Google’s first Googlebooks offer credible designs and strong performance, but inconsistent battery life and an Android-led operating system leave the new laptop range feeling unfinished.
Google’s first wave of Googlebooks marks a clear attempt to reposition Chromebooks as more than low-cost web machines. The hardware, at least on first inspection, is credible: Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer and Asus have all brought in designs that would not look out of place in the wider Windows laptop market. But the review published by Tom’s Hardware makes the central point plainly enough: the machines are promising, while the operating system still feels unfinished.
That contrast runs through the entire range. The Lenovo, HP and Dell models examined by Tom’s Hardware are broadly familiar in form, with the HP and Dell borrowing heavily from existing premium laptop designs and the Lenovo leaning into a lighter, more distinctive chassis. The best screens in the group are the OLED panels on the HP and Lenovo machines, while Dell uses an LCD alternative. Across the line-up, Google has added a shared Glowbar light strip and a common keyboard layout that includes a dedicated G key, a Quick Insert function and Android-style navigation shortcuts. The intention is to make the devices feel like a single new platform rather than a recycled Chromebook family.
Performance is split between Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite and Intel’s Core Ultra chips, and the results are mixed in a way that matters for buyers. Tom’s Hardware found the Snapdragon-based models generally ahead in synthetic tests and graphics work, although the Intel Lenovo machine held its own in browser-heavy workloads. That distinction matters because Google is pitching Googlebooks as devices for people who spend much of their time online. Battery life, however, is not yet a strong selling point. Tom’s Guide reported that the HP Googlebook 14 lasted 11 hours and 52 minutes in its own testing, but that other models performed far less convincingly, with the Asus machine lasting just over six hours.
The bigger limitation is software. Googlebook OS borrows heavily from Android, which makes it familiar to anyone using a Pixel phone, but that familiarity does not translate into a polished desktop experience. Tom’s Hardware noted that the interface still feels adapted from a touch-first system, with large spacing in menus, a Files app that lacks basic desktop conveniences and Chrome missing support for multiple profiles. App installation is restricted to the Play Store, and although Google has introduced desktop ratings to signal whether an app is optimised for a large screen, the labels do not guarantee a consistent experience. Some programmes work well; others behave like enlarged phone apps.
That dependency on Google’s ecosystem is also part of the product’s strategy. The company has built Googlebooks to work closely with Android phones, letting users share notifications, move files and continue tasks between devices. But the strongest features depend on newer Android releases and, in practice, on having the right handset. Tom’s Hardware found that some cross-device functions were unreliable, while support with Samsung phones was still rolling out. Google’s own AI tools are woven deeply into the platform, from Gemini prompts to the more advanced Rambler dictation feature, but the review was sceptical about how much value the most ambitious tools will provide outside a narrow group of early adopters.
For now, the overall conclusion is cautious. The hardware points to a credible new laptop category, and several of the devices are attractive in their own right. But the software still has gaps that affect everyday use, from app compatibility to desktop fundamentals and battery consistency. Tom’s Hardware’s view is that buyers should wait for Google to improve the platform and persuade more developers to optimise for it. At present, the Googlebook line feels less like a finished alternative to Windows or macOS than an early version of what Google wants a laptop to become.
Disclaimer: This content is intended for informational purposes only. Readers are advised to exercise their own judgement, conduct due diligence, or consult a qualified expert before acting on any information provided.
