Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously!

Thinkcloud writes "A user named Hexxeh has posted a video online of the iPad running Google's upcoming Chrome OS. Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state, but it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook. Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?"

Comments

Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the creators of these tech videos always add annoying music where silence or narration would be better?

go direct to the source luke

[m1ndrape]

http://blog.hexxeh.net/

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question:

[Pojut]

Flippin'....::slaps self::

Does it say if it runs better than the version of iOS that comes with the iPad?

Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis? That is exactly the level of openness Apple has consistently shown to be in their "playbook".

Seriously, the only thing that would make someone think this sensationalist hypothesis might be true is if one paid attention to previous sensationalist hypothesis but did not pay attention when they were proved completely wrong. Apple locks down their services and keeps a lot of their "secret sauce" code closed and is very secretive about it. Apple is secretive about upcoming projects. There are good business reasons for all of the above. Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[jschottm]

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers

The iPad is not a computer, it's a device. Apple has a much different attitude about their devices than their computers.

There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it.

You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[spottedkangaroo]

On the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone. It took new rules to allow unlocking, for instance. You might argue that the locking had more to do with contracts with ATT than anything else... Maybe you have a point here.

But ... How about Project Gutenberg? The Kama Sutra? I think Apple has rightfully earned their reputation as a nanny mothership. They may allow alternate OSes. We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[rjstanford]

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

Now does that sound like a sustainable business process to you?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

You read it that way, I read it as "hey, if you're going to install new firmware and then also install our firmware updater, we aren't responsible if it screws something up. I mean, we haven't even seen your code... how can we possibly know ahead of time if our updater won't wipe some important part of the memory of your homebrew firmware? Look, if you're going to modify the guts of your phone, it's all your responsibility if it fails. Don't come crying to us."

At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update? That'd be like installing OSX on a computer and then running a Win7 security update. It could do nothing, or it could wipe out the kernel.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Tim C]

There is a difference between "actively attempts to prevent" and "does not provide the means to".

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps, and you can even distribute them using the ad hoc distribution method. The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of. Complaining about this is like complaining that you can't walk into Best Buy and put your own software on their shelves without their approval. They're under no obligation to provide you with shelf space and payment at their registers.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

Many jail-breaking techniques rely on exploiting security holes. Closing them closes the jailbreak. Would you rather Apple not fix them?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[PopeRatzo]

The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

There's a lot of room between that "try anything funny and we'll brick your phone".

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

Refusing to provide storage and distribution is quite clearly [i]not[/i] the only thing that Apple do to try to limit this. As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone. Officially, this voids your licence agreement with Apple, and although to my knowledge they've never enforced this they regularly do as much as they can to the device to try to prevent jailbreaking. You can argue that Apple are within their rights to do this, and potentially even that this may be good for the average consumer, but to simply claim that it doesn't happen - that Apple do nothing to prevent you from putting your own apps on an iPhone beyond refusing to distribute - is plain wrong.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Fnkmaster]

Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here), AND they have refused to replace or service obviously broken hardware simply because the software was jailbroken or the phone unlocked and running on an unapproved carrier. Go to some of the iPhone forums, you'll read plenty of threads of users restoring their software to stock state so that they can bring a broken piece of hardware to the store to get serviced without being thrown out the door.

Admittedly, not all Apple employees are like this, and enforcement has been highly inconsistent. Plenty of reports out there of people who've had broken hardware replaced regardless of jailbreak or unlock status. But you can't deny the generally user-hostile attitude of Apple toward anybody who wants to modify, customize or change in any way their iPhone device they shelled out cold hard cash for.

But the general attitude completely unacceptable. I have walked away from iPhone as a platform after being an iPhone 2G and 3G owner, and would never touch it again. I am so much happier with my Nexus One, a phone that lets me do what I want and doesn't treat me like a criminal.

Companies that treat their users like criminals or slaves under the pretense of "sustainable business practices" (i.e. driving absurd amounts of profit - I don't think Apple has to worry about sustaining their business at this point) won't be getting my business. And their OCD insistence on uniformity of everything and insistence that their way is always the right way drives me nuts (remember how long they insisted that nobody needed a real API for applications on the iPhone? And how now apps are the primary draw of the platform? Idiots.).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Dog-Cow]

I'm a registered iOS developer, but even I have to agree with the principle of your parent post. Ad Hoc is a way to get betas out to testers before submitting your app to Apple. It is not a way to get your app to a random and/or unlimited number of users.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What about the encrypted firmware on iPods? Now you can't run Rockbox...

Yeah, they added a hardware hash to the database, but that doesn't actually stop you from installing a different OS on the device, you just have to give up using iTunes for it or break the encryption (potentially illegal depending upon jurisdiction).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

So your idea of an acceptable way of ad hoc distribution to potentially many thousands of people is to get every one of them to send you their device ID and to create a new version of your app every hundred users, making sure that you've sent the correct version of that app to each of the people that you've entered their device id for? You are joking right?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[ceoyoyo]

Which is basically what Apple does. The ONE incident where jailbroken phones were bricked involved not just a jailbreak but some extra "weird-ass system level shit" (as the GP put it), and Apple said ahead of time that the update might brick some jailbroken phones. If you a) updated and b) didn't bother to restore your phone to factory settings before you did, you kind of deserved it.

Oh, and by "brick" they meant "temporarily disable until you went into a store and we fixed it for you for free."

Re:Idiotic Summary

[lymond01]

No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

How is that not what they're saying? You buy the phone, jailbreak it, do whatever you want with it. It'll work like that for the foreseeable future. If you choose to "update" your phone with their OS again, of course it could stop your jailbreak from working since the jailbreak was written specifically for the previous OS. It's like writing an application for Ubuntu that works on a very specific kernel with very specific libraries, and then getting all butt hurt when your app binary doesn't work on the new kernel and new libraries.

I don't see the problem. Buy the phone, jailbreak it, put android on it, make it a flower pot. Just don't expect Apple's new code to work with your stuff.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),

Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.

Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices.
Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.

In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up.
Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.

http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

No. Useful being defined as being of practical use. Which your "solution" isn't.

Or read the developer agreement

Do you mean the bit that says "You may obtain development-related digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, that will allow Your Application to be installed and tested on Authorized Test Devices. You may also obtain, during the Term, one or more production digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, to be used for the sole purpose of signing Your Application(s) prior to submission of Your Application to Apple or limited distribution of Your Application for use on Registered Devices."?

Or how about in the bit that says "Applications developed under this Agreement may be distributed in two ways: (1) through the App Store, if selected by Apple, and (2) distribution for use on a limited number of Registered Devices"

For reference, "limited number of registered devices" refers to "Distribution on Registered Devices (Ad Hoc Distribution) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You may also distribute Your Applications to individuals within Your company, organization, educational institution, group, or who are otherwise affiliated with You "

And "No Other Distribution Authorized Under this Agreement Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and the distribution of Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You agree not to distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so."

Do you want to read those statements and see whether you can spot anywhere that Apple might be doing something to limit your distribution of apps outside the App Store? If I want to develp an app and make it available to the general public to download outside the App Store, do you think the above licence allows me to do that?

I'm not sure why I need to jump through hoops to be convincing to someone who refuses to even read the basic information that I point him to

Maybe you might want to read it before providing it as evidence.

I can provide Steve Jobs himself saying you can do it

Please feel free. I always find it amusing when people provide links to articles that directly contradict their own claims (that "The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of", in case you've lost track).

Again, I want to make it clear - I'm not saying that Apple is necessarily wrong for doing this. But they do it. Unless you want to breach Apple's terms of use, you are tightly restricted in your right to distribute apps.

I Don't Get Chrome OS

[cob666]

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[Nutria]

there's plenty of environments where internet connectivity is a given.

And there's plenty of shit that "happens": from small stuff like a broken router or cable modem or check that got lost in the mail, to big stuff like a back hoe accidentally cutting a cable.

Wait? What?

[Mr_Silver]

Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

A dual booting iPad with Chrome OS would essentially give you ... a second browser.

I'm not sure what there is to get excited about. The iPad one is pretty damn good, also uses WebKit and you get a bunch of other functionality thrown in for free - some of which is rather useful - without having to be permanently connected to the internet.

In response to a probably screwy summery

[koterica]

Didn't read TFA- but the summery is worth responding to in its own right.

Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

Apple isn't going for cutting edge as much as they are going for reliable. iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product, they want it to work, quickly and beautifully, out of the box.
In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

Re:The end is near...

[ByOhTek]

They are iPad owners.

Their souls have long since been eaten and shat out.

Not in Apple's playbook?

[erroneus]

Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows." What's more, they encourage dual booting with their bootcamp.

Now while it would be unexpected for Apple to endorse alternate OSes for iPad, it's not fair to say it's not in their playbook. This would be especially true if, for some reason, Win7 based tablets began to catch on. (I seriously doubt they will, but still!)

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[Darkness404]

But the iPad is not a true computer. Its not like their Macs but instead just a device like an iPod or Apple TV. You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad? There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume. Masquerading the iPad as a full computer helps them in their aims and that is to have people locked-in just like Microsoft does. There is a reason why you can't just hook an iPhone up to a computer and use it as a mass storage device like 99.999% of similarly capable phones, there is a reason why iP(o/a)ds can't play many standard, open codecs, there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking. Apple wants people to install iTunes, use iTunes, buy things from the iTunes/App stores, and Apple makes a boatload off of things that they normally couldn't get a cut off of.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[Theaetetus]

You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad?

Technically, what they said was "if you replace the firmware on your phone and then be an idiot and install our firmware updater which assumes certain files are in certain places, then don't come crying to us if it doesn't work."

There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume.

Or it could be that a "full operating system" doesn't really work well with a touch-based UI.

there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking.

Google "ad hoc distribution". What you meant was "there are reasons why Apple refuses to waste storage and bandwidth costs in their store for apps that they don't want to host."

end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[atchijov]

Unless there is some "OMG I Absolutely Have To Have This" Application which is avilable only on Chrome OS, 99.999% of iPad users will see no reason to even think about it. Lets face if, MS Windows had some horrible usability problems and still most of the people never bother to look around for something better. And in case of iOS vs. Chrome - at best we have toss up.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[Darkness404]

An end-user will care when there are applications which Apple rejects that they can't find. A lot of my friends who were going to get the iPhone chose an Android device simply because Apple doesn't let you have emulators on their phones. While I myself think ChromeOS is a downgrade even for the pathetic excuse for an OS that is iOS, if it has apps that people want and can't get through Apple, it will have a fanbase.

Just wondering...

[ChaoticCoyote]

Why is Chrome OS considered "cutting edge"?

Re:Just wondering...

[slim]

Indeed, in terms of user experience it is a world of difference between the cirppled Google Docs word-processor interface and what OpenOffice Write can offer.

I hate webapps of today. They offer half of the functionality of real applications and the only "features" they have is that you have your data in an external server.

I think that's a fair statement. If you're using the advanced features of a local word processor, the current crop of web apps probably don't have them. As it happens, I have no use for those advanced features -- in fact they'd probably clutter up the UI without offering me anything I need -- but that's fine, different people have different needs.

I have Word and Excel installed on my laptop, but for personal use I prefer Google Docs word processor and spreadsheet. The features that are missing are features I don't need. I really value the ease with which you can share documents with others, and access the same document from multiple computers (my work PC, my home Mac, my phone, a friend's PC, a cybercafe).

But again, your needs are different to mine. Both kinds of app will continue to exist for some time to come.

Having said that, more feature-rich web apps will emerge. There will be competition, and consumers will demand more features. At the same time, browsers and network connections will get faster, UI libraries will get cleverer. I'm not sure how long it will take, but I suspect that in time Web apps will get as feature-rich as you want.

Re:The end is near...

[jgagnon]

Are you implying Chrome OS eats shit? :p

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[Slash.Poop]

You fluffers crack me up!

Yea, cause printing is something you would never want to do from a computer. We should inform Apple that way they don't implement it in 4.2. They seem to be working on it for nothing.

Although you are right. A "feature" (LMAO at printing being a "feature") does fit into the "infrequently-used" category when it is not even present.

Dual boot

[tepples]

This is like saying you hackintoshed a Dell to put OSX on it, but still want access to Windows System Updates.

Of course someone who installs a dual boot between Windows 7 and Mac OS X will want updates for Windows 7. That's all the Homebrew Channel on Wii is: a dual boot environment. If Microsoft denied updates to Windows 7 users who have multiple operating systems installed, several countries' competition regulators would step in.

mod parent up

[sosume]

Parent is pointing to the original author's blog, no idea why this is moderated as troll ..

Re:What's to love?

[ceoyoyo]

1) iOS has a file manager. Complete with rm, cp, mv etc.

2) iOS can run whatever you want. It just has to be compiled for ARM. If you want a GUI, it has to use the included GUI toolkit, or OpenGL.

3) Has nothing to do with the OS.

4) Sure you can. ps is there, as is top, etc.

Your problem is that Apple doesn't want you to (trivially) access any of these things. That doesn't mean that iOS doesn't have them. They're easily available if you jailbreak. And you're going to have to do more than jailbreak to run Chrome.