Google announces Chromebook Pixel, a premium Chrome OS laptop shipping next week from $1,299

Google has just unveiled its first company-branded laptop, the Chromebook Pixel. The laptop comes with a 12.85-inch touchscreen that packs 2560 x 1700 pixels, giving it the highest pixel density of any laptop currently in production. Google officials claim consumers will never see a pixel with the naked eye.

The laptop is a premium product designed to compete with Apple's MacBook Pro. The screen especially lends itself to the premium feel, with colors appearing accurately. The screen also features a 3:2 aspect ratio, meaning its nearly as tall as it is wide. Google claims this is so web pages look natural, although it gives the laptop an odd look when next to any other laptop with a widescreen. 

The Pixel also includes back-facing speakers, a thin backlit keyboard, vents that are hidden in the laptop's hinge and more. Google have obviously taken the MacBook Pro as inspiration, as the Pixel shares many of Apple's design ideas. The Pixel does not taper like the Pro, however, giving a much boxier look.

Google has also brought some of their own ideas to the Pixel  a third microphone resides above the keyboard to cut out typing noise during VoIP calls; the trackpad is very refined and the edges of the laptop are designed not to cut into your wrists when you're typing. These differences are, however, trivial. The overall aesthetic values of the Pixel are also shared by the MacBook Pro, giving it a rather "me-too" feel.

The Verge got some hands-on time with the Pixel and, according to their video, it is not a smooth device. Google tried to stress that the Pixel allows smooth navigation of the web; something developers can utilise when making apps for Chrome OS. Due to the excessive number of pixels, the Core i5 CPU from Intel paired with Intel's HD 4000 GPU, simply cannot cope. Google claimed that simultaneous 1080p videos can be played, but we disagree after watching hands-on footage. The Pixel also includes 4GB of RAM.

Ports-wise, the Pixel is frugal, coming with just two USB 2.0 ports, a MiniDisplay port, a combo 3.5mm headphone jack and an SD card slot. The Pixel also includes a 720p webcam with dual microphones. The device also comes with the usual array of WiFi support as well as Bluetooth 3.0.

Chrome OS did not receive an update to compliment the Pixel. Google is pushing developers to their Chrome Store, which is the only place to download apps for Pixel. Google showed off an app for the photo sharing site 500px, which was optimised for the new 2560 x 1700 display. Google also showed off a version of Quickoffice which lets Chrome OS users open Word and Excel documents from their browser. Additionally, the Google+ app has been updated (the update will be released in the coming weeks) and will allow Pixel users to take pictures off an SD card and upload them straight to Google Drive. 

The Pixel comes in two variants: WiFi-only and WiFi with 4G. The 4G connectivity is provided via Verizon, with $10 a month getting you an unlimited plan. The Pixel's light weight, paired with the supposedly long battery life (5 hours, according to Google), would make it the perfect travelling companion – if other light, and fast, laptops such as the MacBook Air didn't exist. 

The bottom-end Pixel comes with 32GB of storage and will ship next week for $1,299 while the LTE version will come with 64GB of onboard space, but will cost $1,449. Both of those don't seem like a lot, until you factor in the 1TB of storage Google provides on it's Drive service, which is free for three years. The 32GB version will ship next week (February) while the 64GB version will arrive in April. 

Many are describing the Pixel as a browser with a laptop attached, which is a fair assessment. Compared to the MacBook Pro with Retina display, or even the MacBook Air, the Pixel falls very short. Chrome OS has very limited app support – especially beyond casual games – which hamper the user experience and usability of the laptop. The Pixel comes with 5 hours of battery (according to Google), far shorter than Apple's 7 hour estimates for the Pro. 

Sundar Pichai, who oversees Chrome at Google, said: "We want to provide an option for those who demand premium hardware, those who are writing the next generation of applications," continuing, "I think people want to live in this world."

Source: Chrome Blog, Google | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony America head talks PlayStation 4 price and specs

Next Story

Microsoft compares Outlook.com to Gmail and Yahoo Mail, releases new video

113 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"The Pixel's light weight, paired with the supposedly long battery life (5 hours, according to Google)"

Surface Pro now doesn't look heavy, or lacking in battery power thanks Google!

This thing does look utterly gorgeous though. Really wanna try out that touchpad.

Holy crap this thing is over priced. It makes ANY issues anyone had with Surface pricing pale in comparison.

This laptop would be more useful if they just put android on it.

Who on earth would by a chrome os laptop for 1300$?

Isn't it a little early for April fools' day?

Granted, the design looks terrific, and I'm sure the display is also gorgeous, but that aspect ratio is surely a mistake.
With such a limited range of applications - none of which truly take advantage of the high resolution display - and ridiculously premium price tag, I cannot see how this will be successful.

Perhaps there will eventually be a 50% fire-sale on unsold stock? If the Hackintosh community are able to find a way of installing OS X onto this system, it may be worth a look...

This is my favourite part though:

Google officials claim consumers will never see a pixel with the naked eye.

Hence the name 'Pixel'?

Edited by Cute James, Feb 22 2013, 12:19am :

If this is going to be sold in the Google Play Store - no thanks. I can't put up with their terrible support ever again. Good luck to the people who try it out, receive a defective unit, receive a replacement unit, and then wait a month for Google to take the $1400 hold off their credit card because that is how they operate there. Never have dealt with any support that immediately charged your CC for a REPLACEMENT to their defective pile of **** and then you have to wait for a refund for a month. Ridiculous mess is what Google is. Can't recommend that anyone buy anything from them. Worst. In. The. Industry. By. Far. Pathetic....

I'm a big fan of Google but wow, this thing is going to go down as one of the biggest tech flops in computing...who the hell would buy this?

I'm willing to wager companies would pay for it. It is still cheaper to maintain and each user gets 1TB of storage. But just like the 1st generation Chromebooks, they didn't sell. The Chromebook Pixel 1st Generation will not sell but watch what happens with the second generation.

Let me ask you something now, do you find it strange that this was announced today and not at Google I/O? Would you say they may announce a cheaper model then? I'm betting they would.

sounds like it was maybe outed a little early if the os is unchanged, but that's hard to believe unless they are close to releasing an update, refresh or redo. from what I am able to see I suspect that it a first class touch screen. doing without windows is a ways off. chrome will do great for 80-90% of what most people do. but sometimes you need support programs like quickbooks or Photoshop or acrobat to scan. the cloud is a winner and they need to offer a way around windows.

The screen also features a 3:2 aspect ratio, meaning its nearly as tall as it is wide.
3/2 is 1.5. The screen is 50% wider than it is tall, that is not "nearly as tall as it is wide". By comparison, a 4:3 screen is only 33% wider than it is tall, and a 16:9 screen is 78% wider than it is tall. This screen sits about halfway between these two standard aspect ratios, none of which is nearly square at all.

It's definitely an odd aspect ratio for a laptop, though.

bwahahaha id love to see the google fanboys defend this. they probably will defend it,and that's the funny part. even a $200 chromebook is a joke. the hardware is too slow even if its just a browser. try using a browser on a 1Ghz Celeron.

Why would anyone pay $1300 for this when you can get a full-fledged Windows machine (or even a Mac) for the same or even cheaper? Is Google Insane?

I don't understand why Google keep pushing Chrome OS. It would seem much more logical to me if they created a branch off Android, catered towards laptops.

I don't understand why Apple makes OSX. They should just push iOS.
I don't understand why Microsoft went with x86 based OS, they should just push the RT version.

Do I sound naive? Each company has their visions.

DarkNet said,
I don't understand why Apple makes OSX. They should just push iOS.
I don't understand why Microsoft went with x86 based OS, they should just push the RT version.

Do I sound naive? Each company has their visions.


What's the vision for ChromeOS? What can it do that Android could not?

siah1214 said,

What's the vision for ChromeOS? What can it do that Android could not?

I'm glad you asked. Android is for Smartphones and Tablets. While Chrome OS is for computers.

Right now 2,000 schools are running Chrome OS. http://goo.gl/KNtrg How many schools are running Android on their laptops and desktops? The fact is everything I have mentioned in the prior post is converging. OSX and iOS are merging through an App Store. Windows 8 / Windows 8 RT and Windows 8 Phones are merging through an App Store. Android and Chrome OS are working to be closely related and will eventually be merged.

Cloud computing is going to be the future. It's not ready yet for many reasons but this is a step in the right direction. The only misdirection the Google is making with this is price. It isn't their fault in the price. The hardware (mostly the screen) is too expensive for mainstream use. Google is at fault for releasing this too early. Let Microsoft and Apple and other OEM's deal with touch panels for now. Especially Apple. They are the only other company that I know of that comes close to producing a high resolution multi-touch panel. Prices will eventually come down for these parts but right now they are too expensive for the average consumer.

Don't get me wrong, I want one just like I wanted the MacBook Retina Display last year. But I wasn't going to pay anywhere near that price. I would be willing to pay $1500 for a MacBook 15-inch Retina Display or $600 for this Chromebook Pixel.

That they are... for consumers. I wonder if business and schools will bite though. Personally, I would just go with a MacBook Air 13-inch.

So basically all that is really released about the Pixel is hardware specs. Nothing really about the software changes/os changes and what new things the Pixel can do. So everyone is jumping to conclusions and discounting the Pixel before they know all the info. Sounds about right.....

With the info given currently on the Pixel, yes...it is to expensive. But I am waiting to hear the full details before I jump to conclusions. Google doesnt tend to muck up pricing like this...but we shall see.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
What exactly can justify this price? I can literally get any laptop more powerful than this for cheaper. Except for the screen this is a $1300 costing piece of junk.

The price is probably still high, but i am not going to jump on the "bash a product before full info is give" bandwagon.

We're allowed to express disgust, especially if it means Google is paying attention to the user reactions so they can be prepared to adjust accordingly.

As it stands, I'd rather get a Macbook, Surface Pro, or... hell, a gaming laptop if anything, as I have plenty of options for anything that's not the Pixel, with an already established foothold on apps, games, and so forth. They'd have to pull something magical out of their ass to change our minds, and while I do like some Google products, I'm not willing to put money on that.

Still, we shall see I suppose.

techbeck said,
Google doesnt tend to muck up pricing like this...but we shall see.

Actually they do... sometimes. Nexus Q was too expensive for mainstream consumers.

I would bet by the time Google I/O comes, we will get a cheaper version of this. The price right now is based on the screen quality and hardware. It's like when Plasma TV's first came out. They were $20K. Each year the price was cut dramatically. Look at the MacBook Pro Retina display. Compare last year's price to this years price.

Or the price of a 4K TV even. But does that mean no one will buy it? Right now it is all about that screen. Give it time and price will come down.

DarkNet said,

Actually they do... sometimes. Nexus Q was too expensive for mainstream consumers.

Nexus Q never made it to market so cannot really compare the two since the market price really wasnt known and if Google was going to change it.

And I am betting Google will adjust the Pixel pricing as well...unless they release some shocking news sometime.

techbeck said,
I am waiting to hear the full details.

There's probably something to the rumor that Chrome (OS) can be made to run Android apps. At which point the touch screen will start to make a bit more sense.

CSharp. said,

There's probably something to the rumor that Chrome (OS) can be made to run Android apps. At which point the touch screen will start to make a bit more sense.

The problem is Android apps (which are mostly phone apps) don't even scale on tablets right at 1920x1080, how do you think they will scale on 2560x1700? Because you will definitely be seeing ALL of the pixels. It sounds good in theory but if they think bolting on an android emulator is their answer to touch they are sadly mistaken.

techbeck said,

Nexus Q never made it to market so cannot really compare the two since the market price really wasnt known and if Google was going to change it.

And I am betting Google will adjust the Pixel pricing as well...unless they release some shocking news sometime.

Don't try to use what I said the other way as a rebuttal. The fact is, it was priced high. I never said anything about it being in to market.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
You don't. The physical "disk" is too small.

It'll fit on the 64GB and even the 32GB disks, but it won't leave a lot of room. If the drive is mSATA then you can replace it.

But still, it's gimped in other ways such as no USB 3.0. There is no reason to buy this and put Windows on it (or buy it at all) unless the screen is the only thing you care about.

With pretty much every other laptop going wider and wider, the aspect ratio of that screen looks really weird.

Other than that it doesn't look bad (aesthetically), but I don't see why anyone would want to pay $1299 for it.

dead.cell said
I'd say they're making Apple look great too, as even Apple haters can reason there's more they could do with OSX than Chrome OS...
Hell, you can even do more with DOS than you could with Chrome OS..

I see the point of low-cost Chrome OS devices. I don't quite see the point of premium Chrome OS products with a price point that would allow you to get a Macbook Pro instead... In any case, I like the fact that there's starting to be a bit of competition out there with regard to very high pixel density displays.

The laptop is a premium product designed to compete with Apple's MacBook Pro.

Difference being of course the MacBook Pro can do more than open a Safari window.

.Neo said,

Difference being of course the MacBook Pro can do more than open a Safari window.

And so can the Chromebook. Its more than just a browser...tho I do agree with the current info given that the pricing for the Pixel is to much.

techbeck said,
And so can the Chromebook. Its more than just a browser...tho I do agree with the current info given that the pricing for the Pixel is to much.

You cannot argue that Chrome OS is a proper operating system. Can it run an equivalent of Final Cut Pro? Nope. What about Photoshop? Nope. What about Adobe DreamWorks? Nope.

There is no comparison. OS X is a proper OS, Chrome OS is a toy (like iOS compared to OS X)

maxslaterrobins said,

You cannot argue that Chrome OS is a proper operating system. Can it run an equivalent of Final Cut Pro? Nope. What about Photoshop? Nope. What about Adobe DreamWorks? Nope.

There is no comparison. OS X is a proper OS, Chrome OS is a toy (like iOS compared to OS X)

Pretty much. Google should the OS tag because it's an insult to REAL OSes.

techbeck said,
And so can the Chromebook. Its more than just a browser...

What other native/non-internet based apps does it run out of the box beyond the browser itself?

Pairing a premium device with a graphics processor not capable of handling the load strikes me as being a pretty poor design decision from Google. I do believe ChromeOS is a pretty good fit for the low end netbook type device market but I don't really see it as being feature rich enough for a high end device.

Javik said,
Pairing a premium device with a graphics processor not capable of handling the load strikes me as being a pretty poor design decision from Google. I do believe ChromeOS is a pretty good fit for the low end netbook type device market but I don't really see it as being feature rich enough for a high end device.

ChromeOS is a solution looking for a problem. It's also looks like Google are intent on ensuring that all their products suffer from the same lagginess.

I don't see the point of this...Chrome OS is very limited in the sense that you can't even run your own programs. Why should I dish out $1300 for a laptop that's not going to do much? This is worth at most $399/$499. I would say this is more overpriced compared to Apple products.

Well the hardware is worth a lot more then $399/$499, but the problem is the OS limits it functionality, which makes it really not worth the cost.

No, the problem is why include a Core i5 if the targeted software isn't going to leverage the power?! You don't need a Core i5 to run a web browser, just like you don't need a resolution that big for Chrome OS. This product just is all wrong...

tsupersonic said,
No, the problem is why include a Core i5 if the targeted software isn't going to leverage the power?! You don't need a Core i5 to run a web browser, just like you don't need a resolution that big for Chrome OS. This product just is all wrong...

Indeed. Even an i3 or even worse an E-series APU could manage it.

tsupersonic said,
No, the problem is why include a Core i5 if the targeted software isn't going to leverage the power?! You don't need a Core i5 to run a web browser, just like you don't need a resolution that big for Chrome OS. This product just is all wrong...

Because ChromeOS just like android is bloated; android only started to get smooth with 4.1 and that's with dual core processors with 1gb of ram, why does chromeos lag on an i5? It would lag even more on an atom or core2duo. The hardware is also pretty sh8, the screen is the only nice thing on this device, using usb 2.0 on a modern laptop? why gimp the speed to an external drive when usb 3 has been available for some time now? Why use on 4gb of ram - so you decide lets put in an i5 but lets stick only the base amount of ram that any $500+ laptop has?

They want premium with the screen and processor but everything else ESPECIALLY the operating system is complete garbage.

tsupersonic said,
No, the problem is why include a Core i5 if the targeted software isn't going to leverage the power?! You don't need a Core i5 to run a web browser, just like you don't need a resolution that big for Chrome OS. This product just is all wrong...

Technically just because you are just running a browser doesn't mean you can't use power hungry apps, eg. you could run OpenGL games on that browser.

Then again that's just "technically", in practice this is indeed an expensive browsing machine.

I actually think that on the contrary it makes more sense to run your own programs on a Chromebook because it's all web based anyways (so it's really easy to develop a web app for), but of course that doesn't mean it runs apps you "own" in general.

I figured it out though!! They didn't make this so people could use Chrome OS on it; they made the Chromebook Pixel so people could just buy the hardware and install Windows for it! That's super-common for Macbooks; but now they don't have touchscreens. This does and it looks like a Macbook!

Two problems with that idea though:
- 32 GB for Windows 8? Anyone who wanted this for Windows 8 would have to buy the $1450 one with 64 GB and that's definitely not a smart marketing strategy if you're targeting Windows 8 users. I'm guessing the cloud storage can be used on Windows but I'm not sure...
- 3x2 screen aspect ratio? I guess it would be great for the web no matter what device you use and it would be like the only laptop you can get in that aspect ratio, but it's definitely not aligned with Windows' target paradigm...

tsupersonic said,
No, the problem is why include a Core i5 if the targeted software isn't going to leverage the power?! You don't need a Core i5 to run a web browser, just like you don't need a resolution that big for Chrome OS. This product just is all wrong...

Try pushing full res video at 2560x1700 on an i3 or E-APU

pgxl said,

Because ChromeOS just like android is bloated; android only started to get smooth with 4.1 and that's with dual core processors with 1gb of ram, why does chromeos lag on an i5? It would lag even more on an atom or core2duo. The hardware is also pretty sh8, the screen is the only nice thing on this device, using usb 2.0 on a modern laptop? why gimp the speed to an external drive when usb 3 has been available for some time now? Why use on 4gb of ram - so you decide lets put in an i5 but lets stick only the base amount of ram that any $500+ laptop has?

They want premium with the screen and processor but everything else ESPECIALLY the operating system is complete garbage.

Spoken like a true anti-Android person. You obviously have not used Android 4.1 and higher, and don't know anything about Project Butter. Stop wasting everyone's time.

xendrome said,

Try pushing full res video at 2560x1700 on an i3 or E-APU

Did you read the part where I said you don't need that resolution? Chrome OS is kind of a netbook replacement - and this means performing very (and I can't emphasize that word enough) VERY simple tasks - browsing, email, document writing, spreadsheet, etc. What you have here is a product endorsed by Google that is purely for spec. wars (against Retina Macbook Pro) and nothing else. They pushed out a device with a large resolution just to say "Hey Apple, so can we!" This product would be awesome if it could (be hacked into) dual booting an OS that truly lets you run your apps (Windows, Linux, etc.) and Chrome OS.

This laptop would actually be better if it didn't lag... and perhaps if it had more local storage... the latest Chrome OS allows some things to be done offline, such as using Google Docs and Google Calendar... but yes, obviously, it is a browser first...

This thing is a massive flop in my opinion.. 32GB of storage?! Its like they tried to take their chromebook idea and put it onto a MacBook pro... Why would I not just buy a MacBook pro or an Windows 8 ultrabook and just install the chrome operating system.. I really thought they were going somewhere by cornering the netbook market and making really cheap computer that anyone can buy for a few hundred bucks.. Why would anyone want to buy a high end laptop that cannot do 90% of the things people buy highend laptops to do..

It only has 5 hours of battery as well which is pretty brutal for such a simple operating system.. I really don't like this system of storing everything online.. I like the idea of storing my word documents and important pictures online but will never need 1TB of storage..

Lachlan said,
This thing is a massive flop in my opinion.. 32GB of storage?! Its like they tried to take their chromebook idea and put it onto a MacBook pro... Why would I not just buy a MacBook pro or an Windows 8 ultrabook and just install the chrome operating system.. I really thought they were going somewhere by cornering the netbook market and making really cheap computer that anyone can buy for a few hundred bucks.. Why would anyone want to buy a high end laptop that cannot do 90% of the things people buy highend laptops to do..

It only has 5 hours of battery as well which is pretty brutal for such a simple operating system.. I really don't like this system of storing everything online.. I like the idea of storing my word documents and important pictures online but will never need 1TB of storage..

It looks like someone at google took a really cheap laptop, then bought a MacBook and tried to force the cheap crap into the MacBook case - using really outdated parts but kept the nice screen in. Then they took the most useless OS to top it off. Then hired a PR firm that clearly apple also employs to try to pass this bucket of sh8 to the rest of us. It aint workin.....


It's another google experiment where they go in the backyard grab a pile of dogsh8 and throw it against the wall and see how well it sticks.

Why would you make a pro machine that has a VERY nice resolution, but then gimp the local disk space, pros need more than 64gb of space, then you use USB 2.0 when you could have used usb 3.0 for external drives, also gimping the speed. 4 gb of ram? that is kinda the base of what most machines that are $500 and up come with now.

That model doesn't compare? No high-res screen, no touchscreen, not in the same league. The biggest comparison is with "premium" laptops, e.g. the MacBook Pro or Air.

maxslaterrobins said,
That model doesn't compare? No high-res screen, no touchscreen, not in the same league. The biggest comparison is with "premium" laptops, e.g. the MacBook Pro or Air.

Luckily it has a hard drive with storage and a proper OS.

Lachlan said,
I think angry bird benchmarks are looking really good.. barely any lag.. /s

Since Angry Birds is basically the only game available, that is the only benchmark.

Astra.Xtreme said,

I bet it plays Crysis on Imagination Mode.

That has got to be the best comment on Neowin I have read so far.

Chromebook - Play games in your Imagination.

I don't get it either.. how can it compete with something like the MacBook Pro with such limited functionality in comparison? Does not compute!

Chicane-UK said,
I don't get it either.. how can it compete with something like the MacBook Pro with such limited functionality in comparison? Does not compute!


Same here. Google appear to have gone full retard here. They're either MASSIVELY dillusional about the capabilities of Chrome OS, or they're planning something else big.

Chicane-UK said,
I don't get it either.. how can it compete with something like the MacBook Pro with such limited functionality in comparison? Does not compute!

Exactly! ​What is interesting is how much this Chromebook costs. How can ANYONE argue that there is an "Apple Tax" when the 13" Retina MBP starts at $1499 with an 128GB SSD whilst the Chromebook Pixel is $1299 for a 32GB SSD, and isn't as full featured as a MacBook Pro? Do people realise now what an achievement it was for Apple to come to market with Hi-DPI IPS displays last year at a reasonable price?

Lol...just lol. Nobody in their right mind would spend $1300 for a laptop that has nothing but a browser and, according to this article, lags.

The design and monitor do look nice though.

Maybe on price and design the Chromebook Pixel competes with a MacBook Pro but after that, the former is just an expensive browser.

A340600 said,
Maybe on price and design the Chromebook Pixel competes with a MacBook Pro but after that, the former is just an expensive browser.

Not even on the design front, the screen looks soooo awkward... Macbook Pro design any day!

A340600 said,
Maybe on price and design the Chromebook Pixel competes with a MacBook Pro but after that, the former is just an expensive browser.

Rubbish! Apple design trumps this any day.

As for price, Apple wins hands down. How can ANYONE argue that there is an "Apple Tax" when the 13" Retina MBP starts at $1499 with an 128GB SSD whilst the Chromebook Pixel is $1299 for a 32GB SSD, and isn't as full featured as a MacBook Pro?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH did they legalize weed in California? Google is smoking a sh8 load of it.

ChromeOS is not a touch centric OS; they will need to add a touchscreen UI for this to work, and then they will have a hybrid OS like Windows 8 is. But at this point it makes ZERO sense when you can buy a real laptop for that price that does infinitely more.

ChromeOS should pander to the netbook crowd - low priced machines for basic tasks like browsing, doing emails, a few games.

I don't see anyone paying this much for a device that is limited in capability.

Maybe if ChromeOS could do more locally and allows client side application installation that would make sense but it would need a pretty large library of software.

This competes with ipad (ios), surface (windows rt) so the price should be around that market $500 or less. But they overspec'd the resolution so the price is going to be high, unfortunately they think it can compete with $1000 high end laptop market where it simply will be a huge failure.

Edited by , Feb 21 2013, 8:23pm :

lol.. this thing has the same processor and battery life as the MS Surface Pro.. and this thing is 50% more expensive for a touch screen..

Lachlan said,
lol.. this thing has the same processor and battery life as the MS Surface Pro.. and this thing is 50% more expensive for a touch screen..

The surface pro is also thinner, surface pro runs full windows. This thing has a very nice screen but even previous chromeos machines at lower resolutions had similar or lower battery life - simply google can't write an optimized operating system and throws massive hardware at it; exactly the problem with android = bloated os.


ChromeOS as it currently stands is useless for touch, the interface is no different from the Windows desktop - which is not very touch centric. They will need to add on a startscreen type UI for the touch based applications, then again they could just rewrite the whole thing to be touch centric as NO ONE used chromeos previously - so no real backwards compatibility needed.

Many of previous chromeos applications would need to add in touch support - so the library of software is pretty slim.

This has a nice screen I'll give it that, maybe if someone can figure out how to install Windows 8 on it then this thing has some value but until then it's another GOOGLE FAILURE.

pgxl said,
This competes with ipad (ios), surface (windows rt) so the price should be around that market $500 or less.

This don't compete with either. Windows RT is WAY more capable than iOS/Android, it's full blown Windows minus the x86 compatibility. And iOS/Android are far more capable than Chrome OS. Theres literally feature phones from 2007 with more capabilities than Chrome OS.

If you want something simple then an iPad/Android tablet + keyboard dock would be a much better purchase than this extremely limited and locked down Chromebook crap. IMO unless Chromebooks go for under $200 they're a ripoff.

1Pixel said,

This don't compete with either. Windows RT is WAY more capable than iOS/Android, it's full blown Windows minus the x86 compatibility. And iOS/Android are far more capable than Chrome OS. Theres literally feature phones from 2007 with more capabilities than Chrome OS.

If you want something simple then an iPad/Android tablet + keyboard dock would be a much better purchase than this extremely limited and locked down Chromebook crap. IMO unless Chromebooks go for under $200 they're a ripoff.

I hear you, I own a surface rt and a surface pro - they are infinitely more powerful than any chromos, android or ios device. However if this chromeos pixel should compete it should be in that price range of $500, adding on a super high res screen for no benefit as there is ZERO software for this makes no sense at $1000+

1Pixel said,
Windows RT is WAY more capable than iOS/Android, it's full blown Windows minus the x86 compatibility.

Hahahahaha... Thats like saying a Corolla is a fullblown Ferrari minus the Ferrari.

You win today's brain surgeon award!

The problem is this device is that Google thinks anyone who is using the web is going to be looking at/playing with outer space. Just watch the video; that's the only thing you see it doing.

They really should've aimed to fill the gap before attempting a premium laptop. As it stands, many of us still don't see the value for Chrome OS. A better targeted $499 setup would've been ideal.

I just can't possibly see this taking off at all...

Darrah Ford said,

Hahahahaha... Thats like saying a Corolla is a fullblown Ferrari minus the Ferrari.

You win today's brain surgeon award!

Um no it's not. Windows isn't all about the desktop applications... If you think it is then either you don't use Windows or you are taking the tools and advanced code on there for granted. Think PowerShell, regedit, policy editor, advanced hardware decoding, the NT media stack (graphics and audio), NT processor/thread management among SO many other things that you will find on no other mobile OS. So its more or less buying a Ferrari without being able to hot up to many parts. Chrome OS is more like a rusty old "Carolla" with nothing worth salvaging...

So hahahaha

Darrah Ford said,
Hahahahaha... Thats like saying a Corolla is a fullblown Ferrari minus the Ferrari.

You win today's brain surgeon award!

Windows Desktop, as it stands alone is a Ferrari. It's just sad that so many people don't understand the significance of the full Windows Core on ARM.

Darrah Ford said,

Hahahahaha... Thats like saying a Corolla is a fullblown Ferrari minus the Ferrari.

You win today's brain surgeon award!

...what's wrong with you?

MidTxWRX said,

...what's wrong with you?

She/He is a google fan and posts anti-ms jibberish on every article. Obviously a chromeOS user with too much time on it's hands seeing how you can't do anything but surf the web on it. A $1200+ browser!! BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, another google failure, right behind google wave and google+ failures.

Darrah Ford said,

Hahahahaha... Thats like saying a Corolla is a fullblown Ferrari minus the Ferrari.

You win today's brain surgeon award!

A Toyota Corolla is a full blown Toyota Corolla minus the luxury features. You are comparing two different products from two different companies. As was expected anyway.

Darrah Ford said,

Hahahahaha... Thats like saying a Corolla is a fullblown Ferrari minus the Ferrari.

You win today's brain surgeon award!

Nobody has ever said that

ingramator said,

Something, something

U said Windows RT is like regular Windows but no x86 support... Which makes it less capable.
Can you make a browser that is competative? Nope because your restricted in terms of JIT compiling and other processing stuff that is necessary to make a browser that is fast and competative. Same as iOS.
All these things are supported in Android so you aren't limited.
Windows RT is severely limited compared to regular Windows 8 when it comes to third party apps because they don't have the same access that 1st party apps do.
Yes ChromeOS is very limited but Android certainly isn't.

pgn said,

She/He is a google fan and posts anti-ms jibberish on every article. Obviously a chromeOS user with too much time on it's hands seeing how you can't do anything but surf the web on it. A $1200+ browser!! BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, another google failure, right behind google wave and google+ failures.

Not really. Darrah Ford was pointing out how ridiculous the claim of "Windows RT is full blown Windows minus the x86 compatibility. ".

The x86 compatibility is why you can do so many things on Windows right now. It will be awhile before RT has a comparable library of software available.