Chromebook life spans

At the start of the Covid pandemic, back in 2020, lots of schools needed a way for students to attend from home. They selected Chromebooks. Chromebooks were less expensive than Windows PCs or MacBooks, easier to administrate, and less vulnerable to hacking (by bad guys and students alike).

Schools bought a lot of them.

And now, those same schools are learning that Chromebooks come with expiration dates. Many of them have three-year life spans.

The schools -- or rather, the people who manage budgets for schools -- are not happy.

There is a certain amount of caveat emptor here, which the school IT and budget administrators failed to perform, but I would rather focus on the life spans of Chromebooks.

Three years isn't all that long in the IT world. How did Google (who designs the Chromebook specification) select that term?

(We should note that not all Chromebooks have three-year life spans. Some Chromebooks expire after five or even seven years. It is the schools that selected the three-year Chromebooks that are unhappy. But let's focus on the three-year term.)

(We should also note that the Chromebook life span is for updates. The Chromebooks continue to work; Google simply stops updating ChromeOS and the Chrome browser. That may or may not be an issue; I myself used an old Chromebook for years after its expiration date. Eventually, web sites decided that the old version of Chrome was not worth talking to, and I had to replace the Chromebook.)

I have an idea about the three-year life span. I don't work at Google, and have no contacts there, so I'm speculating. I may be wrong.

It seems to me that Google selected the three-year life span to tailor Chromebooks not to schools but to large corporations. Large corporations (or maybe IT vendors), back in the 1990s, convinced Congress to adjust the depreciation schedules for IT equipment, reducing the expected life to three years. This change had two effects. First, the accelerated schedule lets corporations write off the expense of IT equipment faster. Second, IT vendors convinced large corporations to replace their IT equipment every three years. (The argument was that it was cheaper to replace old PCs rather than maintain them.)

With corporations replacing PCs every three years, it made sense for Google to build their Chromebooks to fit that schedule. While PCs did not have built-in expiration dates, corporations were happy to replace their PCs on that three-year schedule.

A three-year expiration gave Google several advantages. They could design the Chromebooks with less expensive components. They could revise the ChromeOS operating system rapidly and not worry about backwards compatibility. Google could sell the idea of planned obsolescence to the makers of Chromebooks (HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc.) as a market that would provide a steady demand.

Again, this is all speculation. I don't know that Google planned any of this.

But it is consistent.

Schools are upset that Chromebooks have such a short supported life. Google made Chromebooks with those short support life spans because the target was corporations. Corporations replaced IT equipment every three years because of tax laws and the perceived costs of maintaining older hardware.

If we take away anything from this, perhaps we should note that Google was focussed on the corporate market. Other users, such as schools or non-profits or individuals, were possibly not considered in their calculations.

With Chrome OS Flex, Look Before You Leap

Google made news with its "Chrome OS Flex" offering, which turns a PC into a Chromebook.

Some like the idea, seeing a way to reduce licensing costs. Others like the idea because it offers simpler administration. Yet others see it as a way of using older PCs that cannot migrate to Windows 11. 

Before committing to a conversion, consider:

Chrome OS Flex may not run on your PCs Chrome OS Flex works on some PCs but not all PCs. Google has a list of supported PCs, and the list is rather thin. Google rates target PCs with one of three classifications: "Certified", "Expect minor issues", and "Expect major issues". Google does not explain the difference between major and minor, but let's assume that major issues would be such that the Chrome experience would be poor and not productive.

Microsoft has a large knowledge base of hardware and device drivers. Google may be building such a knowledge base, but its current set of knowledge is much smaller than Microsoft's. The result is that Chrome OS Flex can run on a limited number of PC models.

Your employees may dislike the idea The introduction of new technology is tricky from a management perspective. Some employees will welcome Chrome OS Flex, and others will want to remain on the old, familiar system. If your roll-out is limited, some of the employees in the "stay on the old OS" group will feel relieved, and others may feel left out.

My recommendation is to communicate your plans well in advance, and focus on the ideas of efficiency and reduced costs. Avoid the notion of Chrome OS as a reward or a perk, and talk about it as simply another tool for the office.

Google is not Microsoft Switching from Windows to Chrome OS Flex means changing a core relationship from Microsoft to Google. Microsoft has a long history of supporting technologies and products; Google has the opposite. (There are web sites dedicated to the "Google graveyard".)

Google may drop the Google OS Flex offering at any time, and not provide a successor product. (If they do, your best path forward may be to replace the PCs running Google OS Flex with Chromebooks, which should provide the same capabilities as the PCs.)

Look before you leap My point is not to dissuade you from Google's Chrome OS Flex offering. Rather, I suggest that you consider carefully the benefits and risks of such a move. As part of your evaluation, I suggest a pilot project, moving some PCs (and employees) to the new OS. I also suggest that you compile an inventory of applications that run locally -- that is on your PCs, not on the web or in the cloud. Those applications cannot run on Chrome OS Flex, or on regular Chromebooks.

It may be possible to replace local applications with web-based applications, or cloud-based applications, but such replacements are projects themselves. You may want to start with a pilot project for Chrome OS Flex, and then migrate PC-based applications to the web or cloud, and then migrate other employees to Chrome OS. Or not -- a hybrid solution with some PCs running Windows (or mac os) and other PCs running Chrome OS Flex is possible.

Whatever your choose to do, I suggest that you think, communicate, evaluate, and then decide.

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.

An iPad is not a Chromebook

Apple announced some new products this week. With the announcements, Apple made some claims about performance.

Apple compared the iPad to the Chromebook. Specifically, Apple claimed that the performance of the iPad was superior to the Chromebook.

The comparison is a misdirection. It doesn't make sense to compare an iPod to a Chromebook. And with changes in the Windows world, it doesn't make sense to compare MacBooks to Windows laptops, either.

Here's why: Apple tablets and Chromebooks use two different models of computing. Apple designs its applications to run on the local device. (Apple raised this point in their presentation, to emphasize privacy.) Chromebooks are designed to run apps on the web. For iPhones and iPads, the capabilities of the local processor is important. Apple needs hefty processors in its phones and tablets. For Chromebooks, its more important to look at the cloud servers and the network connection. Google needs hefty processors, but in the servers. The processor in the Chromebook need only be powerful enough to send and receive data, and to render the screen image.

Google isn't alone in moving processing to web servers (or cloud servers). Microsoft is doing the same thing with its Office products and applications such as Teams. The computing model for Windows started as local processing, back in the 1990s. Today, some processing occurs on the local system and some processing occurs in the cloud. 

More and more, comparing Apple laptops to Windows laptops and comparing Apple phones to Android phones is comparing apples to oranges. (If you can forgive the pun.)

The difference in computing models guides the design for hardware. Apple has to develop fast processors for its tablets and laptops -- all of the processing occurs there. Microsoft and Google don't have the same pressure, because they can shift heavy processing to cloud servers. Google shifts almost all processing to servers, and Microsoft is gradually redesigning its applications to take advantage of cloud servers. The result is that Microsoft and Google don't need superfast processors in laptops and tablets. (Some buyers of Windows PCs, especially gamers, may seek the fastest processor, but for the average tasks, the processor is unimportant.)

I'm a little confused by Apple's comparison of its new processors to Chromebooks. Apple made a big point about it, but it doesn't make sense. A better comparison would be Apple comparing the new phone and tablet to previous generations of Apple's iPhone and iPad.

Unless -- Perhaps the new processors in Apple's latest tablet and phone are not that much faster than the previous processors. Perhaps the new A15 processor is mildly faster that the A14. In that case, the comparison between A14 and A15 would be... unimpressive. It might be that comparing the new iPad to a Chomebook makes for better marketing. Apple can throw out impressive-sounding factoids such as "30% faster than the most popular Chromebook".

I'm sure that journalists and Apple enthusiasts will compare the new iPhones and iPads to their predecessors and report the results. We should see those results shortly after the new iPhones and iPads become available.

What if the third-party, apples-to-apples comparisons show that the new phones and tablets are only slightly faster than the previous generation? Should we abandon Apple equipment? Not at all. Apple equipment is still well-designed and well-engineered. But we should take a more skeptical view of the information that Apple provides in its hour-long "event" advertisements.

Looking ahead, we can expect a similar hour-long event (advertisement) for the next generation of Macbook laptops and Mac desktops. As with phones and tablets, comparing the performance of a Macbook to a Windows laptop is not always meaningful. (Especially if the Windows laptop uses a lot of server-based apps, or virtual workstations.) If Apple touts the performance of the new Macbook against a Windows laptop (or worse, a Chromebook) then I expect the performance improvement of the new Macs will be... unimpressive. On the other hand, if Apple compares apples to apples, and provides impressive performance comparisons of new Macbooks against older Macbooks, then we can be reasonably certain that the new Macs perform much better.

Let's see what happens at the next Apple advertising event.

Lots of (obsolete) Chromebooks

We users of PCs are used to upgrades, for both hardware and software. We comfortably expect this year's PC to be faster than last year's PC, and this year's Windows (or macOS, or Linux) to be better than last year's Windows.

We're also used to obsolescence with hardware and software. Very few people use Windows XP these days, and the number of people using Windows 3.1 (or MS-DOS) is vanishingly small. The modern PC uses an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor.

Hardware and software both follow a pattern of introduction, acceptance, popularity, and eventual replacement. It should not surprise us that Chromebooks follow the same pattern. Google specifies hardware platforms and manufacturers build those platforms and install Chrome OS. After some time, Google drops support for a platform. (That period of time is a little over six years.)

For obsolete PCs (those not supported by Windows) and MacBooks (those not supported by macOS) the usual "upgrade" is to install Linux. There are several Linux distros that are suitable for older hardware. (I myself am running Ubuntu 16.04 on an old 32-bit Intel-based MacBook.)

Back to Chromebooks. What will happen with all of those Chromebooks that are marked as "obsolete" by Google?

There are a few paths forward.

The first (and least effort) path is to simply continue using the Chromebook and its version of Chrome. Chrome OS should continue to run, and Chrome should continue to run. The Chromebook won't receive updates, so Chrome will be "frozen in time" and gradually become older, compared to other browsers. There may come a time when its certificates expire, and it will be unable to initiate secure sessions with servers. At that point, Chrome (and the Chromebook) will have very few uses.

Another obvious path is to replace it. Chromebooks are typically less expensive than PCs, and one could easily buy a new Chromebook. (And since the Chromebook model of computing is to store everything on the server and nothing on the Chromebook, there is no data to migrate from the old Chromebook to the new one.)

Yet there is another option between "continue as is" and "replace".

One could replace the operating system (and the browser). The Chromebook is a PC, effectively, and there are ways to replace its operating system. Microsoft has instructions for installing Windows 10 on a Chromebook, and there are many sites that explain how to install Linux on a Chromebook.

Old Chromebooks will be fertile ground for tinkerers and hobbyists. Tinkerers and hobbyists are willing to open laptops (Chromebooks included), adjust hardware, and install operating systems. When Google drops support for a specific model of Chromebook, there is little to lose in replacing Chrome OS with something like Linux. (Windows 10 on a Chromebook is tempting, but many Chromebooks have minimal hardware, and Linux may be the better fit.)

I expect to see lots of Chromebooks on the used market, in stores and online, and lots of people experimenting with them. They are low-cost PCs suitable for small applications. The initial uses will be as web browsers or remote terminals to server-based applications (because that what we use Chromebooks for now). But tinkerers and hobbyists are clever and imaginative, and we may see new uses, such as low-end games or portable word processors.

Perhaps a new operating system will emerge, one that is specialized for low-end hardware. There are already Linux distros which support low-end PCs (Puppy Linux, for one) and we may see more interest in those.

Those Chromebooks that are converted to Linux will probably end up running a browser. It may be Firefox, or, in an ironic twist, they may run Chromium -- or even Chrome! The machine that Google says is "not good enough" may be just good enough to run Google's browser.

Apple and Microsoft do sometimes agree

In the computing world, Apple and Microsoft are often considered opposites. Microsoft makes software; Apple makes hardware (primarily). Microsoft sells to enterprises; Apple sells to consumers. Microsoft products are ugly and buggy; Apple products are beautiful and "it just works".

Yet they do agree on one thing: The center of the computing world.

Both Apple and Microsoft have built their empires on local, personal-size computing devices. (I would say "PCs" but then the Apple fans would shout "MacBooks are not PCs!" and we don't need that discussion here.)

Microsoft's strategy has been to enable PC users, both individual and corporate. It supplies the operating system and application programs. It supplies software for coordinating teams of computer users (ActiveDirectory, Exchange, Outlook, etc). It supplies office software (word processor, spreadsheet), development tools (Visual Studio, among others), and games. At the center of the strategy is the assumption that the PC will be a computing engine.

Apple's strategy has also been to enable users of Apple products. It designs computing products such as the MacBook, the iMac, the iPad, and the iPhone. Like Microsoft, the center of its strategy is the assumption that these devices will be computing engines.

In contrast, Google and Amazon.com take a different approach. They offer computing services in the cloud. For them, the PCs and tablets and phones are not centers of computing; they are sophisticated input-output devices that feed the computing centers.

That Microsoft's and Apple's strategies revolve around the PC is not an accident. They were born in the microcomputing revolution of the 1970s, and in those days there was no cloud, no web, no internet. (Okay, technically there *was* an internet, but it was limited to a very small number of users.)

Google and Amazon were built in the internet age, and their business strategies reflect that fact. Google provides advertising, search technology, and cloud computing. Amazon.com started by selling books (on the web) and has moved on to selling everything (still on the web) and cloud computing (its AWS offerings).

Google's approach to computing allows it to build Chromebooks, light-powered laptops that have just enough operating system to run the Chrome browser. Everything Google offers is on the web, accessible with merely a browser.

Microsoft's PC-centric view makes it difficult to build a Windows version of a Chromebook. While Google can create Chrome OS as a derivative of Linux, Microsoft is stuck with Windows. Creating a light version of Windows is not so easy -- Windows was designed as a complete entity, not as a partitioned, shrinkable thing. Thus, a Windows Cloudbook must run Windows and be a center of computing, which is quite different from a Chromebook.

Yet Microsoft is moving to cloud computing. It has built an impressive array of services under the Azure name.

Apple's progress towards cloud computing is less obvious. It offers storage services called iCloud, but their true cloud nature is undetermined. iCloud may truly be based on cloud technology, or it may simply be a lot of servers. Apple must be using data centers to support Siri, but again, those servers may be cloud-based or may simply be servers in a data center. Apple has not been transparent in this.

Notably, Microsoft sells developer tools for its cloud-based services and Apple does not. One cannot, using Apple's tools, build and deploy a cloud-based app into Apple's cloud infrastructure. Apple remains wedded to the PC (okay, MacBook, iMac, iPad, and iPhone) as the center of computing. One can build apps for Mac OS X and iOS that use other vendors' cloud infrastructures, just not Apple's.

For now, Microsoft and Apple agree on the center of the computing world. For both of them, it is the local PC (running Windows, Mac OS X, or iOS). But that agreement will not last, as Microsoft moves to the cloud and Apple remains on the PC.

An imaginary Windows version of the Chromebook

Acer and HP have cloudbooks - laptop computers outfitted with Windows and a browser - but they are not really the equivalent of a Chromebook.

A Chromebook is a lightweight laptop computer (in both physical weight and computing power) equipped with a browser and just enough of an operating system to run the browser. (And some configuration screens. And the ssh program.) As such, they have minimal administrative overhead.

Cloudbooks - the Acer and HP versions - are lightweight laptops equipped with the full Windows operating system. Since they have the entire Windows operating system, they have the entire Windows administrative "load".

Chromebooks have been selling well (possibly due to their low prices). Cloudbooks have been selling... well, I don't know. There are only a few models from Acer and a few models from HP; much fewer than the plethora of Chromebooks from numerous manufacturers. My guess is that they are selling in only modest quantities.

Would a true "Windows Chromebook" sell? Possibly. Let's imagine one.

It would have to use a different configuration than the current cloudbooks. It would have to be a lightweight laptop with just enough of an operating system to run the browser. A Windows cloudbook would need a browser (let's pick the new Edge browser) and stripped-down version of Windows that is just enough to run it.

I suspect that the components of Windows are cross-dependent and one cannot easily build a stripped-down version. Creating such a version of Windows would require the re-engineering of Windows. But since this is an imaginary device, let's imagine a smaller, simpler version of Windows.

This Windows cloudbook would have to match the price of the Chromebooks. That should be possible for hardware; the licensing fees for Windows may push the price upwards.

Instead of locally-installed software, everything would run in the browser. To compete with Google Docs, our cloudbook would have Microsoft Office 365.

But then: Who would buy it?

I can see five possible markets: enterprises, individual professionals, home users, students, and developers.

Enterprises could purchase cloudbooks and issue them to employees. This would reduce the expenditures for PC equipment but might require different licenses for professional software. Typical office jobs that require Word and Excel could shift to the web-based versions of those products. Custom software may have to run in virtual desktops accessed through the company's intranet. Such a configuration may make it easier for a more mobile workforce, as applications would run from servers and data would be stored on servers, not local PCs.

Individual professionals might prefer a cloudbook to a full Windows laptop. Then again, they might not. (I suspect most independent professionals using Windows are using laptops and not desktops.) I'm not sure what value the professional receives by switching from laptop to cloudbook. (Except, maybe, a lighter and less expensive laptop.)

Home users with computers will probably keep using them, and purchase a cloudbook only when they need it. (Such as when their old computer dies.)

Students could use cloudbooks as easily as the use Chromebooks.

Developers might use cloudbooks, but for them they would need tools available in their browser. Microsoft has development tools that run in the browser, and so do other companies.

But for any of these users, I see them using a Chromebook just as easily as using a Windows cloudbook. Microsoft Office 365 runs in the Chrome and Firefox browsers on Mac OSX and on Linux. (There are apps for iOS and Android, although limited in capabilities.)

There is no advantage to using a Windows cloudbook  -- even our imaginary cloudbook -- over a Chromebook.

Perhaps Microsoft is working on such an advantage.

Their Windows RT operating system was an attempt at a reduced-complexity configuration suitable for running a tablet (the ill-fated Surface RT). But Microsoft departed from our imagined configuration in a number of ways. The Surface RT:

- was released before Office 365 was available
- used special versions of Word and Excel
- had a complex version of Windows, reduced in size but still requiring administration

People recognized the Surface RT for what it was: a low-powered device that could run Word and Excel and little else. It had a browser, and it had the ability to run apps from the Microsoft store, but the store was lacking. And while limited in use, it still required administration.

A revised cloudbook may get a warmer reception than the Surface RT. But it needs to focus on the browser, not locally-installed apps. It has to have a simpler version of Windows. And it has to have something special to appeal to at least one of the groups above -- probably the enterprise group.

If we see a Windows cloudbook, look for that special something. That extra feature will make cloudbooks successful.

Tablets for consumption, cloudbooks for creation

Tablets and cloudbooks are mobile devices of the mobile/cloud computing world.

Tablets are small, flat, keyboardless devices with a touchscreen, processor, storage, and an internet connection. The Apple iPad is possibly the most well-known tablet. The Microsoft Surface is possibly the second most well-known. Other manufacturers offer tablets with Google's Android.

Cloudbooks are light, thin laptops. They contain a screen (possibly a touchscreen, but touch isn't a requirement), processor, storage, and internet connection, and the one thing that separates them from tablets: a keyboard. They look and feel like laptop computers, yet they are not laptops in the usual sense. They have a low-end processor and a custom operating system designed to do one thing: run a browser. The most well-known cloudbook computers are Google's Chromebooks.

I'm using the term "cloudbook" here to refer to the generic lightweight, low-powered, single-purpose laptop computer. A simple search shows that the phrase "cloudbook" (or a variation on capitalization) has been used for specific products, including an x86 laptop, a brand of e-books, a cloud services broker, and even an accounting system! Acer uses the name "cloudbook" for its, um, cloudbook devices.

Tablets and cloudbooks serve two different purposes. Tablets are designed for the consumption of data and cloudbooks are designed for the creation of data.

Tablets allow for the installation of apps, and there are apps for all sorts of things. Apps to play games. Apps to play music. Apps to chat with friends. Apps for e-mail (generally effective for reading e-mail and writing brief responses). Apps for Twitter. Apps for navigation.

Cloudbooks allow for the installation of apps too, although it is the browser that allows for apps and not the underlying operating system. On a Chromebook, it is Chrome that manages the apps. Google confuses the issue by listing web-based applications such as its Docs word processor and Sheets spreadsheet as "apps". The separation of web-based apps and browser-based apps is made more complex by Google's creation of duplicate apps for each environment to support off-line work. For off-line work, you must have a local (browser-based) app.

The apps for cloudbooks are oriented toward the composition of data: word processor, spreadsheet, editing photographs, and more.

I must point out that these differences are in orientation and not complete capabilities. One can consume data on a cloudbook. One can, with the appropriate tools and effort, create on a tablet. The two types of devices are not exclusive. In my view it is easier to consume on a tablet and easier to create on a cloudbook.

Tablets are already popular. I expect that cloudbooks will be popular with people who need to create and manage data. Two groups I expect to use cloudbooks are developers and system administrators. Cloudbooks are a convenient size for portability and capable enough to connect to cloud-based development services such as Cloud9, Codeanywhere, Cloud IDE, or Sourcekit.

Cannonballs and fence posts

Imagine a world that has unstoppable cannon balls. Once launched, the cannonball is not stopped, or even slowed, by anything it encounters. It continues on, even impervious to friction. Also imagine that this world has immovable fence posts. Once placed, and immovable fence post cannot be moved by any means. What happens when an unstoppable cannonball collides with an immovable fence post?

The riddle is not unrelated to the announcement of Google's Chromebook and its automatic updates.

Unlike Windows and Mac OSX, the Chromebook applies updates without asking for permission -- it finds them and loads them as a matter of its general operation. Windows and OSX (and even Linux) follow a different model, and inform the user of an update but allow the user to decline the update (or at least defer it).

System administrators for large corporations (and even medium-size ones) want the latter model. They want to ensure that their operations continue, and they want control over updates. A good systems administrator will test updates on a few systems before releasing it to the entire corporation.

But individuals (and possibly small companies) want automatic updates. For them, the workload of monitoring, testing, and releasing updates is a burden. They choose to trust the supplier, and gain the time and effort that would go into verifying updates.

So here we have the two opposing forces: automatic updates (the unstoppable cannonball) and controlled updates (the immovable fencepost).

The answer to the riddle is a bit of a let-down: It is not that one overpowers the other, but that the question is not valid. If such a thing as an unstoppable cannonball exists, then by definition there can be no such thing as an immovable fence post. (And vice-versa.)

The answer to the current debate about Chromebook and automatic updates is less clear. I expect that individuals will look favorably on automatic updates and large enterprises will continue to use the "test and then apply" method. I think the two can both exist in our world.

Look for consumer devices to adopt automatic updates. Look for commercial software to stay with manual updates. Software that bridges the two worlds (Linux) will allow users to set the update method.