Love the new design. Really user-centric. One thing - please allow users to decide if they want the comment thread replies to be "open" or "closed" globally.

It's not the nicest website experience to open and close replies to comments, especially when only one or two are there.

Otherwise, bang-up job.

Sigh... It's not a replacement OS. I have a couple major concerns about this, but this is a slim OS focused on the way people, most of the time, use netbooks. It's the same thing as a dumbphone NOT running iPhone OS - they serve different functions. Or why some families have one sedan and one pickup - they serve different, custom, functions.

When I'm sitting on the couch, putzing around on the web, ChromeOS is exactly what I want.

When I'm managing media, playing games, watching DVD/BD movies, or doing any other processor-intensive stuff, I go to my desktop/laptop.

@G Not so sir. Google said it will print, and they've got some "interesting innovative ideas" on how to make that work.

My bet: they'll handle all drivers on server side, and after your first printing, the appropriate driver is cached. Then, anytime you're connected, the background updates this as well as anything else that's core to your ChromeOS. Not technically a "stateless" solution, but nearly so - realtime access without needing to install those heavy HP driver packages.

Just realized I spelled Mr. Gartenberg's name wrong. Apologies.
Also Marc Andreeson. sorry, to you as well.

"If it's web-based, Chrome OS could and should co-exist with Mac OS, Linux and Windows. It's the idea that Google is promoting Chrome as a PC OS replacement for mobile devices and riding the netbook hype all at the same time that gets me, as does the fact that I need to get a new device to run Chrome OS"

Reading this made me think that Mr. Gartenburg didn't actually follow the presentation yesterday, or didn't read competent reporting on it.

1) Sergey Brin and Sundar Prichai both indicated that ChromeOS is for precisely those "tweener" devices that are not for power users (read: don't use 10 hours a day, doing rich-application work). Hence the netbook platform. Indeed, ChromeOS is supposed to stand alongside Windows or Mac OS.

2) I don't know what applications Mr. Gartenburg is using that makes him skeptical of ChromeOS. Photoshop? You need a powerful not-ARM system anyway. Office? Unless it's the more intensive office stuff, you can do this online through Office Live and/or Google Docs. Presentation? Ditto. Email? Ditto. Media library management? Windows or Mac.

3) What's wrong with tweener? The iPhone proved people want convergence devices, so long as they work in a way that's intuitive.

4) Just because Marc Andreessen said it ten years ago doesn't mean he was wrong. In fact, the prevalence of netbooks, which are necessarily cloud-y, proves that Andreessen may have been actually ahead of his time. That same logic would have said "Palm Pilot will fail. After all, the Apple Newton failed."

5) A large percentage of netbooks already ship with SSDs, as do ALL cell phones, MIDs, iPhones, iPod Touches, IPod Nanos, MacBook Airs, and an increasing number of notebooks. Not exactly boutique anymore. Come talk to me in 2006, and I might agree with you.

Finally, Mr Gartneburg ignored main problem with ChromeOS: high-bandwidth internet connectivity required. This is why computers exist, with all that local power, and why mainframes failed. It's also why Google is decidedly NOT marketing this as a replacement OS, but a supplementary OS.

For a more thoughtful take on ChromeOS, visit Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/chromeos-announcement.ars

Just wanted to note - the "or 45" under AT&T web is if you do the expensive data plan, which is unnecessary. But, for the sake of completeness, the total cost of the N900 with 85/month would be $2550, or $90 more than iPhone.

Since this is not a necessary data plan to choose, I neglected to complete it.

This again... I had to do this comparison on BGR, because the Boy Genius himself didn't understand the math.

Nokia N900: $510
Contract (T-Mo): $60-75 x 24 months = 1440-1800
500 Min: 40
Unlimited Txt: 10
Unlimited Web: 10 or 25
TOTAL: $1950-2310


Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB: $300
Contract (AT&T): $90 x 24 months = 2160
450 Min: 40
Unlimited Txt: 20
Unlimited Data (required): 30
TOTAL: $2460

If you think TMo vs ATT is an unfair comparison, let's pretend N900 works with AT&T.

N900: $510
Contract (AT&T): $70 x 24 months = 1680
450 Min: 40
Unlimited Text+Data: 30 or 45
TOTAL: $2190

Any way you cut it, the iPhone is the most expensive phone in this comparison. The reason is that carriers make a distinction where there is no difference: smartphone/iPhone data versus non-smartphone/iPhone data. With iPhone, you're locked-in to paying for iPhone's data, which is $20 more per month ($480 over life of contract). With other phones, you can opt into a lower-tier unlimited data plan with no difference in performance. Thus, unless a phone is $780 ($300 for iPhone + $480 iPhone tax) it will invariably be cheaper than the iPhone.

This again... I had to do this comparison on BGR, because the Boy Genius himself didn't understand the math.

Nokia N900: $510
Contract (T-Mo): $60-75 x 24 months = 1440-1800
500 Min: 40
Unlimited Txt: 10
Unlimited Web: 10 or 25
TOTAL: $1950-2310


Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB: $300
Contract (AT&T): $90 x 24 months = 2160
450 Min: 40
Unlimited Txt: 20
Unlimited Data (required): 30
TOTAL: $2460

If you think TMo vs ATT is an unfair comparison, let's pretend N900 works with AT&T.

N900: $510
Contract (AT&T): $70 x 24 months = 1680
450 Min: 40
Unlimited Text+Data: 30 or 45
TOTAL: $2190

Any way you cut it, the iPhone is the most expensive phone in this comparison. The reason is that carriers make a distinction where there is no difference: smartphone/iPhone data versus non-smartphone/iPhone data. With iPhone, you're locked-in to paying for iPhone's data, which is $20 more per month ($480 over life of contract). With other phones, you can opt into a lower-tier unlimited data plan with no difference in performance. Thus, unless a phone is $780 ($300 for iPhone + $480 iPhone tax) it will invariably be cheaper than the iPhone.

@ Toha: Owning a Chumby and an iPod Touch, I see legitimate value for both capacitive and resistive. And I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it's worth. Also, the N900 is not laggy at all. The N97 was.

@ Demache: You forgot to mention that Mac OS is simply well-skinned UNIX, just as Maemo is well-skinned Linux.

Marty, you're talking about a single product that a boutique MAY sell (thus doubling their product offerings in the space). And the iTab may be a great device, but it actually adds to my point. Apple would need to come out with about a dozen more phones to compete with Nokia in all market segments, and we know Apple is not good at competing when it comes to cheap + reliable + durable. They do a couple things well - design and UI. Apple products are notoriously fragile and expensive, too.

I've dropped my Nokia E71 (not in a case) dozens of times (most often on a sidewalk), and, aside from a few scratches, there was no impact on the physical or operational well-being of the phone. Dropping an iPhone often leads to a broken screen.

Moreover, the Nokia Booklet has a SIM card slot in it, and all subsequent Nokia MIDs will, too. Will Apple sell a contract-free SIM-friendly MID that competes on price, features, and reliability, in addition to phones that compete in all other market segments?