Chrome OS Tablets and Foldable Phones
YAY! Some actual tech related news.
So, apparently, Google is starting its plans to migrate it's tablet strategy to Chrome OS. Firstly, I'm not sure if this is an accurate statement or not. This is certainly what virtually everyone seems to be saying. But, Google announcing a single educational tablet built by a partner running Chrome OS isn't necessarily definitive in my books.
But, given that Chrome OS, can in theory run Android apps, it isn't like the theory is dead in the water.
Google has a huge problem; Bad press caused by partner meddling. I'm not sure to what degree this is true with Chrome OS. But I can say this, I've owned at times 4 different Android devices and experienced MANY more through friends and family. And I can confidently say that most Android devices are total crap. They look like crap. They run like crap. And they aren't even kept up to date, so they are also insecure crap.
This is why, when I finally accepted that Windows Phone was dead, my first Android phone was a Nexus 6P and my second one was a Pixel 2. Samsung flagships generally run well, but even on their top of line phones they don't have a stellar record on updating and some times their UI choices can be a bit annoying. Other Android handset makers tend to be even worse.
I bring this up, because I've only ever seen a single Chrome OS device out in the wild, and it wasn't the equivalent of a Nexus device. So, what I'm about to say about Chrome OS MAY be tainted by OEM implementation. It was a Chrome laptop my niece got as a present and I helped with at times.
The experience was much more reminiscent of OEM Android devices than Nexus or Pixel devices. It was slow. It was buggy. And it was generally a VERY painful experience. The performance was maybe, most of the times, a little better than a Netbook. But, Chrome OS is much more limiting than Windows, so things like printing and network sharing and the likes were just mind numbingly painful experiences. And the reports about how well Android apps run on Chrome OS... aren't so encouraging.
Personally, the fact that Chrome OS runs Android apps at all and Google hasn't released a new device in quite a while tends to make me agree that this is the direction they are planning to go. I simply haven't seen anything to truly indicate that they are actually ready to commit to that yet.
Another troubling thing about Chromebooks is the price for 1st party experience. My nieces tablet was an Acer and was probably more than $200 and less than $400. The only one Chrome OS device available on the Google Store at the moment is well north of $1000. That is downright batty. These devices are supposed to be running a super lightweight OS. When you start going north $1k, you're getting into the territory or premium products. Mac Books and Ultra Books. And these are high end devices running bloat-y mega-OSs. Even worse, the specs on these devices generally thrash those on the Chromebooks.
In other words, you are paying more for less hardware for a device running on an OS which should require fewer resources in the first place. You're being fleeced right across the board.
The premium Chrome OS market needs to be positioned in the $500-750 range. Period.
Don't get me wrong. I have an inkling of what the problem is. SoCs. We have two dominant computing markets. PCs and Phones. Netbooks can leverage relatively powerful CPUs because they are using cheap PC parts. And the parts can be relatively cheap but still reasonably powerful because space is less constrained and battery expectations are lowered.
In the Phone world, chipsets are SUPER expensive to get anything of quality because these things are ALL engineered to be as small as possible, as power efficient as possible and run as cool as possible. There is no Phone/Tablet SoC that was built with the slackened constraints associated with the PC market. So, to get a good chipset using that line is always going to be expensive.
And, well, Chrome OS, I suspect was built more with the ARM chipsets in mind rather than x86-64 architecture. Doubly true if you're talking about running Android apps on the Platform. Google really needs someone like Qualcomm to make a cheaper variant of their mobile chipsets make use of a larger footprint and perhaps less concern for battery life and thus cheaper fabrication for use in larger form factor devices.
Moving on to foldable phones. Seems like Apple is in the race now and people are talking about this like it means and end to Samsung's plans. But, honestly, I don't think that is fair. Firstly, Apple is terrible at getting new things right the first time. And, they are beholden to their past. And they delivering an ever more complicated lineup.
Samsung, on the other hand is actually MUCH better at delivering an OS that takes advantage of such innovative features. And, Samsung also doesn't give 2 shits about whether or not the feature becomes popular in other devices or not.
In short, Apple will not only build a foldable screen. But, they will also build a Platform and APIs. And aside from generalized features like screen resizing and multi-tasking, out of the box apps aren't going to get much benefit. And, since it will initially be on only the most expensive devices it will take a while to get any developer traction.
Samsung on the other hand, won't be relying on developer traction at all. They don't own the OS. They won't be expecting developers to make it a useful feature. They will build some first party apps of their own to leverage the feature. And, then beyond that, they will find ways to plumb it into the OS to make the general experience superior. This is what they did with the wrap around screens. While it would probably be awesome if apps could intentionally make some sort of use out of it... knowing that they couldn't put the onus on Samsung to make the feature valuable. And they tend to deliver.
Also, with Apple targeting 2020 and no guarantees that they will hit their targets either, there is no reason to believe that they will even make it to market with such a device first. But, even if they do, so long as Samsung can respond back within 1-2 years I don't think it will make much a difference. In fact, I don't think it would make a difference any way.
There won't be a statistically relevant number of people who would leave either platform over such a feature.
So, apparently, Google is starting its plans to migrate it's tablet strategy to Chrome OS. Firstly, I'm not sure if this is an accurate statement or not. This is certainly what virtually everyone seems to be saying. But, Google announcing a single educational tablet built by a partner running Chrome OS isn't necessarily definitive in my books.
But, given that Chrome OS, can in theory run Android apps, it isn't like the theory is dead in the water.
Google has a huge problem; Bad press caused by partner meddling. I'm not sure to what degree this is true with Chrome OS. But I can say this, I've owned at times 4 different Android devices and experienced MANY more through friends and family. And I can confidently say that most Android devices are total crap. They look like crap. They run like crap. And they aren't even kept up to date, so they are also insecure crap.
This is why, when I finally accepted that Windows Phone was dead, my first Android phone was a Nexus 6P and my second one was a Pixel 2. Samsung flagships generally run well, but even on their top of line phones they don't have a stellar record on updating and some times their UI choices can be a bit annoying. Other Android handset makers tend to be even worse.
I bring this up, because I've only ever seen a single Chrome OS device out in the wild, and it wasn't the equivalent of a Nexus device. So, what I'm about to say about Chrome OS MAY be tainted by OEM implementation. It was a Chrome laptop my niece got as a present and I helped with at times.
The experience was much more reminiscent of OEM Android devices than Nexus or Pixel devices. It was slow. It was buggy. And it was generally a VERY painful experience. The performance was maybe, most of the times, a little better than a Netbook. But, Chrome OS is much more limiting than Windows, so things like printing and network sharing and the likes were just mind numbingly painful experiences. And the reports about how well Android apps run on Chrome OS... aren't so encouraging.
Personally, the fact that Chrome OS runs Android apps at all and Google hasn't released a new device in quite a while tends to make me agree that this is the direction they are planning to go. I simply haven't seen anything to truly indicate that they are actually ready to commit to that yet.
Another troubling thing about Chromebooks is the price for 1st party experience. My nieces tablet was an Acer and was probably more than $200 and less than $400. The only one Chrome OS device available on the Google Store at the moment is well north of $1000. That is downright batty. These devices are supposed to be running a super lightweight OS. When you start going north $1k, you're getting into the territory or premium products. Mac Books and Ultra Books. And these are high end devices running bloat-y mega-OSs. Even worse, the specs on these devices generally thrash those on the Chromebooks.
In other words, you are paying more for less hardware for a device running on an OS which should require fewer resources in the first place. You're being fleeced right across the board.
The premium Chrome OS market needs to be positioned in the $500-750 range. Period.
Don't get me wrong. I have an inkling of what the problem is. SoCs. We have two dominant computing markets. PCs and Phones. Netbooks can leverage relatively powerful CPUs because they are using cheap PC parts. And the parts can be relatively cheap but still reasonably powerful because space is less constrained and battery expectations are lowered.
In the Phone world, chipsets are SUPER expensive to get anything of quality because these things are ALL engineered to be as small as possible, as power efficient as possible and run as cool as possible. There is no Phone/Tablet SoC that was built with the slackened constraints associated with the PC market. So, to get a good chipset using that line is always going to be expensive.
And, well, Chrome OS, I suspect was built more with the ARM chipsets in mind rather than x86-64 architecture. Doubly true if you're talking about running Android apps on the Platform. Google really needs someone like Qualcomm to make a cheaper variant of their mobile chipsets make use of a larger footprint and perhaps less concern for battery life and thus cheaper fabrication for use in larger form factor devices.
Moving on to foldable phones. Seems like Apple is in the race now and people are talking about this like it means and end to Samsung's plans. But, honestly, I don't think that is fair. Firstly, Apple is terrible at getting new things right the first time. And, they are beholden to their past. And they delivering an ever more complicated lineup.
Samsung, on the other hand is actually MUCH better at delivering an OS that takes advantage of such innovative features. And, Samsung also doesn't give 2 shits about whether or not the feature becomes popular in other devices or not.
In short, Apple will not only build a foldable screen. But, they will also build a Platform and APIs. And aside from generalized features like screen resizing and multi-tasking, out of the box apps aren't going to get much benefit. And, since it will initially be on only the most expensive devices it will take a while to get any developer traction.
Samsung on the other hand, won't be relying on developer traction at all. They don't own the OS. They won't be expecting developers to make it a useful feature. They will build some first party apps of their own to leverage the feature. And, then beyond that, they will find ways to plumb it into the OS to make the general experience superior. This is what they did with the wrap around screens. While it would probably be awesome if apps could intentionally make some sort of use out of it... knowing that they couldn't put the onus on Samsung to make the feature valuable. And they tend to deliver.
Also, with Apple targeting 2020 and no guarantees that they will hit their targets either, there is no reason to believe that they will even make it to market with such a device first. But, even if they do, so long as Samsung can respond back within 1-2 years I don't think it will make much a difference. In fact, I don't think it would make a difference any way.
There won't be a statistically relevant number of people who would leave either platform over such a feature.
Comments
Post a Comment