I really want a <$300 Chromebook with a touchscreen!

[jean15paul]

Think it will happen?

I don't know "what's next", but right now I don't need the high-end hardware of the Pixel. (Does anyone?) The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks look perfect for me, except I really want a touchscreen. That's the only thing holding me back from purchasing. I don't know how the Chromebooks are selling, but I'm hoping that the next gen will all feature touchscreens at reasonable prices.

Thoughts?

 

[Ryandroid86]

Think it will happen?

I don't know "what's next", but right now I don't need the high-end hardware of the Pixel. (Does anyone?) The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks look perfect for me, except I really want a touchscreen. That's the only thing holding me back from purchasing. I don't know how the Chromebooks are selling, but I'm hoping that the next gen will all feature touchscreens at reasonable prices.

Thoughts?

I personally think they are not going in this direction...
They already have a touch-based linux computer. And thats called android

I think overall they will try to compete with windows and mac. They have a very long way to go. But it can be done.
Google sees the future. No one wants to load games, apps, programs, or anything like that with physical CDs, thumbdrives, etc. They want a nice, clean OS running off the web.
Its only a matter of time till there will be full blown games downloaded for the chromebooks.

So my personal opinion is that they will not be releasing cheap touch screens. I dont see much profit or purpose
I just bought the new C710-2055. Reviews are way better than the previous Acer.
Plus the battery, hard drive, and Memory are all removable, so they could be upgraded in the future

 

[jean15paul]

I personally think they are not going in this direction...
They already have a touch-based linux computer. And thats called android

I think overall they will try to compete with windows and mac. They have a very long way to go. But it can be done.
Google sees the future. No one wants to load games, apps, programs, or anything like that with physical CDs, thumbdrives, etc. They want a nice, clean OS running off the web.
Its only a matter of time till there will be full blown games downloaded for the chromebooks.

So my personal opinion is that they will not be releasing cheap touch screens. I dont see much profit or purpose
I just bought the new C710-2055. Reviews are way better than the previous Acer.
Plus the battery, hard drive, and Memory are all removable, so they could be upgraded in the future

If they want to compete with Windows then they better be moving toward touchscreens. Windows 8 is definitely designed around a touch-based interface and almost all high-end Windows 8 laptops have touchscreens.

Long term, mice and track pads are being replaced with touch screens on all computers. I would think that Google would want to be out in front of this trend.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Ryandroid86]

If they want to compete with Windows then they better be moving toward touchscreens. Windows 8 is definitely designed around a touch-based interface and almost all high-end Windows 8 laptops have touchscreens.

Long term, mice and track pads are being replaced with touch screens on all computers. I would think that Google would want to be out in front of this trend.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AC Forums mobile app

Very good point. And Im sure google does want to be in front. I definitely see windows going in that direction. but I see this as a separate division.
The reason why is because its going to be very difficult to replace a mouse and keyboard with only touchscreen.
I am a project coordinator for an architect firm. I am on a windows machine running AutoCAD all day long. If I had to do autocad with a touch screen I would go crazy.

Its hard to say what google will choose, but ultimately where ever they think the market is going... they will try to lead I'm sure.
But whatever they choose... I cannot see them competing against themselves with a different OS, touchscreen, computer in a lower price range. I really feel that android has this category covered.

 

[CHIP72]

I personally think they are not going in this direction...
They already have a touch-based linux computer. And thats called android

I think overall they will try to compete with windows and mac. They have a very long way to go. But it can be done.
Google sees the future. No one wants to load games, apps, programs, or anything like that with physical CDs, thumbdrives, etc. They want a nice, clean OS running off the web.
Its only a matter of time till there will be full blown games downloaded for the chromebooks.

So my personal opinion is that they will not be releasing cheap touch screens. I dont see much profit or purpose
I just bought the new C710-2055. Reviews are way better than the previous Acer.
Plus the battery, hard drive, and Memory are all removable, so they could be upgraded in the future

I agree with what you are saying, except that you are misinterpreting the importance of Android to Google and in turn how touchscreens will be used with chromebooks. IMO Android will not remain a separate operating system from Chrome OS; it is meant to be an intermediate step to get to where Google wants to go. (When you think about Google's MO; this makes tons of sense. They are a fundamentally an internet-oriented company, not one that wants to build device-based operating systems in the long-term.) Instead, Chrome OS will incorporate much of the Android functionality and applications and eventually replace Android, for the kind of reasons you mentioned above. I think Chrome OS can and will compete in time with ALL operating systems across all form factors - desktops/laptops, tablets, and smartphones, mainly because it will incorporate the flexibility historically provided by Microsoft/Windows (but in the form of web-based applications rather than device-based applications) with the simplicity historically provided by Apple/iOS, using a client that is even thinner and more functional than what is provided on still device-centric operating systems like iOS. Chrome OS (or more broadly cloud-based OS) has the potential to beat BOTH Microsoft AND Apple at their own games, especially if/when the full Chrome browser has full desktop-like performance on today's mobile OS devices. If that happens, it will particularly problematic for Apple because they typically rely on making profits on hardware but computer manufacturers building Chrome OS computers will be able to undercut them on cost while likely providing an even better user experience.

One other thing I'll note is that because Google can develop applications and functionality for the Chrome browser and get user adoption (through Chrome installations on Windows and Mac OS computers), they don't need strong chromebook sales in the short-term to enhance Chrome OS and potential, future chromebook sales in the long-term. That is 1) a potentially powerful and almost unassailable position to be in (especially if their competitors are sufficiently behind them in developing a cloud-based OS and applications for that cloud-based OS), and 2) a very stealthy way to potentially get strong Chrome OS (i.e. chromebooks, chromepads - which will likely be sold in the form of hybrid chromebooks, and chromephones) adoption in a fairly short period of time.

 

[Ryandroid86]

I agree with what you are saying, except that you are misinterpreting the importance of Android to Google and in turn how touchscreens will be used with chromebooks. IMO Android will not remain a separate operating system from Chrome OS; it is meant to be an intermediate step to get to where Google wants to go. (When you think about Google's MO; this makes tons of sense. They are a fundamentally an internet-oriented company, not one that wants to build device-based operating systems in the long-term.) Instead, Chrome OS will incorporate much of the Android functionality and applications and eventually replace Android, for the kind of reasons you mentioned above. I think Chrome OS can and will compete in time with ALL operating systems across all form factors - desktops/laptops, tablets, and smartphones, mainly because it will incorporate the flexibility historically provided by Microsoft/Windows (but in the form of web-based applications rather than device-based applications) with the simplicity historically provided by Apple/iOS, using a client that is even thinner and more functional than what is provided on still device-centric operating systems like iOS. Chrome OS (or more broadly cloud-based OS) has the potential to beat BOTH Microsoft AND Apple at their own games, especially if/when the full Chrome browser has full desktop-like performance on today's mobile OS devices. If that happens, it will particularly problematic for Apple because they typically rely on making profits on hardware but computer manufacturers building Chrome OS computers will be able to undercut them on cost while likely providing an even better user experience.

One other thing I'll note is that because Google can develop applications and functionality for the Chrome browser and get user adoption (through Chrome installations on Windows and Mac OS computers), they don't need strong chromebook sales in the short-term to enhance Chrome OS and potential, future chromebook sales in the long-term. That is 1) a potentially powerful and almost unassailable position to be in (especially if their competitors are sufficiently behind them in developing a cloud-based OS and applications for that cloud-based OS), and 2) a very stealthy way to potentially get strong Chrome OS (i.e. chromebooks, chromepads - which will likely be sold in the form of hybrid chromebooks, and chromephones) adoption in a fairly short period of time.

I dont really agree. I know that only Google could really answer this.... but here is my take on it:
I really cannot see them combining Android and ChromeOS together. While limit your availability? Im sure they can make them compatible flawlessly. But If they can make 10 Google products all separate for different purposes. it only makes them look bigger. But combining the two biggest things they have together makes no sense. Its like combining the Chevy Camaro with the Chevy Impala.... Sure it could be done. but two different purposes. A chromebook is made for a at home/work/school computer that is very portable, easy, and fast for production. And android is a platform for people who just need to check an email, make a phone call, send a text or Play a quick game. They are just not the same. Im sure they will work together very closely in the future. But no way they will be the same OS.

I do agree that Google will surpass apple and microsoft in terms of futuristic availability. Apple would almost have the start over with a new OS, and Windows will have to start creating new web-based products, not just a cloud. (new APIs across the board) But I believe Google is trying to make the traveling mans working computer/ and the house wife computer/ and the college kid computer. The computer for everyone at anytime. Not some big network full of phones/ computers/ tablets/ watches/ and google glass to be all the same OS. It would become boring and even more fragmented.

 

[CHIP72]

I dont really agree. I know that only Google could really answer this.... but here is my take on it:
I really cannot see them combining Android and ChromeOS together. While limit your availability? Im sure they can make them compatible flawlessly. But If they can make 10 Google products all separate for different purposes. it only makes them look bigger. But combining the two biggest things they have together makes no sense. Its like combining the Chevy Camaro with the Chevy Impala.... Sure it could be done. but two different purposes. A chromebook is made for a at home/work/school computer that is very portable, easy, and fast for production. And android is a platform for people who just need to check an email, make a phone call, send a text or Play a quick game. They are just not the same. Im sure they will work together very closely in the future. But no way they will be the same OS.

I do agree that Google will surpass apple and microsoft in terms of futuristic availability. Apple would almost have the start over with a new OS, and Windows will have to start creating new web-based products, not just a cloud. (new APIs across the board) But I believe Google is trying to make the traveling mans working computer/ and the house wife computer/ and the college kid computer. The computer for everyone at anytime. Not some big network full of phones/ computers/ tablets/ watches/ and google glass to be all the same OS. It would become boring and even more fragmented.

What I bolded above is what I think Google perceives Chrome OS as being in the future. It will be in computers across all form factors - desktop, laptop, tablet, and smartphone (and wearable devices).

Google won't combine Chrome OS and Android OS; IMO they will replace Android OS with Chrome OS (replace as in phasing out Android OS over time) by creating web applications in Chrome OS that replicate Android applications. Actually, they won't need to do that in some cases because some Android applications (and some applications for other mobile operating systems) were created because mobile OS couldn't provide a good internet experience and "apps" as we know them on smartphones needed to be created to enhance the experience. (This assumes that at some point the Chrome browser will be able function just as well on a mobile device as on a desktop/laptop device. It also assumes high-speed internet will eventually ubiquitous or almost ubiquitous.) And by adding Android applications to Chrome OS, Google can address the performance degradation issue that plagues most Android devices (including all three I own) and (guessing because I'm not a developer) eliminate or greatly reduce the operating system fragmentation issue. Security issues would also be addressed (and I think that's a big issue Google would like to address).

Google won't need Android OS if Chrome OS can do all the things Android does but do it with better performance. Why maintain two operating systems when you only have to maintain one?