Google PixelBook on Sale for Just $750
- Paul Thurrott
- Jun 02, 2018
-
38
The Google PixelBook is on sale right now for prices starting at just $750, a savings of $250. At that price point, its lowest yet, the PixelBook is almost a no-brainer, assuming you’re looking for a premium Chromebook.
And to be clear, the “entry-level” PixelBook isn’t all that entry-level: This model features a 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, 8 GB of RAM, and 128 GB of SSD storage. Those are high-end specs for a Chromebook, for sure. But higher-end models feature up to 16 GB of RAM and up to 512 GB on NVMe-based SSD storage. Granted, they are much more expensive.
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
All PixelBooks include a 12.3-inch 2400×1600 multi-touch display, a convertible design, an excellent backlit keyboard, two USB-C ports, dual speakers, and battery life of up to 10 hours with fast-charging capabilities in which the device can achieve up to 2 hours of use in just 15 minutes.
The PixelBook stands somewhat alone at the high-end of the Chromebook market, but the recently-announced HP Chromebook x2 comes somewhat close, with a 7th-generation Intel Core M-series processor, up to 8 GB of RAM, 32 GB of SSD storage with microSD expansion, and a 12.3-inch display. That device costs only $600.
Still, the PixelBook is a great Chromebook, and at this price I may actually dive back in myself.
This deal is good until midnight on June 17, 2018. You can purchase the Google PixelBook from a variety of retailers, including Google, Best Buy, B&H, and probably a few others. (I don’t see it on sale at Amazon.com) If you do choose Google, you can finance the device interest-free for two years at a cost of about $33 per month.
Tagged with
Conversation 38 comments
-
skane2600
<p>Still seems to be a lot to pay for such limited capabilities.</p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280547"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Limited?</p><p><br></p><p>You call the ability to run over 2 million Android and Linux apps, natively, limited?</p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280572"><em>In reply to plettza:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>You do realize there are tens of thousands of games that run on Android that are not available for Windows, right? Following your logic, I guess Windows is "limited".</p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280578"><em>In reply to jrickel96:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I don't see the correlation between market share and the utility of an operating system. In fact, there isn't any. That's a bogus argument. </p><p><br></p><p>Also, I seriously doubt the Windows store has 5 million apps. And I don't know of any publication that has been able to reliably tally the random Windows executables scattered across the Internet. </p><p><br></p><p>Anyway, whether a platform has 2 million or 5 million apps, that's more than enough for any user to find solutions to the problems they're trying to solve. </p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#280610"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p>A valuation of utility is subjective. If an OS can't survive in the marketplace, it matters not what a subset of technologists believe is the best one.</p><p><br></p><p>As far as how many apps there are in the Windows Store, for the most part, nobody gives a s**t. It's irrelevant to most Windows users since MS killed the Windows Phone (not that there was all that much interest before then). </p><p><br></p><p>It's Win32 programs that most people value Windows for.</p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280724"><em>In reply to VancouverNinja:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">I already stated why people prefer Chrome OS to Windows. I'll reiterate.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS is more secure than Windows</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS is easier to use than Windows</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS is easier to manage than Windows</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS is faster than Windows </span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS is lighter than Windows</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS can run Android apps natively</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS can run Linux apps natively</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS doesn't have a broken update system</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">- Chrome OS is not encumbered by the unfortunate baggage of decades-old misguided computing paradigms</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">These are all valid reasons to spend more money on a Chrome OS device than a Windows computer.</span></p><p><br></p><p>Windows is a legacy operating system. Its only relevance is to run legacy applications. In fact, I don't know why any modern computer user would bother using Windows. </p><p><br></p><p>It's dangerous, bloated, unreliable, unwieldy, and overkill for 99% of what we need computers for today. The exception, of course, is legacy applications, and perhaps games.</p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#280815"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>"I already stated why people prefer Chrome OS to Windows"</p><p><br></p><p>Your implicit assumption in this statement is wrong. People don't prefer Chrome OS to Windows and the market proves that. And what's with all this "Chrome OS" stuff rather than Chromebooks? Yes, Chrome OS can run on non-Chromebooks, but the usage share off Chromebooks is really negligible. </p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">"Chrome OS can run Linux apps natively"</span></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>I'm not sure what "natively" means in this context. If it's running on your device rather than the cloud and it's not being emulated, it's native. Now if you want to use a very restrictive definition of native, Chromebooks won't be able to run Linux apps natively because they will be running inside a virtual machine. The user must also enable this capability, it won't be supported "out of the box".</p><p><br></p><p>But it isn't going to matter much anyway since only a subset of desktop Linux users would be interested and there are very few of them. Anyone who is seriously developing Linux desktop apps is going to end up needing a full distro (or multiple ones).</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280767"><em>In reply to jrickel96:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>"…I would argue that Windows Phone had greater utility than Android or iOS…"</p><p>===</p><p><br></p><p>Is this a joke?</p><p><br></p><p>I stopped reading after that.</p><p><br></p><p>You're a legacy user, Windows works for you. </p><p><br></p><p>The modern computer user who has been exposed to the web and mobile platforms has zero interest in legacy Windows applications. </p><p><br></p><p>The web and mobile computing will eventually completely subsume legacy desktop applications. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. </p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#280819"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p>"The modern computer user who has been exposed to the web and mobile platforms has zero interest in legacy Windows applications."</p><p><br></p><p>An absurd claim unless "modern" is simply defined as people who agree with you. Windows users were "exposed to the web" years before you could access it from a smartphone and many were early adopters of mobile technologies. Yet many of these people have a keen interest in Windows applications legacy or new.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#280571"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p>I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of applications running on Chromebooks are web apps, then a distant second would be Android apps and in the negligible category would be Linux apps.</p><p><br></p><p>But beyond the raw number of apps that can be run is the usefulness and desirability of those apps. </p><p><br></p><p>As I've stated before, adding Android apps to Chromebooks is a refutation of the fundamental idea behind Chromebooks.</p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280597"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>The vast majority of applications running on any desktop OS are web apps. </p><p><br></p><p>So, why is that a had thing for Chrome OS?</p><p><br></p><p>Also, in this day and age, I'd wager most people find their mobile devices, and the apps running on them, more useful, and more personal, than anything their desktop computers offer. </p><p><br></p><p>So Chrome OS is actually an appealing proposition for the majority of users. They have access to all the apps they run on their phones on their Chrome OS device. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#280620"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p>I never said that web apps on Chromebooks are bad, that's what they are specifically designed for. </p><p><br></p><p>Smartphones excel at different things than PCs do. Those people who find that Android apps on their smartphones are all they need are unlikely to purchase a Chromebook. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280623"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">I'm not following your reasoning. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">Why do you conclude that people who find Android apps on their smartphone sufficient for their needs are unlikely to purchase a Chromebook?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">If anything, the opposite is true. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">Use-cases are not static. They change depending on time, activity, and context. And therein lies the genius of Android on Chrome OS. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">Users have access to their personal environment on either mobile or desktop form-factors depending what use-case needs to be satisfied.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">A user might find it practical to use Chrome OS when in productivity mode in front of a desk. On the other hand, a phone would be more convenient when the same user is on the road.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">Either way, the user has access to their personal computing environment regardless of the form-factor of the device they choose to use.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">So, it's very likely, and actually logical, that a user completely served by Android, would be better served by Chrome OS compared to Windows or macOS. </span></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#280692"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);">"Why do you conclude that people who find Android apps on their smartphone sufficient for their needs are unlikely to purchase a Chromebook?"</span></p><p><br></p><p>Rhetoric aside, compare the number of people who own an Android phone with the number who own a Chromebook. It's funny because the claim has been made that Windows is on the decline because all people need is a smartphone, but now people need a Chromebook too? Even though it offers very little additional functionality compared to Windows? I don't buy it. </p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280757"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Chrome OS actually offers more functionality and value compared to Windows. I can't run Android apps natively on Windows. I can't run Linux apps natively on Windows.</p><p><br></p><p>Again, If you value simplicity, security and speed, Chrome OS is the better platform hands down. It's not even up for debate.</p><p><br></p><p>I concede there are legacy use-cases where Windows is unavoidable. But those use-cases are niche and rapidly becoming irrelevant. </p>
-
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<blockquote><a href="#280592"><em>In reply to VancouverNinja:</em></a></blockquote><p>It makes a lot of sense of you care about simplicity, security and speed. </p><p><br></p><p>It makes a lot of sense if you want access to native Android apps. </p><p><br></p><p>It makes a lot of sense if you want access to native Linux apps. </p>