Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Why do the creators of these tech videos always add annoying music where silence or narration would be better?
http://blog.hexxeh.net/
Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
Suspected Terrorist
I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
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.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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.
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?
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).
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...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.
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."
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".
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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?
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