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."

34 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 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.

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

      Religious fanaticism. All the browsers have it.

    6. 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

    7. 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%
    8. 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!

  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 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
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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)

  4. 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?"
  5. 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.

  6. 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--
  7. 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.

  8. 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".

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

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

  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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...

  21. 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