Talk:Chromebook Pixel

Thanks

Hey folks, thanks for making this page awesome in a short period of time! J.Mayer (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, that is how Wikipedia works! - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The obsessed in action. ;-) Barte (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My kingdom for a CC-licensed image

The only Wikimedia Commons shot I could find of the Pixel has been deleted--probably because it came from Flickr without enough info. The fair use images we have left have both been challenged. For the fun of it, I actually tried looking for an actual machine at Best Buy, a purported Pixel retailer. Checked online for availability at my local store and the surrounding area: nothing so far. So if the criteria for challenging fair use is something like: "can be easily replaced with free media"--I'd say, not so easily, my friend. At least not yet. If you can improve on my defense of one of the free use images here, please do. Barte (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good argument to me! Hopefully someone will help us out and post a free image! - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Argument lost. I accept the verdict with grace and equanimity. Barte (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah well. Let's see if they are right and a free image is easily found. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If not easy, then difficult. And as the admin succinctly put it: difficult ≠ impossible. A formula to live by. Barte (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well we still have one fair use image in the article! Let's see how long that lasts! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not fair use. It's actually a Wikimedia Commons image with a suspicious pedigree and a warning template. But I've learned something: unless a fair use image is literally impossible to duplicate, it is tough to defend. All-but-impossible ≠ good enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barte (talk • contribs)

You are quite right! It won't last with that tag! - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

and there is the last image gone! Someone needs to snap one. - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

first try

I have a wifi only model. I'll take a photo tomorrow when there is better lighting. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it grace this page. Barte (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you think? I could take others such as at a different angle or closeups. --Pmsyyz (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think you should put it in the infobox. Barte (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Request: International Availability

I haven't been able to find sources that talk about the plans for releases outside of U.S. It would be nice if the article mentioned that it is only available in U.S. and adds information on international availability as the information is released. — Precedingunsignedcomment added by220.96.151.195(talk) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the Pixel is now available internationally on a limited basis. http://chromespot.com/2013/04/25/chromebook-pixel-amazon-international-shipping/ But point taken: the article implies the was the case at launch.Barte (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As I look at this again, I'm not sure it's article-worthy. The Pixel started shipping, apparently but not explicitly, U.S.-only, in Feb. By April, it was available internationally via Amazon. Is a two month lag worth noting? Barte (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - that would be just a logistical delay, not noteworthy here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Country availability currently lists "United Kingdom, United States" for the wifi model. Amazon Marketplace resellers shipping it internationally doesn't count. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Too many quotations

This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. The 'Reception' section of this article is longer than the whole of the rest of the article and so has undue weight. It mainly consists of quotations form various blogs and news outlets about the quality and price of the Chromebook Pixel. Such content is opinion not fact. It is only the initial media reception and gives no indication of the number of sales or actual success of the product. The section should be reduced greatly by summarising. Addition details need to be added about the actual Chromebook Pixel and not about what someone said about the Chromebook Pixel. After all, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a magazine. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the section violates WP:LONGQUOTE. Remedying that would mean turning some of the direct quotes into, as the template says, "sourced original prose." But, looking back, I disagree that the Reception section is inordinately long. The most notable aspect of Pixel was not its specs, but how it was received in the market: the comparison with other high-end laptops, its perceived value proposition, and Google's possible motivation. I do agree that the article would benefit from an update on how the machine did in the market. But while there's plenty of data on Chromebook sales, I have yet to see any numbers that break the Pixel numbers out. Barte (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My main worry is that some of the people quoted are not really worthy of being quoted, but just bloggers sat in their bedrooms. For example who is "Will Shanklin of Gizmag", "Ed Hewitt of OMG Chrome" and why should I care what they think. If you are going to quote reviews, choose ones such as the PC World, CNet, BBC, the Register and Linus Torvalds, all of which are referenced in the article but not quoted.

Then choose just the important parts, the Verge's, "I can't remember the last time I so unequivocally enjoyed using a device. Its display, keyboard, trackpad, and overall fit and finish are as good as any laptop I've ever used, and in some cases is my new standard-bearer for laptop reviews going forward." could be shortened to just simply say, "the Verge was impressed with the finish quality and technical specifications but found the product lacking when some software capabilities such as editing on Photoshop." The last sentence about: "everyone should want a Chromebook Pixel—I certainly do. But almost no one should buy one." is definitely not encyclopedic and should be binned.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If the quotes don't meet your standards for notability, WP:BEBOLD. Barte (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. I dropped the reviews criticized above and added reviews by CNET, Forbes, PC World and others. I tried to summarize the review as best I could but feel I may be overly negative though my take of the reviews was that all liked the technical specs and build quality but were disappointed by the limitations of ChromeOS and the high price tag. If you feel I've miss-read, then edit to whatever you consider to be more neutral. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits looked good to me; I made minor tweaks and removed the tag.

It was interesting looking back on this article. More than a year after the Pixel's introduction, Google has not followed up with a Pixel 2--even though the Chromebook family as a whole is doing well. A new Pixel (LTE version) on Amazon is going for $1900--$400 more than introduction, which suggests they have become collector items. The most prophetic comment is, perhaps, the penultimate paragraph: the Pixel was for Google a concept machine. This is all my take, of course. I haven't come across any "Chromebook Pixel: One year later" stories. But a reliable one would be useful here. Barte (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Article

After the release of several notebooks from Lenovo, Samsung, etc the Chromebook Pixel is no longer the laptop with highest ppi. Currently 276 ppi is the highest on a laptop (Yoga 2 Pro, ATIV Book 9 Plus). MrCornetto (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say the Pixel has the highest ppi. Only that it did when it was released. Barte (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence to make it clear that it was past tense. The original reference was a blog that may not be so reliable. Other reviews state that the Chromebook Pixel had a higher resolution than the best MacBook at that time though none say whither means the Pixel was the highest of all laptops everywhere. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a ref to a USA Today article reporting the Pixel having the highest resolution of any laptop. Other publications noted that, on the Pixel's debut, Apple had to modify that claim for the Retina MacBook Pro. Barte (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

3:2 display ratio

I think this needs a section of it's own. Why this ratio? How it was received by the customers? This device is being mentioned in Aspect ratio image article, quote: "(though recent computer displays such as the Chromebook Pixel at 3:2 are reverting to more squared ratios)". According to 4:3 "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same." (I see it largely as a positive trend because I dislike 16:9 screens especially for laptops.) Opinions based on reliable sources would be welcomed. Dmatteng (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall reading about any customer reaction. Nor do I recall any comment on the ratio from Google spokespeople or engineers. But the reviewer in The Verge (which is already a source in the article) agrees with you:

"But the Pixel's 3:2 display, which is nearly as tall as it is wide, makes me wonder why no one else has thought to do this — the 12.85-inch display isn't quite as wide as a standard 13-inch screen, and you do get some letterboxing above and below any movie you're watching, but the tradeoff is simply more vertical space to read a web page. The unusual aspect ratio was probably an easier decision for Google to make, because web pages comprise the entire operating system, but I wish every laptop offered a 3:2 screen. That won't happen, of course, which is only more fodder for my wanting a Pixel."

There are search other reviews too, not all of which are enthusiastic. Sam Biddle in Gizmodo, for example, was not a fan of the machine or the ratio. If you're going to attempt a section, please approach it from a neutral perspective.

Barte (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I won't be writing here, but The Verge looks like a reliable source. If you could put the quote into neutral prose, I would support it. Dmatteng (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OS

My impression from reading the article is that most, if not all negative coverage came from the fact it uses the Chrome OS. It is officially restricted to Chrome OS as it seems, but at the same time one can install Linux (red hat) on it. I'm not sure what would be the best way to handle this situation. Dmatteng (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any notable secondary source that has made the point that the Pixel's ability to run Linux changes its perceived value proposition. That's what's required here. Barte (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed so. But I feel it's unfair that the Wikipedia article rates it too negatively based almost entirely on the OS (that can actually be changed.) Perhaps it would be prudent to give more focus on it's hardware abilities and critical reception of such. BTW, use of primary reliable sources would be acceptable. Dmatteng (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus among reviewers is that the Pixel's value proposition suffers because of the limitations of Chrome OS as compared to iOS and Windows. Almost every reviewer made that conclusion, giving no extra points for the machine's ability to support other Linux versions. The article reflects that general consensus. Barte (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That is right. However, we here can use our common sense, per WP:SENSE. To be sincere, I'm not sure how to proceed, however I'm relatively confident that we can handle the issue better. Dmatteng (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A lot of this really hangs of finding a good ref that supports the use of installing another Linux distro on it. Then we can make the point from there. The existing para on Linus Torvalds sort of makes this point already. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dmatteng: rereading all this, I'm unclear what you're after. We agree that most of the reviewers wrote that the Pixel's use of Chrome OS reduced its value proposition versus comparably priced machines. We agree that the article's content reflects that consensus. I believe that that's the goal, yes? To accurately report here what the reviewers wrote. What am I missing? Barte (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That we are not robots, nor that the article is intended to be read by ones. :) Currently there are some attempts on AI that are somewhat reaching 13-yr old boy intellect. So we could run such software over the internet and let it extract & summarize all information and create a great Wikipedia overnight. Our goal is to use common sense while summarizing. Our goal is to provide information that is in the real world. We have a device that is being shipped with a certain limited OS, that offers good hardware specs. Yet, because the reviewers seems not to have time or/nor expertise to try to install another OS and to write their conclusions for this case the article end's up providing somewhat wrong information/impression. Dmatteng (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, we still need to cite a ref that makes this point or we can't add it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability and no original research comprise two of the three Wikipedia core content policies. Of the rules that can be bent here, these are the least flexible. Ergo, you need a ref. Barte (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't suggested anything yet about how to remedy the situation, certainly I wouldn't suggest OR. Two ideas, however more are welcome: 1) To consider all the points of all the reviews that consider the OS to be a part of the device as not reliable. This way we won't have to add anything, just remove the info that is based on wrong assumption. 2) We could decrease the overall negative tone of our summarization of the reviews and add a note that the reviews were based on a short-sighted assumption that the OS cannot be changed. Dmatteng (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

These assertion are themselves OR. Assuming either to be true does not necessarily change the verdict re: Pixel's value proposition. We need a specific ref that makes your point, not just your assumption that critics lacked time and/or expertise. Barte (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me illustrate: lets say there is a notable company that sells frames for reading glasses. The have shipped a frame with +1.00 glasses to a reviewer. The reviewers' nearsightedness requires +3.00. He wrote in his review: "The frames are beautiful, but the glasses doesn't make reading comfortable." Dmatteng (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We are deciding on the article what sources we deem reliable and in what way we will use them. This is not OR, this is our editorial judgment. Dmatteng (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The assumption that Pixel reviewers are, in some sense, nearsighted. is just that--an assumption. They simply may doubt the value proposition of Linux on a laptop or the the necessity of installing their own OS in place of Chrome OS. We don't know. Barte (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not question the reviewers nor saying that the sources are not reliable. I have clearly stated that I'm referring only to the specific instances in which reviewers assume (erroneously) that OS is a part of the device that cannot be changed. I also don't think that price or value should be given much of attention per WP:NOPRICE. Dmatteng (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall ever reading a review that explicitly assumed that Chrome OS could not be replaced. If you think that assumption is implicit, and is in error, I think that's OR. We need a ref that makes that point. WP:NOPRICES refers to Wikipedia not being a sales catalog. The issue here is the Pixel's comparative value proposition, which as it happens is the central critique of most reviews. That's fair game here, and we'd be remiss in not noting it. 20:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Per your note about exercising "editorial judgement", the problem is that my judgement may differ. Perhaps I think that the ability to replace Chrome OS with some Linux flavor is inconsequential: that Linux is less familiar than iOS or Windows to most users and therefore entails a steep learning curve, thereby raising the cost of ownership. Perhaps I'm unimpressed with a machine that requires a new OS to be installed in order to become fully functional. My editorial judgement thinks the reviewers got it right, whether they factored in OS replaceability or not. So whose editorial judgment should prevail, yours or mine? The answer is neither. The object here is, as best as we can to summarize the reception to the Chromebook Pixel. Summarize it, not critique it. Barte (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it is not tremendously important and since you are opposing, let just see if someone else will comment in my support. If no one will post comment in my support, lets consider that your point of view prevailed. Dmatteng (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose including it unless we can find a ref that explicitly deals with this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I didn't propose to include anything, but only exclude in my proposition #1 :). Dmatteng (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I guess and I am not sure what you are proposing from above then, perhaps you can spelling it out for me what changes you are proposing now. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have listed two possible proposals. But in general, I would just be interested to remedy the situation per the example about the frames & glasses.:) Dmatteng (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just re-read everything here in detail and I have no clue what you are proposing. Why don't you propose some text here so we can all see what you would like to change. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.howtogeek.com/162120/how-to-install-ubuntu-linux-on-your-chromebook-with-crouton/, http://www.itworld.com/open-source/402077/how-run-linux-chromebook and http://lifehacker.com/how-to-install-linux-on-a-chromebook-and-unlock-its-ful-509039343 quote: "There are some Chromebooks with awesome hardware out there, like the beautiful Chromebook Pixel, but they don't quite hit their full potential with Chrome OS. Here's how to install Ubuntu and get more out of your Chromebook." Also http://www.zdnet.com/chromebook-pixel-run-ubuntu-alongside-chrome-os-7000012381/.

The second point, running Windows remotely : http://www.zdnet.com/chromebook-pixel-running-windows-8-remotely-video-7000015589/.

According to http://gbatemp.net/threads/how-to-install-windows-8-on-your-google-chromebook-pixel.350111/ it is even possible to install Windows 8 on it. Dmatteng (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay those are useful refs, what text do you want to add? - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like the making of an "Alternate operating systems" section. Barte (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have stated from the beginning that I do not propose any specific text, but an advise and participation from other editors. I would support Barte's proposion or your's, whichever will be better for the article. Dmatteng (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I broke out a Technology section and added some of this there. These links are mainly how-to's on installation rather than reviewer comments, which is why I didn't add it to the Reception section. I did move up the Torvalds paragraph, as it seemed to fit. Re: Win 8--the ref seemed to me more of a post than a vetted article, so I omitted. The other ref is about running Win 8 remotely, which is not what we've been talking about here. Barte (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me now! - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Installation requires the device to be put in developer mode." has to be removed for Wikipedia is not how-to. I think also that the lede is too short. I would also change: "which all use Chrome OS as their operating system." to "which all come with preinstalled Chrome OS". I think more changes will be required, but may require some discussion. Dmatteng (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have implemented the proposed changes and also removed word "unofficial". If anyone disagrees please let me know and I think we can discuss about it. In my opinion the next step would be adding information about it's 3:2 display because it is a relatively unique feature. Dmatteng (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Barte (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved History section up, as normally it is the first section on most of the articles. I have added 3:2 Display section and added a long quote from The Verge. I think it is justified because this aspect ratio is what really makes the device different from the rest. However if you would like to change/correct please let me know your opinion. Dmatteng (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I (politely) disagree with your assertion that the 3:2 aspect ratio is the key differentiation of the Pixel. The Verge review notes it, but I don't recall much comment from other reviewers. Also, if you look a few sections up, you'll see that this article was correctly dinged for having too many and too lengthy quotations. Subsequent edits fixed that, and a long quote unfixes it. Finally, your sentence on 3:2 being a compromise had no ref, and stuck me as OR. So I have reduced the 3:2 section to basics, and in the reception section, added some of reviewers comments on its advantages. Feel free to edit, again, of course, as well as bring in other refs. Barte (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just did the search per the link you posted here. The first review that came is: http://www.geek.com/chips/chromebook-pixel-squarish-32-display-1540940/ "The 2560×1700 Retina-class panel sets the Pixel apart not just from every Chromebook, but from every laptop available today." - that is re key differentiation of the Pixel. Re compromise being OR - it is my summarization of the review. On long quote - well, currently there are no long quotes, and I found this particular quote to be very representative. Normally I'm against long quotes (especially more than one), but they can be useful. I should have provided the ref (my mistake), however if you would ask for it (instead of asserting that I wrote OR or didn't have one) I think it would be somewhat more optimal considering that we have started to work in collaboration. I do appreciate your opinion. Dmatteng (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The OR I'm asserting is this: "That is deemed a compromise between 4:3 (mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v) and 16:9 (selected initially for movies based on commercial reasons)." Where did the visual angle numbers come from? And who deemed it a compromise? I don't recall seeing that claim in The Verge review, which I figured you were referencing, but I could be missing something.

Re: the long quote, I think it's WP:UNDUE. The Geek.com review you cite is luke warm on the subject. And what about this Gizmodo review?:

"Google gave the Pixel a display with a 3:2 aspect ratio, claiming it suits the vertical nature of web browsing. Maybe that's true—but you're still left with a computer with a screen that's almost a square. The web goes up and down, I suppose, but our eyes go back and forth. Can you imagine watching a video on a 3:2 screen? Can you imagine the enormous letterboxes that will straddle the bar of moving image? Don't imagine it, because it is bad."

I think a long quote as you propose should summarize a consensus view. I'm not convinced this one does. That said, if you disagree, and if it's just you and I disagreeing, I won't keep arguing the point. But please keep any extensions in the Reception section, not Technology. Barte (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that Gizmodo reviewer is being incompetent in this regard (not just because I disagree with him) and that since this device is designed for browsing internet and not for watching HD movies we might not give equal weight to the somewhat opposing positions. Furthermore about HD movies: I have 4:3 laptop and I watch HD movies without bars by selecting 4:3 aspect ratio in VLC that results in the movies being stretched vertically. One would think that it won't be convenient, but in practice it is. I watch movies, boxing, UFC, music and most of the time it is just fine and certainly doesn't produce bars.

I'll revert to the previous state and add refs. Please consider if you disagree to discuss first. If after a few days-one week of discussion we will still disagree or do not reach compromise, I'll revert myself to your preferred version. Dmatteng (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of the Gizmodo reviewer is irrelevant here and your personal experience with a 4:3 laptop is unverifiable. Barte (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can use our editorial judgment in order to decide what information we would like to include here. If some information is mentioned in a reliable source it doesn't mean that we have to include it. I think you are right about my experience, but I just used it to illustrate the point (and I think some reliable source may be found on this too perhaps.) I have proposed not to revert, but to ask my explanation first if you disagree. I'm sorry if that was too much of a request. Dmatteng (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to RFC on your latest revert? I think this material is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, I think I'm inclined to agree with you on the long quote to be trimmed. Dmatteng (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this thread has become circular, revealing a fundamental difference of opinion. What you call editorial judgement I call POV pushing. Given the lengthy word count here, I doubt we'll agree. Barte (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That is why I have proposed RFC just for the point of your last revert, to have unrelated editors to comment. I see nothing circular, your last revert was regarding specific phrase of a review, a point that we haven't discussed. Actually, on other points I tend to agree with you and I'm not sure if my variant of the article is better than yours. I'm sorry if you got the impression I'm pushing POV. Please feel free to revert any changes you disagree with, however if there is something you disagree with and you would give me a chance to explain - I would appreciate it. Dmatteng (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Article split

This article is extremely confusing in my opinion. It barely makes mention of the fact that there were different versions released 2 years apart. The info box talks about 2013 but there graph for versions mentioned 2015, but no where else in the article does it. I suggest the following changes:

• Create Chromebook Pixel (2013) and move all 2013 info there
• Create Chromebook Pixel (2015) and move all 2015 info there
• Redirect Chromebook Pixel to Google Pixel#Laptops

Thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate the models into model numbers, at least beyond dates, to show that these are actually two different things. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean 2013 wifi separate from 2013 lte edition? If so that wouldn't really be the standard way of doing it on WP. Or do you mean rather than showing the year we show the model number? I think typical is to just show year or generation. If you look at Motorola Moto you will see they are all consistently named based on the model and then generation, however Nexus 7 does it by year. Neither lists the model number anywhere - Galatz^Talk 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I could see model or generation designation making more sense than just a year to differentiate them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagreed, mostly, with this approach on Talk:Chromecast. But I do see the point here as Google has given the same name to two families of products, as it did with the Nexus 7. In any case, I agree that the article is confusing with respect to 2013 vs. 2015. Barte (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)