Chrome OS and Android
Well, it has been a long time I've used a Chome OS device. But, in light of the latest Pixel Slate, I deemed it worthwhile to take a look. And here is where I stand; I don't know.
That is primarily because I haven't used a newer Chrome OS device. But, it is a substantial change because my impression of them from the previous time was "flee".
Perhaps the most important thing that has changed in Chrome OS is the availability of Android apps and the Play Store. And what this means is that you can no longer evaluate Chrome OS simply as a web first laptop OS. You also need to look at it as a tablet.
And I, admittedly, having been interested in an Android tablet.
The Android ecosystem still has many problems though. And the Chrome OS ecosystem is in a similar boat.
Android on phones is OK. I mean, I've grown to enjoy the OS. But, I've been burned by shoddy Android forks in the past. What I'd really like to see is handset makers making their UI tweaks totally optional, and available in the Play Store. In other words, I'd like for more phones to be delivered as a "pure Android" experience with the differentiating software deliver on top of that, in such a way that it can all be disabled and removed. Rather than the way things are done today where most things are baked into a custom image and non-removable (aside from the parts no sane person would want anyway).
Personally, I think it is a win-win-win. It makes maintaining support easier as you likely won't need to upgrade your own software just to get security patches. Which reduce fragmentation for Android on the whole on one front. So, it benefits both Google and the handset maker. Also, from a differentiation perspective, it is well established that if a device ships with a certain software or default settings, that the typical user won't change them. This is the reason for these anti-trust cases against Google in the EU. They bundle things with the OS. Even if they can be removed, they provide an unfair advantage for Google in those spaces.
Which is also why I feel that making your UI changes part of a custom build totally un-necessary. The average Samsung user will be using whatever UX Samsung ships, and the average non-Samsung user will be using whatever UX ships on their handset. Some Samsung users will change these things and so will some non-Samsung users. But, unless you make things selecting a default home screen app part of the initial setup, the typical user will stay with what they have.
For me, this dilemma isn't that big of a deal in the Android space. Pixel phones give me the updates and the experience I want. And since I want a premium phone and Google offers one at a competitive price. We're all good.
And this is exactly where Chrome OS falls flat on its face.
Chrome OS is nowhere near as mature or feature rich as MacOS or Windows. Nor, is it as demanding. So, when peddled as a laptop or a laptop replacement, seeing Google's first party offering with top tier specs and price points instantly ruins the appeal.
I have a BayTrail tablet I can run Google Docs on. That thing is old as dirt. The specs blow. And it can run Google Docs on top of a resource hungry Windows OS. Explain to me why I would ever want something as expensive as a Chrome Book or Pixel Slate for that?
The Android apps increase the value. But, at the same point, instantly converts it from a laptop competitor to a tablet competitor. I can buy an new iPad for half the price. I could buy a Surface Go for half the price.
And every experience I've had with a 3rd party Chrome OS product has been harrowing.
So, I have no doubts that the Chromebook and Pixel Slate are great products, just like the Pixel phones.
But, they are, in my opinion lost in their ways. I think the cheapest Pixel Slate could be cheaper. But, realistically, shouldn't even exist and simply be replaced at the same price point by the next model up. Chromebook's could easily be less expensive.
I get that 1st party manufacturers don't want to compete too heavily when they license or distribute software that they care more about. But, there are simply too few Chrome OS products and no successful ones. It is incumbent upon Google to change that. Perhaps if they get some reasonable market penetration, they can then switch to more luxury oriented devices. I mean, if Chrome OS could get developers behind it, the luxury side of the equation might seem less ludicrous.
That is primarily because I haven't used a newer Chrome OS device. But, it is a substantial change because my impression of them from the previous time was "flee".
Perhaps the most important thing that has changed in Chrome OS is the availability of Android apps and the Play Store. And what this means is that you can no longer evaluate Chrome OS simply as a web first laptop OS. You also need to look at it as a tablet.
And I, admittedly, having been interested in an Android tablet.
The Android ecosystem still has many problems though. And the Chrome OS ecosystem is in a similar boat.
Android on phones is OK. I mean, I've grown to enjoy the OS. But, I've been burned by shoddy Android forks in the past. What I'd really like to see is handset makers making their UI tweaks totally optional, and available in the Play Store. In other words, I'd like for more phones to be delivered as a "pure Android" experience with the differentiating software deliver on top of that, in such a way that it can all be disabled and removed. Rather than the way things are done today where most things are baked into a custom image and non-removable (aside from the parts no sane person would want anyway).
Personally, I think it is a win-win-win. It makes maintaining support easier as you likely won't need to upgrade your own software just to get security patches. Which reduce fragmentation for Android on the whole on one front. So, it benefits both Google and the handset maker. Also, from a differentiation perspective, it is well established that if a device ships with a certain software or default settings, that the typical user won't change them. This is the reason for these anti-trust cases against Google in the EU. They bundle things with the OS. Even if they can be removed, they provide an unfair advantage for Google in those spaces.
Which is also why I feel that making your UI changes part of a custom build totally un-necessary. The average Samsung user will be using whatever UX Samsung ships, and the average non-Samsung user will be using whatever UX ships on their handset. Some Samsung users will change these things and so will some non-Samsung users. But, unless you make things selecting a default home screen app part of the initial setup, the typical user will stay with what they have.
For me, this dilemma isn't that big of a deal in the Android space. Pixel phones give me the updates and the experience I want. And since I want a premium phone and Google offers one at a competitive price. We're all good.
And this is exactly where Chrome OS falls flat on its face.
Chrome OS is nowhere near as mature or feature rich as MacOS or Windows. Nor, is it as demanding. So, when peddled as a laptop or a laptop replacement, seeing Google's first party offering with top tier specs and price points instantly ruins the appeal.
I have a BayTrail tablet I can run Google Docs on. That thing is old as dirt. The specs blow. And it can run Google Docs on top of a resource hungry Windows OS. Explain to me why I would ever want something as expensive as a Chrome Book or Pixel Slate for that?
The Android apps increase the value. But, at the same point, instantly converts it from a laptop competitor to a tablet competitor. I can buy an new iPad for half the price. I could buy a Surface Go for half the price.
And every experience I've had with a 3rd party Chrome OS product has been harrowing.
So, I have no doubts that the Chromebook and Pixel Slate are great products, just like the Pixel phones.
But, they are, in my opinion lost in their ways. I think the cheapest Pixel Slate could be cheaper. But, realistically, shouldn't even exist and simply be replaced at the same price point by the next model up. Chromebook's could easily be less expensive.
I get that 1st party manufacturers don't want to compete too heavily when they license or distribute software that they care more about. But, there are simply too few Chrome OS products and no successful ones. It is incumbent upon Google to change that. Perhaps if they get some reasonable market penetration, they can then switch to more luxury oriented devices. I mean, if Chrome OS could get developers behind it, the luxury side of the equation might seem less ludicrous.
Comments
Post a Comment