OSNews

Ass handed to them? Chromebooks? Lol, no.

I've used a Chromebook, and my immediate reaction was "wow, this is pretty sweet". Then I hit the brick wall the video talks about: No wifi means no apps. It's gotten better on that front recently with offline gmail and limited local storage; I tried Hexxeh's Chromium OS build on my netbook and those features mostly worked, but I still went back to Slackware after just a few days. If I ever end up with a "real" Chromebook I'll probably just wipe and install a more useful OS.

All that said, I live in a semi-rural area on the outskirts of Atlanta, so I'm not the target market for these devices anyway. Someone who is bathed in free wifi 24/7 would probably love it.

I just have to question the wisdom of Microsoft getting its ass handed to them by an OS which has worse sales than Windows RT.

They may very well be fantastic little laptops at awesome prices.

I agree, and I think RT is a good comparison point.

Hardware-wise, Chromebooks can be nice or they can be worse than first-gen netbooks. The Pixel is almost Apple-level nice, but the price is a huge turnoff. The sub-$300 Chromebooks are hit or miss, with a lot of misses.

I would definitely rather have an RT based device than a Chromebook, as the two stand today.

This hits the weakness common to all vendors - no exception (as far as I am aware).

Having web-apps and using cloud storage works fine in an urban area well served in all kings of wireless networking connections.

However - not so in a rural area.

Maybe, rather than trying to bash each others, Apple, Google, and Microsoft would be better (for us, the users), to come-up with a common API set capable of transparently dealing with the loss of wireless connectivity once one travels away from urban centers and major highways. That would be money well spent.

Have you checked out http://hood.ie/ ?

I haven't looked at the framework itself, but it specifically targets this scenario, and I hold the people behind it in very high regard.

I don't understand this argument really. If you don't have wifi, what is it you are doing on your computer? If I am not at home or at work, I'm not doing anything on my computer. Do you guys go out in the wilderness and need to do some spreadsheets or what?

I think for 90% of people, the only time they use their computer is when they would have internet. Still I think the models with 200MB free internet make a lot of sense, and in some cases don't cost much more.

Please stop this lame strawman argument.

Nothing lame or "strawman" about it, no matter how much you, with your narrow point of view, want it to be. Fact is, a Chromebook is a computer designed to be used strictly online. If you try to use one offline, it's no longer useful. On the contrary, if I take my netbook to a place with no internet, I can still do around 80% of what that computer's OS allows. I can do some coding, I can play games, I can write prose, I can edit graphics, and so on. With a Chromebook, no internet means nearly none of that is possible. On my netbook, no internet means a very minor inconvenience.

Think outside the box, there's more to the computing world than looking at cat pictures and trolling discussion groups.

That's actually not true. Chrome apps can use local storage:
- Angry Birds for example can be installed locally.
- QuickOffice works offline on locally stored documents.
- Google Keep also allows to read and edit notes.

Of course it's still mainly targeted for online use. But depending on what you want to do while being offline the gap between a Chromebook and a classic laptop is quite narrow. At least that's my experience during the last couple of weeks when I had both with me on train rides and flights.

(As an experiment I have written this on a C7 Chromebook with turned off wifi. Editing and preview just works. Now let's get back online...)

Edited 2013-11-29 18:37 UTC

Look up, I actually said that too in my original comment above the one you replied to. But it's just not the same thing as a true, fully useful OS.

My point though, is that you're just not going to do any serious work with one sans internet. You're not going to do any real development, and I'd be nervous about trusting my WIP fiction and non-fiction projects to such a flaky device.

But again, I'm not the normal use-case for one of these. I'm much better served by a full OS, and I've already said that for people with reliable, 24/7 wifi wherever they go, a Chromebook is a great device.

Look up, I actually said that too in my original comment above the one you replied to. But it's just not the same thing as a true, fully useful OS. "
Apps != OS

- If a Chrome app does not offer offline operation it is not the fault of the OS.
- If a Windows application does not use network access (e.g. for updates) it is not the fault of the OS.


A Chromebook is by default flaky? I do not see why. If the SSD in a Windows netbook dies the work is lost just the same.


So I can perfectly understand that a Chromebook does not work you. But I do think that it is a matter of available applications and not necessarily of the OS.

Not on desktop, but on mobile, and on the web. And I guess you might say Office as well. They're just not the giant behemoth they used to be.

Edited 2013-11-27 00:35 UTC

They have an unshakable domination on the Desktop, in mobile their seeing increased success, and Office is crushing Google's offerings especially Office365.

Office is especially hilarious though, Microsoft was able to reinvent a new business model, turn it into a two billion dollar business, and laugh all the way to the bank before Google even knew what happened.

So Microsoft dominate a shrinking desktop market. Down 11.2% since 2012.

They have managed to increase their mobile OS market share 156%. Which sounds awesome but then you read that it went up from 2.3% in 2012 to 3.7% in 2013.

Their search engine is so bad that it has to use Google to improve it's results and their best product is an on-line version of Office. Personally I disagree, I think Office 365 is overpriced and their best offering for me is Exchange on-line but that is just my opinion.

So tell me, if Microsoft are doing so well then why have they started with this smear campaign against Google? It must be that famous Microsoft civic duty we hear about all the time.

P.s Below I've listed my sources. Sources are how you let people know that you are talking about hard facts instead of wishful thinking mixed in with a unhealthy dose of fanboyism.

Sources:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2610015
http://www.businessinsider.com/bing-is-cribbing-from-google-search-...
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24442013

You are making little semantic sense. Again talking out of emotion, rather than sense.
And I'm pretty sure that Google knew that it's going to be hard fighting Microsoft's Office dominance, as I suspect that they have read The Innovator's Solution. Fortunately for Microsoft, they also have read that book and all they had to do it close the gap to remain the leaders.

The OP said that Microsoft was getting its ass handed to them in Office, something that's laughable.

Of course Google knew it'd be hard, but that's an aside because I'm not commenting on that. I'm mentioning the speed at which Microsoft adjusted its strategy and killed the Google Docs baby in the cradle.

Well... not bad. You got 1 out of 4 correct.

As far as I read that comment, nothing is stating that CHROMEBOOKS are handing MS' ass to them.

MS' grandiose schemes in general are all just falling down on their own. Of course, they have plenty of decent revenue streams. But clearly MS has a weird psychology of being unhappy when other companies find success, regardless of whether that is actually competing or threatening their own current success/niche.

That Chromebooks are a minor part of the market and not really taking over the world in their current form is exactly the point of why this negative campaign is such a joke and revealing of the state of MS. Why should MS bother to attack Chromebooks in the first place? That they are really says something about MS, more than Chromebooks.

Edited 2013-11-27 09:30 UTC

And worse, when you have an internet connection they are only marginally useful. I have a samsung chrome book and really tried to use it. The price was right and the battery life is great as well as the boot time. But it just sucks to use. The simplest things I would do on a regular desktop (presentations, spreadsheets, remote desktop, easy access to dropbox, some light image editing, etc) is all just impossible or really poor imitation of the real thing. I basically use it for a netflix box in bed, and even that is marginal because of the budget screen.

It's pretty much gathering dust. I thought I could save some bucks for an auxiliary travel device but the quality just isn't there. When I travel I just take my bluetooth keyboard with me and use the iPhone for everything. It does a better job than the chrome book for most things.

Edited 2013-11-27 07:50 UTC

I run regular desktop Linux on my Chromebook, pretty good deal if you ask me.

I'd say that in today's world not having an internet connection makes any computing device barely useful.

You think that Elop had no hand in Nokia ad campaign?

He probably did and for Microsoft's sake I hope he's not the next CEO.

I find your optimism unfounded.

I don't know if optimism would be the right word since I don't care about Microsoft.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I should be rooting against his selection because I don't think he's a good ceo, or if i should be rooting for his selection because it would be interesting to see Microsoft's downfall.

They probably notice this behavior in comment sections all over the web, figure they might be able to invoke some positive association by stooping to the internet's level.

Its political BS that's found its way into technology.

I fondly enjoyed those "I'am a Mac, I'm a PC" ads.

I also remember an earlier message - "Mac's works right out of the box". As a parent, I could relate to the poor dad opening up a new computer and setting up the internet connection and his son simply saying "I'm going over to his friends because they got a Mac".

When refering to competitors in advertisement, it seems that focusing on the strength of the product (whether imaginary or real) and with some humour has more lasting impacts than attack/negative ads.

On the other hand, if software giants and politicans alike would take note of this, then there would not be much left to bash at?

That is slightly different to when a bigger player mentions a smaller player.
Apple needed to show that they can compete with Windows systems, because they are a smaller player in the market. Droid Does commercials needed to show that they can compete with iPhone.
Mentioning or implying your competitor works only when you are comparing your product and pointing out something better or equivalence. Otherwise it's free advertising to a smaller competitor.

If they were, they certainly aren't showing their supposed training...

Otherwise, they'd stop trying to fight battles that others have already won and focus on winning battles that others don't even know need to be fought.

It's an ad. It's scripted.

Yes, I know, but I'm thinking Pawn Stars, the "normal" episodes, are scripted to. At least to a certain degree.

Ahh, OK, well, I'm pretty sure the normal series are are 'directed'. I mean people that wanted to go into the shop are directed to wait and start talking after the camera started rolling, that sort of things.

Pretty much all US-based "reality" TV is heavily scripted. Even Cops, which helped to start the reality craze over 20 years ago, has had scenes that were occasionally re-shot or embellished. Then you have the other end of the spectrum, shows like The Hills where it's painfully obvious that it's a fully scripted, fictional drama, shot in high framerates to make it appear like a reality show. The only thing "real" about that show was that they used the actors' real names for the characters.

I guess most of life is fake these days.

Microsoft should be careful with these kind of adds, because it's not that hard to pick one of the many Microsoft products and stage an act like this one making for of either the product or selected features of it.

For example: licences. Does any one here understand them? Of each product Microsoft has x versions, from basic useless to business ultimate pro++. Different features, prices. But then you can buy a single product, or a volume license, which can run on real or virtual hardware, the number of CPUs/cores makes a difference and then you have CALs.

You try to get the right version, like SQL Server, only to find out later some feature isn't available and you need a more expensive version.

Oh god...CALs. I doubt there's a single person in the world who knows how CALs work.

Google: Doesn't matter, sold unit.

Chromebooks are sold below cost. It's a loss for Google when Linux is installed.