If you watch carefully, you notice that while they got many details wrong, the basics are mostly correct. While our buildings look nothing like in the background image of the BBC part, for example, they do in fact incorporate many technological advances.
I think you're working pretty hard to make sense of their predictions. They specifically said "sophisticate new forms of buildings." They didn't say "buildings with better technology." The latter is just a given. Of course newer materials, heating/cooling techniques will be used in the future. But they're largely the same structures with the same functions. Also, there hasn't been a significant move to the cities. They were way off on that one. If anything, people are trying to get out of cities to own land. At least in the US. NOt sure how it applies to the Britain.
The error is only in how visible those are.
No, the error was in thinking that buildings would radically change. They haven't. No new "forms" of buildings. Honestly, I don't even really know what that's supposed to mean.
Also, no choosing our children. While some genetic screening is certainly possible, most people will not opt to do it. So they were off on that one also.
And for computers they predicted... more software? Um, ok.
They did get the importance of satellites right.
They got TV's right, I guess. Though it wasn't too amazing of a prediction. I think we can safely say that technology will get "smaller" without taking much risk.
Well, the way I see it, they are allowing apps - They simply need to run inside the sandbox and be written with a specific language(in this case, html/js). Is this much different than Android was, until they allowed native code?
You mean until they allowed apps? Apple did the same thing. They thought the Safari on the phone would be all people would need, especially with the HTML extensions available to enhance websites for the phone. Turns out people really love apps. Now, why would you create a platform that goes out of its way to prevent people from installing the native apps they love? It is somewhat odd the Google didn't learn this lesson from Android.
Sure, the language is different, and there is more in the way of low-level functions, but I see them as fairly close.
Not even close, dude. Browser based programs are EXTREMELY limited in what they can do. They have almost no access to the system outside of the browser sandbox. And that makes local storage nearly useless. Read the reviews. You can download stuff, but the OS is only aware of a very small subset of mime types. It is just a terrible user experience all around. Basically a Chromebook is a crippled netbook.
Admittedly, a lot of functionality *won't* run completely as a "web app"... But I think they're trying to fix it by adding local storage and other important bits. And if you look at Mozilla as an example - where you have XULrunner being the backend browser bit, and then Firefox, Thunderbird and the like simply being huge scripts on top of it... It could work.
At that point you might just as well allow native apps. You do know that native apps can hit remote APIs, don't you? Facebook, Google, Twitter... they all have public APIs that you can hit with any sort of program you want. That capability is not unique to browser based programs. You coudl write slick native apps that store data in the "cloud." How do you think Dropbox works? How do you think the camera app on your phone syncs photos to your facebook account? That kind of integration and seamlessness is what people want.
Obviously, though, in order to do the same type thing in ChromeOS, they have to add more low-level interface functionality... but it's doable.
Sure it is technically doable, but they'd have to completely change their current approach, which is all web, all the time. Why wouldn't you just get a netbook which already has plenty of native apps available as well as your choice of operating system?
The one interesting thing about this approach, though, is it should allow for moving your chrome webapp profile around between devices - both ChromeOS netbooks and conventional machines running Chrome(which could be just about anything from ARM-based tablets and phones, to x86 Windows, OSX, Linux) - quickly and effectively, something that's impossible with traditional native apps.
Who cares? I'm perfectly happy with my traditional native apps on OS X and I know WIndows users aren't exactly complaining about software choices. I certainly don't want my apps to force me to use Chrome. Bottom line is that for any device that has a critical mass of market share, there WILL be plenty of native apps. The portability argument is moot. I don't need your Chrome-bound apps.
I could see someone using a Windows PC with Autocad, having their general corporate apps running in Chrome, then use one of a "pool" of ChromeOS netbooks on the go, then accessing the same content from their Linux PC at home... or smartphone if needed.
So why a Chromebook and not a netbook running Chrome + any other misc. native apps? That's the basic question yet to be answered here. If you can already run Chrome on netbook class hardware and not be limited to only a browser, what advantage does ChromeOS have?
Even burning it isn't necesary. You can copy the files on the disc image to a HD partition for flash drive using Disk Utility and it will boot and install without modification. Or at least you could with (Snow) Leopard. Really pretty slick, actually.
You know, I still have a desktop that has a half dozen programs running that are not in a web browser. I wouldn't dream of going without it. Even so, what device gets the most use? My CR-48. Most of the time all I want to do is look up some quick youtube clip, send an email, waste some time on Google Reader, or check Facebook/G+/whatever. The cr-48 is lighter, has (some) free wifi (and tethers for the rest), and has great battery life.
Sure, but that's what a netbook is for. You can run Chrome AND apps on a netbook. You've basically paid $500 for a crippled netbook. And that's just stupid. I hope you didn't pay for that Chromebook out of your own pocket.
So for you, yeah, maybe a chromebook isn't going to cut it. But I'd definitely tell my mom to get a chromebook
You'd be doing her an injustice. But whatever, if yo uwant to handle questions like "Why can't I run this Java game?" "Why can't I install an IM client?" That's up to you. If she's got a Mac, she likely has everything she needs.
Hell, she has a mac now and never uses any of the trackpad gestures
Right, because trackbpad gestures are what make a Mac a Mac/rolleyes
Different tools for different tasks.
But what if you could get one tool that does multiple tasks just as well as as the single purpose tool?
"dangerous" as in being able to run unsigned excecutables that can change the disk image, and thus potentially could be malware. See Android and Windows.
I don't use either, but I'll consider it. Still, even on Windows and Android, simply running "unsigned" software is not especially dangerous. It is really only when you start doing it a lot. But if you have a pretty consistent set of tools your running on a day to day basis, there's really no issue. Saying it is "dangerous" is pretty dramatic.
Of course, most of us choose to take that risk for extra control over our machines, though in some cases - A kiosk being a perfect example - having it locked down to a pre-set bunch of signed excecutables and read-only disk image is preferable: It's impossible to get malware, and you don't *want* people installing custom excecutables anyway!
Exactly, there are ways to lock down a machine without resorting to doing everything inside a web browser. The issue isn't necessarily the ability to install new software, but simply to be able to use software that ISN'T a web browser when necessary. A Chromebook completely removes the possibility for the average user. And I'm not evne sure that putting a CHromebook in "dev" mode really gives you much. Chrome OS is not a regular Linux distribution.
Not to mention, I know quite a number of people who really would be better off with a locked down OS: They don't need the capacity, and that way they don't get infected with malware from an accidental click(Remember, these people are the ones who still use IE because they don't know any better).
Locked down doesn't necessarily mean "browser only" though. That's the issue. Google has taken things way too far and basically created a crippled netbook. At least Apple, for example, still allows people to install apps on iPad and iPhone even though they're tightly controlled. That is the way to go. Think about i. What is the problem? Unsigned apps and potential malware. What's the solution? Only allow signed apps. Google missed the mark.
Since when is running a traditional OS considered "dangerous?" Geez. Google has got you brainwashed. Certainly there are risks if you plan on installing a lot of stuff from a wide range of sources but it is hardly "dangerous" to simply run a local office suite, IM/Skype, etc.
A 500$ netbook is in no way so fast given the bloat of Windows.
Oh please. The "bloat" of Windows won't affect your Chrome experience from one system to the other. Isn't it still Windows XP? By today's standards, XP is pretty light. If you don't like it, install some minimal Linux distribution. Get a little extra RAM or something. RAM is cheap.
You loose your netbook and you loose quite a bit of information.
Only as much as you choose to store on it and don't backup. There are ways to keep your local files sync'd with the "cloud.".And of course you can still use the same web services as you can with a Chromebook. But I guess having local apps is too tempting? You're making up excuses. Chromebook is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say. It "solves" the problems you mention by severely restricting what you can do. And that is asinine.
Of course, I know, you can alos use Chrome browser on your netbook but I still think not at the convenience and speed offer by the Chromebook.
Please explain how Chrome on a Chromebook is more convenient than Chrome on anything else. And what makes it faster? Don't just say that "bloat" of Windows. That's a cop out and you know it.
All in all, I think that for most people the balance of features and convinience ist in favor of the Chromebook.
The balance of features: Chromebook can ONLY run a browser. Netbook can run a browswer as well as many other apps. In what universe does that balance out? If it really bothers you to store stuff locally, you are free to use a netbook as if it was a Chromebook, but you'll have that option of running a local app if you really need to. How can you willingly rule that out and cripple your experience with Chrome OS?
People don't like games where they have only one life. They already are playing such a game, for free - why they need to learn some other universe if one mistake just voids all their effort?
One person at a time is stupid. That's not how anyhing in this Universe is happening. We live in the world where everything happens in parallel, where events can be triggered by other players.
Make up your mind. Do people want to play something that is like real life or not?
But couldn't they be running a somewhat modern version of Firefox? I know recent versions don't run on XP, but certainly there's something more capable than IE6 that will run on XP. IE7? IE8? Opera? Chrome? Are the Chinese really so lazy as Americans that they can't be bothered to upgrade beyond the default browser?
You can always hit the developer switch on the bottom and load Ubuntu on it if you need...
So why not just get a netbook then and whatever OS you want? As I understand it, the underlying system on a Chromebok is NOT a full fledged LInux distribution.
No doubt both Google and Samsung will rapidly improve the Chromebook. In a year it might be a pretty good machine.
How? As long as it can only run a web browser, there's only so much you can fix. One of the most fundamental limitations of web based applications is a lack of integration with the desktop. Something you take for granted like double-clicking on a file and opening up the appropriate application is a really big deal when your only application is a web browser. How do you unzip files? How do you watch downloaded movies? These are all things that we take for granted on regular system but suddenly they become big problems on Chrome OS. You can't easily fix that sort of thing. The problem isn't Google's eternal beta mentality. Their problem is that they've deluded htemselves into thinking that people don't need anything other than a web browser. There was a time when Apple thought that Safari on the iPhone would be the killer app, but they were smart enough to leave the App door open. Turns out people really want to run native software. The web is just not there yet. And it won't be for the forseeable future. HTML5 will be lucky to knock Flash and Silverlight off the proverbial mountain.
So will all the pundits in the world now scream about the impending death of Google?
Of course not because everyone knows that their business does not depend on Chromebook. They're not even trying to sell it themselves. They just wrote the browser and integrated it with a LInux kernel. Google doesn't have a whole lot to lose, really. Of course, they don't have a lot to gain either.
Note, the iPad 1 on launch day needed just as much polish as all the new tablets do.
First, Chromebook is NOT a tablet. People will be comparing it to a laptop. And by those standards it fails miserably. Netbooks have been out for years and they are far more capable than a Chromebook. Chromebook has no place. It does not fit in with the tablets and it can't compete with a Netbook. So why buy one?
As for iPad 1 needing polish... Apparently it didn't matter. People snatched them up like mad when they came out. Chromebooks... not so much.
Apple has had a long time to fix stuff, which they have.
And how are you going to "fix" a system that is inherently crippled like a Chromebook? As long as Chrome is the only application you can run, there's only so much you can do. The only way they're going to fix it is to convert CHromOS into a proper OS and give it apps. And even then it would be too little, too late. I mean, if Linux can't break into the mainstream desktop, ChomeOS won't.
Maybe it's because I don't play WoW or some shit in my parents basement - but for what I do, email, surfing, music - it's perfect. Instant on, and iPad battery life (the cr-48 anyways).
Must be you because at any given time, I have half dozen programs running that are NOT a web browser. A netbook would be the closest approximation to something useful for me. A Chromebook is just stupid. A $500 web browser. I could buy a $500 netbook that will run most programs I need including a web browser.
It DOES have local storage, GPS, Bluetooth, etc. Just get r00t, weenies...
What good does local storage do you if it doesn't have the software to do anything useful with the files? And if you're just going to root it to run apps locally, why not get a netbook and run Chrome on top of a proper operating system? You're crippling yourself for NO GOOD REASON.
I'm not a hater. I just know a stupid concept when I see it. A computer in this day and age that can only run a web browser. Insane. Even mobile phone these days can do more than a Chromebook. Fuck Chromebook.
Most of all - it's WIP folks. My cr-48 updates constantly (reboots faster than you can blink) and it's been neat to see it evolve - rapidly - over just 8 months.
The speed of booting is such a ridiculous metric. I reboot my computer no more than once every couple weeks. I can wait an extra 5 seconds (I have SSD, so I boot pretty fast). What exactly do you think the Chromebook is going to evolve into? It has set some pretty hard limits on capabilities. Only runs a web browser. At best it is only going to run a newer version of a web browser. Maybe it will get Java support?
Who would have imagined, the major selling point of a computer is that it has... a terminal program. Yeah, that kind of says a lot about the mass market potential of the Chromebook. Meanwhile, this is the year of the Linux desktop...
Yes, it is incredibly frustrating and it adds nothing to the experience. You could take the mobs out and nothing would change except you'd be a little less frustrated. In fact, that's exactly what I do when if I get into Minecraft. I'm even to the point where mining is too much of a bother and I just give myself infinite TNT. Digging those tunnels is so pointless. No hate for Minecraft, I just think it could have been so much better had Notch focused more on the creative aspect rather than catering to the people who want it to be more like an adventure game. I honestly don't think it can be both. And ya, I paid for it. So I'm a tad disappointed.
Most role playing games have some objective. And even when they don't, they do have some measure of how well you're doing and some story to follow. And you can lose. Your character can die. But if you really don't have an objective or measure of progress, then your not really playing a role playing game so much as just role playing. Get it?
Minecraft has (internal) rules, and you can lose (die) therefore it is a game.
Right, except dying has no consequence other than possibly losing a few items. And the internal rules are not game rules so much as just basic physics. Like "this type of block with behave like so." That does not a game make.
The goal is not to lose.
I don't know anyone who considers dying in Minecraft to be anything more than a minor annoyance. It is an element that could be taken out with very little impact on the overall experience. In fact, I think it should be taken out. I think all the role playing aspects currently in Minecraft are completely superfluous. It is almost like they were put in as an afterthought. Maybe as a bit of ambiance?
Eh, maybe. I dunno. I just know I've lost interest in Minecraft. I built and decorated my underwater castles. There's really not much more to do. Adventure update just sounds like it is trying to spread the Minecraft theme a little too thin. I'd really love to see them drop all adventure aspects and go all out into the creative aspects. More craftable items. More granular control over constructions, etc. The huge block size gets a little old. Sometimes you just want to construct a real curve, ya know?
What would be neat is an implementation of Dwarf Fortress with the Minecraft engine.;-)
Actually, it is for me, I think. I am interested in being creative. I love legos. The problem is that Notch is not staying focused. He is trying to make Minecraft everything to everyone. Adding bits of adventure here, creativity there... but the two things just get in the way of each other. That's why he's been forced to create a whole separate adventure mode. They don't fit well together. At least not to the extremes that he would like. A better implementation of the blend of adventure and creativity would be Terraria. The problem with Terraria is that the adventure and creative aspects are fairly diluted, but at least it is playable as a game.
Slashdot Mirror
If you watch carefully, you notice that while they got many details wrong, the basics are mostly correct. While our buildings look nothing like in the background image of the BBC part, for example, they do in fact incorporate many technological advances.
I think you're working pretty hard to make sense of their predictions. They specifically said "sophisticate new forms of buildings." They didn't say "buildings with better technology." The latter is just a given. Of course newer materials, heating/cooling techniques will be used in the future. But they're largely the same structures with the same functions. Also, there hasn't been a significant move to the cities. They were way off on that one. If anything, people are trying to get out of cities to own land. At least in the US. NOt sure how it applies to the Britain.
The error is only in how visible those are.
No, the error was in thinking that buildings would radically change. They haven't. No new "forms" of buildings. Honestly, I don't even really know what that's supposed to mean.
Also, no choosing our children. While some genetic screening is certainly possible, most people will not opt to do it. So they were off on that one also.
And for computers they predicted... more software? Um, ok.
They did get the importance of satellites right.
They got TV's right, I guess. Though it wasn't too amazing of a prediction. I think we can safely say that technology will get "smaller" without taking much risk.
They really didnt' get much right.
Either that or having thousands of semi-trained pilots flying around major cities is just not a good idea. :-)
Well, the way I see it, they are allowing apps - They simply need to run inside the sandbox and be written with a specific language(in this case, html/js). Is this much different than Android was, until they allowed native code?
You mean until they allowed apps? Apple did the same thing. They thought the Safari on the phone would be all people would need, especially with the HTML extensions available to enhance websites for the phone. Turns out people really love apps. Now, why would you create a platform that goes out of its way to prevent people from installing the native apps they love? It is somewhat odd the Google didn't learn this lesson from Android.
Sure, the language is different, and there is more in the way of low-level functions, but I see them as fairly close.
Not even close, dude. Browser based programs are EXTREMELY limited in what they can do. They have almost no access to the system outside of the browser sandbox. And that makes local storage nearly useless. Read the reviews. You can download stuff, but the OS is only aware of a very small subset of mime types. It is just a terrible user experience all around. Basically a Chromebook is a crippled netbook.
Admittedly, a lot of functionality *won't* run completely as a "web app"... But I think they're trying to fix it by adding local storage and other important bits. And if you look at Mozilla as an example - where you have XULrunner being the backend browser bit, and then Firefox, Thunderbird and the like simply being huge scripts on top of it... It could work.
At that point you might just as well allow native apps. You do know that native apps can hit remote APIs, don't you? Facebook, Google, Twitter... they all have public APIs that you can hit with any sort of program you want. That capability is not unique to browser based programs. You coudl write slick native apps that store data in the "cloud." How do you think Dropbox works? How do you think the camera app on your phone syncs photos to your facebook account? That kind of integration and seamlessness is what people want.
Obviously, though, in order to do the same type thing in ChromeOS, they have to add more low-level interface functionality... but it's doable.
Sure it is technically doable, but they'd have to completely change their current approach, which is all web, all the time. Why wouldn't you just get a netbook which already has plenty of native apps available as well as your choice of operating system?
The one interesting thing about this approach, though, is it should allow for moving your chrome webapp profile around between devices - both ChromeOS netbooks and conventional machines running Chrome(which could be just about anything from ARM-based tablets and phones, to x86 Windows, OSX, Linux) - quickly and effectively, something that's impossible with traditional native apps.
Who cares? I'm perfectly happy with my traditional native apps on OS X and I know WIndows users aren't exactly complaining about software choices. I certainly don't want my apps to force me to use Chrome. Bottom line is that for any device that has a critical mass of market share, there WILL be plenty of native apps. The portability argument is moot. I don't need your Chrome-bound apps.
I could see someone using a Windows PC with Autocad, having their general corporate apps running in Chrome, then use one of a "pool" of ChromeOS netbooks on the go, then accessing the same content from their Linux PC at home... or smartphone if needed.
So why a Chromebook and not a netbook running Chrome + any other misc. native apps? That's the basic question yet to be answered here. If you can already run Chrome on netbook class hardware and not be limited to only a browser, what advantage does ChromeOS have?
Even burning it isn't necesary. You can copy the files on the disc image to a HD partition for flash drive using Disk Utility and it will boot and install without modification. Or at least you could with (Snow) Leopard. Really pretty slick, actually.
You know, I still have a desktop that has a half dozen programs running that are not in a web browser. I wouldn't dream of going without it. Even so, what device gets the most use? My CR-48. Most of the time all I want to do is look up some quick youtube clip, send an email, waste some time on Google Reader, or check Facebook/G+/whatever. The cr-48 is lighter, has (some) free wifi (and tethers for the rest), and has great battery life.
Sure, but that's what a netbook is for. You can run Chrome AND apps on a netbook. You've basically paid $500 for a crippled netbook. And that's just stupid. I hope you didn't pay for that Chromebook out of your own pocket.
So for you, yeah, maybe a chromebook isn't going to cut it. But I'd definitely tell my mom to get a chromebook
You'd be doing her an injustice. But whatever, if yo uwant to handle questions like "Why can't I run this Java game?" "Why can't I install an IM client?" That's up to you. If she's got a Mac, she likely has everything she needs.
Hell, she has a mac now and never uses any of the trackpad gestures
Right, because trackbpad gestures are what make a Mac a Mac /rolleyes
Different tools for different tasks.
But what if you could get one tool that does multiple tasks just as well as as the single purpose tool?
"dangerous" as in being able to run unsigned excecutables that can change the disk image, and thus potentially could be malware. See Android and Windows.
I don't use either, but I'll consider it. Still, even on Windows and Android, simply running "unsigned" software is not especially dangerous. It is really only when you start doing it a lot. But if you have a pretty consistent set of tools your running on a day to day basis, there's really no issue. Saying it is "dangerous" is pretty dramatic.
Of course, most of us choose to take that risk for extra control over our machines, though in some cases - A kiosk being a perfect example - having it locked down to a pre-set bunch of signed excecutables and read-only disk image is preferable: It's impossible to get malware, and you don't *want* people installing custom excecutables anyway!
Exactly, there are ways to lock down a machine without resorting to doing everything inside a web browser. The issue isn't necessarily the ability to install new software, but simply to be able to use software that ISN'T a web browser when necessary. A Chromebook completely removes the possibility for the average user. And I'm not evne sure that putting a CHromebook in "dev" mode really gives you much. Chrome OS is not a regular Linux distribution.
Not to mention, I know quite a number of people who really would be better off with a locked down OS: They don't need the capacity, and that way they don't get infected with malware from an accidental click(Remember, these people are the ones who still use IE because they don't know any better).
Locked down doesn't necessarily mean "browser only" though. That's the issue. Google has taken things way too far and basically created a crippled netbook. At least Apple, for example, still allows people to install apps on iPad and iPhone even though they're tightly controlled. That is the way to go. Think about i. What is the problem? Unsigned apps and potential malware. What's the solution? Only allow signed apps. Google missed the mark.
Since when is running a traditional OS considered "dangerous?" Geez. Google has got you brainwashed. Certainly there are risks if you plan on installing a lot of stuff from a wide range of sources but it is hardly "dangerous" to simply run a local office suite, IM/Skype, etc.
A 500$ netbook is in no way so fast given the bloat of Windows.
Oh please. The "bloat" of Windows won't affect your Chrome experience from one system to the other. Isn't it still Windows XP? By today's standards, XP is pretty light. If you don't like it, install some minimal Linux distribution. Get a little extra RAM or something. RAM is cheap.
You loose your netbook and you loose quite a bit of information.
Only as much as you choose to store on it and don't backup. There are ways to keep your local files sync'd with the "cloud." .And of course you can still use the same web services as you can with a Chromebook. But I guess having local apps is too tempting? You're making up excuses. Chromebook is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say. It "solves" the problems you mention by severely restricting what you can do. And that is asinine.
Of course, I know, you can alos use Chrome browser on your netbook but I still think not at the convenience and speed offer by the Chromebook.
Please explain how Chrome on a Chromebook is more convenient than Chrome on anything else. And what makes it faster? Don't just say that "bloat" of Windows. That's a cop out and you know it.
All in all, I think that for most people the balance of features and convinience ist in favor of the Chromebook.
The balance of features: Chromebook can ONLY run a browser. Netbook can run a browswer as well as many other apps. In what universe does that balance out? If it really bothers you to store stuff locally, you are free to use a netbook as if it was a Chromebook, but you'll have that option of running a local app if you really need to. How can you willingly rule that out and cripple your experience with Chrome OS?
Why should I reboot more often than that? I put it to sleep when not in use. And it is OS X. I don't get system updates very often.
The cool thing to do on Slashdot is drool over anything that Google puts out.
Odd, I read that in a Scottish accent. Any reason for that?
People don't like games where they have only one life. They already are playing such a game, for free - why they need to learn some other universe if one mistake just voids all their effort?
One person at a time is stupid. That's not how anyhing in this Universe is happening. We live in the world where everything happens in parallel, where events can be triggered by other players.
Make up your mind. Do people want to play something that is like real life or not?
But couldn't they be running a somewhat modern version of Firefox? I know recent versions don't run on XP, but certainly there's something more capable than IE6 that will run on XP. IE7? IE8? Opera? Chrome? Are the Chinese really so lazy as Americans that they can't be bothered to upgrade beyond the default browser?
You can always hit the developer switch on the bottom and load Ubuntu on it if you need...
So why not just get a netbook then and whatever OS you want? As I understand it, the underlying system on a Chromebok is NOT a full fledged LInux distribution.
No doubt both Google and Samsung will rapidly improve the Chromebook. In a year it might be a pretty good machine.
How? As long as it can only run a web browser, there's only so much you can fix. One of the most fundamental limitations of web based applications is a lack of integration with the desktop. Something you take for granted like double-clicking on a file and opening up the appropriate application is a really big deal when your only application is a web browser. How do you unzip files? How do you watch downloaded movies? These are all things that we take for granted on regular system but suddenly they become big problems on Chrome OS. You can't easily fix that sort of thing. The problem isn't Google's eternal beta mentality. Their problem is that they've deluded htemselves into thinking that people don't need anything other than a web browser. There was a time when Apple thought that Safari on the iPhone would be the killer app, but they were smart enough to leave the App door open. Turns out people really want to run native software. The web is just not there yet. And it won't be for the forseeable future. HTML5 will be lucky to knock Flash and Silverlight off the proverbial mountain.
So will all the pundits in the world now scream about the impending death of Google?
Of course not because everyone knows that their business does not depend on Chromebook. They're not even trying to sell it themselves. They just wrote the browser and integrated it with a LInux kernel. Google doesn't have a whole lot to lose, really. Of course, they don't have a lot to gain either.
Note, the iPad 1 on launch day needed just as much polish as all the new tablets do.
First, Chromebook is NOT a tablet. People will be comparing it to a laptop. And by those standards it fails miserably. Netbooks have been out for years and they are far more capable than a Chromebook. Chromebook has no place. It does not fit in with the tablets and it can't compete with a Netbook. So why buy one?
As for iPad 1 needing polish... Apparently it didn't matter. People snatched them up like mad when they came out. Chromebooks... not so much.
Apple has had a long time to fix stuff, which they have.
And how are you going to "fix" a system that is inherently crippled like a Chromebook? As long as Chrome is the only application you can run, there's only so much you can do. The only way they're going to fix it is to convert CHromOS into a proper OS and give it apps. And even then it would be too little, too late. I mean, if Linux can't break into the mainstream desktop, ChomeOS won't.
Maybe it's because I don't play WoW or some shit in my parents basement - but for what I do, email, surfing, music - it's perfect. Instant on, and iPad battery life (the cr-48 anyways).
Must be you because at any given time, I have half dozen programs running that are NOT a web browser. A netbook would be the closest approximation to something useful for me. A Chromebook is just stupid. A $500 web browser. I could buy a $500 netbook that will run most programs I need including a web browser.
It DOES have local storage, GPS, Bluetooth, etc. Just get r00t, weenies...
What good does local storage do you if it doesn't have the software to do anything useful with the files? And if you're just going to root it to run apps locally, why not get a netbook and run Chrome on top of a proper operating system? You're crippling yourself for NO GOOD REASON. I'm not a hater. I just know a stupid concept when I see it. A computer in this day and age that can only run a web browser. Insane. Even mobile phone these days can do more than a Chromebook. Fuck Chromebook.
Most of all - it's WIP folks. My cr-48 updates constantly (reboots faster than you can blink) and it's been neat to see it evolve - rapidly - over just 8 months.
The speed of booting is such a ridiculous metric. I reboot my computer no more than once every couple weeks. I can wait an extra 5 seconds (I have SSD, so I boot pretty fast). What exactly do you think the Chromebook is going to evolve into? It has set some pretty hard limits on capabilities. Only runs a web browser. At best it is only going to run a newer version of a web browser. Maybe it will get Java support?
Sort of. Even Google is reluctant to call it Linux.
So, why not just get a netbook? You get the size and economy of a Chrombook with added functionality. And it will run Chrome too.
Who would have imagined, the major selling point of a computer is that it has... a terminal program. Yeah, that kind of says a lot about the mass market potential of the Chromebook. Meanwhile, this is the year of the Linux desktop...
Yes, it is incredibly frustrating and it adds nothing to the experience. You could take the mobs out and nothing would change except you'd be a little less frustrated. In fact, that's exactly what I do when if I get into Minecraft. I'm even to the point where mining is too much of a bother and I just give myself infinite TNT. Digging those tunnels is so pointless. No hate for Minecraft, I just think it could have been so much better had Notch focused more on the creative aspect rather than catering to the people who want it to be more like an adventure game. I honestly don't think it can be both. And ya, I paid for it. So I'm a tad disappointed.
Most role playing games have some objective. And even when they don't, they do have some measure of how well you're doing and some story to follow. And you can lose. Your character can die. But if you really don't have an objective or measure of progress, then your not really playing a role playing game so much as just role playing. Get it?
Minecraft has (internal) rules, and you can lose (die) therefore it is a game.
Right, except dying has no consequence other than possibly losing a few items. And the internal rules are not game rules so much as just basic physics. Like "this type of block with behave like so." That does not a game make.
The goal is not to lose.
I don't know anyone who considers dying in Minecraft to be anything more than a minor annoyance. It is an element that could be taken out with very little impact on the overall experience. In fact, I think it should be taken out. I think all the role playing aspects currently in Minecraft are completely superfluous. It is almost like they were put in as an afterthought. Maybe as a bit of ambiance?
Now will you argue that Tetris is not a game?
No.
90% of the time I'd just die from being careless in the Gnomish Mines. ;-)
Eh, maybe. I dunno. I just know I've lost interest in Minecraft. I built and decorated my underwater castles. There's really not much more to do. Adventure update just sounds like it is trying to spread the Minecraft theme a little too thin. I'd really love to see them drop all adventure aspects and go all out into the creative aspects. More craftable items. More granular control over constructions, etc. The huge block size gets a little old. Sometimes you just want to construct a real curve, ya know? What would be neat is an implementation of Dwarf Fortress with the Minecraft engine. ;-)
Actually, it is for me, I think. I am interested in being creative. I love legos. The problem is that Notch is not staying focused. He is trying to make Minecraft everything to everyone. Adding bits of adventure here, creativity there... but the two things just get in the way of each other. That's why he's been forced to create a whole separate adventure mode. They don't fit well together. At least not to the extremes that he would like. A better implementation of the blend of adventure and creativity would be Terraria. The problem with Terraria is that the adventure and creative aspects are fairly diluted, but at least it is playable as a game.