maguay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollerith|14 years ago|reply
Actually, the Chromebox has 4 GB of RAM whereas the mini with the $599 list price has only 2 GB. So, technically your statement "same RAM" is incorrect even though upgrading the RAM on the mini to 4 GB will not cost very much.
[+] [-] taligent|14 years ago|reply
There's a tiny little thing called the operating system which makes significantly more of a difference to the overall experience, performance and value of a computer than a few GHz.
[+] [-] 89a|14 years ago|reply
Easy… one of them is a full computer and one of them is a web browser with 6 USB ports and 16 gig of storage
[+] [-] smellypantsman|14 years ago|reply
I was first to buy one at PCWorld on Tottenham Court Road in London yesterday for £279. Will be testing it out next week.
[+] [-] georgemcbay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|14 years ago|reply
Also, I see no reason why these shouldn't be running ARM chips. All you're using is the web, so it's not tied down to the x86 architecture like Windows is.
[+] [-] genwin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arihant|14 years ago|reply
If this could run Android apps too, $329 would appear to be a bargain.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|14 years ago|reply
That said, personally, I'd rather see Chrome OS on phones and tablets, and Android die off, since Chrome OS is the most web-first platform out there.
[+] [-] g-garron|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ernesth|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|14 years ago|reply
They advertise "built-in anti virus" all over, when the truth probably is that there is no anti-virus at all. You can argue that there is a lack of need for this and as such advertising for a device without mentioning anti virus at all would make it seem "unsafe" or confusing for the less technically inclined.
But still claiming it has things it doesn't just to make the marketing department's job easier is in my books disingenuous. It's factually inaccurate. It's a lie.
To me it sounds like "Macs can't have viruses" all over again: It supposedly is safe and "has anti-virus" because it isn't Windows. That's pretty cheap and far from factual.
[+] [-] eidorianu|14 years ago|reply
Menotek Micro USB to HDMI MHL Adapter: ~13 usd (Amazon)
Microsoft Bluetooth Mobile Keyboard 6000: ~50 usd (Staples)
Microsoft Bluetooth Notebook Mouse 5000: ~50 usd (Staples)
Full Android ICS Desktop, battery, camera/mic, hspda+, 1920x1080, Chrome for Android.
EDIT: added camera/mic, format
[+] [-] hollerith|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chj|14 years ago|reply
People will get an iPad instead, rather than paying 3xx$ for a dumb box.
[+] [-] tbundy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koide|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomflack|14 years ago|reply
That is a huge claim and one that will be false as web technologies continue to need more power.
[+] [-] fruchtose|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaostheory|14 years ago|reply
Google should work on fixing and polishing Google TV instead instead of this if they want to work on set top boxes. Even with the updates late last year, Google TV compared to the competition is still lagging especially in the UI / UX department.
[+] [-] jablan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jyap|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonz05|14 years ago|reply