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."

4 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well... by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone remind me, what is the point of ChromeOS after all? Because I can't see any.

    An actual OS can run a browser, and, in addition, any other program. Having an OS that's an one-trick pony seems to be useless to me here. For flight controllers, that can be good. For non-embedded computers, big or small, not so.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  2. Re:Too early to tell by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, Android is already shipping on netbooks. Granted they're referred to as smartbooks when they run a smartphone OS, but the device is basically a netbook that runs Android.

    I've never been terribly interested in netbooks and have generally viewed them as rubbish, but I'm genuinely interested in the AC100. I'd need to use one before deciding to buy it, but I view it as a better proposition than any netbook I've seen to date. The newest versions of Android have added a lot of polish and can really run well on hardware that's not overly powerful. I can see smartbooks being incredibly popular, especially if they stick with keeping the profile small.

    Android-based solutions are already here. ChromeOS isn't. Google should just axe the project and focus on making Android better for these types of devices rather than trying to have two different operating systems. Any other response just makes it appear as though they're well on the road to becoming more like Microsoft where projects are made in different small fiefdoms within the company and dick-waving contests between the kings result in crap products. Set a company goal and get the whole company behind it.

  3. iPad was created before iPhone by melted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Too early to tell by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Android-based solutions are already here. ChromeOS isn't. Google should just axe the project and focus on making Android better for these types of devices rather than trying to have two different operating systems.

    No, Android and ChromeOS are both optimized to run on very different hardware platforms. One is designed for low energy usage, passive cooling, no swap memory, and plenty of sensors. And the other is designed for high energy usage, active cooling, and plenty of swap memory space. Fundamentally, those two types of hardware profiles are very different.

    And unless one type of hardware profile completely replaces the other, and it hasn't yet, Google should continue supporting both types. And who cares if Chrome OS is not ready yet, Google is taking the longterm view on this. Take its 'Google Docs' for instance, it's not ready to challenge Microsoft Office head-on yet, and it may never be, but it's slowly improving and it's already miles ahead of any similar online Office features offered by Microsoft -- so it will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years. The same could be done with Chrome OS. Give it two years. Give it five years, or even ten years. Google can wait. Google can afford to wait. It just needs to keep its eyes on the ball.