…This is very well put!!!
This theory applies to all android phones, iPhones and Nokia N900.
For many the device itself is not the main thing… it’s the possibilities of the device and what possibilities it might hold during the lifespan of the device that makes (tech savy) people invest in those expensive smart phones etc.

But, based on what was presented today, #2, #5, the first #7, and #6 seem to not be addressed. So, they got 2, they missed 4, and there are 3 that are left to the vendors/device-makers.

It’s going to require custom firmware, which means this wont be a general purpose/general device OS.

It’s intended for “companion devices”, which in some sense is good news … esp. if they’ll make all aspects of Chrome OS be present in the Chrome Browser for other OSes (I couldn’t tell if that was going to be true or not, from the Gizmodo live blog). Then you could use Chrome for all of its good points on any OS, and those of us who want/need native apps can use Mac OS X, Maemo, Ubuntu, perhaps even Android (and, of course, Windows, for those who are so inclined).

Personally, though, there are definitely things for which I don’t want a web app. IM is one (haven’t used a decent web based IM client yet). And I don’t see a _point_ in being limited web based media (music/video). I like the option for Rhapsody, Pandora, Hulu, Netflix streaming, and Youtube. But only as an OPTION.

There are going to be times and places where that option isn’t practical nor available … even if there’s a 3G card right inside the device. Sometimes that will be because you’re out in a remote location that doesn’t have coverage (I just did a road trip through West Texas, NM, AZ, and the Mojave Desert … there were lots of zero-bar areas along that trip). Sometimes it will be because you’re in a secure location (or in a location whose construction has similar results — I work in a concrete bunker, but it’s that way due to construction considerations when it was built, not due to security). Sometimes it will be because you’re worried about battery consumption. And in those situations, a Chrome OS device (as currently presented) is going to be an expensive doorstop. Or, as Verizon recently said about that situation: “Paperweight Mode!”

Things that, IMO, definitely need local runtime:
1) SSH/VNC/Remote-Desktop clients (which are a must for me on my mid-range device … which includes netbooks, UMPCs, and 7″+ tablets).
2) IM clients.
3) Media software for media I own and/or created (my own music collection, e-books I own, documents I created, videos I created, copies of my Tivo programs, podcasts, etc.), or that I have cached for use when I don’t have/need a WWAN connection of any kind.
4) off-line games (off-line because they’re not multi-player, or off-line because I plan to play them when I don’t have a WWAN connection).
5) Media creation software (camera, video, audio, note taking in a class/meeting).

And, the thing is, they could easily work Dalvik, Java, and/or Python into their application model. It just changes whether the “untrusted app” is loaded from a web page, or a local file. Dalvik even has a similar lack of trust of its apps.

Without those native software capabilities, Chrome OS is going to limit itself to limited companion devices (for people who are willing to use limited companion devices). And, frankly, I wont consider that to be interesting. I’d much rather stretch Android a little past its intended scope and run it on a 10″ tablet or netbook … than use Chrome OS (as currently presented) on that same device. And if they find a way to not give me that option, then I’d still pick Maemo, Ubuntu, or Mac OS X over Chrome OS (even with the security implications Chrome OS says those other OSes have).

Suggests a Linux Kernel working on both x86 and ARM processors.

Speaking of OSes I’m running Win7 on my HP Mini Note 1000 with a SSD 32Gig drive and I’m loving it! The dang thing loads quick and is a dream to use.

I think if ChromeOS’s features include:
1) Fast Boot (like a splashtop),
2) can hand off to other OSes (also like a splashtop, but not limited to Windows as the “other OS” … specifically, I may want to have it hand off to Ubuntu and/or Android, depending on other device specifics),
3) can properly handle touch screens, multi-touch, and screen rotation (for both tablets and convertible-tablets) (Ubuntu fails at proper screen rotation with a touch screen),
4) can handle hybrid display devices (like the PixelQi hybrid e-paper/LCD screens),
5) has e-reader software (like the ereader.com software released for Android today, and hopefully Kindle software),
7) has media software (local music files, local video, local pictures, as well as support for remote streaming apps, like Rhapsody, Pandora, and such … though, the remote streaming stuff can probably be done through Flash),
6) can run local Dalvik, Java, and/or Python applications,
7) has some planned tablet and/or convertible-tablet netbook devices in the line-up, and
possibly has both x86 and ARM support,

then I’ll probably be rather interested. But for each of those things that isn’t present, I’ll be progressively less interested.

I think if they do that, they’ll have a winner on their hands. Put it on the Acer Aspire 1420P, and that’d be rather nice (though, slightly large), or maybe on a one of the Gigabyte convertible tablet netbooks.

I would love to have an ARM based tablet with a 7-10″ screen to go with an Android phone, being able to run versions of the same software.

A Purely browser based system is not going to work in the short term.