__/ [WhoTurnedOffTheLights] on Tuesday 03 January 2006 19:18 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> Apparently you can sell computers to boost your search engine popularity,
>> encourage use of Web services.
>> Maybe it's just an attempt to gnaw at the competitor's share and maybe an
>> attempt to invade a new sector for good. It stirs many thoughts in one's
>> mind. Google Mini, Google O/S, Java Runtime Environment...
> Walmart? If true, then I wonder how many others had turned down their ideas
> before they had to settle for something like Walmart. I don't exactly see
> folks rushing to the electronics section of Walmart these days. Locally,
> Folks with half a brain would sooner head over to more well known
> electronics stores as well as reputable online merchants. But then again, I
> CAN see Tigerdirect selling a Google Box.
I think that Google aim for the not-so-IT-savvy crowd. These are the people
who not will invest a decent amount of money in their workstation or even
fully-understand what is being offered.
People who shop for computers at Walmart are more likely to be using Google
Mail and whatever browser gets installed by default. They are more
/obedient/ to the vendor, so Google can make up for the low cost of the
computers. Microsoft have used similar tactics: incorporating MSN/Hotmail to
IE and Outlook (Express). On-line services and the channels to these
services are key to success. Also, cost of a computer can be reduced (a la
Dell) by allowing all kinds of trial versions of AV software and ISP's to be
bound to a pre-installed base.
> Let's face it, you can already get a PC for a few hundred.
Got one for GBP 165 recently.
> If there's any validity to this article then methinks Page and cohort are
> stretching a tad bit too far.
> We've had this discussion before Roy on a few occasions. Microsoft will not
> fall asunder. But then again......?
What excited me the most about this is availability of alternative choices.
Like Firefox has proven, diversity leads to better awareness and less
susceptibility to lockins. I am sometimes a sufferer of X which only works
on Y, exclusively.
__/ [WhoTurnedOffTheLights] on Tuesday 03 January 2006 21:12 \__
> Mmmmmm, maybe I stand corrected
> For anyone interested, here are a couple of pages in which Robert Cringely
> of PBS goes over this new technology a bit more in-Depth.
Thanks for this!