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."
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.
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
With Chrome, you can focus all your attention on ads without being distracted with other software.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
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.
Android was designed from the beginning to fight with guys like RIM and Microsoft, and to a lesser extent, Palm.
I don't know which "beginning" you are referring to, but Android was released on the market to compete against what was at the time iPhone OS.
iOS on the other hand, was inteded for a tablet style device.
No, it was iPhone OS before it was iOS.
Also, with the advanced operating systems today, such as iOS and Android, it doesn't matter what their original release device or the intended device was. They are both equally flexible enough to be adjusted to and support multiple different resolutions, architectures, and other hardware.
What makes more sense is that Android started gaining traction at a much higher rate than Google initially anticipated. So, Android may be stepping into Chrome OS territory with tablets. However, Google still wants to give Chrome OS a legitimate shot. Maybe they think they can repeat what they did with Android. I think it's going to be hard.
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.
No, internally from the ground up it started as an unreleased Tablet OS
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-at-d-iphone-os-started-on-a-tablet/
Jobs was just never happy with battery performance and other tablet problems... Then they figured out that they could start out even smaller with a phone and do a good job...
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
iOS on the other hand, was inteded for a tablet style device.
No, it was iPhone OS before it was iOS.
If you dig a little further, you will learn that the iPad came first in Apple's R&D pipeline. They had to wait for some reason, and so they made the iPhone in the interim. If you've used the iOS SDK, it becomes pretty clear that it is not something that Apple just shoved out the door in 12 or 18 months or whatever it was. It's obvious that it had already had years of effort put into it. Perhaps the SDK was indeed intended only for iPad, and they rushed it out for iPhone due to popular demand, or perhaps it was a parallel effort. But it's not something Apple just cobbled together and shoved out the door and later updated to work with iPad. iOS was built for a tablet device from the beginning, IMO.
Also, with the advanced operating systems today, such as iOS and Android, it doesn't matter what their original release device or the intended device was. They are both equally flexible enough to be adjusted to and support multiple different resolutions, architectures, and other hardware.
The wildcard here is device and OS compatibility, which Apple obviously had thought through pretty well. While Android seems to just march forward ignoring it, creating a challenge for app developers. I don't have an Android device, but it is my understanding that it needs to be a phone to use their app marketplace, e.g. I'm not an Android dev, either, but from the sidelines, it looks like they just keep making things tougher for devs as time goes on. Not as bad as Rim or others, but not nearly as nice as iOS. My money is on the fact that the next revision of iPad will work with 99.999% of the apps out there. I'm not sure you could say the same for an Android tablet. Correct me if I'm wrong...
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
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.
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.