Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Isn't Pushing Android For Tablets
Brad Linder of Liliputing posted an interesting analysis today about Google's reluctance to endorse Android for tablets. Linder argues that while there may be legitimate concern that Android just isn't polished enough for devices without phone access (because some apps need it), it would be smart for Google to segregate the apps themselves, so users can simply know which apps will work on Wi-Fi-only tablets. But from Google's perspective, he observes, "pushing a version of Android that isn't exclusively for phones could be all it takes for Chrome OS to be dead on arrival."
Android was designed from the beginning to fight with guys like RIM and Microsoft, and to a lesser extent, Palm.
iOS on the other hand, was inteded for a tablet style device.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
He has something of a point. What is ChromeOS going to do that Android theoretically can't? Maybe having two competing OSs isn't such a great idea anyway.
I don't think this is the case considering Motorola is expected to launch a tablet-ready android tablet this year. (And so is Acer too, according to rumors)
ChromeOS will probably ship on tablets AND on netbooks, while Android will probably only ship on tablets. (at least officially, since there are already some netbooks running android)
I don't think Google will want to let everyone down releasing non-optimized android versions for tablets, which would only genererate fragmentation (that magical word again) as far as tablet-specific implementation is concerned.
Also, why wait even more when their competition (Apple) is already singing the infamous "Its printing money!" song?
I expect them to release a tablet-friendly Android version this year so everyone can start working on top of that new "standard". (i.e. they want to set the standard so Android doesn't end up having 100 tablet implementations)
Who knows if that will be Gingerbread or Honeycomb...
I mean, why do they really need to have TWO locked down Linux-based operating systems?
I think it should be pretty obvious....Android is taking off, but the idea of an app ecosystem based on the browser is clearly the future as well.
.
I'd wager anything that google will merge the two....if that wasn't their plan from the beginning, it will come to pass regardless.
I don't see this too difficult really.... but it's smart that they didn't attempt it too early though for various reasons.
I use my Android constantly with airplane mode turned on and wifi turned back on since the cdma radio is such a hog. I never run into any app that doesn't work as expected based on this setup.
My Babylon
As TFA explains:
Google Chrome OS, which is basically an OS built around a web browser. Instead of downloaded apps, it will run web apps, although we expect there to be some offline caching capabilities which should let you do things like read eBooks or watch videos even when an internet connection isn’t handy.
I agree with the author that this is a bad idea:
Don’t forget, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, it didn’t have native apps either. He insisted that the development platform for the iPhone was the web, and the phone was designed primarily to run web apps. Today, there are over 250,000 native apps available in the App Store because, let’s face it, web apps just aren’t always going to do the job.
I don't know how much info is in the wild about Chrome OS, so maybe it'll have some wiz bang features that will rule, but I doubt it. Having two operating systems where one will certainly do just doesn't sound like a good idea -- especially when one is out, the other isn't, and the unreleased one is built around a questionable concept.
Guess what? It is in beta.
In soviet Russia, God creates you!
Whether or not ChromeOS is better than Android at this point is largely academic. Android is here, now and (arguably) ready for mass consumption. ChomeOS isn't. It's a shame, and it would suck to jettison all of that work put into ChromeOS, but it's just too late to the party at this point. People are already packing up and heading out to the retail store with Android and diluting the development of Android to push ChromeOS out to market a day late and dollar short does a disservice to both platforms.
They need to retool their Chrome developers to start making Android more tablet friendly and rolling the most positive features of Chrome into Android.
The netbook market is largely static and is likely to self implode or at the very least be rolled into the ultralight laptop market. I mean, really the current generation of Netbooks are really just small laptops; calling them netbooks is paying lip service to the netbook form factor only - a 12" screen really isn't a netbook anymore and people have largely figured out that anything smaller really isn't useful for much in laptop form - but it is in tablet form. So the netbook market is all but gone as separate entity. Where does that leave ChromeOS? Pretty much nowhere. It has no real platform and it is too late to the party to do much of anything.
Meh... I'd really like to see it rolled into Android, that's really the smartest move at this point.
Now that we have an MS fuckwit running Nokia, I don't really care what runs on phones or tablets. The available choices all require giving up my right to make choices, period. The whole smartphone tablet space really really fucking sucks.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's - but I think it's pretty obvious most people couldn't care less about, as you call it, "giving up my right to make choices". Thing is, most people don't seem to see anything problematic about Apple's walled garden or with any limitations Google might put on their marketplace. They just care that it's easy to grab the Facebook app.
#DeleteChrome
At least with their Cius tablet.
My phone app crashes regularly, a pretty big epic fail for an OS designed for phones. Google doesn't know how to release a quality product, just a series of betas with a lot to be desired for.
People who think that apparently haven't used both operating systems. Android is a mobile OS designed to run third party apps - the apps are the centerpiece of the OS. ChromeOS is for devices that want to run a web browser. And nothing else. ChromeOS is great for kiosks and a decent choice for a netbook. But tablets are a big in between. If your tablet is a big phone, get an Android model. If it's a slim netbook without a keyboard, ChromeOS should be your choice. If it's a laptop replacement, look to better specs and full Linux or (*gasp*) Windows 7.
Remember this:
Want apps? Choose Android.
Want web browsing? Choose ChromeOS.
Want flexibility? Choice Linux/Windows.
Read this in an interview with Jobs. They basically made an iPad prototype and Jobs said, "let's make a phone out of this". So they did.
not just that, but Google TV is based on... Android. I guess all TVs will have to come with cameras and GPS too :)
Ars Technica has a article about it, they say that Google gives out varying answers depending who you talk to.
One one hand, we have a radically new set-top form factor that will supposedly run Android applications, and on the other hand, we have a Google product director saying that Android isn't a good fit for non-smartphone devices and that those devices may pose insurmountable application compatibility challenges in some cases.
I reckon this will quickly be a non-story in the end. Someone from Google will provide the necessary foot to the bum of the marketing department and all will be well.
Only 25,000 out of 250,000 apps are iPad native at the moment, and the iOS 4 updates for iPad have been delayed multiple times.
PC OS struggle even more, having to support from 800x600 to 2560x1600 screens and the almost 30 years worth of x86 based code. Writing operating systems is hard, due to the fact that there is no single concept of a screen.
Most people simply aren't bothering yet.
iPad numbers are still like Commodore 64 numbers at this point.
Making any grand pronouncements from them is a bit absurd and premature.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...that decide which, if not a new one, will win. The platform is just the starting point and developers care about it as much as we care about oxygen among other things in life. Otherwise, good development tools on par with Xcode and Visual Studio are almost a requirement.
I will buy a tablet when it can run windows 7, with autodesk inventor, all my typical programs, and browse the web from anywhere.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
Chrome OS is essentially a browser with enough support wheels to boot itself - its not a real OS - and NOTHING I would want. Forget it Google - I want a tablet (padd) which runs Android - not your Chrome crap. You might as well stop trying to sabotage that, the sooner the better (especially if you wish to try and hang to your "do no evil" motto)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It is marketed as a web OS, as in the only thing the computer will have on it is a media player and web browser. Ok, well putting aside if it is a good idea to make everything web based, that only works for online all the time situations. You know, like not tablet PCs. Seems like what tablets demand are a classical embeded OS. Something that is light weight but can have all the features you need. Sounds just like Android to me.
I think Google gets a little blinded by their web focus sometimes. They think it would be just great if everything moved on to the web, and more specifically on to google.com. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, if ever. There are plenty of reasons to want stuff that resides on your device. For mobile devices, wireless speed is a big one. Even on the fastest networks it still gets pokey when lots of people are using it, and let's be real about how many places have the fastest networks. There's also battery to be considered. A radio slurps up battery life in a hurry.
I'm not saying they should jettison Chrome OS necessarily but they need to take a long, hard, realistic look at the real demand for a web-only or even web-focused OS. Otherwise I think they risk pushing something that nobody likes and doesn't get them anywhere.
In the mythical future, when Internet connections never go down, wireless is faster than we need, and web browsers all run a version of HTML/CSS/etc that allows for powerful, fast, easy apps to be made then maybe a web only system is a winner. Maybe then people are interested in having a computer that is just a browser. However until that day comes, and I am skeptical it ever will, a normal computer is what's called for.
None of my Verizon phones needed SIM cards, including the Android Eris and Ally that I tried (and returned - smudgy interfaces, and immaturity WRT to tethering vs my old WinMobile 6.1 smartphones that respond nicely to stylus/fingernail just did not cut it for me). Same for Sprint.
You better look for another showstopper.
Isn't Chrome OS already dead on arrival?
I don't think you realize how well the Commodore 64 actually sold....
I am finding lots of bootlegged apps from the Android Marketplace that won't run on my Pandigital Novel, which is running Android 2.0, because it does not have GPS, camera, or phone functions, and, I suspect, due to its 800x600 screen dimensions.
However, it runs enough to be useful to me, especially the ereaders for which it was originally marketed (I "unlocked its inner Android" in the 1st couple days with tips from the active user forum at http://www.slatedroid.com/pandigital-novel-android-tablet-discussion ). The Webkit browser, email client, stock music player, plus Pandora, and some other Android odds and ends are good enough to keep me interested - Google Maps on that 7-inch screen is wonderful (as long as I am near wifi access points), although I am still looking for a weather widget work on it ...
For $150, it beats heck out of a Kindle 3 since I do not read in full sunlight anyway (aside from the weight).
RO
Google Maps on that 7-inch screen is wonderful (as long as I am near wifi access points)
One of my coworkers has that K-Mart Android tablet thingy, and tethers it to his N1 so he can use the bigger screen for browsing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Actually, I almost decided to keep my "free" LG Ally from Verizon for that very type of usage (and switch back to my trusty old WinMob smartphone for phone/PIM/tether source - as I have since done sans the Ally), but the 2-year contract extension just struck me as too constraining. I was starting to consider it the Android equivalent of the iPod Touch - lots of usefulness even without the phone bit activated.
RO
http://www.commodoreusa.net/home.html
and now that they have Amiga, the old days are coming back again !
17,000,000 Commodore 64s sold. That's 17M. IPad has already sold +50M
Google is pushing Android on televisions, and televisions aren't cell phones either.
I see ChromeOS as a popular business product in the future. It is too early for ChromeOS (and guess what, its not released!). Who cares about netbooks and ipads, what percentage of the market is this? Its a tiny fraction of non-commercial users, and about 0% of commercial users. Now envision a work place that uses QuickBooks online (or Sage or whatever) for accounting, SalesForce for CRM, OWA for email, FedEx online for shipping, online banking (cc and check processing/scanning), Sharepoint for internal direction, googledocs or MS's online doc service for documents, SAP, etc. This is already some companies NOW, just imagine in a few more years as more and more companies have "web editions" whether in public or private clouds. Think of all the $$ they save moving to ChromeOS, and the (theoretical) cost savings in support of these client minvachines. THIS is how google plans on dethroning MS from their current position. Push everything to SAAS, and potentially have the dominant client for it. If they NAIL ChromeOS when it is released, I bet you see SAAS providers ensuring that their products support ChromeOS, which removes a big issue with Linux/SAAS alternative that exist today. Sites don't care about standards still, 95% of the work force uses IE, and I bet 99% use it at least sometimes....for that one must have site that doesn't work with FF, etc. Kill that dependence, offer at reduced cost, reduced maintenance, and google could one day be the MS killer in the business market. I think ChromeOS for gamers, developers, and many other areas won't work well, don't get me wrong. But no one can hit that market right now, the key is to get in the business world. As far as Android, I don't think few if any SAAS players will make Android "apps", rather expecting PC apps and/or browser based usage. This is still clearly not a problem (Chrome via Android), although will likely provide more complexity, thus higher support costs.
Unless your Android app is specific to some telephone thing, like SMS or a dialer, that app is going to be just fine on a tablet without phone features or even service. WiFi will do.
Really, let's go down the list of apps on my Android phone:
The Google Stuff: Calendar, Calculator, Amazon MP3, Camera, Contacts, Email, Gmail, Clock, Gallery, Google Search, Maps, Latitude, News & Weather, Navigator, Places, Talk, YouTube. None of these need phone service, they are happy with WiFi or nothing at all.
Android Market likes to have your SIM I think to validate ya. OK, ONE.
Messaging, of course, likes SMS. That's TWO.
Phone, obviously, THREE.
Oh darn, Mobile Backup. Oh, FOUR.
Other Apps: AppMonster, Terminal, World, AK Notepad, Astro Player, Barcode Scanner, AndroZip, Barcode Scanner, Bonsai Blast, Browser, Classic Tetris, Craigslist, CraigsNotifier, eBay, Facebook, GPS Status, Music, Pandora, SetCPU, Superuser, Twitter, WiFi Analyzer, World.
None of these need phone anything. WiFi will do where needed.
Out of 44 apps on my phone (not counting some very, very obviously non-phone-dependent one I haven't listed), only 4 need or just use phone service.
Reality check. The many Android apps that want phone permissions just want them to screw with your contacts or to check the phone state. Woop.
It's not at ALL about Android needing a phone. It's about Android being more suited to small screens and small machines (minimal RAM and lesser CPUS), and Chrome pointed directly at the desktop and netbook/notebook markets. More exactly, pointed directly at Microsoft.
Fracturing a market with Android and Chrome competing for share doesn't work for Google, so they will try to avoid it. It's just that Chrome is not as ready as Android is, and Android will have to keep itself lean to be workable on smartphones.
Of course, ARM is working on giving smartphones the power that netbooks have, and Intel is growing the Atom line up and the Duo line down to crush AMD's hopes in emerging markets.
It's actually not a bad strategy to be competing with yourself. IBM gave that a go in the 80s and 90s.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
CDMA has the 'SIM CARDS' programmed INTO the phone. IE unlike GSM setups there *IS* no SIM card. This means if you hose your phone, rather than just shoving your sim in the new phone you have to go back to an authorized sprint/verizon cell phone retailer and get them to program a new phone for you, either for a fee, or after buying a replacement.
GSM you can usually just stick it in a new phone and away you go.
Hmm, I wonder how Model T sales figures compare to Ford Pinto's.
Pure quantity isn't necessarily relevant if market saturation is drastically different.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
50M+?
More like 5M+. They're making between 2 & 3 M a month now.
But they'll hit 17M easily by next year. And probably another 17M the year after.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Holy cow! Someone gets it!!
If Android users already have an Android phone (and a monthly bill to go along with it) what sense would it make from a consumer standpoint to have an additional monthly bill for an ancillary device?
Tether the damn tablet to another connection and be done with it. It's not difficult.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
You do understand that cdma phones have their equivalent of a sim card built in right?
Give it phone access.
Technoli
A lot of Google's stuff is in a perpetual beta.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
That's what Ray Ozzie said. The future is ubiquitous fast connectivity to any device, and speed is king. You don't want to wake up at night, think "must remember to buy some milk" and have to wait for the current generation of smart phones to boot up before you can tap that into your tablet. If Google do it right, client devices will be another market like pocket calculators in the '70's. The value is in the network, and the client devices will lower in cost relentlessly.
Oh well they lost a potential android user here. I've waited for months to have an android tablet but even if you ignore the shoddy hardware sometimes, it is hard to overlook the fact that the App Store is something problematic. Because of the fact that Google don't give access to the app store every frikking manufacture introduces their own. And even in the hypothetical case that Google does let tablet users access the app store here in Belgium it wouldn mean sh*t as for some kind of reason it is impossible to buy paid apps in the android market. It is one big mess at the moment no matter how you put it. I was done waiting and bought an iPad yesterday. The Samsung Galaxy Tab (the one that can make a dent in the iPad market) will cost about 700 euro here , making the iPad look dirt cheap.
Not really. You're post is asinine, but you'd never admit it.
And I've hacked a few CDMA phones in my day.
A SIM card consists of an IMSI, some keys, service access data, PIN, PUK and some room for crappy phone book storage, basically.
But it is basically just data. The thing that makes the SIM card concept unique is the physical smartcard use itself.
CDMA phones being cell phones have to have similar data, but there is actually no standardized storage mechanism in the phone. It simply has to comply with the CDMA standards for air interface use, how it is stored in the phone precisely doesn't matter and there is not cohesive standardized "SIM card equivalent". Sorry.
(And this has nothing to do with working with the Market, you could use any generic identifier system.
Umm, C64 sold about 17 M units during its lifetime.
it was iPhone OS before it was iOS.
And even when it was iPhone OS, iPod touch ran it. The article, as I understand it, is about the general lack of something that could be described as "Android pod touch". And even when Archos does bring out the occasional Android tablet, Google doesn't let it into Android Market, unlike iPod touch, which has had App Store access since iPhone OS 2.0.
Not really. You're post is asinine, but you'd never admit it.
And yet you missed the entire point of the post. The point was that the market restriction was more artificial than anything else. By the way, the biggest thing the sim card or equivalent is used for isn't used as a device identifier. It's used as a carrier identifier. Without it google has no idea who to cut a check for your purchases that you make on that device.
ChromeOS as far as I can judge from what I have seen on the pictures and the emulation is pointless for tablets the entire ui is centered around a mouse and a smallish screen estate. Trying to push chromeOS on a tablet would be a huge mistake. I personally dont think google is that stupid, and I beliefe their arguments the OS simply needs a tablet refinement to work fine. Heck apple did the same for iOS on the ipad, you need to change the aspects of various distances, better even introduce resolution independence, you have to ajust the layout system of the apps so that they can use the bigger real estate better than just presenting themselves blown up (the classical example is the mail menu system on the iPad)
and you also have to adjust the market apps decently.
I would be surprised if google would come up with ChromeOS as solution for Tablets, I rather expect a Gingerbread reference design given first to the Google Employees on christmas with decent Android based tablets following the upcoming months from HTC and co.
Without support for proxies, Android is next to useless in the educational market
Google's official position on providing the Google applications (GMail, YouTube, etc.) on non-smartphone devices isn't consistent with what Android, and Android Market, is capable of: Android applications can specify which features they need, how big a screen they can support, etc. So, while it is a legitimate concern that some apps might fail on tablet devices, the vast majority of apps won't, and those that do have a simple mechanism for excluding themselves from being listed for download to tablet devices.
In addition to the criteria for being an officially blessed Android device being arbitrary in light of Android having mechanisms for apps to determine device compatibility, the process is also opaque: There is no published process for getting devices "approved."
And, in addition to all that, while Android Market and Google's suite of apps run on most Android devices, users of ex-officio Android devices are left to bootleg this software onto their devices.
When Google was in the process of wooing first tier mobile OEMs and bargaining with them, it made sense to provide exclusivity and a closed process for OEMs, in order to give Google the strongest possible negotiating position. Now that Google has every first tier mobile OEM except Nokia as a licensee, Google can maximize the potential of Android by providing a more open process for OEMs, and by treating PMPs, e-readers, and tablet device OEMs and the customers of these devices less backhandedly, either by making Google's apps available through alternative markets and direct download, or by making Android Market part of the Android Open Source Project, or otherwise available to OEMs outside of Google's inner circle.
Android has become the de facto "embedded Linux" for 32-bit systems-on-a-chip (SoCs). The fact this happened without Google's encouragement should not be taken as a guide to how to cultivate chip-maker, ODM, and OEM relationships.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Many of the comments here have been about whether Chrome OS has a market.
The answer may have more to do with form-factor than whether Android has already run away with the market.
Turning a browser-oriented OS into a touch OS isn't easy. Chrome is much more easily applicable to netbooks than tablets. Most Web sites are not designed for touch. Just making all of Google's Web sites and Web apps touch-friendly is a huge undertaking. For a netbook, you don't have to make the touch user experience as good as it is in Android.
Tablets are a middle ground: If the Chrome browser part of Chrome OS becomes more finger-friendly, maybe the answer is to make that browser an Android app - or find some other way of combining Android and ChromeOS, as many have suggested.
I wrote parts of this stuff
They gave that up when they switched to an Intel based design as too expensive to compete. Sure they have great design and their software works well but they haven't really come up with anything inovative in actual hardware in the last decade and No the iPhone does not qualify as it's based on existing Phone/PDA technology.
Where Apple has placed their Inovated Efforts though are in the UI and I have to agree they've done things there that "Just Work" and in regards to the iPad and Tablet elements, I think they've finally shown the others "How To Do It" and everyone will soon be following their lead in getting tablets and "PADDS" out to us as quickly as possible.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
People with iPads do the same thing. Personally I like those mobile MyFi type devices like Virgin Mobile sells. This way I can just purchase 3G access when I really need it and not have a data plan stuck on my phone.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
In the UK, you can buy an unlockable and Android 2.1-compatible PAYG phone for 100 GBP
Which make and model? And in case I have 154 USD to burn, where can I get one in the United States? I walked into a Best Buy mobile store a few days ago, and the only PAYG Android phone was about 400 USD (260 GBP).
Although the tablet is a bit (or terribly) unstable, Archos managed to get Android 1.6 on its Archos 5 Internet Tablet.
The major design decision of ChromeOS was to make it secure even when used casually. It's unfortunately hidden in the press releases and security documents of the ChromeOS project page. The idea is that you can lend or borrow a netbook and not have to worry about keyloggers getting installed or your friend later viewing your private data. To achieve this goal, Google requires a TPM chip installed on the netbook so that a user can easily tell that the OS is unmodified, and the OS is stateless (modulo careful caching). This design is what makes ChromeOS so difficult to reconcile with Android, which is a single-user OS for very personal devices.
I hope that ChromeOS becomes successful because I do care about securely sharing computers, but if not enough other people care about this use case (or even understand the security concerns), then I can see how it may fail in the market.
I'm pretty sure Google isn't pushing Android for tablets because they don't have a good plan for supporting resolutions that high.
or else!
Way to jump to conclusions. The new guy hasn't been in charge at Nokia 5 minutes and you are writing them off already? He only worked for MS 2.5 years, which is only a small part of his working life. Just wait and see what he actually does before judging him.