What to expect from the "convergence" of Android and Chrome OS
Still, Chrome OS does have a target audience that could benefit greatly from its design. The magic sauce of Chrome OS is in the fact that it is just a browser, meaning updates are constant and automatic, something Android users envy at times. And, because it is just a browser, any web app written in HTML5, or built in Flash works perfectly on Chrome OS. There's no need for a new SDK, programming language, etc. Sure, there are a couple of Chrome specific options for developers, but in general, if you can build for the web, you can build for Chrome OS, and anything you build will also work in other HTML5 capable browsers. And, since the Chrome browser has recently become the most popular in the world, a lot of people are also building extensions for the browser itself, adding to the functionality.
1. remixfa (Posts: 13923; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
interesting bit to chew on. good stuff. :)
Anyways, the bit about buying apps/games for chrome through a "store" be it Play or Chrome's own, unless its an android native app running inside chrome, i dont see why it couldnt be played on other browsers. Who's to say that they wouldnt make HTML5 paid apps available in the store? It could serve as a centralized net/app location as well as android/chrome's store. Unless they implement some type of "chrome only" lockdown on those HTML5 apps, it should be compatible with every browser. That would keep things "open" as well as give a lot of free advertisement to people about Android's latest apps which might just spur a mobile sale.
It would be very similar to how MS is going to use W8 on everything to get people used to the system to spur future sales.
It would be a smart move at least, IMO. :)
2. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
I suppose as long as the web app is tied to your Google account, the browser wouldn't matter, you'd just need to be signed in to Google. It's still an odd area to consider, especially if Chrome is folded into Play.
3. remixfa (Posts: 13923; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
The whole idea is kind of wierd to me from start to finish. I'm probably missing something, but I dont see a whole lot of benefit of merging chrome into android, for the android side. There is a ton of benefit for Chrome if they can figure out app compatibility, but like you mentioned, that would muddy the whole reason for Chrome to begin with.
If they allowed unlocked HTML5 apps into the Play market. You could get em from any browser and use them. Just being in there is free advertising for the Android platform.
9. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
If the plan is to kill Chrome OS, then convergence makes sense. Otherwise, I'm not sure
16. DWillyEfect (Posts: 52; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)
Seems like it would work good for a Tablet that docks into a keyboard like the ASUS Transformer Prime.
But honestly, they need to build Chrome OS into a legitimate desktop OS that can compete with Windows.
28. Non_Sequitur (Posts: 1111; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)
I agree. I really think that Chromebooks are a terrible idea... They probably won't sell well. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. I don't normally criticize Google, as they usually make the right decision. I don't know about this one.
Google really needs to make full 13, 15, and 17 inch Android keyboard/touchscreen hybrid laptops and drop Chrome OS altogether. They need to team up with Adobe and many other companies and make better programs for Android, like a full Adobe suite for Android laptops.
Or, they can build a desktop OS. Lol. :P
18. adminhill (Posts: 1; Member since: 30 May 2012)
Do every know the xiaomi phone ? If I come in the not right place ?
4. darac (Posts: 2156; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
We've been guessing about this convergence long ago.
Ubuntu+Android still looks like the best blend by far, imo.
Could Google possibly acquire Ubuntu? :p
10. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
That is secretly my hope, because I love the idea of Ubuntu for Android.
5. downphoenix (Posts: 2350; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
"There's no reason to go to the ESPN website, or Twitter if there are apps that are easier and offer more functionality."
Rarely, if ever, has there been a case when a mobile app offers more functionality than a website, even a mobile website.
8. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
That is mostly true. Twitter could be the exception that proves the rule. Almost every Twitter app is better than the website. It still muddies the water, because people are lazy. That's why Apple had to create an app store rather than just offering the web apps as intended with the iPhone.
6. Captain_Doug (Posts: 758; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)
I feel like chrome OS was the wrong way to go. I think that if they made android more desktop-like, it would have way more functionality and still be familiar to those who've used android. It would perform much more like a desktop operating system and therefore could be the only OS you had to use. Gaming on Android would pickup, other applications that were mentioned like video editing would be possible, and the cloud aspects would still be a huge part of the OS as its 4" counterpart could be perfectly synced. This seems like the perfect way to go. Like, I'm dreaming about it now. Wow that'd be awesome.
7. Captain_Doug (Posts: 758; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)
Thinking about it more it would behave a lot more like the Apple ecosystem... but open and therefore would explode as it reached the desktop platform. Still can't think of how it could get any better.
11. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3624; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
This article is missing one thing - one of the 3 B's. Be brief. We don't need a long, drawn out article on the issue. Just get to the point.
I think it's misleading to call a browser an OS. I wouldn't use Chrome if they paid me to, but it's nice it gets automatic updates. That's something Android desperately needs plus a lot of other things.
I think Google is overextending their offerings here. They should focus on a few things and improve the quality of those things. They surely need the quality part down.
12. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
I've used Chrome OS, and it's actually a very usable system. I wouldn't be able to make it my primary OS because I need more complex tools, but for my less tech savvy friends and family, it's actually a really good option. My mother-in-law loves her Chromebook and has had very little problem learning to use it.
Chrome is as much an OS as anything. It is a platform that can do anything that 90% of users may need. Just because it wouldn't work for you doesn't mean it has no value.
21. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3624; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Chrome is a very usable browser. Usable and good are not the same here. Google's problem is having quantity over quality and it shows a lot with Android sometimes.
I think they should just improve Chrome as a browser before even thinking about turning it into an OS or browser. Actually I think even Google doesn't know what Chrome is now.
22. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Chrome is the best browser available in my opinion. Opera and Firefox are great, but don't have the extensions that I love with Chrome. It hasn't become a fully realized operating system yet, but I think the idea is sound, and the potential is definitely coming through.
Your quantity vs quality argument makes no sense here. For Android, sure I can see that, but with Chrome it makes no sense.
Just think about it, how much stuff do you do on your computer that requires you to be outside of your browser? Unless your job has proprietary apps, or you do hardcore gaming or editing, there probably is almost nothing that requires you to be outside of your browser. That's the point.
It's like a tablet. It's not a 100% replacement for a computer, but it can do most of the important stuff that people need. The same holds with Chrome OS, the only major issue is the cost of the hardware. The idea of the OS is still sound.
25. remixfa (Posts: 13923; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Its not just your opinion, its the world's opinion. Chrome is now the number 1 browser in the world. :)
There is actually very little I do outside the browser anymore, except for playing Diablo3 and some rooting apps at the current moment. Google docs can do most of the basic Office stuff well (it doesnt replace it for advanced features though).
14. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Oh, and as far as the "be brief" bit. Because we're a mobile tech website, I didn't want to assume knowledge of Chrome OS from the readership, since it's not a very widespread OS. I know that anyone commenting will have an understanding of it all, but you guys aren't the only readers here.
20. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3624; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
If they're readers of PA, chances are they would have a decent grasp on Chrome OS. What I am getting at though is you need to make the article more reader friendly. Hit the main points and get to the point. You don't have to be overly detailed to give readers an idea of what Chrome OS is.
It's not about being the only readers. It's about common sense.
23. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2677; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Makes sense. I have been trying to be more concise with my articles, maybe this one got away from me a bit.
26. remixfa (Posts: 13923; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the article was fine in length.
if you assume your readers all have knowledge, then you will find that many of your readers were confused by the lack of information in the article.
If you dont like longer articles, apply for a PA job, and start writing short feature articles, and we will judge them side by side with michael's.
30. MAP2010 (Posts: 2; Member since: 21 Nov 2012)
I think the article was fine, I myself enjoy reading detailed post even if I know a lot about it the topic. But then again I Love Tech stuff. My understanding of Tech is years ahead of most people, in 2003 I said if you ever want to see a Truly Powerful Smart Phone that would outlast anything you have now would be if Apple designed and Made their own Smart Phone and they did but they don't play well with other Companies and cost way to much so Android filled that needed area. But that's just one of many thing I knew was going to happen before it was talked about. But even tro I know most of this very well I still enjoy reading what others say about it.
13. jeetster (Posts: 14; Member since: 12 Dec 2011)
I think jellybean will be more of a dock os meaning when you insert a phone such as some of moto phones into docks, what os boots up. This would be the next logical step from phone/tablet os combination. Just my $.02
15. blinkdagger (Posts: 81; Member since: 04 May 2012)
Apple already set the closed-ecosystem trend.
Microsoft just starting with the trend. wp8+windows8
and Google seems to have a thought on joining the trend.
Nah, maybe i'm just imagine things. I want bedtime story!
17. ZEUS.the.thunder.god (unregistered)
good article but i personally dont see this happening anytime soon. so lets wait and watch. and i think android has the potential to be a desktop os.
27. blade (Posts: 32; Member since: 28 May 2012)
no this shouldnt happen
also jelly bean as a minpr update as froyo and gb is agreat move
29. MAP2010 (Posts: 2; Member since: 21 Nov 2012)
I think we might see Android Cloud Apps and Non-Android Cloud Apps.
Its kind of hard to put it in words but I will try, Android Cloud Apps mean: Your Device would have a mini App that can do Basic stuff but once you turn on the internet you have full access to The Full App this keeps your Device Free and Clean. Non-Cloud Apps would still work with The Cloud but be Full Apps on The Device. So An Android Feel over Cloud Chrome OS. Note: (Cloud) Apps "Main Storage" (Device) Icon and Basic App when offline, but when you are online your able to use full App as if it Unlocks The Real Apps Power. Kind of like Go to my PC but it would be more like Go to my Chrome.