Shared publicly  - 
Andrew McGlashan's profile photoPatrick Elliott-Brennan's profile photoRobin Lim's profile photoLiz Quilty's profile photo
Don't you think this is a bit...odd, +Katherine Noyes ?

The device seems way over priced to me and to buy one to then install Linux? It would have to be a great device to make it worth buying sans Chrome OS otherwise you could buy another laptop with cough you know what and install Linux.

I can't see what this Pixel book has going for it really.
Best (highest resolution) touchscreen display on a laptop yet... That's one thing it has going for it, I suppose.

Think of this as a niche product for people with a lot of disposable income - like a Tesla S or an Ariel Atom. 
+Brett Legree :))

If you could install a Linux distro as a dual boot and have a decent sent of specs for the price, mebbe it would be an option.

For me I'll have to see how it pans out I guess. I'd want great battery life and a serious level of responsiveness under Linux to think it was worth it.
Whilst you can. im not sure i would, if i got these i would give them to my kids who mostly live in a browser (which is what they are aimed at). Otherwise if i wanted a laptop i would just get a cheaper netbook (which i prefer anyway).
+Patrick Elliott-Brennan thanks for smiling along with me here :) believe me, I agree with you as it would be a greater value proposition for me personally if it had a bit more flexibility as well.

That being said, let me direct you to the Hyundai Accent in my driveway (rather than a Tesla S or an Ariel Atom!)

I do make a very good salary, so at the next upgrade cycle my new laptop may end up costing this much or more (a Retina MacBook Pro, a ThinkPad X1 Carbon Touch, or something else).

I have enjoyed talking with all kinds of folks about this, wrapping my head around the whole idea of a high-end Chromebook with 'premium' pricing.

I am currently feeling that Google had to do this. If you look at the hardware quality alone (design/build/industrial engineering) of Apple laptops and tablets, of Microsoft Surface Pro or of (say) Samsung Ultrabooks, you can definitely see a marked difference between those and the last Samsung ARM-based Chromebook - which is a nice little machine for $249, but is it really a good 'flagship' device for a world-class corporation like Google?

Not really, to me anyway (even though I'll probably buy V2.0 of this one, I'd pay a little more for the plastic Samsung ARM Chromebook if it had a touchscreen).

Hence the Chromebook Pixel - and being a Chromebook, Google sort of had to 'dogfood' it a bit and give it limited local storage with Drive for bulk storage.

It also makes me think about the relative costs of components in these higher end products.

It seems like the high resolution display and the milled metal chassis adds more to the total cost than the CPU, memory and onboard storage (see comparative pricing of a Retina MacBook 13, a Surface Pro, an X1 Carbon Touch and the Pixel).

A touchscreen option adds a bit more to the display cost (see X1 Carbon vs X1 Carbon Touch) - which leads me to believe if Apple ever decides to add touchscreen displays, it shouldn't cost too much more - I mean, they make the bulk of their money these days selling touchscreen devices in the form of iPads!

Yes, lots to think about.

Me - I'm just waiting for this great tech from the Pixel/Tesla S to filter down to the next generation of ARM Chromebook/Hyundai Accent :)
It's interesting, but the specs on this machine include 2x USB 2.0 ports .....  Why not USB 3.0 ?   That is amazing, hope it isn't 2.0 and is really 3.0.
+Brett Legree I could only agree on that for a cheap Chromebook, but this is a premium machine; no excuse really.
+Andrew McGlashan well, I'm not sure. I am not an expert on licences and so on, but maybe if it is a licence issue (which we don't know) it isn't a matter of money.

I mean, money is not the reason why ZFS or exFAT are excluded from the Linux kernel, after all. 
+Brett Legree Good point.  But with sub $20 USB 3.0 hubs around and Intel having been involved way, way back with support in the Linux Kernel... I just don't get it.

Pity about ZFS on Linux, BTRFS will be the way of the future, funny thing about BTRFS is that it has Oracle origins whilst ZFS has Sun Microsystems history (now Oracle owned).  If Oracle will change the license on ZFS, that would be great.  Actually Oracle Linux has BTRFS full-on production, but again, last time I enquired about it for Oracle Databases, it wasn't supported -- you can run BTRFS, but not with an Oracle database... go figure.
+Andrew McGlashan yes, that's a good point. I do not understand either...

I have always found that a bit odd about the whole ZFS / Btrfs / Oracle thing.

Time will tell, I guess. 
I don't think Chrome OS supports USB 3.0 yet.
+Roberto Lim It must have a very old kernel not to support USB 3.0 -- support has been there for years in standard Linux Kernel and actually before Windows got USB 3.0 support!
Add a comment...