[netcan]

I don't think that's true anymore. Not in a world where a 4 person house has 4 smart-phones, 2 tablets, etc. Not when the device costs $50 (assuming you can get peripherals free).

For $50 you can take some risk. It can't be a huge learning curve but it doesn't need to do everything you need a computer to do for the next 4 years, which was the paradigm that lead to Windows dominance. IE, if I'm buying a PC in 2002, the cost is serious and I need to get years out of it. I can't risk it sucking. For $50 the risk is on par with a pair of jeans. Sometimes you wear them all the time. Sometimes you don't like the,

The most obvious paths seems to me to give Google some competition in their Chrome OS market. Pi, Ubuntu, Mozilla. Tablets are great, but I think a significant part of the froth is just a side effect of (A) A fresh start on UI paradigms and backwards compatibility debt and (B) Price.

It's just a different kind of decision when the price is as low as it can be today.

[brudgers]

To sell the Chromebook idea, Google had to address the XY problem for productivity applications. People will say "I need Office" because they want a spreadsheet and a word processor. By simply making people aware of their apps, Google was able to get many people to forgo the "Office XY" problem [And the iPhone XY problem via Android].

Apple and Microsoft ingrained a lot of intellectual shortcuts in regard to the way people in the mainstream think about computing in their quests for market share. So of course has Google. In fairness, these abstractions simplify the daunting complexity of deciding among a vast domain of computing options.