Switched On: Chrome's shine could blind Android
By Ross Rubin 
posted November 24th 2009 6:30PM
posted November 24th 2009 6:30PM
When the T-Mobile G1 was launched, Switched On discussed Google's growing rivalry with Apple. But now Google itself an even more formidable threat to the Android than Apple or even Microsoft. Growing out of the group that created the Chrome browser, Google's Chrome OS creates a relatively lightweight layer of hardware management code primarily for the purpose of running one native app, the Chrome browser. While Chrome OS can take advantage of local processing and resources, the OS foregoes local applications, citing a need to preserve speed, security and simplicity.
That argument resembles one Apple made in the early days of the iPhone with web apps before it committed to releasing an SDK and launched the App Store -- a reversal that's created one the most vibrant mobile software ecosystems ever seen. And unlike iPhone apps, Android apps can operate in the background. Indeed, Android's multitasking, alerts, and upgrade notifications are among the most elegant in the industry; clearly the OS development team has put a lot of thought into how to deliver the benefits of local applications in the stringent smartphone environment.
So, should developers invest in local apps for Android or is the future Web apps delivered via the Chrome browser? The mixed message Google is giving developers with
It would be a shame for Android developers and users if its path were derailed by a browser that has developed megalomania. |
More seriously, the treatment of desktop and handset platforms as two disparate opportunities that have contradictory app strategies runs counter to the marketplace success that Apple has had with a unified OS X foundation running on Macs and iPhones. Even Microsoft, which has struggled to create the richness of mobile applications that it has on the PC desktop, strives to leverage developer knowledge with common development tools for Windows and Windows Mobile. Nokia, which once relegated Maemo for being fit for "PC-like" mobile experiences, is now more seriously considering integrating the Linux-based OS more deeply into its smartphone offerings. This is because handsets have finally become contextual mobile computers -- Android itself is evidence of that.
And if we can trust and enrich these omnipresent epicenters of our digital lives with third-party applications, we should certainly be able to manage apps on some tertiary PC companion. In the high-stakes competitive environment in which Android competes, developers deserve to know that sponsoring organizations believe in the value of third-party applications that engage the user with appropriate user interfaces and offline functionality. It would be a shame for Android developers and users if its path were derailed by a browser that has developed megalomania.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
at least you're honest
who is kidding here?
The architecture of Android and Chrome OS are about as different as they possibly could be. I can't see them merging.
@(Unverified) Web apps are a good idea, so are client apps. Major brands often have both, sometimes the 2 will link to each other some not.
Chrome runs on very limited hardware. Android runs on totally different hardware. Android is good at multitasking, running java, making phone calls, taking pictures, blue tooth, etc. Its ok at javascript.
Chrome OS is good at javascript.
@(Unverified) The merging will probably be porting of chrome to run on android and the abandonment of the underlying chrome hardware code if it's to make any sense at all.
@(Unverified) I've been really excited, as a developer, by Android. I've got a healthy web development background (Ruby on Rails) and I'm certainly capable of developing a rich web app, but for the mobile platform I have almost no interest in making a web app.
A browser is not a substitute for an integrated application environment, period. Google needs to realize that EVERYTHING does not belong in Javascript. Other languages exist for a reason - they're better at certain things.
@ Similarities:
Android and ChromeOS are both Linux, they both run on x86 and ARM. As they have the same kernel, if there is a driver for one, it'll work on the other.
The only differences:
ChromeOS has the lightest-possible-weight windowing system, only meant to run Chrome. Android has Dalvik.
Takeaway:
ChromeOS says "go web developers!" Android by its existence says "Make me apps!" and owners think "I want some apps!" Is it stupid that ChromeOS doesn't have Dalvik? Yes. Third parties will put it in, but it's still stupid that Google won't.
@werty1432k your also about to be that douche to be down-ranked into "oblivion". Congrats!! lol
@werty1432k
you might actually be the 1st 1st to be Highest Ranked.
apparently not.
Personally, I don't see much of a future for Chrome OS. Maybe I'm underestimating the demand for a quick OS that can be used in a form factor bigger than phones, and smaller than laptops, but I can't imagine that Chrome will be particularly effective for most people. Then again, I don't understand why people use netbooks, so I'm probably outside the target audience, but I would rather Google continues to focus on Android, and support for full applications, while providing the capacity for the development of web applications, than develop an OS that is crippled from running powerful applications by design.
@TheyDidItFirst All valid points but you must realize that what we were shown by Google wasn't even a Beta. Maybe you saw the Alpha build of Moblin by Intel? It looked like it was from 1997 but look at what Moblin 2.0 has become. With the resources and brain trust that Google has in it's employ I'm sure we will be at least somewhat impressed with the Chrome OS final release.
@TheyDidItFirst
Boot it on a netbook and youll see its future. It takes sub 5 seconds to logon.
I see posts all the time about it being completely useless... and to most people (including me) it would be. That does not mean it is though... I work for IT at a school and you would be surprised how illiterate some of the teachers are when it comes to computers. Everything our teachers use is web based, except for MS Office, but we use Gmail already and have Docs available. So Chrome OS would be amazing from an IT perspective...
Then there is also the use of netbooks in the classroom. A cheap $200 netbook with Chrome OS would be much easier to afford than a laptop for every student. Not to mention it would be much lighter and could be carried around with their books.
Aside from education, there are actually some people that do nothing more on their computer than check their email. Chrome OS would be perfect for them since they don't have to worry about breaking it or getting a virus.
And taking it even further (and this is probably pushing it), Google has 3 other projects that could change how people think about Chrome OS, assuming they take off.
Google Gears - http://gears.google.com/
O3D - http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/
NativeClient - http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/
Gears is already built in to chrome and provides offline access to Gmail and what not. O3D is an API to provide 3D graphics in the web browser, you can download the plugin in chrome and try it out. NativeClient actually lets the website run native code on the user's computer, while keeping the sandboxed security model.
@TheyDidItFirst Think about businesses, too. My corporate laptop could easily be switched with a cloud-based OS. Honestly, it would be far easier to manage a whole bunch of computers running ChromeOS than it is to manage the same number of Windows XP computers using clunky systems like SMS.
Unfortunately, Google has never been known for coming up with mind-blowing interfaces. What they HAVE done, however, is make the cloud-based computing platform that much more interesting by diving into it.
@TheyDidItFirst I've written a fair amount about Chrome OS in my comments already. But in brief, I think Chrome OS is a great secondary OS, and for many circumstances, a good primary OS to replace Windows 2000/NT on all of those computers running just a browser in libraries, businesses, etc. In those contexts, many functions have moved from local apps to online or intranet hosting.
Chrome OS + ARM CPU + 2GB flash drive < $150, plus huge power savings, no need for anti-virus and internet security apps, no cost for the OS itself, and virtually no need to maintain or update the OS.
Add that sub-$150 combination to your average x86 notebook, and you have a secondary mode that can double your battery life exactly when you want it: when you need to conserve battery life while surfing the internet. The bigger the power requirement differential between the x86 CPU and the ARM CPU, the greater the relative difference between battery life running the x86 CPU and the ARM CPU. So, take a top of the line gaming notebook PC with a quad-core CPU, dual HDDs, and a discrete GPU; the Chrome OS "module" takes the 1.5-hour battery life to a 20-plus-hour battery life. (The numbers are only guesstimates.) If Chrome boots and shuts down around the same time it takes to get network access and start up the browser on your main OS, then it's obviously useful in a number of real world cases.
@TheyDidItFirst Chrome OS is the future. Read about NaCL and O3D. NaCL will bring the power of desktop apps to the browser. Android will be good for handsets and tablets in the near term. Eventually, Android will just be useful for handsets.
I never see Andriod as anything other than a mobile phone OS... and Chrome isn't exactly mobile.
@Yoda: I can see it being used for televisions replacing proprietary widget systems.
That allows cablecoms, satellitecoms, broadcasters, etc to program to one unified system for on-demand apps, EPG, etc.
@werty1432k Ha im actually one of those poeple that are like "friggan idiot!" when I see people say "1st!" but hey I think everyone should get to do it once :)
(and I agree with all your comments of douchyness and ranked down into oblivion)
Does it has 'wallpaper' and 'screensaver'?
I think Android is more a threat to Chrome than the other way round. If you look at the multitude of devices that have been announced to run android (phones, netbooks, photo frames, car units, MIDs, PMP), it would seem as if android has increasingly become the default OS for everything and began to replace those crappy proprietary OS's. I don't see Chrome having the ability to extend pass small laptops or netbook computers. I think Android could one day do Chrome's job, but I don't see Chrome being as flexible. So, I think most companies are putting all of its eggs in the Android basket.
@Will I totally agree with that statement. Chrome is a "browser" and chrome OS is being built around a browser where Android is a "platform" I can really see Android mobile OS taking off into a more diverse market across phones, netbooks, etc. Android and webOS are currently the underdogs in the mobile OS platform wars and I'm always a fan of the underdog. I am rooting for you Android!
I was really looking forward to chrome os, but was disapointed... Heres the problem, the os will be what it needs to be 5 years from now, but netbooks will be powerful enough to run windows fast enough...
@Nimer55 Chrome OS will never, ever meet the feature list of a desktop OS, not in 5 years, not in 10. It's not supposed to. Different target, different design goals.
I can't see any issue at all.
What we have is an O/S designed for mobiles and one for netbooks. Not exactly a conflict.
The argument is that Chrome could take apps away from android.... but android has the same browser. And Safari hasn't damaged the iPhones app store to any significant degree (and you can make some really nice web apps that look like real apps)
Oh jesus, here we go again. Engadget "analyst" completely fails to understand even the most basic things about the top they write about.
Phones != smartbooks.
Argument destroyed in two words and 1 symbol.
@McPOW How profound.
Sorry, wrong post. Either I'm an idiot, or Engadget still needs work
i think what you have to do primarily is not look at Chrome OS and Android as a separate entity and more look at it like a convergence to truly understand the rationale.
Android OS & Chrome OS exchanging information similar to Cloud.
Flip open Android/Chrome device same information is up, same data is accessible.
You can quickly realize how many lay-persons would appreciate simplification of their browsing and computer experience.
But what about: my office programs?? etc??
as the programing evolves so will Google Docs, and related programing. Eventually imagine a Chrome OS App store with direct linking to a Android OS app store.
All of a sudden, the issue with owning a computer makes sense.
we go to a grocery store for organized collections of things we may need in our day. We go to a convenience store for similar items in a swifter more direct version. Equate that to Chrome and Android, and now you may get an idea of the convergence.
It would be a shame for Android developers and users if its path were derailed by a browser that has developed megalomania.
Certainly but the though is incomplete - You can't blame the developers only especially when google is on their back. If you will look at the release of chrome OS this week, thye hype is really crazy. One could say, that the Google fever has been a part of your lives
What's the buzz about Chrome OS? detail review : http://bit.ly/google-chrome-os-best-or-worst-judge-it
Now I can't see why the article is Mixing Android With Chrome? Hmm, Chromes are for netbook and Android are for smartphones, am I correct?
Chome and Android will compete against each other. One is born from the rapid prototyping and consistency natures of the web (Chrome)--it's the web browser concept. The other is from the modularity and connectedness natures of the web (Android)--it's the VM/Sandbox concept.
If Google can knock off interoperability between it doesn't matter if it's Chrome or Android--that would be a huge win.
My guess is that until javascript is able to decode 1080p h264 video using a javascript codec (an example of one of the most compute expensive operations most users face that can't be gracefully degraded) on a mobile phone CPU there won't be any convergence. Whether this is thru continued javascript interpreter improvements, improved CPU support, or whatever. But until then I don't see that there will be a motivation to en masse move to browser based OS by rewriting everything in javascript. I don't see native code as a long term solution to this.
I am just using 1080p h264 as an example, not saying that it is sufficient, just that if javascript could handle that without tricks and native code, then I couldmore readily see that type of convergence being possible.
These two things are not competitors what-so-ever unless the pricing for roaming broadband changes as drastically as a heart attack.
That might include carriers actually realizing the word "unlimited" already has a meaning and that it is not 5GB.
But seriously - the bandwidth is a question and more-so on portable systems so a web-centric vs local-app fight is not a fight at all.
It is apples and oranges...
Or in this case googles and other different googles.
The Chrome OS unwrapping hadn't gone over well. That's apparent from the beatings it took in the blogosphere. Much of it is par, as Goog's cloud-computing notion certainly needs to get its head out of the puffy stuff. But some of it, like this Rubin piece, simply feels like piling on. It reads like more space filler. Engadget has its snarky tone for product blurbs down pat. OTOH, its punditry needs serious work.
In the recent E. Schmidt's (Google CEO) interview, he responded to this Chrome-Android-conflict issue by reverting to the well-used cop-out of "we'll let the community decide our course." And while it is indeed a well-worn refrain, he does have a point, given that these are both o-s projects, and partners as well as tech hobbyists will have a large influence--larger than with Microsoft or Apple's initiatives, certainly--on how to slice and splice them.
At first glance, Goog's efforts do seem disjointed. One would expect a large corp to have better coordination. But better coordination doesn't necessarily mean better product. The o-s paradigm of "throw it out and let people pick" has produced many gems, and Goog's crowdsourcing approach certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially this early in the product's life cycle.
On Chrome: I think it would be ideal for the tablet form-factor (no hard KB). Imagine a $100-150 ARM-based 10" tablet w/ 6-10 hr battery life, that is used primarily as a web browser and e-book reader, and secondly to play some music & video. That's the smartphones' main appeal (aside from PIM/contact functions), and it'd be the same for tablets. No hard keyboard is a plus, since it differentiates the tablet's use from a netbook's.
Microsoft failed with its first tablet and is retrying w/ Courier. Apple is reportedly giving it a go. Amazon/B&N are dinking around the edge w/ Kindle/Nook. Chrome may well be Goog's entry to its own tablet.
"In the high-stakes competitive environment in which Android competes, developers deserve to know that sponsoring organizations believe in the value of third-party applications that engage the user with appropriate user interfaces and offline functionality."
Ow. That sentence - like much of the article - is just painful to read. Bad author, no cookie.
what crap! Aren't both for different form factors?
Hello Engadget Editors, you should fire your commentator. What the parallel development of Chrome OS and Android--if they are in fact contraindicated in market terms, as your columnist suggests--is evidence of is a shift in the technology industry. Google is using it's market position to act not as a basic commercial player, but as both a for-profit enterprise, AND a research institution. Google now has established enough leeway in the the market place to support the development of ideas that might seem, to the rather limited commentator hired by Engadget, to be contradictory. They are in the position to foster innovation, which is a step beyond most other players in the technology market, who are constrained to rather pedestrian profit-margin goals. Interesting idea, and long overdue. And something completely missed in this post.
have to give it chance, hopefully it helps give other OS makers ideas.
It's interesting that the smartphone platform makes use of native apps, while the netbook platform makes use of cloud apps. The way Android works, is perfect for small screens, while ChromeOS seems destined for larger screens...if they do merge, it'll be a gradual effort in the code, fairly invisible to the end users.
i was kidding
anybody catch the smurfs last night?
i had to lol at the description of apple's app store as "vibrant". between the sheer number of fart apps and the awful politics that go along with the approval process, it seems like exactly the sort of thing you don't want to do. add to that the fact that most of the apps for iphone merely duplicate the functionality of a website and you don't have a very compelling argument for mobile apps.
i don't think this competition within google is necessarily a bad thing. they are implementing two very different strategies, perhaps one will win out in the end, perhaps both will find success. the teams will undoubtedly learn from each other. i don't see how you can argue against innovation and experimentation.
my personal prediction is that android will eventually folded into the chrome project. google is a web company and their goal is to keep people on the web as much as possible. where chrome is a radical change from what people are used to android is a fairly traditional phone OS, it is easy to attract former winmo or iphone or palm users. once they've got a good market share with android, they can eventually adapt the android platform to be more and more like chrome.
Interesting commentary, but I think that you missed the point. While it's true that at some point - probably sooner rather than later - Android will be overtaken by Chrome OS, it's easy to forget that Chrome OS is Google's first true PC-OS replacement. Developers have been developing apps for smart phones that are different from PC apps for a long time. So in the short run, not much of a difference to developers. However, looking at how Chrome OS launches apps in its "mole" pop-up configuration, it's obvious that Chrome OS apps will be adapted easily to smart phones. As smart phones become more powerful, Chrome OS will take them over by default. In the meantime, there's plenty of money in Android apps.
doesn't seem to support WIFI with wpa2. couldn't connect but will connect to unsecured networks.
People, realize that Chrome OS is a bet on the future. We ain't nearly to the point where wireless internet is pervasive and reliable enough for it to serve up all of our apps and data. So why build a catalog of killer web apps for an infrastructure that can't support them yet. But it will get there, because we're already about halfway there. Bit by bit the web will get more reliable and people will get used to more and more services hosted on the web. In the meantime we'll need some kind of local app hosting OS and we'll continue to divide our time between the browser and the local apps. Gradually we'll realize that the browser is all we're using, and by that time an OS like Chrome is all we'll need, and it will be mature enough to step in.
no, really?
I fail to see the logic in any of the reasoning here...
The Android platform is largely developed by mobile phone manufacturers like Motorola, HTC, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, etc. The Chrome OS does nothing to deter them from handset makers from developing Android.
Moreover, Chrome OS as a platform is going to be largely locked down. It won't allow the use of binaries, and instead will rely on HTML5, AJAX, Flash, to develop applications and utilities.
I'd read the article if it wasn't in Times New Roman.
If you Google "HTML5 manifest", you will see that HTML5 provides a mechanism to "install" web apps, so that they can be used offline. This, more or less, enables the concept of "local" apps on ChromeOS.
The advantage these "HTML5" local apps have over "smartphone-specific" local apps is that they can be "installed" on ANY device running ANY OS (smartphone, netbook, tablet, eReader, desktop, etc.), so long as the device utilizes a modern, HTML5 browser.