On 4 October 2026, Google launched Googlebook, a new category of Android-based laptops built on a combined Android and ChromeOS foundation, with deep integration of Gemini AI and Android smartphones.
The concept looks promising, especially given Google’s growing ecosystem of products and services. But what caught my attention was Google’s decision to work with established manufacturers (Acer, Dell, Asus, HP and Lenovo) rather than develop its own hardware. This has got me wondering whether Google is approaching this opportunity from the right direction.
You see, Google’s strategy is not exactly new. Microsoft built its Windows empire by licensing its operating system to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), allowing companies such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo to produce computers running Windows OS. This enabled Microsoft to scale rapidly without taking on the full costs and complexities of manufacturing computers.
And the strategy worked. By the late 1990s, Windows had established a dominant position in personal computing. Even today, Windows commands over 70% of the global desktop operating system market, according to StatCounter. Few technology products have enjoyed that level of market dominance for such a long period.
From a business perspective, working with OEMs makes sense. It reduces capital requirements, provides access to established distribution networks, and allows companies to serve different customer segments. Manufacturers compete on design, performance, and price, while the operating system developer focuses on software innovation.
But there is something about this model that has always bothered me, especially when introducing a new product category.
When different manufacturers build hardware around the same operating system, the customer experience can become inconsistent. Someone using Windows on a poorly configured laptop may encounter performance problems or other hardware limitations. Another person using the same operating system on a premium device may have an entirely different experience.
Yet both users are likely to judge Windows based on their individual experiences, regardless of whether the hardware or software is responsible. People rarely separate individual components from their perception of the overall product. They judge the experience as a whole.
This is partly why people compare MacBooks with Windows laptops and conclude that Windows is inferior. But are they comparing operating systems or hardware? Someone may have a great Windows experience on a Lenovo laptop, while another struggles with an Acer. Yet Windows takes the blame, even when the hardware is the problem.
And I think Google risks running into the same problem with Googlebook.
Now, look at Apple. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has maintained close control over hardware and software development, allowing the company to optimize performance and integration across its ecosystem. This approach, known as vertical integration, gives Apple greater control over the complete product experience, even though manufacturing is outsourced.
Interestingly, Microsoft eventually recognized the value of having its own hardware. In 2012, the company introduced Surface, creating a reference product that demonstrated its vision for Windows without abandoning its OEM partners.
I think Google could learn something from that. And by the way, Google has already demonstrated this strategy with Pixel smartphones.
Android runs on devices manufactured by Samsung, Xiaomi, Nothing, and others, each offering a different interpretation of the operating system. Yet Google produces Pixel smartphones to demonstrate its own vision of Android.
Pixel has established a distinct identity through camera innovation, software integration, and now artificial intelligence through Gemini. Although its global market share remains relatively small, its strategic importance goes beyond sales volumes. Pixel allows Google to experiment with new capabilities and influence the wider Android ecosystem.
So why should Googlebook be any different?
Google previously developed premium laptops, including the Chromebook Pixel, Pixelbook, and Pixelbook Go, before stepping away from the product line. I believe Googlebook presents an opportunity to revisit that strategy, particularly with AI becoming central to personal computing.
My thinking is, Google should introduce a flagship Pixel Laptop alongside its OEM partnerships.
The Pixel Laptop would serve as Google’s reference product, demonstrating the intended Googlebook experience while establishing standards that other manufacturers could adopt.
And from a marketing perspective, a flagship device would also give Googlebook a clearer identity. People no longer simply buy operating systems. They buy products that solve problems and deliver great experiences. A Pixel Laptop could become the physical representation of Google’s vision for AI-powered computing, much like the MacBook represents Apple’s approach.
But there is another issue I have with Googlebook, and this one is personal. The applications.
Googlebook OS combines Android technology with desktop capabilities from ChromeOS. While Android has an enormous application library, many applications were originally designed for smartphones and tablets rather than professional desktop workflows.
I work in the creative industry, and I use applications such as Adobe Illustrator. The absence of a full desktop version would be a dealbreaker for me. I cannot imagine buying a laptop and then having to find alternatives for software I use almost every day.
Google has of course made progress with creative software, including support for select Adobe applications. But access to some applications is not the same as having a complete professional creative suite. I would have liked to see Google work more extensively with companies such as Adobe before launch to ensure that essential creative tools were fully optimized for Googlebook.
This is where product development and ecosystem readiness become important. A laptop can have impressive hardware and AI capabilities, but if people cannot use the software they depend on, what exactly are they switching for? Convincing consumers to move from Windows or macOS requires more than introducing new features.
And that brings me back to owning the product experience.
A first-party Pixel Laptop could allow Google to coordinate hardware development, software integration, AI capabilities, and strategic application partnerships around specific user needs. Its experience with Pixel smartphones and Tensor processors already provides a foundation for this approach.
By the way, Google would not need to own factories. There is a difference between controlling hardware development and manufacturing products. Google could retain responsibility for design, engineering specifications, and quality standards while contracting manufacturers to handle production.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am sure Google has considered all these options internally. A company with its resources and technical expertise would have evaluated the economics of hardware development, potential conflicts with OEM partners, and the challenges of entering an established laptop market.
There may be compelling reasons for its current strategy. But that should not stop us from questioning whether a different approach could produce better results. After all, business strategy involves weighing competing options and making choices, and those choices are always open to debate.
I am not suggesting that the OEM model is flawed. Microsoft has demonstrated its commercial strength, and Google itself has benefited enormously from a similar approach with Android.
I just think Google should consider taking greater ownership of the Googlebook experience, from hardware development to software availability, while maintaining its OEM partnerships.
Like Apple, Google could benefit from having greater control over the complete product experience. Microsoft eventually embraced a hybrid approach through Surface, and Google has already demonstrated the same thinking with its Pixel smartphones. So why not extend that approach to laptops?
Maybe Google knows better.
