Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Beyond that you're paying for the build quality of the machine itself, and the TB of cloud storage, just as you would be for a similar quality ultrabook or MacBook Air.
Graham
|
That doesn't really answer the question, which was rhetorical in any case. What's the use case? We all 'get' the concept of the original Chromebook, even if we don't buy into it: an ultra-low cost computer for people who only need to do basic web browsing and can get by with cloud software for the rest.
That market segment quite clearly isn't going to spend $1,300+ for what amounts to a web browser with a nice screen, and are even less likely to need, or want, 1 TB of storage space.
If Pixel is intended as a shot across the bow of Apple's retina display computers, it's destined to fail because of its crippled OS which is of no interest to professionals or tech geeks. But I doubt that was the intention.
The Pixel only makes sense, to me, as a signal from Google that they're done making (exclusively) low-end hardware. I liken it to a concept car: not for mass consumption, even if you can theoretically buy it, but as a roadmap for future development. I don't think anyone should take this particular computer seriously as a consumer product, but should consider what it implies about Google's future offerings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Gumby
A wearable computer that's probably not even half as capable a device as the crippled laptop, or even a $300 no-name Android 2.3 tablet from 2 years ago...
|
Not a very interesting observation. How 'capable' were smartphones five years ago compared to computers? Hardly at all, yet their portability, simplicity, and cost put them on track to completely overtake the traditional computer market by the end of this decade.
I believe that Google Glass, or some other form of wearable computing, is destined to do the same in the near term. If they'll work with regular prescription glasses, I'll buy a pair this year.