low-cost
So save on the $300-500 list price of an iPad by signing up to a 3year $100/month 3G contract ?
Google will have a spec-tastic, low-cost, possibly even free Chrome OS tablet in punters' hands a month before Christmas, it has been claimed. And now the bad news: it's likely to be only available in the US, and if you want to get the tablet for a lot less than the iPad, you'll need to take out a Verizon data airtime deal. …
That it can run Davlik apps as well as Chrome apps, making a convergence between the Android and Chrome marketplaces.
Either way, Apple must be shitting themselves, they already lost the mobile game to Android, the Tablet arena is much newer and it's only gonna take a few months of Android/Chrome tablet sales to eclipse that too.
Hardly.
At the low-end of the market, the only possible race is to the bottom, with competitors slitting each others' throats to stay in the game and thus getting mere pennies from each unit sold.
Apple are more than happy to stay at the luxury end of the market. They will sell fewer units, but they make far more money off each sale.
Clichéd Analogy®: Ferrari sell far fewer cars than Ford, but they make much more profit from each one sold.
Ferrari are still going strong and don't care about the low end, cheap tat side of the market.
I have quite possibly misunderstood based on the rumoured specs, but I thought the point of Chrome OS (as contrasted with Android) is that the browser is the OS, with a browser-level native code extension for any occasion where Javascript can't quite cut it, though you're still explicitly performing tasks as part of the normal HTML page interaction process. So I guess there's one level on which you can say it's no more open than iPhone OS 1, but in practice you're coding at exactly the same level as the built-in 'applications' so a more realistic answer would be that it's entirely open.
I naturally assume WebGL will be in there, alongside canvas, so I applaud the engineering decision.
Well, Ferrari is owned by Fiat, and they sure as hell do care about the low end, cheap tat side of the market.
Ford used to own Aston Martin and Jaguar - which, while not really quite at the same level as Ferrari, are certainly well at the end near it. This would be better with the later poster's comparison between BMW and Ford, as Jaguar and Aston Martin are more in that market than that for Ferraris.
What are we talking about again?
As sorry as I am to say it, only Google could come up at this point with a credible contender to the iPad. However, as it is just a glorified browser, I wonder if people will really flock to it. It would have to be dirt-cheap. Even if Verizon were to offer it free, how many people would be willing to spend $30 per month just so they can browse the web? The iPad is so much more, and it's going to take a long time for web apps to compete with the App Store.
"Google will have a spec-tastic, low-cost, possibly even free Chrome OS tablet in punters' hands a month before Christmas, it has been claimed."
Yipee ...
"And now the bad news: it's likely to be only available in the US, and if you want to get the tablet for a lot less than the iPad, you'll need to take out a Verizon data airtime deal."
bugger :(
Could this be perceived as a anything less than outright war, if the rumours are true?
The US governments reaction to this will be interesting to observe, although if Verizon was including the Gpad as a freebie in a airtime deal they might just get away with it.
Google needs to get Chrome OS out of the door before everyone gets used to the idea of Android tablets, or it's never going to take off.
It's incredible though- when it was first announced, ChromeOS was decried as being a useless stripped-down OS with no features. Yet, compared to the iPad it's actually competitive. Funny, that.
Okay, I suppose el goog has dipped toe in water in sense of mixing hardware with firmware with software.
But will it do the whole h'Apple?
Will el goog do hardware, firmware and software proper and properly?
For example, google maps on a handheld device compared to iPhone and TomTom might just be a deal clincher in road warrior scenarios or will it?
I think someone at Google has been hitting the Jenkem a little too hard.
Chrome OS was originally targeted as a netbook/smartbook OS, now they want to not only convert it into a touchscreen OS but one that competes with Android?
This might be the most retarded thing I've heard out of the Chocolate Factory... maybe the cynics are right when they describe Google as a bunch of caffeine riddle assburger kids running around with no direction whatsoever.
Anonymous of course, Google nevar forgets
Google say they will be able to sell these devices quite cheaply.
This is because if you buy one, they will be able to capture information about how you spend your time online and the sites you visit. They will then offer this information about your online activities to the highest bidder, who will use the information to try to sell you things you do no need.
Google are EVIL. I would rather eat my own liver than buy one of their crappy products.
...it's likely to have a big marketing splash then disappear from the market after six months.
Instead of creating a somebody-elses-idea-killer, why can't they just create their own product with some ideas of their own?
Those specs sound positively Zune-tastic.
"Just like all the iPod killers... ...why can't they just create their own product..."
You mean like Apple "created" the iPod? More like copied all of the personal music players that were already on the market!
1999 - "Personal Jukebox" by Compaq
2000 - "Creative Nomad Jukebox" by Creative
2001 - first iPod
iPhone? - too many existing mobile phone manufacturers to list
iPad? - hardly the first tablet PC in the marketplace
Great innovation by Apple? They have rarely, if ever, been truly innovative. What they ARE good it is making a better-looking version of somebody else's idea and giving it "must have" status.
Why Chrome OS and not Android? The UI is lame, Android is more powerful.
For once Ballmer was on the money when he accused Google of being confused. Google say that Android and Chrome OS are for different markets, mobile and personal computing?
Surely they are the same thing? a personal computer device just needs to be a bit more powerful and bigger.
Chrome OS will access remote applications. So no network link, no apps?