Slashdot Mirror


Google Releases Chrome For Android Beta

An anonymous reader writes "Today Google announced the availability of a beta version of its Chrome browser for Android. Unfortunately, it's limited to Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) devices. Google is trying to keep Chrome fast and easy to use, and part of that involved redesigning tabs so they work more naturally with touchscreens. 'You can flip or swipe between an unlimited number of tabs using intuitive gestures, as if you're holding a deck of cards in the palm of your hands, each one a new window to the web.' They've also including synchronization functionality that allows you to move from desktop browsing to phone or tablet browsing and pick up right where you left off."

101 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Didn't Android *always* have Chrome?

    When Google first announced Android, they stated it's web browser was based on WebKit with the V8 JavaScript engine, just like Chrome on the Desktop.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
    1. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by jonnythan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Safari is WebKit based.

      Is Safari Chrome?

      A browser is a lot more than an HTML and Javascript engine.

    2. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. It has (had) a simple browser based on the Webkit API.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by avirrey · · Score: 1

      You used two key segments there, "based on" and "just like" which not equal to "equal to".

      --
      X's and O's for all my foes.

    4. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, the stock Android browser has never been Chrome. It has a completely different WebKit port, developed independently by a different group, with far worse support for newer web standards; is single-process; has a completely different UI stack (e.g. no omnibox); and doesn't have the same level of data syncing support.

      The stock Android browser could be called "Chrome" only to the same degree that Safari could be called Chrome.

    5. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

      Chrome = WebKit + V8
      Safari = WebKit + SunSpider
      Konqueror = WebKit + KJS

      So, no... Safari is not Chrome.
      However, do you care to explain what else is necessary to make something a browser besides some UI bits?

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    6. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Religious fanaticism. All the browsers have it.

    7. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by robmv · · Score: 2

      The same sandboxing for a start, Android Webkit is a plain and simple port of Webkit, Chrome is more than that

    8. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The same sandboxing for a start, Android Webkit is a plain and simple port of Webkit, Chrome is more than that

      Unfortunately, Chrome for Android doesn't have sandboxing. Yet.

    9. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by afidel · · Score: 1, Informative

      It also lacks extension support. I can't wait till the Android browser syncs my Chrome bookmarks, passwords, history, and extensions. That will make for a lot less typing on the phone and I can drop the stupid GBookmark app which only exists because Google can't integrate their own services.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by tysonedwards · · Score: 1, Informative

      with far worse support for newer web standards

      Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.

      is single-process

      Chrome for Android also is single-process.

      has a completely different UI stack

      Different platforms *have* different UI stacks... As does Chrome for Android in comparison to Android as well as Chrome for Windows, Mac and Linux as stated in TFA.

      doesn't have the same level of data syncing support.

      Yes, this seems to be the only *real* distinction between Chrome and Android's Web Browser.

      The stock Android browser could be called "Chrome" only to the same degree that Safari could be called Chrome.

      Chrome and Safari are pretty different, as they are WebKit + very different stuff.
      Chrome and Android's web browser are both WebKit + V8, in which there was a fork from Chromium at Version 4, as outlined in the Google Android Commit Logs. Seems more as though Android's web browser has always been Chrome, with modifications to support mobile devices, from what was at the time a Current Chromium version (read: Chrome). Seems as though Google has simply made a more up-to-date build of their web browser available.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    11. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      The most common feature. The most boring feature.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    12. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by wootest · · Score: 1

      "SunSpider" is a JavaScript benchmark. Safari's JavaScript engine is called Nitro (formerly SquirrelFish).

    13. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by Calos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.

      That 100 isn't the whole story, if the rendering isn't also correct.

      Acid3 is also a cherry-picked group of tests, some of which are still drafts, some of which have no real use in standard practice.

      AND... most importantly, here - it doesn't test HTML 5. That's one of the big things Google is pushing with Chrome for Android, hardware-accelerated HTML 5 rendering and support.

      (This could be related to the ICS requirement - GPU acceleration of UI elements)

      Chrome for Android also is single-process.

      Do you have a source? TFA says otherwise, official docs say otherwise.

      Yes, this seems to be the only *real* distinction between Chrome and Android's Web Browser.

      Clearly you're ignorant on the subject, so please don't take offense if I continue to ignore your claims.

      Now, I don't have an exhaustive list... But there are the things mentioned above, addition of the Omnibox, better developer tools, Incognito Mode, pre-loading and rendering pages as an option for don't/wifi only/always, no limit for number of tabs to have open, hardware accelerated rendering, redesigned UI that seems to be both better and more consistent with the desktop platform... Sandboxing isn't there yet, though they claim to be working on it.

      Chrome and Android's web browser are both WebKit + V8, in which there was a fork from Chromium at Version 4, as outlined in the Google Android Commit Logs. Seems more as though Android's web browser has always been Chrome, with modifications to support mobile devices, from what was at the time a Current Chromium version (read: Chrome). Seems as though Google has simply made a more up-to-date build of their web browser available.

      Chrome 4 was ages ago. At the time, sure, maybe the Android browser was Chrome 4 + enhancements for mobile devices - really don't care to go research the state of Chrome 4 and what Android Browser had then and what has been added since. But how well has the Android stock browser kept up with Chrome development?

      There's some obvious, fundamental differences to how the two versions worked. They apparently was a fair amount of neutering done to make it work on the phone quickly and easily, or it was from such an early Chrome build that a lot of the features associated with Chrome weren't present yet.

      That's a big part of this. They're working to keep both versions working off the same codebase. This will keep the Android browser more current going forward.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    14. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by jsh1972 · · Score: 2

      As soon as I saw this article, I downloaded it on my touchpad running cm9 ICS alpha, as soon as I opened it and signed in on the welcome page, all my open tabs on the computer opened on my tablet. This is awesome!

    15. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It may not be, but I have to tell you that I was extremely impressed by it this week. I went to nj.com for the New Jersey Star-Ledger's list of Super Bowl Commercials. They had a list with YouTube links with a little commentary on each one. I loaded it on my Android tablet (Asus Transformer I) and we were watching the commercials full screen. Later, we tried to pull it up on the PS3 and it kept giving us an out-of-memory error.

      Now, granted, on the tablet, we would have to restart the browser after about every 7-8 videos. But the real shocker was when we went up to my server to watch (4 CPUs, 16GB RAM) and we actually had to wait over 30 seconds to watch the first video on Chrome. I was amazed that when my beefy server was struggling this much to show the YouTube preview windows that the tablet had done so well.

      So, already it's no toy browser, making me wonder what Chrome for Android really brings to the table.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Hi, I'm looking for a browser with a comfy chair theme, and maybe some extra pillows? It should also go ZING! when it loads a page...

    17. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then you're doing it wrong - Android browser already syncs Chrome bookmarks...

    18. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Those "UI bits" are the important part. Besides "the UI bits" Safari and Chrome are identical except for Javascript engines.

      The UI, memory management, bookmarks, syncing, tab/window handling, password management, addon management, APIs, etc, are all other critical parts of a browser that aren't included in "rendering engine or javascript engine."

    19. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Really? How? I don't think there would be a half dozen apps for syncing Chrome bookmarks to Android devices if it was native functionality and I sure as heck don't see any results on the first five pages of a google search for "chrome bookmark sync Android" that involve native tools or options....

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      I know a woman who does all of that (lots of upholstery too). Will she do ?

    21. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Konqueror = WebKit + KJS However, do you care to explain what else is necessary to make something a browser besides some UI bits?

      Actually, Konqueror is KHTML. Rekonq is Webkit.

    22. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by gencha · · Score: 1

      Compile WebKit and V8 and find out for yourself :)

    23. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      It does have incognito tabs :)

    24. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Chrome = WebKit + V8

      So any browser using webkit and v8 is Chrome?

      Safari = WebKit + SunSpider

      No, SunSpider is a benchmark.

      Konqueror = WebKit + KJS

      No, Konqueror is KHTML, not WebKit.

      However, do you care to explain what else is necessary to make something a browser besides some UI bits?

      Networking, UI, Storage, Plug-in Engine (inc. scripting), etc...

    25. Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.

      Well that must mean it's 100% standards compliant then!

  2. Occupy Fragmentation by Superken7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Android users who are able to run Chrome Beta (that is, who are running ICS) are literally the 1%, according to Google's platform pie charts:
    http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

    I prefer that they exploit the full power of their latest and greatest, but it's sad that only a mere 1% can access the latest and greatest :( (as of today, I'm sure this will change very quickly)

    1. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by dmesg0 · · Score: 2

      It's only beta. If it is the typical Google beta, ICS will be obsolete by the time Chrome is out of beta.

    2. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      Most people will be able to run it within 2 years. This is enough time for a few early adopters to help with bug detection.

      I say 2 years because most people end up stuck with phones the carrier doesn't waste development effort working on OS upgrades for - of course they'd rather people bought a new phone than be able to keep the one they already own current. I'm sure they felt it could be ICS only for simplicity's sake, and the problem would fix itself.

    3. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's sad that only a mere 1% can access the latest and greatest

      That 1% earned it. Are you some kind of communist?

    4. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by hpoul · · Score: 2

      well.. it would be really great if that 1% could access it.. i have android 4.0.3, but i live in austria, so i'm still out of luck.. https://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2393487&p=market_countries

      --
      Find me at http://herbert.poul.at
    5. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by icebike · · Score: 1

      It's only beta. If it is the typical Google beta, ICS will be obsolete by the time Chrome is out of beta.

      On the other hand a Google Beta is usually better than anyone else's Release 7.2.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      It's significantly less than 1% right now.

      Firstly as has been pointed out elsewhere, the beta is only available in a restricted set of countries right now.

      Secondly the beta doesn't currently support devices with MIPS CPUs, which counts out several low-cost Android tablets.

    7. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Android users who are able to run Chrome Beta (that is, who are running ICS) are literally the 1%, according to Google's platform pie charts:

      "Google's Android Update Alliance Is Already Dead". Doesn't look like that 1% segment is going to expand all that fast either.

      I'd been thinking about buy a Sprint Marquee, but LG's being quite squirrelly about whether it will ever get an upgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich.

    8. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by Sark666 · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, what does it need in ICS that is not in honeycomb? there are quite a few honeycomb tablets out there.

    9. Re:Occupy Fragmentation by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      But those stats don't count those who are running ICS unofficially are they? (Not being smart, I'm actually curious)

      There's a lot of people running oscomic, CM9, and other AOSP builds on devices that don't have ICS.. such as me with my galaxy s gt-i9000

  3. Beta by mitoyarzun · · Score: 1

    Google should stop putting "beta" to their products, it's like we're going to see a 'final' version in the future.

    1. Re:Beta by Daniel_is_Legnd · · Score: 1

      Since this is limited to 4.0 devices I think the beta tag is appropriate. I'm sure they will port it to earlier versions and eventually remove the beta.

    2. Re:Beta by mitoyarzun · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I don't think that beta applies... or at least remove it sooner. Remember Gmail Beta?

    3. Re:Beta by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Is there an extensive history of android apps written for version X being ported back to version X?

    4. Re:Beta by idontgno · · Score: 1

      That's the amazing part of this story that no one seems to be picking up on.

      Google actually produced a beta which, by intent or accident, seems to actually be restricted to a beta-sized community, and not their entire customer base.

      It's unprecedented, and if they follow through by removing the "beta" tag before making the browser widely available, it'll be the Singularity!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:Beta by Kenja · · Score: 1

      The many Lords of the parthenon forbid that Google actually uses the term "beta" correctly unlike 99% of the software companies out there. Beta does not simply mean "pre-release".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Beta by SJHillman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just like Gmail, Google+ and a host of other Google services started out limited to a very small group... and then they expanded the beta to their entire user base later on.

    7. Re:Beta by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The many Lords of the parthenon forbid that Google actually uses the term "beta" correctly unlike 99% of the software companies out there. Beta does not simply mean "pre-release".

      "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Beta by Calos · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, it has more to do with the GPU-accelerated GUI and HTML5 rendering.

      They could neuter it and backport it... maybe they will... but I'd guess they'll opt to leave Browser as "good enough" for those devices.

      This really does behave like a browser, after all - not all features you expect from Chrome are implemented, there are some reports of crashes, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like it's prime-time Browser-replacing material yet.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  4. Shortsighted much? by teh31337one · · Score: 2, Informative

    They're not looking at who can run it today, but who will be able to run it in the future.

    On a side note, I think it's a good thing that the app is not part of the core OS, (like Gmail was removed from the core OS a few versions ago) and can as such be updated separately.

    1. Re:Shortsighted much? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually given the number of apps which consume the browser component I think it SHOULD be part of the base OS and should also be updated regularly.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Shortsighted much? by afidel · · Score: 1

      I was thinking they could allow the browser component to be updated outside the rest of the OS just like they did for Google Maps.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Shortsighted much? by teh31337one · · Score: 2

      That's exactly what they're going to do... Chrome will be a part of GAPPs, and will get regular updates. Because of some of the advanced features, they had to decide to make it for Android 4.x+ only.

    4. Re:Shortsighted much? by teh31337one · · Score: 2

      By part of the core OS I meant the open source portion of android, not GAPPs. Chrome is a part of the GAPPs package (maps, gmail etc)

    5. Re:Shortsighted much? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that means if you're developing for Android (not Android with Google) you can't assume the browser component will be available in the future, that kind of blows. I wonder if that means some third party Webkit library will become popular for developers who want to get their apps on things like the Kindle Fire and the Nook Tablet but still need a browser component?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Shortsighted much? by teh31337one · · Score: 1

      There's the android browser named "browser" (and the ICS version is pretty decent) that'll possibly/probably still be available. Besides, nook/kindle use their own browsers anyway.

      They'll roll chrome in GAPPS and merge nice stuff from"browser" into it in time for the J release of android methinks.

  5. Re:Where is the Source Code? by Kenja · · Score: 2

    http://www.webkit.org/coding/bsd-license.html

    Really nothing more to say...

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  6. Re:Where is the Source Code? by jggimi · · Score: 1

    Is the LGPL really this weak...?

    The LGPL license permits proprietary code to be linked with licensed libraries. The resulting program can be distrubuted under any terms unless it is derivative work. I cite Wikipedia so feel free to change it if you disagree with it. :)

  7. The WebOS card metaphor lives on. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    Now implement synergy, native cards for multitasking, unobtrusive notifications, and a gesture area with intuitive, consistent gestures throughout the OS and all applications.

  8. Re:'You can flip or swipe...' by merky1 · · Score: 2

    More like a merge of the Palm WebOS UI with Chrome. If it is the same, It's actually pretty cool and not just pretentious BS advertising.

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  9. CM9 + Chrome Beta = Zoom to the Future! by rafial · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've put this on my Galaxy Tab 10.1, which I recently updated to a developer release of CyanogenMod9 (The forthcoming ICS based Cyanogen). It really is nice. I can load up the full desktop version of Google+, which only sorta-kinda worked under the standard ICS browsers, and sorta-kinda worked differently under Firefox mobile, and it works 100%, no compromises. And doesn't feel much slower than my desktop either. That's great! The only annoyance is that it does seem to identify itself as a mobile browser, and I haven't yet found an option to change the user agent. No problem for sites like Wikipedia or G+ that give you a link to escape their mobile versions, but could be annoying elsewhere, since so many mobile sites are terrible. Surprising overside, since the stock browser in ICS includes an option to "request desktop site".

    1. Re:CM9 + Chrome Beta = Zoom to the Future! by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing what I loved on ICS browser was in Menu > Request desktop version. As tapping it and you got always a full site instead question of mobile version or automatically a mobile version.

      CyanogeMod is great modification of Android, but they really should primarily offer a vanilla version first and THEN separated packages for modifications like root, CM7 power widgets, CM7 theme and own custom apps.

  10. Re:Where is the Source Code? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    http://www.webkit.org/coding/lgpl-license.html

    Really nothing more to say...

  11. Re:My Phone Works by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    Good for you? I don't think Google cares a whole hell of a lot.

  12. Doesn't support *all* ICS devices... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it's not an official ROM, don't expect support. Running EncounterICS Beta 3 on a Droid X here. And like other users of unofficial ICS ROMs, it doesn't work. For me, the problem is that all web pages are blank. Being that us bleeding edge custom ROM users are used to being bug testers, this is good for the beta and hopefully will be fixed soon.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:Doesn't support *all* ICS devices... by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      It's hit or miss, I guess... typing this on it on my HP touch pad w/cm9

    2. Re:Doesn't support *all* ICS devices... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Obviously it isn't consistent, but it works fine on my G2 running Andromadus.

    3. Re:Doesn't support *all* ICS devices... by bdclary · · Score: 1

      I'm late to the party with this, but I think the reason it won't work on your Droid X is because you aren't running full ICS, and Chrome for Android requires the hardware acceleration feature provided by ICS. Yes, you have an ICS ROM, but unfortunately, the boot loader on the DX is locked, so you're not running an ICS kernel (and able to take advantage of the hardware acceleration feature). And that locked boot loader is why my next phone will be a Nexus.

  13. Oh come on! by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    My phone is still stuck on android 2.3 -.-
    4 is god knows how far away.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Oh come on! by na1led · · Score: 2

      Put ICS on it. I have the original Galaxy S (US Cellular Mesmerize) that only had 2.3, but I found ICS on Rootzwiki and it works great.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    2. Re:Oh come on! by FrigBot · · Score: 1

      Well I'll get modded to hell for this, but can you briefly explain how to install ICS on your phone? I have a Galaxy S2. Thanks.

      I feel bad for asking.

    3. Re:Oh come on! by na1led · · Score: 1

      Go to Rootzwiki.com, go to the Forum section and look for your Phone in the list. There should be a Development thread and in their you should find guides on installing ICS. May have to do a little reading, but well worth it.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  14. Re:great start but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What is this stupid obsession with Flash? Do you know that even Adobe has dropped all support and future plans for Flash on mobile devices?

  15. Firefox mobile? by slyrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Firefox has been doing this for a while. It is one of the primary reasons I use it since there is great synchronization of bookmarks along with it being a great mobile browser. I'm surprised it has taken chrome this long to do it and I'm also surprised it is only good for the newest version of android. I'll stick with Firefox mobile for now until the chrome works in 2.2 or 2.3.

    1. Re:Firefox mobile? by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      Hopefully Firefox mobile will get good enough that by then you wont want to switch ;-)

      And I'm saying that because if we lose diversity on mobile the web will become very locked in again hehe.

    2. Re:Firefox mobile? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They did bookmark sync between Chrome and Android browser some time ago, so sync is not all there is to it.

    3. Re:Firefox mobile? by slyrat · · Score: 1

      They did bookmark sync between Chrome and Android browser some time ago, so sync is not all there is to it.

      Ah, that is good to know. The sync wasn't the only reason I used it on mobile. The easy tab switching along with some of the plug ins have made it a bit nicer than the stock android browser.

  16. Re:great start but by ZiggieTheGreat · · Score: 5, Informative

    When the websites I routinely visit stop posting content in Flash, I won't want it on my mobile devices anymore.

    Until then, I either put flash on my android phone, or email myself a link to check out the site when I'm near a desktop computer.

  17. Tax 'em by Skapare · · Score: 2

    Tax those 1%-ers. Make 'em send in 30% of the bits.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  18. Re:My Phone Works by Skapare · · Score: 1

    Beta is for when they want others to test it. That means they know it has bugs. Only those that want to help find the bugs should apply. Obviously this is not your cup of tea.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  19. Re:Works on Nexus S by Skapare · · Score: 1

    I don't care about Flash. I just want WebM+VP8 everywhere.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  20. Re:My Phone Works by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    I wish I could mod this up as interesting or incitful... "I try to avoid unstable and poorly functional software in general.": I agree, and I also like to avoid pooping before I brush my teeth.

  21. Re:'You can flip or swipe...' by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    Well until Apple comes out with it as their next big thing, it's pretentious BS advertising. I can say this with certitude and without sounding pretentious at all.

  22. No proxy support by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    If you want to try that, be aware that it doesn't support HTTP proxying. Kind of an epic fail on Google's behalf, given that they have just added system-wide proxy setting in ICS after several years of users complaining about the lack of this.

  23. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

    Well its one thing when the iPhone 4S has the same amount of memory as all the other iPhones.

    All ICS devices have at least 1 gigabyte of ram or more - most older android phones only have 512 megs - it makes a big difference.

  24. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it's pretty buggy and definitely a beta so I wouldn't complain too much for not getting it.

  25. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Nexus S (which has ICS) and the Nexus S 4G (which soon will be getting it) only have 512Mb of memory and strangely enough...ICS runs great on it.

  26. Re:Where is the Source Code? by Torne · · Score: 1

    The source is linked to from the Chrome for Android developer FAQ; see http://code.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/faq.html

    The actual tarball is at http://chromium-browser-source.commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chrome_android.v0.16.4130.199.tgz and contains ordinary, buildable source code, not binaries.

  27. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by errandum · · Score: 2

    For a start, most (if not all) ICS phones guarantee some kind of spec pre-requisite, (512mb of ram, non-crappy cpu and gup, internal memory space) that I suppose will help delivering a good experience.

    And second, and most importantly, every version of Android adds new features and ways to access them, who are you to say that chrome doesn't need them? If it turns out it doesn't, I'm quite sure an APK will turn out somewhere.

    And you forget that google doesn't profit from android directly. There were no licencing fees, or even need by google to push ICS anywhere. Google gains nothing by limiting chrome to ICS... ... Unlike Apple that limited Siri to the iPhone 4S simply because they wanted to sell more phones. Siri's heavy lifting is not done on the phone and the old iPhone 4 was more than capable of playing the part. Actually, if you look at the iPhone 4S, 99% of the people buying it had no real need for it and I doubt that without Siri and all the marketing surrounding it Apple would have sold half the phones they did.

  28. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by jrumney · · Score: 2

    Conversely, the Galaxy S2 has 1GB of RAM when running 2.3.2, and I didn't notice it increase when I installed ICS.

  29. GPU-accelerated AVC by tepples · · Score: 1

    I was amazed that when my beefy server was struggling this much to show the YouTube preview windows that the tablet had done so well.

    It could be the case that the server didn't have a video card supporting AVC and thus had to decode AVC on a CPU core, while the DSP in the tablet supported AVC.

  30. Most people, 2 years, how exactly? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Most people will be able to run it within 2 years.

    Only if carriers were to stop selling Gingerbread (2.3) phones today. Otherwise, someone who buys a Gingerbread phone two weeks from today will still be under contract two years from today. Do you remember how long it took after the release of Eclair (2.1) it took for carriers to stop selling phones running Donut (1.6)?

  31. Flash would be easier on the cap by tepples · · Score: 1

    Vimeo videos also eat into your monthly data cap ten times faster than Flash vector animations. Compare the byte size of Weebl and Bob in SWF format on Weebl's web site to the byte size of Weebl and Bob in AVC or VP8 on YouTube.

  32. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by Rich0 · · Score: 2

    ICS works great on the G2 with only 512MB - I'd say it is peppier than Gingerbread was. Now if only they either had a stable driver API or actually kept their drivers up-to-date or open-source...

  33. Re:great start but by giorgist · · Score: 1

    I downloaded it to try it out, and straight away I could not view part of a website I did not realise had flash.
    Its not an obsessions, I may not even like flash ... I need it to traverse the internet

  34. Or until you update your phone by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    When the websites I routinely visit stop posting content in Flash, I won't want it on my mobile devices anymore.

    Which should be shortly since Chrome on Android will not support Flash either.

    With no mobile platform supporting Flash it makes a ton more sense to simply drop Flash everywhere and focus on HTML5 support, even for desktop use.

    As it is there is pretty much nothing I have missed Flash for on an iPad. And I've greatly enjoyed the far longer battery life I get as a result.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Or until you update your phone by Curupira · · Score: 1

      Which should be shortly since Chrome on Android will not support Flash either.

      Citation, please?

    2. Re:Or until you update your phone by Curupira · · Score: 1

      Which should be shortly since Chrome on Android will not support Flash either.

      I didn't know that, and you unfortunately didn't provide a citation, but I think I've found the relevant news piece. Thanks for bringing that up.

      Excuse me for a moment while I do the victory dance. Good riddance, Flash!

  35. Mobile browswer support? by myurbanswagga · · Score: 1

    is it going to give proper mobile browser support ??

  36. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by d4fseeker · · Score: 1

    I have a GalaxyS with Cyanogenmod 9 Alpha (ICS 4.0.3)
    ICS and Chrome Beta run fine on it. Altough I have to admit i'd be overally happy with more RAM =)

  37. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by CaseCrash · · Score: 1

    Actually there was a slashdot story just recently that said it was the abilities of the A5 chip that allowed Siri to work and that the older A4 chips couldn't handle the load. Don't know if that turned out to be bullshit, just saying.

    --
    No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
  38. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by errandum · · Score: 1

    Well, Siri works on the iPhone 4, you only need a 4S id to be granted access to the servers, so you remember it wrong (:

  39. Compared to "Browser" by Antarell · · Score: 1

    It's crap. Well on my ICS tablet at least. The performance compared to the built it browser is crap, the no desktop mode makes it even more so. I will be sticking to the built in one until Chrome makes some SERIOUS headway.

  40. Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices by exomondo · · Score: 1

    So are all the people who trashed Apple for making Siri exclusive to the iPhone 4S going to trash Google for making Chrome exclusive to ICS devices?

    Specific application requires specific OS functions that aren't available in earlier versions, pretty damn obvious and really not that hard to comprehend. Your flamebait fails.

  41. Re:great start but by mschaffer · · Score: 1