Google Pixelbook First Impressions
- Paul Thurrott
- Nov 10, 2017
-
159
This morning, I made an espresso and sat down on the couch in the sun room to read the newspaper, as I always do. Well, not quite as I always do: This time, I was toting the Google Pixelbook, an elegantly-designed new Chromebook convertible that can work like a tablet, instead of the iPad Pro I usually use.
Last night, likewise, I sat in front of the TV in the living room, opened the Pixelbook in a more familiar laptop mode and typed about 1000 words using its surprisingly excellent and backlit keyboard. This type of work is usually—OK, always—done with a Windows PC of some kind, preferably Surface Book.
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Earlier yesterday, I spent my obligatory 20 minutes with Duolingo, the language learning app. I normally perform this work on my smartphone, a Pixel 2 XL these days, but this time I used the same Android app, but on the Pixelbook, and I interact with it using the keyboard and mouse.
Previous to all of that, the Pixelbook had arrived in a box, so I opened it up, plugged it in, signed-in to my Google account and watched as the device quickly configured itself with my apps and personalized settings.
And in doing all that, I discovered a few things.
Key among them is that Google’s efforts to meld Chrome OS with Android is starting to come together, finally, and after months and months of delays.
There are absolutely some rough spots. But this combination of previously separate platforms is starting to make sense.
There’s also a very dire warning for Microsoft here.
I’ve long argued that there were two opposing forces at play, with Microsoft trying to simplify Windows and add mobile features like a store and apps platform, and mobile platform makers like Apple and Google racing to mature their products so that they might replace PCs for traditional productivity work.
The question has always centered on which approach makes more sense. Or, more to the point, which approach would win. Would it be easier for Microsoft to simplify an aging, legacy code base while adding a new mobile apps platform on top of that, or would it be easier for Apple/Google to make their mobile platforms more sophisticated?
I’ve argued that the latter was the more achievable, though stilted efforts like the iPad Pro and iOS 11 may suggest that it won’t be as easy as I thought. But Google has come at this problem from another angle, if only because its own iPad Pro-like efforts at Android tablets and 2-in-1s have failed too.
And that other angle is Chrome OS, the once-laughable web browser in a box. Chrome OS has long since shed its early issues, but the addition of the Android apps platform is what puts it over the top. Assuming, again, that they can make it works.
Folks, the Pixelbook proves that they can make it work.
In the future, the arrival of Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) in the Microsoft Store may reset this conversation yet again. But as of today, Google’s vision of the post-PC world is the one that makes the most sense. It’s not even close. The combination of the web browser and web apps platform that everyone really wants (Chrome) with the most popular mobile apps platform (Android) is going to be tough to beat.
Of course, the Pixelbook is sort of a new thing, too.
No, this isn’t the first time that Google has foisted a premium Chromebook on the world. But are we finally ready for such a thing? Does the maturation of Chrome OS justify such a product?
The value proposition is clear enough, at least in theory: The new Pixelbook combines the style and versatility—and, yes, the pricing—of Surface Pro with Google’s lightweight Chrome OS and Android app compatibility. Chromebooks are a good idea, and I suspect that most readers would at least acknowledge the usefulness of such a device, if grudgingly.
But premium Chromebooks? That is still unclear. And my Magic 8-Ball is telling me to try again later.
So I’ll fall back on Microsoft’s marketing message for Surface Laptop, which you’ll recall ships with the very limited Windows 10 S. Surface Laptop is very much a premium device, with prices starting at $999, the same starting price as the Pixelbook.
According to Terry Myerson and the good folks on the Surface team, this combination of elegant hardware and the limited—sorry, streamlined—Windows 10 S isn’t arbitrary. They believe that there is a class of user, even in the business space, that values the security and performance promises of this system. And they have telemetry data that shows what software those customers actually use. Their claim, thus, is that Surface Laptop with Windows 10 S will meet the needs of real customers.
That’s also unclear, in my opinion. But Google feels the same way about Chrome OS and Chromebooks. And while previous Chromebook Pixel laptops at least proved that a premium Chromebook was possible, if not necessary, this new Pixelbook arrives at a more auspicious time. The stars are aligning.
So the bet here is that a Pixelbook can do for Chromebooks what Surface does for PCs, and provide an aspirational and premium example of what’s possible. Some customers will hopefully pony up the $1000 or more it requires to fly first class, and I’m sure Google would be happy to take their money. But a bigger audience will more likely see the Pixelbook as proof that this product type has legs. And then they’ll spend less on a more affordable Chromebook. And hopefully do so en masse.
Regardless, the Pixelbook advances our understanding of what a premium Chromebook can be. Unlike its predecessors, which were just laptops, the Pixelbook is a 2-in-1 PC, just like Surface Pro. Well, not just like Surface Pro, as the display doesn’t detach from the keyboard. Instead, it’s a convertible laptop design, like the HP Spectre x360 or the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga. Which means that the display can spin around so that the device can be used as a slightly-thick tablet, or in a tent- or presentation-type form factor.
Folks invested in the PC space get this. We’ve been using 2-in-1s and convertible PCs for years. But these kinds of PCs are somewhat limited in that there isn’t a vibrant mobile apps market that can help us take advantage of these different form factors. With Android app compatibility, being able to transform a laptop into a tablet actually starts to make some sense. It really does.
The Pixelbook has some other potential advantages. It can integrate tightly with your Pixel smartphone, if you have one, or another Android handset. There’s an optional smart pen, which I did not buy. It is thin and light and beautifully designed. It is thoroughly modern, unlike any Surface, with USB-C expandability. It is, arguably, the first truly desirable Chromebook.
The Pixelbook and the platform(s) which it runs are a dire threat to Microsoft and to Windows. And it offers a better transition to the post-PC world than that which Apple still touts with its iPad Pro.
I’m going to use it more. I’m going to see whether my early impressions are supported by more experience, see where the seams of that Chrome OS and Android integration work, and where they fall apart. And I’ll let you know what I find out.
Tagged with
Conversation 159 comments
-
Delmont
<blockquote><a href="#214541"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I noticed in the article, no price breakdown. That's a first from Paul. But his articles the past couple of months are him just doubling down on everything Google, Chrome and Andriod. Paul's become today's John C. Dvorak.</p>
-
Delmont
<blockquote><a href="#214593"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>No, I can tell when you're having a bad day while writing an article. Some of your articles are as of Dvorak is writing them the past few months. And the doubling down of Google, wasn't meant as an insult. Sorry if that came across that way. I know tone can get lost online. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214602"><em>In reply to Nicholas_Kathrein:</em></a></blockquote><p>For people who don't need advanced programs or win32 compatibility, a $300 Chromebook should do fine. I suppose there are some people who buy computers primarily as furniture but I don't think it's all that common.</p>
-
Delmont
<blockquote><a href="#214608"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>As furniture? You mean as a status symbol?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214610"><em>In reply to Delmont:</em></a></blockquote><p>Furniture: My characterization of an expensive, premium device that one wishes to own despite the lack of functionality that "premium" would typically be associated with.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214646"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree, but my point was just that it doesn't make sense to buy an expensive Chromebook considering all the limitations. If you don't want to run Windows and you don't need Win32 compatibility, than buy a cheap Chromebook, not an expensive one. I wouldn't recommend a Chromebook over a Windows PC in general, although a cheap one might make sense for some people. My 90-year-old father-in-law's PC keeps getting infected both because of his lack of knowledge and the actions of his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. In his specific case, a cheap Chromebook might be better since he doesn't run much of anything other than a browser.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214715"><em>In reply to normcf:</em></a></blockquote><p>I guess I'm skeptical of the claim that there are "plenty" of people who work long hours using just web apps. Of course web apps are available to Linux, Windows, and MacOS too. I'm not sure how much the increased performance of a high-end machine affects the performance of web apps. It's usually sophisticated programs running natively that tax the system. One certainly doesn't need to spend $1000+ to get a Chromebook with a "nice keyboard, trackpad, and screen".</p>
-
Stooks
<p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Chromebooks are a good idea, and I suspect that most readers would at least acknowledge the usefulness of such a device"</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sure if cost is the single most important factor then yes cheap Chromebooks and free Google apps will get you by for most computing tasks. Not all for sure and NOT the best way for sure.</span></p><p><br></p><p>Schools come to mind. Lot's of the public schools in my area are moving to this for one reasons. Cost. Cost of software, cost of hardware and simple ease of administration means they can get rid of, or greatly reduce the cost of IT staff or consultants. However some teacher/s usually take on the burden of managing this, again for cost reasons.</p><p><br></p><p>My company tried moving to Chromebooks as a "loaner" laptop. In the past we used Windows laptops for this. The loaner laptop basically has just a few apps, VPN, Citrix client, RDP client. For us these apps were available on Chromebook (VPN vendor supported). Well the experience for various reasons was lacking and users HATED it. The Windows loaner laptops were always checked out and nobody wanted the Chromebooks. We have since abandoned that idea, we actually have a few cheap Chromebooks that have never left the box.</p><p><br></p><p>Buying this device at its cost to run ChromeOS and some Android apps??? Just burn the money as it would make more sense.</p><p><br></p><p>Paul you need to get on "This week in Google".</p>
-
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#214600"><em>In reply to Nicholas_Kathrein:</em></a></blockquote><p>The VPN client, Citrix client and RDP client all had quirks. More steps to VPN in, odd features in the other apps.</p><p><br></p><p>Example the RDP app, the best in the store, only allows one RDP session. If you want it to be full screen, then maximize it before you make the connection. If you did not, then drop the connection and then maximize, then reconnect. Using Windows RDP none of that junk goes on.</p><p><br></p><p>Add up enough little quirks and users reject it. They rejected it and we went back to Windows.</p><p><br></p><p>This is a REAL world example, not some review of how cool some new Laptop is.</p><p><br></p><p>Fact is schools use Google stuff because it is free…100% free. You can get education discounts for Microsoft stuff but there is still a cost.</p><p><br></p><p>$10 per student, per year for Office 365 is a great price. But if you have 1000 students that is $10,000 you don't have to spend on the Google solution. It adds up from there.</p><p><br></p><p>I am not saying Google products are bad, but if they were priced the same their popularity would be far less than they are today.</p>
-
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#214587"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a></blockquote><p>Big if. </p><p><br></p><p>Fine probably for simple apps but much harder to do to really replace something like Lightroom or Visio. Even today I much prefer OneNote 2016 to the UWP version and I think the UWP version is a good app.</p><p><br></p><p>All this talk about PWA's is great. However in the end I think it helps Google more than Microsoft. If Microsoft makes PWA versions of their apps and those PWA apps run on ChromeOS…buh bye Windows.</p>
-
Bats
<p>Wow….I remembered when Paul had unequivocally and explicitly stated that the venture to put Android apps into Chromebooks …and I quote….HAS FAILED.</p>
-
skane2600
<p>The problem with all Chromebooks relative to Windows PCs is that there's really no price advantage even at the low end. So it really comes down to simplicity vs capability and familiarity. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214663"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Well, the younger you are the less experience you'd have with Windows or Macs, right? Do we really have data on what percentage of college students use Chromebooks vs alternatives? But, in any case, I mentioned capability, not just familiarity. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214698"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I think Chromebooks offer an alternative platform for those enterprises who find running Windows remotely adequate, but I question the claim that they reduce costs over Windows machines. In my experience, Citrix and low-cost, locked-down Windows PCs go hand-in-hand. </p>
-
Bats
<blockquote><a href="#214701"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>Citrix and lock-down WIndows PCs = SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214717"><em>In reply to Bats:</em></a></blockquote><p>I would expect the performance of Citrix to be approximately the same given the same hardware resources regardless of the operating system used. I wouldn't recommend Citrix or similar approaches if performance is important.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214890"><em>In reply to macguy59:</em></a></blockquote><p>I would assume that "macguy" wouldn't want to run any version of Windows on any hardware.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214706"><em>In reply to PeteB:</em></a></blockquote><p>Macs were very popular in schools back in the day, but it had little impact on market share outside the classroom. With Windows PCs selling greater than an order of magnitude more than Chromebooks it's extremely premature to declare ChromeOS to be the winner.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214733"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>"How can we outsiders contradict MSFT's assessment about this?"</p><p><br></p><p>So, you don't see any miss-assessments by MS in the past? Acquiring Nokia was a good idea? Windows RT devices were a good idea? </p><p><br></p><p>I would argue that MS always makes the biggest mistakes when they believe the "Windows is doomed hype". Netscape was going to kill Windows. Java was going to kill Windows. The fears were unfounded but trying to respond to them got them in a lot of trouble.</p><p><br></p><p>More recently it's been Mobile is going to kill Windows. Now perhaps, it's Chromebooks are going to kill Windows.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214742"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Unix and all it's variants (including Linux) are still not a threat to desktop Windows. Chrome OS has some potential to threaten Windows but really isn't Linux. </p><p><br></p><p>Windows continues to be noncompetitive in embedded systems just as it's always been. Linux in embedded systems has essentially replaced implementations that didn't use an operating system at all. It's a somewhat bloated approach in many cases, but Linux is free and there's plenty of resources available so who cares if the memory requirements double or triple?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214850"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I guess we'll have to disagree on what the minimum amount of Linux "stuff" makes a system Linux. </p><p><br></p><p>BTW, many embedded systems don't move anything into RAM other than variables or volatile data, all the code runs out of ROM. As far as customized Linux kernels are concerned when do they cease being Linux kernels and are simply a different kernel? You could obviously take a kernel of any OS (including the Windows kernel) and by adding and removing code make it in to something else.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214871"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I think a significant factor is the ability to run key Linux applications "out of the box". If you could easily run Android Studio on a Chromebook, that would greatly enhance its value to developers.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#215031"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>We can get picky about definitions. There's not a consensus that a kernel qualifies as an operating system by itself. Combine that with your definition of what Linux is would mean that there's no such thing as the Linux OS. My observation among Linux fans is that if a flaw is found outside the kernel, it doesn't count because Linux is just the kernel, but if you were to talk about Linux capabilities, suddenly Linux is the kernel plus user space applications . When we get beyond the "inside baseball" of developer definitions, what counts to users are the capability of the entire binary package with its benefits and its flaws.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#215091"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>If you're claiming that the Chromebook's OS is based on a Linux kernel, I agree. If you're claiming that the Chromebook's OS is equivalent to any standard Linux distro, I disagree and to users that's all that matters. </p><p><br></p><p>Even among hardcore Linux enthusiasts, there's not agreement that GNU/Linux is the proper name, but I have no skin in that game so I don't care.</p>
-
Bats
<p>I have read a ton of comments and the anti-ChromeOS people, just don't get it. It's not really about the Pixelbook and it's not really about ChromeOS, it's about the web. I have said this many many times before, even when Thurrott was writing for the Supersite, the future of computing is the web. Just Surface does for Windows, the Pixelbook does for ChromeOS which is really the Web or the Cloud. It's all about controlling standards. Amazon and Microsoft may own the "real estate" of the cloud, but the business on top of it is being run on Google/Chrome.</p><p><br></p><p>Also here is another thing. Chrome, without question, is the best browser period. Operating Chrome on Pixelbook is far better, smoother, and faster than Edge is on Windows 10. If you don't believe me, go to your local Best Buy and play with it. This tells me one thing, Edge has the performance advantage over any browser because of it's deep tie-in with Windows 10. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214719"><em>In reply to Bats:</em></a></blockquote><p>The importance of the web has certainly increased in the last two decades, but I think if it was going to be "the future of computing" it would have already replaced all the alternatives. While there seems to be a steady stream of new tools that allegedly make web development easier and various tweaks to web browsers the fundamental capabilities of web app development haven't really increased in recent years. There's really nothing one can do today with a web app that one couldn't do a decade ago.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214731"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>The increase in bandwidth is certainly relevant to media consumption, but I'm not sure if it's all that significant with respect to the kind of web apps that are supposed to be Windows replacements. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#214741"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Not sure what that has to do with bandwidth.</p>