It's a big draw for clueless people. It would take Superman to tell the difference between lossless audio and a modern codec with a decent bitrate. I would be surprised if you can prove that a single person has ever done so on an ABX test.
The only reason to use lossless audio is for archival. Obviously streams are useless for that.
Maybe so. And as I said, that makes me sad. People who work hard to develop full-featured and high-quality software fail to make headway, but people who cynically manipulate others to lock them in to one company while providing nothing of value make millions. It's perfectly rational and perfectly disgusting.
Chrome OS is worthless for its users. I don't much care how good it is for Google.
Linux can do whatever it damn well pleases. You can take Linux and turn it into the most feature-poor "easy-to-use" toy on the planet, as Google has demonstrated. The UI has little to do with the underlying technology.
The problems with the Linux desktop that I can see are poor driver support and a limited software selection. OEM support solves the driver support problem and Chrome OS demonstrates that people are willing to use a system with no software at all. What else makes it unsuitable for most users?
Firstly, no it isn't. The fact that they need an Internet connection is just one of Chrome OS's many problems.
Secondly, I never claimed Chromebooks don't work offline. I claimed they are nearly useless offline, which they are. They default to storing things in the cloud and using web apps. Getting them to be useful offline requires effort from the user and special effort from the developers of any offline web apps. The fact that users have to keep track of where all their data and programs live is needless complexity which is quite opposed to Chrome OS's supposed focus on ease of use.
Why does the Chrome OS team do anything the Chrome OS team does? They decided the best idea for low-end hardware is to run everything as a web app. They decided to make it practically useless without an Internet connection because clearly no one will use an ultraportable somewhere without Internet access. They decided to develop their own distro mostly from scratch because contributing to an existing project would be too easy, to useful, and would get them too much goodwill. They decided the best way to make the system easy to use was to split your files between local storage and the cloud so you don't know where anything is.
It's a stupid idea from start to finish. You shouldn't try to make sense of it.
And it depresses me. Its success demonstrates that Linux desktops could catch on in the mainstream market just fine if they had the marketing budget, brand recognition, and vendor support of Google. This team of idiots could have ended the hegemony of Microsoft and Apple for good.
It's not at all controversial that there's a strong genetic component to personality. There are people who like to pretend otherwise, but it's very well-established science.
I've long held that, if we want computers in the classroom at all, we should steer well clear of any modern gee-whiz gadgets. A modern Commodore 64 clone would teach vastly more about computers than an iPad and would cost maybe $50 total. Modern computers are designed so people don't have to understand them, which is exactly backwards for a student.
The only reason to use lossless audio is for archival. Obviously streams are useless for that.