Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Adds Tablet UI Elements To Chrome OS Betas

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the sure-why-not dept.

Apparently current builds identify themselves as CrOS, elements have been giving more whitespace to ease finger based navigation, and an on-screen keyboard is now built in. This only adds further to the questions about the positioning of ChromeOS vs Android: developers probably don't want to work on both.

50 comments

  1. The real question by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will it be able to left-click on /. links?

    1. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

    2. Re:The real question by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Will it be able to left-click on /. links?

      Sure, you can click with your left hand or your right hand. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:The real question by delinear · · Score: 1

      And click on "Post Anonymously". Oh well, I guess it's keeping us honest :)

    4. Re:The real question by jijacob · · Score: 1

      I know this was a joke, but posting this from a CR-48 ChromeOS notebook, I can verify that you can, indeed, left and right click on the links.

    5. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they actually open up a new page? Because /.'s new broken javascript breaks that for me.

    6. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you using the classic discussion system? And if not, why would you expect anything to work at all?

    7. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up

  2. The More The Merrier! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

    Sure ChromeOS will force developers to either split their efforts or focus on just one, but this is a situation developers face everyday. We're always picking our platforms and targets.

    Google has some pretty smart people, and I'm sure they've got something up their sleeves. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up sharing common APIs between platforms so recompiling (perhaps with a bit of tweaking) using separate make files will let developers work on both platforms (as close to) simultaneously as possible.

    1. Re:The More The Merrier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programmers already have to split efforts between Android and Honeycomb; the future will add ChromeOS, Chrome, and GoogleTV. So yes, Google desperately needs a convergence plan.

    2. Re:The More The Merrier! by markkezner · · Score: 1

      From what I understand there's nothing to "compile" in ChromeOS in the traditional sense. The OS really only runs web apps and browser extensions.

      --
      Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
    3. Re:The More The Merrier! by Wiiboy1 · · Score: 2

      Programmers already have to split efforts between Android and Honeycomb; the future will add ChromeOS, Chrome, and GoogleTV. So yes, Google desperately needs a convergence plan.

      There's no difference between Chrome and Chrome OS, from a developer's perspective. And since all it runs are webapps, anything you write for Chrome or Chrome OS would also work fine on any other platform.

      There's really no need to consolidate the different projects (except Gingerbread/Honeycomb), although different Google people have said that Android and CrOS will be merged at some point.

    4. Re:The More The Merrier! by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      If you're not stealing market share from yourself, someone else is.

    5. Re:The More The Merrier! by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      It won't be hard to add Android libraries to ChromeOS for compatibility.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    6. Re:The More The Merrier! by chartreuse · · Score: 1

      There you have it — market share is theft!

    7. Re:The More The Merrier! by Lennie · · Score: 2

      The obvious answer is, if you develop for all these different platforms you are probably doing it wrong (unless you have a specialized app). You probably should just use HTML/CSS/JS and something like PhoneGap.

      I'm sure some kind of 'webapps' based on webtechnologies will be supported for ChromeOS. :-)

      That way you can also target the iPhone, iPad, HP WebOS and everything else with the same codebase.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    8. Re:The More The Merrier! by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      It's going to support Google's nacl technology, which is specially compiled x86 code (and with pinnacle in the future, cross platform llvm bitcode).

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    9. Re:The More The Merrier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there's no stated intention that Chrome OS will support NaCl at release, unlike Chrome proper.

      Also, minor app fragmentation for Chrome/ChromeOS already exists.

    10. Re:The More The Merrier! by sbrown123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google has some pretty smart people, and I'm sure they've got something up their sleeves.

      Not this time. ChromeOS was targeted at netbooks while they were the "next big thing" and Android was set to go for phones. ChromeOS never made it out the door and Android has expanded to tablets (the current "big thing"). ChromeOS is walking dead which will eventually get chopped.

    11. Re:The More The Merrier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can wipe that google jizz off your mouth. Chrome OS is HTML, there won't be any API sharing. Feel free to tell us how the future is actually web-pages.

    12. Re:The More The Merrier! by earls · · Score: 1

      So minor examples are irrelevant, apparently...

    13. Re:The More The Merrier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developers tried doing that for iPhone. What they learned was: users fucking hate web apps.

      I just looked at PhoneGap. Reminds me of Adobe AIR. Awful technology.

    14. Re:The More The Merrier! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I would buy a chrome book for a similar price to a net book.

      (trading a real OS for 100MB free data/month).

      The ability to buy day passes is kind of nice too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:The More The Merrier! by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Google has some pretty smart people, and I'm sure they've got something up their sleeves.

      I wouldn't count on that. Google has its share of flat out failures, some of which are kept on perennial life support for no good reason.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    16. Re:The More The Merrier! by sootman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Until everyone's Internet connection is as fast as the link between a CPU and its RAM, and until Web pages can be designed to take advantage of the most recent advances in GPUs, there will ALWAYS be the desire for the speed that native apps bring.

      I have absolutely no idea why Google is still going forward with the idea of Chrome OS. If they really think there's a market for an OS with no apps except a browser, they can always release a stripped down version of Android. Chrome OS was announced almost two years ago (July 2009) and if they could have shipped something quickly it might have been worthwhile (and for fuck's sake, how hard is it? I remember there was a browser-centric Linux distro over five years ago) but I can't think of a single reason for it to exist today. They might as well announce that they're going to build it on top of Hurd for all the good it'll do them.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    17. Re:The More The Merrier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitter much?

    18. Re:The More The Merrier! by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Coward much?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    19. Re:The More The Merrier! by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> Chrome OS was announced almost two years ago (July 2009) and if they could have shipped something quickly it might have been worthwhile (and for fuck's sake, how hard is it?[...])

      The reason is very simple: The iPad. They were probably ready to deploy sometime in 2010, but then the iPad was released and changed the game.

      >> [...]but I can't think of a single reason for it to exist today.

      Exactly. ChromeOS was announced back when the tech pundits claimed that the plain-ol' Web and netbooks were the future of computing. That is no longer the vision. The existence of ChromeOS has really no point at this time.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    20. Re:The More The Merrier! by shmlco · · Score: 2

      I think you have it backwards. Google is open when it suits their purposes. And when it suits their purposes, their "openness" will end.

      I think they're is going to get all of the tablet folk to commit to Android, then ship their own superior tablet based on Chrome, upon which they'll drop Android development like a hot potato, leaving all of the suckers gasping for air and wondering what the hell just happened.

      Don't forget Schmidt was on Apple's board, saw the iPhone, and then snuck out and developed Android.

      Being a Google Android partner is almost as safe as being a Microsoft "PlaysForSure" partner...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  3. "CrOS Touch" by slim · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary sort of misses the point about "current builds identifying themselves as CrOS".

    The pertinent bit of the article is:

    The browser now reports itself as "CrOS Touch" for sites that have specific touchscreen elements.

    ... meaning that a web site can know that it's dealing with a browser with a touch interface, and present a UI to suit.

    1. Re:"CrOS Touch" by Needlzor · · Score: 1

      It also means that with web applications that are adapted to touch screens, Honeycomb and ChromeOS might compete on the same field (to some extent). I'm not sure about Google's strategy here.

    2. Re:"CrOS Touch" by bonch · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Is Google trying to fragment its own platform or what? I thought Honeycomb was their touchscreen tablet OS. Does Google even have a plan?

    3. Re:"CrOS Touch" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reasonable plan I've always held to is to try several things and then use the one that works out best. Google is big enough that it can afford to "compete against itself" a little and see what works out.

    4. Re:"CrOS Touch" by bonch · · Score: 0

      That kind of Microsoft-like model hurts third-party development and confuses consumers. Google should be focused on making one thing that is the best, not hanging back to see which one just happens to work out.

    5. Re:"CrOS Touch" by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Is Google trying to fragment its own platform or what? I thought Honeycomb was their touchscreen tablet OS. Does Google even have a plan?

      More like hedging bets - remember that Google wants to sell ads and to put those ads everywhere. First in apps (whether it be Android, iOS, etc - free apps supported by AdMob sold ads), websites, and now in their cloud-based OS.

      If their Android tablet takes off, great. If their OS takes off, even better. If one fails, no big deal, they have fingers in the other pot as well and can sell ads any which way.

  4. developers don't want to work on both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they aren't. Chrome OS is just another 20% project that went nowhere. Like Google TV.

  5. WebOS vs. ChromeOS by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Speaking of which: does anybody who's in the know, know what major differences there are between WebOS and ChromeOS?

    Also, since this looks to be an otherwise quiet /. story, would this be an appropriate place to hash out the pronunciation of OS ("Oss" vs. "Oh-Ess"?), since the word's going to now be put in front of consumers? For people who say "Oh-Ess", did you pronounce MS-DOS as "EmmEssDeeOhEss"? DR-DOS "Doctor Doss"?

    Opinions on SQL (Sequel/EssQueElle) also welcomed.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh-Es, Em-Es Doss, Es-Qu-El

    2. Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Can we also settle, once and for all, to-may-toe vs. to-mah-toe, po-tay-toe vs. po-tah-toe, and a-pri-cot vs. ay-pri-cot?

      IMHO, a little inconsistency adds spice to life. I'm glad not everyone is like me (as is, most likely, the rest of the world).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    3. Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      I was really taken aback the first time I heard "GUID" pronounced as "goo-id".

      Some people seem to pronounce URL as "Earl". I though everybody said "You-Are-Elle". I guess there are also some that say "Yurl".

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Also, since this looks to be an otherwise quiet /. story, would this be an appropriate place to hash out the pronunciation of OS ("Oss" vs. "Oh-Ess"?)...

      "Oh-Ess". I use "Oss" for, well, OSS.
      EmEssDoss, but "Microsoft Office". Usually drop it altogether for "Windows $FOO"
      EssQueElle, but I've never used it.

    5. Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard to-may-toe/to-mah-toe as an expression but have never heard to-mah-toe for tomato by itself.

  6. Here's a link to a more detailed article. by milbournosphere · · Score: 3, Informative

    The CNET article that has much more detail: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20051228-264.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Crave&dlvrit=140907

  7. like being caught between a rocket & land mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better to take heed before that happens? the genuine native american elders rising bird of prey leadership initiative (teepeeleaks etchings) has suggestions on how to survive being attacked by 'friends', or other disguised motive rulers etc

  8. Android in ChromeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect some level of unification will occur. What's to stop them from pulling a QNX/RIM and letting you run Android apps in ChromeOS? I don't really see the need for both, but I don't think it will be as bad as all that. The browser will no doubt be very similar to Chrome in both Android and ChromeOS.

    1. Re:Android in ChromeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome OS and android are different teams, they might as well be different companies. They could bolt android app support onto Chrome OS (and GM could bolt a pickup bed onto the volt) but that's not the point of it.

  9. Middle Click FTW by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

    Who left-clicks on /. links? Do you reload the page for the comments?

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  10. Users love web apps. by meuhlavache · · Score: 1

    Developers tried doing that for iPhone. What they learned was: users fucking hate web apps.

    Google.com, Facebook.com, .... They are "web apps" !

    1. Re:Users love web apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and what do we primarily use on the phone for Facebook? Google services?

      I'll give you the answer: it's native apps.

      On Android, if the person is already browsing, they do GSearch through the browser (because it's a browsing assistant); otherwise, they access GSearch via widgets.

  11. Had Google, not HP, bought Palm... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    webos has shipping devices, an OS roadmap for a forthcoming tablet and a community. The App model is also similar - html frameworks supplemented by a native C API.

    Instead of pumping money into a stillborn platform, google should just focus on wooing pre3 and veer users with retrofitted chromeos services for webos. Cloud revenues...