Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Pulls the Plug On Its Pixel Laptops (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the back-to-the-basics dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Although its new flagship phones have been doing brisk sales, Google's high-end, $1,299 Pixel-branded Chromebooks won't be seeing much love from the search giant in the near future. According to TechCrunch, reporting from the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona today, Google's SVP of hardware Rick Osterloh has announced the second version of the Pixel laptop will be the last of its kind. As TechCrunch notes, Google is trimming down the Pixel line to just the smartphones and the Pixel C tablet for now. Although there may be other devices carrying the name in the future, Osterloh said it was unlikely that its own laptops would be one of them.

44 comments

  1. Choosing Google considered harmful by chrism238 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps, like so many of Google's software offerings, the Pixel was just in beta? It's considered dangerous to invest time and effort into much of fickle Google's software, lest it's withdrawn with only a few months' notice, and the same would appear true of their hardware lines, too.

    1. Re:Choosing Google considered harmful by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's considered dangerous to invest time and effort into much of fickle Google's software, lest it's withdrawn with only a few months' notice, and the same would appear true of their hardware lines, too.

      Except that cloud services stop working when Google turns them off, while a Pixel notebook still works after Google stops selling new ones.

      Also, since the Pixel uses an x86 processor, Chrome OS updates will continue to Just Work on it, or you could wipe it and install some distro of Linux like Linus Torvalds did. So I'm really not seeing the problem here.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    2. Re:Choosing Google considered harmful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've proven that ChromeOS on decent hardware is not viable. Google themselves have given up on it and if it were to inspire OEMs to build similar devices then it failed there as well.

    3. Re:Choosing Google considered harmful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of commitment is a Google feature which intends to maximize end user freedom.

    4. Re:Choosing Google considered harmful by thsths · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is the impression I am getting. A key feature, running Android apps, was not available at the launch of the device, and is only slowly stabilising. The GUI is also subject to change, and it is nearly impossible to stay on a certain version (even ignoring security issues).

      It is a very nice piece of hardware, but the software limits it to a web browser, and for that it is just too expensive.

    5. Re:Choosing Google considered harmful by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Perhaps people like Linus wiping Chrome OS and installing Linux is part of the problem. Of what benefit is that to Google? Tablets and smartphones are more locked down leading to better data collection.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:Choosing Google considered harmful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they are comparable. This isn't a product being killed its a model. There are still a ton of Chromebook offerings that aren't Google branded, far more then when the Pixel line was created. And I think its probably being killed because it served its purpose. ChromeOS is far closer to a thin client and it doesn't need a ever increasing local speed. When Google made super expensive high end Pixel Chromebooks they were building a development platform which showed what ChromeOS would look like years in the future. They wanted to sell it to people who would explore what it would do and they targeted that niche developer audience. Now that hardware is commonly available, Chromebooks min hardware standard have more speed and sensors then even those Pixels had, and you buy them for far more reasonable price. They don't need to keep building better and better development platforms because they are thin clients, they just needed 'enough' power to run multiple browsers smoothly which has now got far cheaper.

  2. No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like they've stopped supporting their products midstream before, oh wait (see Google Glass, Reader, Currents, etc). This is just another product to add to their already growing list of products they no longer have an interest in supporting leaving users high and dry.

    1. Re:No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they stopped supporting it in some way? They just said they won't be making more of them.

    2. Re:No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Glass is still being sold and supported. In fact it sees brisk sales in the aerospace industry as you can have a full flight checklist and other data right on your face and take a photo to send to a supervisor to get a plane serviced fast. It's also used in other commercial service industries.

      Next time try talking about something you know about instead of making up complete bullshit based on your highly uninformed and extremely uneducated opinions.

    3. Re: No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "brisk sales"

    4. Re: No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brusk response about brisk sales.

    5. Re:No surprise here... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Brisk sales yet I can't order any to use for mine exploration recording.

      My ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  3. No market for $1200 Chromebooks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who could have foreseen that?

  4. Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously. For the entire duration of its existence, Google has only had search, advertising, and bluster going for it (stop right there, Fandroids. Android doesn't make them any money save through the aforementioned channels). Why anyone continues to put faith in them is a true head scratcher, particularly given what they take from their users.

  5. Trusting the Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deal-breaker for me was ChromeOS.

    Call me however you want, but I do not trust, or even like the idea of, the "Cloud".

    Even Windows allows you to operate completely Offline (for now, at least).

    So fuck you Google, and fuck ChromeOS.

    1. Re:Trusting the Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me however you want...

      Alright. I'll call you Frank.

      I agree with you here Frank. The trouble is that the vast majority do not care, or increasingly often, think it is beneficial to them to store all their data with ad-companies like Google or Facebook. Personal computing is in danger, because everyone wants everything put in "the cloud". More than that, devices are being increasingly designed to blur the distinction, so you are never quite sure where you data is. That makes it all the easier to lock it all up behind a walled garden so it can be mined for any value it may have.

      You and me Frank, we're a dying breed.

    2. Re:Trusting the Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bigger problem is the inability of people like yourself to convince people not to store things in the cloud. The benefit of your data being device-agnostic is enormous and the fact that this is paid for by ad companies like Google offering services to match advertisements to users is not something users really have an aversion to. There is no easy alternative (there are certainly technologies that you can cobble together to achieve it if you have a decent enough internet connection or funds to rent a server) and ultimately the argument devolves into the age-old FUD arguments of privacy.

      Ultimately they all say they anonymise your data and there is no evidence to suggest they are lying, moreover the geek community burned a lot of goodwill on the nearly 2 decade old arguments of how Microsoft has backdoors in Windows and they're stealing your data. Then of course Windows 10 comes in with telemetry and much of the same community rehash those old arguments again. In *theory* such a thing would be incredibly harmful, but in over 20 years that theory has proven to be empty fear-mongering.

      Spreading FUD won't work, instead the technologies are there to be able to provide a simple alternative that end users could choose and that is what would compete with "the cloud". Just look at MS Office, these days it's one package that integrates email, calendar, meetings, room bookings, native desktop applications (for the major platforms), native mobile applications (for the major platforms), web-based applications and storage/sync services for data, that is compelling for users and even more so for businesses. I doubt very much that Microsoft is offering something that couldn't be done with FOSS but it's a matter of getting a whole bunch of different bits and cobbling them together.

      In order to leverage economies of scale there needs to be an easy-to-use alternative that provides a real advantage to average end users, given it would now have to disrupt the current market it would need some compelling and disruptive innovation to do that.

    3. Re:Trusting the Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      when the internet goes down on a rainy day, they will care.

  6. spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the phone or tablets have more cameras and can fit in your pocket or purse than a big o' 15" device you are likely to leave on your desk, in your backpack, etc

  7. Google Pulls the Plug by b783719 · · Score: 2

    and nothing of value was lost.

    Just remember not to spend too much of your time into whatever they introduced. Your time is worth more than that.

  8. Update: Never say never by steveha · · Score: 1

    The article has been updated with this addition:

    Update: Never say never! Osterloh sent us this additional comment after we published: "Regarding the future of Google-branded laptops (whether called Pixel or not), I should clarify that we don't have any plans to discuss at this time."

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  9. Wan't one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. This bit of news Really wants me to go out and buy a google gadget!

  10. What was the point of a $1300 ChromeBook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The idea of the ChromeBook was to be cheap. Going up market never made sense since it would inherently lack features that an equivalent Windows or Mac (or Linux) laptop would have.

    1. Re:What was the point of a $1300 ChromeBook? by steveha · · Score: 1

      Going up market never made sense

      Well, only Google knows the real reasons for the Chrome Pixel, but the speculation I have seen is that it was intended as a "halo" product, to show how nifty a ChromeOS device could potentially be. It's not desirable for customers to think of ChromeOS as being the OS you have to put up with on dirt-cheap hardware. Showing off ChromeOS on hardware about as nice as a MacBook Air has some value; whether it's sufficient value to really be worth it, I won't speculate.

      It's possible that making a sexy notebook for Google people to carry around was one of the reasons as well.

      Keep in mind that one of its features is a colorful light strip with no functional purpose; Wikipedia claims it is there "purely for its cool factor".

      Also keep in mind that Google developed the inexplicable Nexus Q. Someone at Google thought that was a good idea. The Chromebook Pixel was a giant success in comparison. (My own theory: the Nexus Q would be a pretty nifty device to set up in a college dorm room, assuming that everyone who routinely wanted to use it had an NFC-equipped mobile device. I think that's why it was made with built-in amplifier adequate for driving small speakers. For any other use case its feature mix was... questionable.)

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    2. Re:What was the point of a $1300 ChromeBook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all the Pixel line did was prove that ChromeOS as a laptop sucks regardless of how good a piece of hardware you throw at it. If anything this backfired and ensured OEM's will avoid going down this path.

    3. Re:What was the point of a $1300 ChromeBook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all the Pixel line did was prove that ChromeOS as a laptop sucks regardless of how good a piece of hardware you throw at it. If anything this backfired and ensured OEM's will avoid going down this path.

      Yeah but the question was "what was the point" not "did it work"

    4. Re:What was the point of a $1300 ChromeBook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of the ChromeBook was to be cheap. Going up market never made sense since it would inherently lack features that an equivalent Windows or Mac (or Linux) laptop would have.

      Two responses:

      1. the VP pitch was: apps/GSuite customers. If you're a Google Apps company, your workers can do their entire job function on Chromebook. For example, any straggler app that doesn't run on Chromebook should run in cloud via Chromoting, similar to Citrix in older shops, but most workers will have 0 such apps. It's incredibly easy to manage out-of-the-box compared to Windows, mac OS, or even tablet nonsense which is why nerds keep gifting them to grandparents. Apps/GSuite customers get a dashboard that makes managing it even easier because you can force VPN or proxy settings, force corporate extensoins and ban dangerous extensions, etc., and it's done in a fairly thoughtful way wrt. multiprofile so spying is transparent to the employee and possibly avoidable on personal profiles that are nevertheless isolated from work stuff. It's a great security improvement. However, the "cheap" image is an obstacle here. The cost of hardware to the company isn't a big deal because they care about TCO where bigger wins are to be had in software, IT management, lifespan, security, so cheap is no benefit, and employees won't take the cheap-looking laptops so cheap is a liability. Powerful ones decline the assault to their dignity, and weaker ones feel disgruntled. The easy test is, can you get Googlers to use it? If they won't, why expect customers' Apps/GSuite employees will be different? Pixel solved that problem by matching premium mac/Windows performance and appearance.

      2. why are you complaining? For a Linux user, this is the best deal out there. They have significant security advantages in hardware: no AMT, no DMA through external ports (USB3 is thoughtfully handled), signed Google-written BIOS with an update path that has plausible hope of being NSA-proof, the best of both worlds wrt "verified boot" down to a "developer screw" that gives you full Google access yet the hardware manufacturer does _not_ get to keep update keys like they do with Android. If you choose not to wipe it but run crouton (Ubuntu chroot) instead, you get even more advantages: some of the signing framework is still in play, disk encryption goes through TPM so it's effaceable and rate-limited, permabroken pieces of Linux like NetworkManager and PulseAudio are totally or partially replaced respectively, power management is better (faster to boot/suspend/resume, fewer broken corner bits, no regressions across updates, no dead hardware after resume including TPM), and they are making slow progress on minimizing attack surface by for example moving the filesystems used for USB and SDCard to FUSE so corrupt filesystems are interpreted in a sandbox (not finished though). It is by far the best thing to happen to desktop linux in two decades. Companies that claimed to produce "the linux laptop" like System76 produced shit, objectively worse than Thinkpads. It's easy to argue (not everyone will be convinced, but IMHO they should be by the security stuff) that Chromebooks are better linux laptops than Thinkpads. They finally got it done. There's no other sustainable way we are going to get served. If you think they are insane, you should be applauding their insanity and begging for more of it.

  11. Dogfooding by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    I thought the idea was to introduce a premium device on which Google employees would develop Chrome OS. That it was sold to the general public was incidental.

  12. Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now that there's no unification going on between their phones and laptops, can we please get the Nexus line back? Screw paying extra for "premium" materials and losing the "stock Android" experience.

    1. Re:Nexus by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      This. I was willing to pay more than $350 that i paid for N5, but $650 for the half baked pixel with a 5" screen? No thanks. I'll go OnePlus if my N5 dies.

  13. Expensive notebook for a browser OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nothing really wrong with Pixel notebook but it was overkill for such a low impact OS as Chrome OS. After all it was a Linux shell with a Chrome browser and some web apps and will add Android apps. Again, low impact that doesn't require a $1200 notebook. Would be the same if Apple made a MacBook Pro and ran a OS like Chrome only using Safari as the browser. I think the price point of a Chrome OS device is under $300. That's about what they are worth in real world value. After all have you ever tried to trade a Chromebook? They ain't worth much as I found out.

  14. Pixelated. by archer,+the · · Score: 1

    --Arnold

  15. Android Tablet Interface is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine how you'd want Android on a tablet to work:

    Use case, mixed phone call/web work:

    The tablet is in front of you on a stand, the phone rings, it's bob.
    You put in your bluetooth headset, turn it on and the tablet automatically answers the call when the headset connects.
    The dialer app shows bob's contact details in a pane [COMMPANE1] taking a modest amount of the left side.
    If it's a video call (e.g. Line voip), then the pane is a bit wider, it sizes to the task inside, leaving the rest of the screen for work.
    While you're talking to bob, you're working on stuff for him. At the right side you open a web browser and copy some data from the web.
    You need to open a spreadsheet too, you click the link, and since there isn't enough space on the right of the screen, the sheet opens in a tabbed view over the web page.*
    He tells you he wants the PEGR or some such, you calculate it in the sheet, copy the numbers.
    In the communications pane [COMMPANE1] are Bob's contact methods in tabs across the top. He has a phone tab (currently selected), a LINE tab,
    an Email tab and a WhatsApp tab.
    "How do you want it Bob?"..."Line"... you tap the Line tab in [COMMPANE1] and it's open at his account, you paste in the numbers.

    * If you want it in a split pane, drag the tab to the right edge or left egde to split the pan and place this at a the right or left pane.
    * I can slide windows off the edge, leaving only a little pull tab, if I don't want them on screen.

    What you have now:
    Phone rings on the landscape tablet, a hulking great big FULL SCREEN phone dialer appears IN PORTRAIT. You unclip the tablet from its keyboard turn it portrait, click answer, tell him to hold on a moment. You pull down the settings pane and enable bluetooth, you turn on your bluetooth headset. It's bob, he wants some data. You start up your PC and get him his data, because it would be way to difficult to use the tablet in portrait switching between apps.

    What you're getting in Chromiandroid:
    Pichai is slapping Chrome over Android to turn Android into a subpar Windows because he was the head of Chrome.

    Extras:
    I installed Android 7 and it had a long wide Google search bar across it. Why? Who actually types in that search bar. They go to a web-browser and use that because they get the instant results there. The bar is ugly and takes up valuable space. Make it more useful, e.g. it's small, you tap speak, it expands out with your words, and a few buttons, "images", "web result", "translate into (option language)"?

    The launcher has apps panes with apps in it, a desktop with frequently used apps and some apps as widgets, and a 'recently used pane'. THREE Mixed up ways of doing the same thing. As a result in multipane you cannot to all the apps in a consistent way. The launcher needs to be rethought for tablets and multipane, it's a mess.

    When I install a widget, it puts the icon of the widget on the desktop instead of the widget itself... why would anyone want that?

    A widget is some useful information, it should be unified with other apps, so it can appear in panes on tablets next to working panes.

  16. Does this mean I can get one cheap? by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they drop the price enough, it might be a good deal for a Linux laptop.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Does this mean I can get one cheap? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      They don't need to drop the price, they just need something larger than 64GB of onboard storage. Meanwhile I will plug on with my 8 year old 14" 1400x1050 screen laptop while I save up my pennies to buy a Surface Book 4 all to run Linux as I flat out refuse to buy a 16:9 screened laptop.

  17. Magenta by itomato · · Score: 1

    ChromeOS is still Gentoo underneath. Where is the justification for another generation of custom hardware platform to support that hack when Pink or Magenta or whatever is around the corner?

  18. ChromeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't seem to reassure anyone relying on ChromeOS. Yes it may be "#2" in the market, but if that isn't making Google lots of cash, they may just not bother anymore.

    Has Google had a successful product other than Pixel, and Android dominance, lately?

  19. All you can do is draw a dot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a great idea

  20. Why should I use Google products when.. by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    you know unless it's a instant hit, they will pull the plug in a heartbeat. It's pretty much set up to fail from the start.

  21. Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have thought that killing off a stable and good brand (Nexus), and trying to fill the market with twice-the-price stuff would fail?

  22. Increase SSD size and try selling them with Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd buy one.