> If you really consider what the bigger half of people use computers for (watching videos, social networking, basic word processing, etc.) it suits their needs well, and the value proposition will probably resonate with them.

A tablet suits those needs a lot better than a $1,300 device that can do less locally than a $500 iPad.

My mom is in her 60s, speaks very little English, has great difficulty using computers... but she's gotten down the routine of how to access her 'addresses of contacts' list (basically just a document in Google Docs, with names of people and their addresses/phone numbers). She can do that anywhere, anytime -- she logs into Gmail, clicks Google Drive and there you are.

She cannot do this with normal desktops (she doesn't know how to use file explorers).

You're underestimating how valuable it is to have your data be available anywhere, anytime, you're underestimating how much of a burden very basic desktop usage is for the average Joe out there. Sure, that's probably not as true for the newer generation, but lifting the burden of system administration (managing data) is a pretty significant deal.

Personally I hate the idea of anyone but me being the guardian of my data -- to me this is just an excellent method for Google to introduce their ads into everything. Even to access my own static data I will keep getting served with ads, I hate that -- but it looks more and more that this is how things will be in the world of tomorrow.

My mom is in her 60's, speaks English poorly, and has great difficulty using computers. She absolutely loves her iPad and can do a lot with it. It was $500.

It's still not clear why a Chromebook is better than a tablet for this purpose, but even if it were, I'm not sure there's a compelling reason for someone like your mom to buy a $1300 Chromebook as opposed to a $200 Chromebook. The text may look better on the $1300 Chromebook, but most people who aren't technologically literate (and many people who are) would probably prefer to read off paper anyway.

> It's still not clear why a Chromebook is better than a tablet for this purpose, but even if it were, I'm not sure there's a compelling reason for someone like your mom to buy a $1300 Chromebook as opposed to a $200 Chromebook.

For the same reason a good chunk of my neighbors upgraded to iPhone5 from iPhone 4S (even though some of them didn't have the iPhone4S for more than a few months, and probably had to pay full (non-subsidized) amount to make the upgrade). Notice Google's marketing and branding efforts for this Pixel being eerily similar to Apple's, the pitch that the device somehow transcends in value over all of your other silicon-based products. They're trying very hard to have their brand be in the same rank Apple is in. It's a thing you're going to use to keep your pace in the 'Keeping up with the Joneses' game, it's like a Gucci bag, it's an alternative to the Macbook for when you're in Starbucks. There's no good reason to buy a Benz over a Corolla, but a lot of people do. Worse, a lot of people who probably shouldn't do.

What I was really hoping they would release was a marriage of the Samsung Nexus 10 and the Samsung Chromebook (ARM). I have one of each, and if I could get the screen of the Nexus in the Chromebook, I think it would be my perfect laptop (though the build quality of the Chromebook is a little lower than what I prefer, and who doesn't love a backlit keyboard).

This has an interesting effect on warrantless border searches of electronics too. I wonder what the response will be.

Computer-on-cloud is pointless unless you've got the processing power on the cloud to get real work done. If Google were to throw their computing power behind an online photoshop clone, or video and audio editing software, then they'd have something.

If you really consider the actual market for computers, most users are going to laugh at Google's ridiculous price tag and buy a Windows machine for less than half the price.

Videos? On a 3:2 display? Don't get me wrong, I've been begging for laptop and display manufacturers to bring back displays with usable vertical resolution for writing code, but it's definitely not for watching video.

Um, that's barely narrower than a standard 16:10 aka 3.2:2 display, or a 16:9 / 3.55:2 HD panel. There's be minor letterboxing on a 16:9 DVD, but it would be barely noticeable.