Chromebooks

Google has the Chromebook, a lightweight laptop that runs Chrome (and nothing else).

Why is Google the only supplier of Chromebooks? Or more specifically, why is it that only Chrome has this arrangement? Why is there no lightweight laptop for Windows that runs only Edge (and perhaps Remote Desktop and Powershell and nothing else)? Why is there no lightweight laptop that runs Apple's Safari browser (and nothing else)? Why is there no lightweight laptop that runs Firefox (and nothing else)? I recognize that hardware manufacturers, in coordination with Google, provide the Chromebook. Therefore, technically, Lenovo and Dell and Samsung (and others) are suppliers of the Chromebook. But you know what I mean.

Competitors to the Chromebook need three things: the browser, the operating system, and the hardware. None are trivial. All must work together.

Google has succeeded in building the complete stack (hardware, operating system, and browser) and also  provides web-based applications. Users of Chromebooks have the tools and they have destinations.

Can Microsoft build an equivalent stack? The apparent answer is "no". Microsoft tried first with the original Surface tablet (the "Surface RT"), second with "Windows S mode", and third with "Windows 10X". (All were not quite equivalent to the Chromebook, as they ran more than just the browser, but they did run a subset of Windows applications.) The first two were rejected by customers; the last was killed before it was released. Windows 11, with its requirements for powerful processors, will not be available for an inexpensive, lightweight, browser-centric experience. I doubt that Microsoft will introduce a new operating system (or maintain a slimmed version of Windows 10) for a low-margin market.

Can Apple build a lightweight laptop that runs only a browser? I think the strict answer is "yes". Apple has the technical talent to build such a stack. I'm not sure that Apple could convince users to switch from their current hardware to a lightweight laptop (a "SafariBook"?). I am confident that Apple makes more money by selling the current hardware (and apps to run on that hardware), so they have no incentive to switch customers to a Chromebook-like laptop. So while Apple could build and sell a "SafariBook", they won't. There is more profit in heavyweight laptops.

Mozilla is in a poor position to design and sell a browser-oriented laptop (a "MozillaBook"?). They have the brower, but not the operating system or the hardware. They need manufacturers such as Dell or Samsung to build the hardware, and those manufacturers may decline, fearing Google's wrath. They may be able to leverage Linux for an operating system, much as Google did, but it would be a significant (read that as "expensive") effort.

The makers of other browsers face a harder challenge than Mozilla faces. Not only do they need the operating system and the hardware, their browsers have tiny market share. Assuming that the expected customer base for a boutique-browser laptop would be their current user base, the development costs for a laptop would be difficult to amortize over the units sold. Laptops with the Opera browser, for example, would be more expensive that the typical Chromebook.

Amazon has done impressive things with its Kindle book readers and Fire tablets, but has not introduced a Chromebook-like laptop. Probably because its book readers and tablets lock users into the Amazon system for purchases of books and music, and that is not possible with a browser.

So my conclusion is that we're stuck with Google Chromebooks, with no hope for a competing product. Our choice is a Chromebook or a laptop with a full-sized operating system. My depressing forecast is that we will never see a competitor to the Chromebook.

I would be happy to be proven wrong.