Chrome OS and Android "Will Likely Converge" In the Future

xchg writes "When Google first announced that the company would be pursuing development of two distinct operating systems, many questioned Google's motivation. 'Google executives, including CEO Eric Schmidt, have downplayed the conflict ever since, asking for time to let the projects evolve. And a few days after Chrome OS was revealed, Android chief Andy Rubin said device makers "need different technology for different products," explaining that Android has a lot of unique code that makes it suitable for use in a phone and Chrome has unique benefits of its own. But Brin, speaking informally to reporters after the company's Chrome OS presentation on Thursday, said "Android and Chrome will likely converge over time," citing among other things the common Linux and Webkit code base present in both projects.'"

Comments

Re:Google is suffering from success

[V!NCENT]

Kernel: Linux
WM: Chrome
GUI kit: HTML + CSS
Media player: Flash and OGG
Graphics library: WebGL
Application store: The internet with Google Gears
Coding language: Javascript
Backup: automatic online gratis storage

Need I even say more? Yes;

Chromium needs semantic file management and a better use of tabs (WM's that can only display fullscreen Windows sucks) and the ability to hook up an extrenal storage device and a one-click-offline-backup-solution and a better way to store webapps offline with Gears.

Okey... 'nuff said. If there is anything that could on the long run kill proprietary, monoplies, vendor lockin, etc, etc. then it is Chromium.

Not that I would make it my primary OS is the near future, but it will be installed on my netbook for sure...

Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"

[pedantic bore]

Google has had the foresight to cut their losses before...

I have an Android phone. It was a gift from Google. Admittedly, it was an early version so maybe Android 2.0 looks better, but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project. I'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free.

Re:Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"

[Delwin]

You want to look at the Droid then. I've got one and while there are a few little things that I wish they would improve on the whole it's much better than any other smart phone I've used. It's core apps are far better than the iPhone, but I do miss the volume of games the AppStore has that the Android Market still hasn't caught up to yet.

Re:Which will win?

[corpsmoderne]

I don't think Chrome OS is a good thing for desktop Linux. Who will develop for an OS on which you can't install any applications ? Commercial vendors won't target Chrome OS / Linux, they will target the web browsers, and that won't have any impact on the "monoculture" problem of the desktop.

Re:Google is suffering from success

[dirkdodgers]

What do you mean, "the self-cannabilising overlap"?

Android is a production product that must be stable, reliable, and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.

Chrome OS is an R&D platform for emerging markets and technologies.

You don't couple your production product with your R&D platform for a market that does not yet exist, unless you want both of them to fail.

The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&D products, and giving you the opportunity to comment on them, for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google, there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible, and will make possible in 2-5 years.

MOD UP!!!

[mangu]

The kernel is exactly what we used to call an "Operating System", before people started putting Window Managers on top

How true! Instead of trying to confuse things and try to hitchhike a ride on Linux success, people who try to prepend a GNU/ on everything should study history and learn where this "operating system" definition started.

There was a time when every computer was dedicated to running a single program at a time, it often took hours to switch from one program to the other. In many computers configuring hardware to run different tasks involved plugging patch cords into sockets.

An "operating system" was the software that let the computer hardware be shared among different users with less hassle. In that context, the equivalent of what was initially called an operating system would be a set of device drivers and a task scheduler, exactly what Linux alone does.

Of course, language evolves and what was called an "operating system" in the 1960s would not be the same thing today. But that should be for the people to decide, the GNU/ trolls are very obnoxious in trying to force an usage that the general public never came up with spontaneously.