I honestly think the high price tag is the point. Google is trying to establish itself as a major brand that isn't just offering alternatives to Apple hardware for a lower price. Think of the plans to build retail stores, and how the Android brand is given less prominence these days: they are working hard to build a consumer "Google" brand that's as strong as Apple.
So far most of the devices they sold were priced to be cheaper than Apple's counterparts. This pricing move is trying to say "we have better technology than Apple and it's worth the price", possibly in anticipation of other high-end products such as Glass.
I have no idea if it will pay off, but it's a bold move.
One of the things Apple avoids is $1,300 products that are conceptual beta-tests. It's blatantly obvious that "life in the cloud" isn't feasible for most people yet, not when 10 GB of Verizon LTE costs $90 here in the US, then $10/GB. But with that tiny 32GB of flash, that's clearly what the Chromebook is designed for.
It's bold, but it's not going to sell. The reviews are going to rip this to shreds ("nice screen, but doesn't run anything.") In the end, it's going to be a "what the heck were they thinking?" product that will dilute the brand.
People who "live in the cloud" with a 16GB iPad have very un-demanding needs. They're people like my mom, who take some photos and send some e-mails. They're not going to buy a $1,300 machine to do those things when a $500 iPad does them just fine.
That's the problem with speaking for the general population, you say "most people need more", someone else says "most people only need X" and the conversation goes no where.
You can make some inferences from the available statistics. The Chromebook is priced like an Ultrabook. Nobody is making any money off Ultrabooks, except Apple. Why would anyone spend as much as an Ultrabook to get a machine that does even less than an Ultrabook? I don't think this is that subjective of an argument.
> They're not going to buy a $1,300 machine to do those things when a $500 iPad does them just fine.
I think that this depends almost entirely on how slick it looks and how well it is marketed. Plenty of moms have MBPs that they shelled out the extra $1k+ for to take get on FB and send emails.
I'm not saying that it's _smart_ to do that :) but never underestimate the allure of a well-marketed product.
>One of the things Apple avoids is $1,300 products that are conceptual beta-tests.
How about the original Macbook Air? That was $1800 and pretty much a beta test of the good Macbook Airs that are out now (slow CPU, slow HDD, stuck with 2 GB RAM forever).
I love bold moves and this is certainly one of them. I just don't think it's going to sell well. Yet.
I don't think the average consumer will understand what it does and why it's priced the way it is. I understand what it does and does not do, I work in front end web engineering, and ultimately would really like to see Chrome OS take off (selfishly because my skillset would be very well suited for writing software for it). This is all a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. I just wouldn't plunk down $1300 for one.
But isn't it essentially just running web applications? I know I could download applications from the Chrome app store but I couldn't install any other applications, correct?
Yes, it's just webapps, Chrome extensions and Chrome Apps from the Web store. If you feel strongly that you need to install other software then the Pixel is probably not a product for you... Just keep in mind that it's pretty much the same for all tablet users, since they can also only use webapps and install apps from their vendor's store.
