Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

sweetcell wrote:
MS ain't gonna take this one lying down:

Google Announces PC Operating System to Compete with Windows

nice closing para: Don’t be evil, Google’s unofficial motto, has long been understood as code for “Don’t be Microsoft.” Perhaps, it ought now it ought to be augmented with the commandment, “Leave no Microsoft product unchallenged.”

Relegated to Niche status even before it's arrival:

"Chrome OS won't work with standard hard drives, just SSDs. That means you won't be able to just download Chrome OS and go, you'll have to buy a Chrome OS device approved by Google."

And nothing is stored on the SSD except the OS, everything else is stored in the cloud.  I don't think we have global internet coverage, and I'm certain that where we do have coverage, it's not 100% reliable. 

Well, we have a year to wait and see what they do….but I don't think MS is that worried any longer.

vansmack wrote:

chaz wrote:
But really, if I'm going that route I'd get this a squeezebox radio -

I looked at the squeezbox radio but it really came down to one thing: twice as expensive, half, if not a third, as useful.  I've looked for a long time at both the squeezebox system and the sonos system, and they both just seem way overpriced for what you get.

I'll let you know how the Chumby goes (backordered until 11/25).

Well last night I sold an old unused laptop to some dude on CL and took the $$ and bought a squeezebox radio for $150 on Amazon.  Let you know how it goes!

vansmack wrote:
Relegated to Niche status even before it's arrival:

i mis-spoke in my original post - google has always claimed this will be a niche product.  and that niche is netbooks (specifically, sub-netbooks). 

imagine how cheap this machine will be:
- free OS
- small screen
- small SSD storage for OS and nothing else (SSD prices will drop, and needing to hold chrome os only = only need a few megs)
- would have minimal memory requirements
- 802.11x card

i bet it would boot up really fast, too. 

vansmack wrote:
I don't think we have global internet coverage, and I'm certain that where we do have coverage, it's not 100% reliable. 

 
put in a cellular receiver, and you have a device that will be cheap enough to give away with a 2-year data contract.

but indeed, MS has nothing to fear from this.

sweetcell wrote:
imagine how cheap this machine will be:

You can buy a Samsung N10 at Best Buy with Win7 Starter and all the same requirements you just listed for $299 today.

In a year how much cheaper do you think it will be when Chrome OS is released?

Let's say for arguments sake it drops to $249.  This Chrome device will probably run you $199.  For $50 less is it really worth the limited functionality?

sweetcell wrote:
put in a cellular receiver, and you have a device that will be cheap enough to give away with a 2-year data contract.

I punch people who say this.

But since I already want to punch you for being a Le Cheater fan, there is danger of this breaking out into an all out brawl and the only way I can win is by fighting dirty and I'm just not about to do that.

DO NOT BUY A NETBOOK/LAPTOP THAT HAS THE RECIEVER BUILT IN, NO MATTER HOW INEXPENSIVE YOU THINK THE NETBOOK/LAPTOP IS.

Let me give you the two obvious reasons why:

(1) You just locked yourself into a $1800 ($1440 per month, plus taxes $160, plus netbook $199) netbook that will not keep up with improvements in cellular speed (LTE/WiMAX are around the corner).  The obvious problem with this is that you have the least powerful $1800 laptop on the planet.

(2) You have absolutely no flexibility with that "extra" functionality.  Take the free USB 3G device, plug that in your netbook that you bought for $299 at Best Buy and enjoy the flexibility of plugging that card into any other computer or laptop that you or your friend owns.  Then pay an extra $100 for 3G modem so that you can create wifi hotspots in coffee shops/hotels/conference rooms/moving autos/bars/lunch tables/airports/you name it.  Your friends and co-workers will love you for it.  That extra flexibility/functionality is absolutely worth the extra $100.

And on top of that, that card will be upgradeable to an LTE or WiMAx card when available.  Good luck doing that with your $1800 netbook without it costing you an extra $200. 

vansmack wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
imagine how cheap this machine will be:

You can buy a Samsung N10 at Best Buy with Win7 Starter and all the same requirements you just listed for $299 today.

In a year how much cheaper do you think it will be when Chrome OS is released?

Let's say for arguments sake it drops to $249.  This Chrome device will probably run you $199.  For $50 less is it really worth the limited functionality?

wrong: a quick look online reveals that the N10 has: 1.0 GHz - 1.0 GB RAM - 13 GB Hard Drive - 10.1" Display - Windows XP Home.

go with: half the processor, a quarter the RAM, no HD, same display, chrome os.  that's not a $199 machine, that's a $100 machine. 

vansmack wrote:
But since I already want to punch you for being a Le Cheater fan,

i'm not a fan of the french - my last name is irish, btw.  i said that to get a rise outta you lot.  mission accomplished.

vansmack wrote:
DO NOT BUY A NETBOOK/LAPTOP THAT HAS THE RECIEVER BUILT IN, NO MATTER HOW INEXPENSIVE YOU THINK THE NETBOOK/LAPTOP IS.

i fully agree with your reasons for not doing this, but you're over-thinking this.  marketing trumps logic, in this case.  almost every wireless provider has a subsidized netbook you can get with a data plan.  my proposed device fills that niche in a new way: now you won't pay $99 - $199 for a netbook, this one could conceivably come *FREE* (insert blinking lights and casino ding-ding-ding sounds) with your subscription.  what?  locked in for 2 years?  lack of flexibility?  yeah, but it's *FREE*, man!

some people don't think that their friends' and co-workers' love is worth $100.  they'd rather save the $100.  again, i'm not saying it's the "right" choice - but it's one being made day after after day.

there is always a better technology around the corner.  at some point you have to bite the bullet and select among what is available.  for many, 3G data speeds is sufficient/acceptable.

sweetcell wrote:
go with: half the processor, a quarter the RAM, no HD, same display, chrome os.  that's not a $199 machine, that's a $100 machine. 

You will not be able to run Google Wave with 256MB of RAM - this I will assure you.  And if Chrome OS isn't built around Wave as well as Chrome I will be shocked.  I've only run it with 1.5GB of RAM.

I haven't even tried it with the Atom Processor yet as I haven't been impressed with it's performance with a Dual Core processor.  No way they don't start with at least a dual core Atom processor.

An SSD is more expensive then an HDD and the smallest I've seen made is 4GB.  The smallest you can still buy is 16GB.  By the time this rolls around, we'll be talking about 32GB SSDs as the standard. 

Lastly, it will have to have a touch screen as there will no longer be devices built that don't have a touch screen.  There no way this device comes in at under $100.

I think you completely over estimate the OEM cost of Win 7, which I can assure you is on the 4 N10's that I sold to clients this weekend.  The starter edition of Win 7 costs OEMs less than $50.

sweetcell wrote:
my proposed device fills that niche in a new way: now you won't pay $99 - $199 for a netbook, this one could conceivably come *FREE* (insert blinking lights and casino ding-ding-ding sounds) with your subscription.  what?  locked in for 2 years?  lack of flexibility?  yeah, but it's *FREE*, man!

Nothing is "free" if you're locked into a contract, but ask Michael Arrington about his 10 inch internet only linux tablet (google: crunchpad) that was supposed to be under $200.

Last week, after months of development and research, he has discovered that even with adding revenue subsidization via the search engine he can't do it for under $300-$400 dollars.

If Google thought they didn't need full processor architechture like the Atom, they simply would have ported Andriod over to an ARM Cortex chip, but obviously they knew they'd be processor starved.  That's why they're going full processor, full ram, decent sized SSD.  Keep dreaming about your $99 google device.

When the Crunchpad does come out (hopefully before Xmas), I will not buy the Big Brother subsidized version and will go with the model I laid out for you.  The subsidy is a scam that only French people with Irish last names seem to think is a good idea.

vansmack wrote:
The subsidy is a scam that only French people with Irish last names seem to think is a good idea.

but what about irish people with french last names?

Venerable wrote:
but what about irish people with french last names?

There's no such thing as part sewer water - either the water's dirty or it's not.

right, so since there is irish involved = dirty.

sweetcell wrote:
right, so since there is irish involved = dirty.

Careful, you're talking about a man's wife there…of course by being friends with me she might already hate you.

Not only that, but he might have an unpleasant experience next time he is in chicago.

More on what Google is intending here:

"Pichai did not provide specific details, but hinted that users could expect Chrome OS Netbooks to have slightly larger keyboards and screens than some of the current models for sale."

And when I talked to my friend at Google, he wouldn't reveal any specifics, but did say this:

"we didn't pay $1.65 Billion for Youtube so that our first product wouldn't be able to handle high quality flash video"

That tells me no less than a Dual Core Atom with 1GB, probably 2 GB of RAM.

So much for "Don't Be Evil"…..

Google pulls Hulu - yanks youtube API access from Popcorn Hour, other TV connected devices.

The exception being "a few strategic partner's Google has singled out" – PlayStation 3, Wii, TiVo, Panasonic, Samsung and other licensed hardware.

vansmack wrote:
So much for "Don't Be Evil"…..

i haven't bought that concept for some time now, especially in electricity.  no matter what ed lu says

Smackie doesn't care if you finished 1st or 6th in last season's American Idol, if you hang with me, you're playing Rock Band and you're singing Journey.

I will say this though, his rendition of "Fat Bottom Girls" blew his "Don't Stop Believing" out of the water.

i hate you smackie.

you made me look up who came in 6th last year.

HATE.

Megan Joy would have escaped singing because she's the only one I wouldn't have had over for singing…