This is mostly marketing bullshit [1][2] and misses the point entirely. There is competition on mobile because it's a captive market: the device ships with an OS with integration into first-party services like search and maps, and the default first-party app and content store, where the house takes a cut. Whoever controls the platforms gets the eyeballs, thanks to the power of defaults.

Until recently, the highest marketshare desktop OS, Windows, was a utility and not a content-monetizing platform, but Windows 10 brought it up to the level that was long standard on mobile. Google Search, Chrome the Browser, Chrome OS and Chromebooks are Google's progressively vertical takes on inviting a user into the Google data ecosystem in a non-mobile form factor, proving that Windows's weakness was that Google could monetize these users without having to control the hardware, but getting cheap first-party hardware into the hands of people is always a plus.

In all likelihood, the same would've happened to Firefox OS anyway if it had become successful -- the celebrated 'open' mobile OS would be just another entry point into the same exact platforms that managed to rise to prominence on Windows -- a proprietary but laissez-faire ecosystem where anyone could run an application to do just about anything. Over time, a few players bubbled to the top, and now they're shipping their own hardware to cut out the middleman.

[1] http://www.smartinsights.com/mobile-marketing/mobile-marketi... [2] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-owne...

This is true. It may not be a truth people in professional circles like to here. But PCs used to be mass market consumer products in the 90s (during the internet boom) but now Smartphones, tablets and in some cases set top boxes have taken their place.

This is exactly the kind of argument I'm trying to burn to the ground in the second part of my comment above (see "nerd niche itch"). You write this, thinking that you're revealing some uncomfortable truth that the bubbleheads don't understand. But the real truth is that Chromebooks are killing.

The penetration Chromebooks have made in education is huge. And even if it were an entirely no-profit/break-even situation, the idea of millions of students and public library patrons doing work on a "Firebook", and that it would be a serious contender to Windows-based PCs in a number of IT departments, is so perfectly aligned with Mozilla's ideals that it makes me sick to think about, especially juxtaposed with the hundreds of millions that Mozilla Corp has thrown away in the go-nowhere endeavors that it did pursue.

That is an US phenomenon, there are hardly any queues of people buying Chromebooks outside US, let alone having them on display.

He wasn't talking about consumer purchases - he was talking about education.

Still an US only phenomenon, I haven't seen anyone in education related domains with a Chromebook, specially since in Europe it is up to the students to care for their own hardware, as consumer purchase.

If I am reading this article correctly, it looks like the %/market that Chromebooks have managed to capture in the field of education is large worldwide.

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3058517

Ah, one of those Gartner studies that companies buy from 2015, yet we don't see them on the stores.

When we do happen to see one, if it is a store we visit regularly, what we see is the same device on display being discounted to death until the store finally manages to get rid of it.

I must have seen around 5 like that, so I don't get where Gartner is getting their values from.

I'm all for skepticism of statistics, but you're offering an anecdote to refute it...

It might be an anecdote, but apparently it is one shared by the majority of European HNers.

So where are those units that Gartner states were sold over here?

The plural of anecdote is not data.