I don't really understand who this is being marketed for. Who would purchase a laptop this expensive only to be locked into one of the most restricted operating systems. While the hardware looks good, I don't see the purpose of a device like this.
Google is pushing the design from Apple, its a shade greyer...lol. I am a little disappointed Google was not more original in design though I have no doubt it will be a solid product since Google is a quality company.
"2560x1700~3:2 Even with the high res screen, there are no specs saying that this should cost in excess of $700-800. 32gb ssd, i5, 4gb ram, and no discrete gpu"
I agree that $1300 seems a bit much even with the nice display considering how small the ssd is and only having 4 GB of ram. I'm guessing it is an ultrabook and has mostly ultrabook parts though I didn't see any thunderbolt connector nor USB3. I'm not sure why you would want a discrete GPU for a chromebook. It would add little to the product except cutting your battery life by a 1/3.
Does full motion video even play on this without stuttering? I don't think Intel's IGP was made for that resolution... On the plus side, its about time someone made a better display for pc's.
To everyone complaining about the price, even at that cost its actually not too bad considering that you all seem to be missing the part of the article where they stated "Touch Screen." This is the highest resolution touchscreen in production.
With two USB 3 ports and mini display port, as long as the XenApp receiver works properly, this would be an outstanding business machine. I would certainly need a large sd card for media storage though.
Who would buy this thing? 32gb of storage, doesn't run local software? It's basically a web access device...that's costs $1300. Meanwhile, a Windows laptop can be gotten for much cheaper that does all this thing can do, in addition to running games, playing disc-based media, etc. 2560x1700 display? That's great but...where's the content that's designed for this? Not only that, but where is this content coming from? The web? There's no Bluray drive, basically no local storage. Can't imagine many people are ripping Blurays to the cloud, as that would take forever. Plus, the aspect ratio isn't even HD. Can't imagine many websites are optimized for 2560x1700 either. So exactly what's the point of this?
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Does full motion video even play on this without stuttering? I don't think Intel's IGP was made for that resolution...[/citation]
Even the Core2Duo has enough processing power to decode 1080p h264 without hardware acceleration so this should be a breeze for i5 and QuickSync decode.
But $1300 for an ultrabook-like device with cloud-based OS? No thanks.
Invalid: You would have a point, but the core2duo's CPU performance has nothing to do with the VIDEO performance of the 4000 series IGP, additionally this is nearly three times the pixels of a 1080P screen.
Vortigaunt: the point is to push the industry forward. I am sick of 1024x 768 resolution web pages.
The video says they started on the project 2 years ago and apart from the screen the technology predates the start of the project, even if it was competatively priced it would enter into the low-to-mid range at best and certainly not the "best product they could make"
A computer is a means to an end and if Google think that offering something that runs Chrome that doesn't have the integrated products of Windows or Apple, but charging an obscene premium for yesterdays hardware, they must think we are as stupid as their hardware team
[citation][nom]samwelaye[/nom]Those are both 17" laptops, these are ~13...[/citation]
So there is one more thing not to buy the chromebook. Thank you for spotting it.
[citation][nom]samwelaye[/nom]You cant compare them[/citation]
Both of them are in the mobile pc segment that can be used for fun or work. Both of them want your (same amount of) money. Yes we can compare them.
[citation][nom]Memnarchon[/nom]Both of them are in the mobile pc segment that can be used for fun or work[/citation]
Although with no games I don't see much fun and with no traditional enterprise software I don't see much work
Seems like this machine is for browsing the interwebs, updating Facebook and watching Youtube, not much more than you can manage on a phone
It is absolutely pathetic
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Invalid: You would have a point, but the core2duo's CPU performance has nothing to do with the VIDEO performance of the 4000 series IGP, additionally this is nearly three times the pixels of a 1080P screen.Vortigaunt: the point is to push the industry forward. I am sick of 1024x 768 resolution web pages.[/citation]
HD4000's QuickSync is twice as fast at video encoding and decoding than an i7-3960X so no worry there as far as video is concerned.
Since it is unlikely that there ever will be significant amounts of video encoded at 2560x1700, you would likely be upscaling 1080p to 1440p which is a trivial operation.
For gaming, HD4000 would definitely be a problem but I am not aware of any high-end games that run on ChromeOS.
3 years worth of 1TB Google Drive storage is worth $1,800.
I'm not saying this is a good deal, and I myself think they should sell it with cheaper options and smaller cloud storage configurations, I'm just pointing out where the majority of the cost is coming from.