Here's a link to recent article discussing chromebooks in which I provided a comment identifying some of the current and long-term of advantages of chromebooks and more broadly, browser-based operating systems:
How I write about Chromebook
My original, full comment is as follows:
Joe - I appreciate your post shown above and your efforts to be objective about chromebooks' (and more broadly cloud or browser-based operating systems') sales patterns, despite your own pro-browser based OS biases. I actually looked at Jeff Nelson's blog yesterday (Monday 3/17) and saw your comment that you quoted above. Like presumably some other people who read your "Chromebook belongs to computing's past" article, I visited Mr. Nelson's website after reading his response to your article (and was not aware that Mr. Nelson is essentially the father of Chrome OS until I read his response to your March 10th article).
You are probably right that chromebook advocates (myself included) are probably overstating Chrome OS's future possibilities to some degree, based on current chromebook sales. Having said that, I wouldn't look just at chromebooks' percentage share of sales, but also their year-over-year sales figures. Many people have bandied about the NPD announcement from late December 2013 talking about chromebooks' market share in the commercial channel sales sector; I won't do that here. I will mention the absolute numbers however; according to this article an article I recently read (see Note 1), chromebooks' commercial channel sales increased by a factor of almost 4.5 from 2012 to 2013, from 400,000 units to 1.76 million units. Yes, that's a small base, but that is huge growth. Google themselves projects that skyrocketing growth to continue in 2014; the company predicts 4 to 5 million chromebooks (see Note 2) will be sold in 2014. Assuming that projection is accurate, 2014 sales would be approximately 2.5 times higher than 2013 sales.
I think the biggest hurdles for chromebooks currently are 1) people's fear of not having the "safety blanket" of a computer that can handle computational tasks by itself, rather than relying on internet connectivity and remote servers and 2) people focusing too much on and confusing chromebooks' form factor rather than how they are used. With the former fear, I think it is rooted in many users - especially those who used computers before the internet - experience with using what I have begun calling "device-based operating systems", such as Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android. For those users, a PC's computational power is directly proportional to its usefulness. Many chromebook skeptics - most of whom I believe have never used a chromebook - state that a chromebook has less functionality than a comparable cost Windows PC. At the current time, that is probably true. However, what is missed by those skeptics is that what a chromebook CAN do A) it can do noticeably better than low-cost PCs (while still costing less in most cases) and B) covers most of what most PC users utilize their computers for. Additionally, "browser-based operating systems" like Chrome OS alter the device-based operating systems' computational power/usefulness relationship on its head because they don't rely on the device's internal computational power but rather external internet servers' computational power. Provided the internet connection speed and bandwidth is high and internet connection reliability is very high, remote servers will be able to provide more computational power to a computer than a computer's own internal CPU can. The key factor whether this external computational power will be utilized is whether the features people want, whether it is internet connectivity or a web application, is that the features are readily available. With internet usage continuing to grow, it is likely the functionality of the internet itself and by association the portals to the internet (i.e. web browsers) will also continue to grow.
With the second fear I mentioned above, I believe many people think that because chromebooks have a laptop form factor that they should only be compared with laptops. But form factor primarily influences HOW we do something on a “computer”, not so much WHAT we do on a computer. I would argue the smartphone and especially tablet revolution was primarily about providing a simpler and (at least in the case of devices that can fit in your pocket) a more convenient way to access the internet. Chromebooks, even though they look like laptops, are fundamentally focused on the same end goal as smartphones and especially tablets – providing a simpler and more convenient way to access the internet. Because chromebooks are optimized for browser performance relative to tablets and also have physical keyboards that allow for content creation, they provide very distinct advantages over tablets. Additionally, current tablets are, at least in my view, restricted by their device-based operating system limitations I described in the last paragraph the longer you own a tablet. Now tablets do have advantages over chromebooks (and the laptop form factor) for content consumption, but at least in my view the chromebook’s disadvantages for content consumption are not as great as tablets’ disadvantages for content creation. The fact that most of us have probably seen many tablet users work on their tablet with a Bluetooth or other keyboard (often in a semi-permanent set-up) I believe is proof that opinion likely has merit.
I want to add another important point RE: confusing chromebooks’ form factor with primary use function. Some people have been led to believe that Chrome OS, or more broadly browser-based operating systems, are form factor limited. However, that ISN’T the case – browser-based operating systems are form factor agnostic. Though an increasing number of technology writers have been focusing on chromebooks and Chrome OS, another browser-based operating system has been released in the last year – Mozilla’s Firefox OS. Firefox OS smartphones are already for sale, and I recently read an article indicating that Mozilla is developing Firefox OS tablet (see Note 3). And where is Mozilla focusing its sales efforts for Firefox OS devices – in emerging markets. And why is Mozilla focusing its efforts there – not just because those markets have less competition, but also because Firefox OS smartphones can be sold for very cheap prices (see Note 4). Browser-based operating systems have the potential to compete in both the desktop/laptop form factor segment and the smartphone/tablet (i.e. all-touchscreen) form factor segment.
To sum up why browser-based operating systems have, at a minimum, significant promise for the future (and likely the not-too-distant future), they are based on an operating system – the internet – that is likely to continue to improve, both in terms of content and accessibility. Browser-based operating system devices also don’t “age” as quickly as device-based operating system devices because the external servers’ computational power is frequently updated and increased. (In fact, at least in Google’s case with chromebooks, they have said they will support each chromebook model for 4 years - see Note 5.) Finally, they combine three very attractive attributes that device-based operating system desktops/laptops, tablets, and smartphones do not and likely cannot: 1) they are very simple to use and easy to maintain, 2) they are faster than all similar and most higher-priced devices (at least in the case of chromebooks relative to PC laptops and tablets), and 3) they can be produced inexpensively and sold for very low prices. That last point is and will be critical in enabling chromebooks, Firefox smartphones, and browser-based operating systems to increase their foothold and installed user base; in the case of chromebooks, user adoption didn’t start taking off until chromebooks hit the $250 (U.S.) and under mark starting in late 2012. However, because chromebooks can be sold at low prices and still enable their manufacturers to make some profit, it is likely low-cost models are likely to continue to be sold in the future.
It should be noted the three attractive attributes of browser-based operating systems listed above should be of great concern to both Microsoft and Apple; Microsoft should be very concerned about attributes 1 & 2 (especially 1) and Apple should be very concerned about attributes 2 & 3 (especially 3). This concern is more than trivial; browser-based operating systems, at least in my opinion, threaten Microsoft’s and Apple’s revenue models, which are based on licensing and exclusive software (Microsoft) and selling high-functioning devices at high costs for high profit margins (Apple). If “software” for browser-based operating systems is freely or cheaply available via the (growing) World Wide Web, Microsoft can’t sell as many licenses or exclusive software and needs to rely to a greater degree on sales volume to achieve the same revenues. Likewise, if browser-based operating systems function very well on low-end hardware, or more specifically as well on low-end hardware as device-based operating systems do on high-end hardware, it eliminates or greatly reduces the need to buy high performing but high cost hardware that has typically been Apple’s calling card. Because Apple doesn’t develop too much of what I’ll call value-added software (i.e. software that is built on top of the operating system; what I’m trying to say can be illustrated by the lack of Apple-produced applications in its own iOS app store), their inability to make profits on hardware and their own operating system could prove very problematic.
Regardless of all of what I wrote above, or what chromebook advocates or skeptics believe about the chromebooks’ (and more broadly, browser-based operating systems’) future, the fact an increasing number of technology bloggers, many of whom are technologically savvy with a variety of devices and operating systems, are speaking positively about chromebooks after using them means that chromebooks and browser-based operating systems may have hit what I’ll call a “holy ****!” moment. What I mean by that is if something is created and many people, especially those who are focused on a given sector, get excited about a product produced in that sector, in most cases that new product has legs, if it can be produced or utilized cheaply in mass quantities and either offers improvements over previous products in the same category or adds new capabilities to a given functionality.
One final, mostly unrelated thought – I agree that the most valuable user interface is you, and also that we’ll see increasing use of sight, sound, touch, and voice as user interfaces. However, each of those senses still has limitations associated with them – the blind cannot see and people’s eyes are sensitive membranes, the deaf cannot hear, many sounds have subtle differences in pitch or volume, and there are often background noises, touch has a degree of imprecision, and voice has privacy and use limitations. To truly achieve the “you” interface, we need to eliminate even the restrictions of the senses. How do we do that? By eliminating the physical aspects and limitations of the UI entirely and using brain waves – a form of energy – as the UI. Now make no mistake, there will be even greater security concerns with using brain waves as the ultimate UI. However, the benefits of a no restriction user interface – to enable our thoughts to control actions on computers, machines, and other devices – I believe will prove very alluring to the future generations (and possibly current young generation) of people who try to overcome the limitations of sense-based user interfaces.
Note 1 -
Chromebook - Fortune Tech: Technology blogs, news and analysis from Fortune Magazine
Note 2 -
Google To Cancel Subsidies Due To 'Booming' Chromebook Sales | Benzinga
Note 3 -
Mozilla is testing the first Firefox OS tablet prototype | The Verge
Note 4 -
Firefox OS - It's real and it works | CNet
Note 5 -
https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/eol.html
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram