Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

7 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Google is suffering from success by V!NCENT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    --
    Here be signatures
  2. Ever worked in R&D? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You've just described it. If you try and manage all the R&D and ensure everything fits together and is optimised - like the "pragmatometer" in C S Lewis's dystopic NICE - you kill creativity and slow everything down. Theoretical physics - there's a lot of duplication in different universities. Are you going to set up a supercommittee to eliminate it? Congratulations, you just killed physics.

    If Google shareholders take windfall profits now and try to mature the company early, they will be killing exactly what makes it innovative. It is not in the long term interests of Google to do that. Remember long term? Before we had day traders and similar idiots trying to turn everything into a casino, we had companies like IBM that were hugely innovative and came up with things like relational databases. Real innovation requires long term commitment and a great deal of luck. You make your own luck by funding people like Cobb, or Mandelbrot, and wait for them to lay golden eggs. Can't do that if the shareholders are whining that they want all their (unearned) profits out, now.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  3. Converge as code base or as products? by MtHuurne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article seems to assume Android and Chrome OS will converge into a single product. That is one possible way for converging. But another possibility is that they would be built from the same code base, but still have a different UI for different size devices.

  4. Re:Google is suffering from success by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In truth, Google is not a technology company. Really. HP, Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, Dell etc are technology companies: people pay them for products which are the fruits of research and development.

    Google is not a technology company. Google is an advertising company with a sideline in email hosting. That's where their money comes from.

    If you look at the technologies you listed, with the exception of Java, almost none of them was made profitable by the company that invented them. I don't know why companies who can afford really serious, advanced "blue sky" R&D so frequently fail to commercialise it, but it's really common.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  5. Re:Which will win? by corpsmoderne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:First post by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Informative

    don't confuse google chrome (the browser) with chrome (the OS).

  7. Re:First post by V!NCENT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At first, everybody is predicting:" OMG Linux will own the desktop! We need KDE 4.x and Gnome 3.x and it is all going to even let your mom operate her computer much easyer than the shitty last incarnation from Microhell!" Etc, etc.

    Then when Linux actually gains marketshare, people start to complain. "Oh noes! Not all Linux users are kernel devs anymore! OMGz0rs! When did people forget to man or infor this or that and why do people get so dumb that they can't even convert high level code to assembly and turn it to 1's and 0's with their bare hand, using an assembler! OmG it get's populair!"

    Well duh, elitist prick. When you drive your car to a garage because you can't replace your engine yourself, the guy who does that for you won't be complaining about that fact that you cannot do that yourself. "Hey why don't you read the manual on how to replace your backseat yourself! How can people be so stupid that they cannot even replace their own chairs?!"

    --
    Here be signatures