The Chromebook isn't selling, so what?
Summary: Apparently, people aren't buying Chromebooks. Or they're buying them, but not using them. But does that actually matter?

My ZDNet colleague Ed Bott broke the story last night that despite the fact that people seem to love the Chromebook, no one seems to be using them.
Despite the fact the Chromebook was introduced in June 2011, and thus, has much more market exposure than Windows RT, in the real world, Chromebooks and Windows RT devices appear to have the same usage according to an analysis of website statistics. Specifically, around 0.023 percent.
Which isn't very much.
If you were in my office now, you may notice a shelf. On it sits a Chromebook. To its right, a Surface RT. Neither of them I've used in either weeks or months — I honestly can't remember.
Peas
My reaction last night was to jump on Twitter and start justifying the low sales of Chromebook — ie, I badly wanted to be a "Chromebook apologist".
Being an apologist is always a good sign that you like something. And I do really, really like the Chromebook. So why's mine sitting on a shelf doing nothing waiting for me to get around to chucking it on eBay.
Because I can't do very much with it compared to the other tools I have at my disposal. Well, other "tool" singular — my Mac is more useful. (And this doesn't have to be a Mac, it can be a PC. I happen to use a Mac. "Go, me.")
For example, today, I have to write this piece, then do a bunch of ASP.NET development, then a bunch of book editing, then some other bits, and spend some time on Twitter. I can use the Chromebook to do some of that, but not all. There's no point physically switching the Mac and Chromebook around just to be task specific — I might as well use my Mac.
When it comes to Windows RT and Chromebook, they are two peas in a pod. They are so similar in so many ways it's actually a bit spooky.
First similarity is that I don't use either of them day-to-day because they don't have enough utility to cover the specialised work that I do day-to-day.
Second similarity is that what they're both good at and bad at is roughly the same. I can't use either of them for specialised development work. I could use Surface RT for doing the book editing as it's rather good for doing heavy work in Office, and the Chromebook is abundantly not. (Although for light work, Google Docs is ace.)
Third similarity is that they're both bold experiments in how to reframe the PC away from being a device focused on corporate efficiency and one that's more about fitting into lifestyle of normal people outside of their lives at work.
Wait, though — there's another way to look at that first similarity of applicability for day-to-day use which is the "what's it for?" test.
Actually ...?
This is classic technology adoption curve stuff. Early adopters (usually technologists) look at something new and find a way to use the tool for their own purposes, and voila, they like it. And then that group and the vendor's marketing department has to explain it to normal people who promptly turn round and say "Uh?"
In both the case of the Chromebook and Windows RT, the same point has to be explained: "No, you can't run your normal software on it."
And then you have this conversation: "So shouldn't I just buy a normal PC?"
"Yes."
And a normal PC gets bought. Which is fine. Or a normal PC doesn't get bought because the potential customer that we're talking about already has one and that happens to be working OK. Which is also fine if you consider the big picture that puts the customer and the environment first, but not fine if you're an OEM or Microsoft.
(Personally, I don't care about the OEMs or system vendors. I'm all about the customer and environment on this one. If you've got a decade old XP machine that does you fine, great. Don't waste resources demanding a new one — just check you've got your backups working well.)
One of the big advantages that Google has with the Chromebook compared to Microsoft with Windows RT, and also Windows generally, is that Google probably doesn't care that much if Chromebooks sell because their business is currently mostly agnostic with regards to the device on which their services are consumed.
Microsoft is in a much weaker position in this regard because much, as management wants to pivot their business to be devices and services based, as opposed to utterly dependent on Windows and Office sales, which hasn't happened yet.
Google is facing the enemy here — Microsoft is still trying to work out who's shooting at it.
The fact that sales and/or real world usage of both of these experiments is so low tells you that the experiments have failed. Or is failing. Either way.
But failing experiments are fine. Which, peculiarly, is something that all engineers fundamentally understand, so why engineers would complain about failures is beyond me. Perhaps it's not them complaining vociferously.
"Young man, why would I feel like a failure? And why would I ever give up? I now know definitively over 9,000 ways that an electric light bulb will not work. Success is almost in my grasp," said Thomas Edison. Well, probably. You know what the internet is like. Sounds valid enough, though.
The important thing to remember here is that the customer is well served by these experiments. Much as I love the PC as a general purpose compute device that adapts beautifully to specific, commercial problem domains, it's a boneheaded lump of a thing, chock full of malware and abuse vectors that is fundamentally unsuited to a general population of non-technologists looking to use compute devices to augment their lives.
The sooner the PC dies, frankly, the better.
So does it matter that the Chromebook isn't selling? Or that Windows RT isn't selling? As I mentioned earlier — they're basically the same principle, just done differently.
No. I don't think it does. The important thing is that smart engineers are out there trying to build great devices and services that serve a general population of normal human beings better than the old-school PC.
Whether Google, Apple, or Microsoft do that — who cares, really? At least having 0.023 percent market share drives the story on.
Sitting back and doing nothing does nothing for anyone.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
PC isn't going to die
Does anyone consider that maybe the PC won't die but take on an appliance like existence like a refrigerator. Back in the '70s as I recall was when refrigerators were getting neat add ons like ice and water dispensers and some people had to have the latest. Now there really isn't much differentiating fridges other than size and color. The fridge wars are over and you get one only if the one you have quits working.
Such will be desktops or larger laptops. I paid 340 dollars for my present laptop at Walmart. It worked great for about a year then got real sluggish. I dropped IE and started using Chrome and it was like new again. I can surf the net, rip my CD's, watch a movie. I like to use headphones for the sound quality. For what I use it for, I wouldn't want less than a 17" screen. Plus thanks to Chrome, I've discovered great personal organization with the Calander and such.
I do hope for a 17" Chrome book that would do all I mentioned above, as I believe if Google decided to build a complete OS, from my experience with Chrome, it would make a great entertainment PC.
Let's not call the PC as dead or dying, it's just always going to be there. Like your fridge.
For me, that's already true.
PC Dying?
The main point of the article, as I read it, is that Chromebook and Windows RT haven't caught on as a substitute for the PC (which should have been limited to the notebook). Desktops aren't convenient to take on a trip to an Expo or other special event. Reporters would find these quite useful for taking notes, then writing columns while still in the field. They have their place, but quite probably will not become common place. Chromebooks, Windows RT and hybrids are trying to fill the gap between notebooks and Smart Phones/tablets. It will take a while - just look at how long it was before the Palm Pilot became mainstream.
As for the comments about different OSs, and individual usage of a computer (regardless of platform or OS) have to do with the article? People who make comments should stick to the article and not react to those who deviate from it.
Additionally
yup
You didn't have to read it, so why did you?
ZDNet needs the Sartalics tab.
if you have a decade-old XP machine
Mary, you have a way with words
;)
Not just for older machines, but...
My Samsung Chromebook is pretty useful, but I intend to install Ubuntu 13 when it's available.
LTS only for me
Linux
because upgrading Windows costs money and it won't run well on old
If you don't then like the whole linux experience, go find your xp CD's and reload windows, download all the updates, and it in a couple of days, will work just fine, for a year or so.
Bullpucky
Those things ARE worth spending a little money, and I do mean little, as Windows upgrade licenses are a bargain.
OS X Mountain Lion is the same way. If your Intel Mac is from at least mid-2007 you can run the latest and greatest Apple OS and at worst it will run at the exact same speed as your old OS, or it may be faster and smoother.
Linux? Sorry, too much hassle.
Windows 7 won't run on anything pre-Vista and not so well on early Vista
damn ZDnet for no editing feature
Actually...
(I've put 7 on an Athlon XP 2400+ with GeForce 6600 graphics and 1GB of RAM, and it's more than usable.
There is a fourth choice
So its not like you don't have choices when it comes to a desktop, you can get the Celeron for around $80 or the E350 for around $60-$70, lower your power and cooling needs, get a MUCH quieter system, and you can run any OS you want as they both come with XP-Win 8 drivers. If you haven't tried one you really should, i have swapped several P4/PD boards for E350s and they are all quite happy with the performance, not to mention no fans means a silent PC which sure beats the F16 roar of a P4 or PD fans.
Re: Bullpucky