Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome OS Can Now Run Android Apps With No Porting Required

Posted by timothy on from the that-could-be-big dept.

An anonymous reader writes On Thursday, Google launched "App Runtime for Chrome (Beta)" which allows Android apps to run on Chrome OS without the need for porting. At the moment, only Duolingo, Evernote, Sight Words, and Vine are available on the platform with the rest of the Play Store's offerings to come later. Google "built an entire Android stack into Chrome OS using Native Client" in order to achieve this.

133 comments

  1. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty expected! :P

    1. Re:Wow by Teresita · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That makes my little Chromebox that much more awesome. Redmond be very afraid.

    2. Re: Wow by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Yay?

      I say that with extra skepticism.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      That makes my little Chromebox that much more awesome. Redmond be very afraid.

      This, this, this.

      After getting my chrome book, and seeing just how nice it is, this is icing on the cake.

      Every day, less of the utter shit that we have to put up with in using Windows.

      Sometimes life is very good.

      Windows is to computing what Beta is to Slashdot.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yay?

      I say that with extra skepticism.

      Um, yes. Tell me what is your assessment of Chrome?. I've used it for about a year, and it is vastly superior to any windows OS I've seen yet. Yay.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What does any of that matter? The only real practical thing anybody cares about is running their applications. Whether you are running Photoshop or Maya or ProTools on Windows or a Mac makes no difference when you are actually *doing* things with your computer.

      Its nifty that you can run Android apps in Chrome but I can already do that (through bluestacks and probably now through chrome os mode) and a *lot* more on my Mac or Windows computer. I dont see as a feature that will somehow supplant Mac or Windows.

    6. Re: Wow by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Um, yes. Tell me what is your assessment of Chrome?. I've used it for about a year, and it is vastly superior to any windows OS I've seen yet.

      The OS is nice, I agree but outside of very basic tasks it doesn't really have the capability (mostly lack of 3rd party support) to do much else. Personally I don't need MS Office, I use Google Docs because even if there is some little formatting bug when importing a document it's no big deal so as far as that is concerned ChromeOS works but if you're gaming it's no good, same goes for professional photo, audio, video editing/production or architectural and product design, simulation, etc...

      I can absolutely see this replacing Windows for office workers (presuming they don't mind the few-and-far-between formatting bugs with GDocs importing DOCX) and those people just concerned with web browsing and email but leveraging dinky smartphone apps doesn't really make it any more useful, that stuff is perfectly at home already on a smartphone which most people have. Kinda like this whole Metro apps stuff in Windows 8, pretty pointless on a desktop even if there was a huge catalog of applications.

    7. Re:Wow by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      That makes my little Chromebox that much more awesome. Redmond be very afraid.

      Remond has no reason to be afraid until it gets movable, resizeable windows.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every day, less of the utter shit that we have to put up with in using Windows.

      What utter shit? Despite the horrible Modern UI, Windows works pretty good these days.

    9. Re: Wow by Wootery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can absolutely see this replacing Windows for office workers (presuming they don't mind the few-and-far-between formatting bugs with GDocs importing DOCX)

      Err, what? There are several elephants in the room who'd like to be acknowledged.

      • - Not all organisations trust Google with their documents, which may contain proprietary information
      • - Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on Google (they're uptime track-record is pretty damn good though, granted)
      • - Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on an Internet connection

      These are the real problems with cloud-based office software. They would apply even if Google Docs were totally free of bugs, and capable of everything that MS Office is capable of.

      Of course all those points apply equally to Microsoft's surprisingly good web-based Office offerings, and to any other rival 'cloud-based office software' services.

    10. Re:Wow by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ... Right because Redmond doesn't know anything about forcing a tablet style UI on desktop/laptop users and having it fail utterly.

      While theres nothing wrong with a Chromebook, pretending its going to take over the world is kind of silly.

      Native Client ... REALLY? Let me put a VM in your VM so you can run VMs ...

      This may sound like a great idea, but I suspect you'll find after using it a minor amount that its not all that great in reality.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What does any of that matter? The only real practical thing anybody cares about is running their applications.

      Tell that to the fanbois that love to quote their installed user base. Whether you are running Photoshop or Maya or ProTools on Windows or a Mac makes no difference when you are actually *doing* things with your computer.

      Sure. I look at computers as tools, I do video and photo work on my Mac. And it's built for that. Dual 27 inch screens, and a lot of horsepower.

      And my last gasp of Windows use was for travel and out and about use, with laptops.

      But the Chromebook is so remarkably superior to the Windows offerings that it is almost uncanny. It starts in 6 or 7 seconds. It is blistering fast for it's intended applications. What it doesn't do is bitch itself up with updates, and all the other fun little problems that Windows users seem to think all computers have.

      The "Doesn't work when not on the internetz" meme is also remarkably wrong. While it is designed to be net centric, I can and do work on mine offline all the time. Although I have heard that a Chromebook cannot access the web when not connected to the internet. Who though that was a good idea? Kidding...

      Email is seamlessly coordinated with my other computers and devices, (please, no "Google reads your email" stuff - who doesn't?) and it's just a whole lot better of an experience.

      And if I want to channel my inner geek, I can boot it into linux an about 6 seconds, because I installed dual boot capability.

      A Chromebook isn't designed to do Photoshop or Maya (I use Lightwave on my Mac myself) But what it is designed to do, it does very, very well.

      Looking forward to Some of the applications I use now on my Cyanogen rooted Touchpad on my Chromebook. And that's why I think Microsoft should be concerned. Once upon a time, they were the big dog as far as applications. Now everyone else is catching up big time. Soon the only thing the fanbois will have left is their denial.

      Its nifty that you can run Android apps in Chrome but I can already do that (through bluestacks and probably now through chrome os mode) and a *lot* more on my Mac or Windows computer. I dont see as a feature that will somehow supplant Mac or Windows.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Wow by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I agree, Windows is an excellent gaming OS. But when I work, I want OS X on my desk and Linux on my server.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    13. Re: Wow by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Is that you?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    14. Re:Wow by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you mean, but if you're talking about chromeos, that already happened. ChromeOS windows do everything Redmond windows do.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    15. Re:Wow by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Granted. But good enough to pay for - if all you want to do is stuff you can do on a Chromebook? If you need or want to run Windows apps, Windows is the best solution for you. If you don't, and don't want to keep paying for Windows, Office and their endless upgrades, a Chromebook is a great alternative. Cheap hardware that still performs well - and free applications. If they do what large numbers of people need them to do, why do you feel the need to insist they're wrong? And If they don't do what you need, well there are options for you too - including desktop Linux, which "works pretty good these days" too...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    16. Re: Wow by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      • - Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on Google (they're uptime track-record is pretty damn good though, granted)
      • - Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on an Internet connection

      Google Docs/Google Drive does offer offline access.

    17. Re:Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Every day, less of the utter shit that we have to put up with in using Windows.

      What utter shit? Despite the horrible Modern UI, Windows works pretty good these days.

      Well, the horrible UI is good enough reason all by itself. But messed up updates, dropping support for the one system that just about everyone loved, The Vista Basic debacle, where unsuspecting people bought computers rated for Vista that could hardly be called functional, the Vista driver problems, the disappearing codecs that without announcement stopped playing a lot of videos, the Ribbon POS (if it was that good, Office for Mac would use it, and Open Office would deploy it) The insane updates that caused some of my computers to go into endless reboot mode. They'd get right to the main screen, and about a half second later, it was reboot, forever. The Vista Driver issue, and one of my favorites was the Windows 8 consumer preview. Which as it turns out was no reversible on Vista machines. Too the entire program files folder renamed it, and installed a new programs file folder with only notepad in it. Wrecked everything. And of course, I found out it was my fault because I wasn't running W7 , and anyhow. It was also my fault because No ONE! would ever run a consumer preview not in a VM. Um, If I'd been told I had to run in a VM, I would have, plus Grandma is a consumer, so if you're calling it a consumer preview, it should be something consumers could use. Funny, every Linux distro I've used allows you to preview the sytem without making any changes at all to your system. Must be too hard for Microsoft. Regardless, if all you need to do is show th emain screen and a copy of Notepad, you hardley need to do all that stuff.

      So yeah, I've found that as much as all the above things are blamed on the user in Windows world, I just switched to OS's where I don't make those mistakes. A lot of Windows users just think that is the shit you have to put up with to use a computer. I think they just don't know any better. There are other options out there, and yes, for simplicity and usability, Chrome OS is a much better experience. And when I want to channel my inner geek, my Linux and OSX systems suit just fine. Remember, although the Windows rallying cry is that OSX is a closed system, you can have a lot of fun, and do amazing things in the terminal.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I agree, Windows is an excellent gaming OS. But when I work, I want OS X on my desk and Linux on my server.

      I had to smile - that's what people used to say about the Amiga.

      But yeah - The most awesome thing about my Mac is I don't spend much time bbbszzzzzz! ANY time at all futzing with it to keep it working. On the linux side, I do mess a little more with it, but that's mostly a learning curve thing, plus checking out different distros and resurrecting perfectly good computers that Microsoft abandoned.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:Wow by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ChromeOS windows do everything Redmond windows do.

      They do not look like windows, they look like browser tabs. Because they are. Until they look like _Windows_ windows and include all the same functionality, many potential adopters will be needlessly alienated.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re: Wow by chikanamakalaka · · Score: 1

      They have looked like regular windows for years.

    21. Re:Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Only on Slashdot can a person note that they like Chromebooks in a Chrome OS thread, and some Microsoft Fanboi mods it as a troll. Good work fanboi, Troll? Over rarted maybe, but msrking me as a troll says a lot more about you than me.

      As in you can't handle the truth.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re: Wow by exomondo · · Score: 1

      - Not all organisations trust Google with their documents, which may contain proprietary information

      Yeah I'm not saying 100% of everything can go on there, many things would stay completely offline and perhaps you would need to run Libre/Open Office in a chroot for those things.

      - Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on Google (they're uptime track-record is pretty damn good though, granted)

      - Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on an Internet connection

      That changed years ago, you can use them offline.

      These are the real problems with cloud-based office software.

      Well given the offline access the only real issue is the privacy one, but it's not to say everything has to go on google docs. Would be nice if there were some self-hostable web-based version of Libre/Open Office, with Google and Microsoft paving the way on that front with their mainstream offerings I expect FOSS will catch up in a couple of years.

    23. Re: Wow by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Neat. Does it sync back with Google's 'cloud' when it's back online, though?

    24. Re:Wow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The part where you installed over your vista partition is your own stupid fault.

      Absolutely. Every single problem I ever had with Windows was my fault. I supported Windows for years, and not once mind you not once ever was any of the problems that I mentioned with Windows ever anyone's fault but mine. A computer could be sitting in another building, an update bitches it up, and somehow, some way, it was my fault.

      I know the drill shillboi. Windows can never fail - only we can fail Windows.

      Which is why I switched to Unix like systems, where I'm nowhere near as stupid.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re: Wow by Wootery · · Score: 1

      As I replied above to another comment:

      Neat. Does it sync back with Google's 'cloud' when it's back online, though?

    26. Re: Wow by exomondo · · Score: 1

      As I replied above to another comment:

      Neat. Does it sync back with Google's 'cloud' when it's back online, though?

      In your sync settings you can choose what you want to sync and what you don't.

  2. Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromebooks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Chrome already runs on Android. These apps already run on Android. That's pretty much the whole Chrome OS experience.

    If Chromebooks weren't locked-down pieces of shit, then users could already install Android on them, and get the best of Android and the "best" of Chrome OS.

    Seriously, everything about Chromebooks is fucking idiotic. The hardware sucks. The hardware isn't even that inexpensive compared to low-end laptops running real operating systems. Chrome OS sucks. There's basically no software for Chrome OS. Chrome OS and Chromebooks really don't have any redeeming qualities. Running Android on them would at least make them kind of not as shitty.

  3. Is this the new emulator story for Android devs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because the stock AVD emulator stinks and HAXM acceleration is difficult to get working on it. Genymotion is my current solution when I need a fast emulator.

  4. Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So now it's just Android with a windowing system?

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

      Maybe one not requiring Java? Android after all, is Linux with the display drivers removed and a Java UI put in just to slow developers down.

      I aways of wondered what the point of chrome is... is it just a browser for people who find the idea of even an iPad too intimidating?

      Then I noticed that my cheap nook+ sometimes runs out of memory just rendering big pages and has an OS that doesn't support swapping. So are chrome books at least guaranteed to have a browser that doesn't run out of memory? Do they at least guarantee to do the web better than base Android?

    2. Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Chromebook seems to be doing pretty well.

      According to US market-watcher NPD, during the 11 months from January through November 2013, the platform’s share of the computing device market had risen to 9.6 per cent from just 0.2 per cent in the same months of the previous year.

      Giving it the ability to run Android apps just makes it more capable. Assuming the "emulation" works well on the underpowered hardware running most Chromebooks.

    3. Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think those stats are total bullshit.

      I'm a part-time college lecturer, and I work part-time in the finance industry. On a daily basis I work with all sorts of people, from students to academics to accountants to lawyers to traders to managers/executives. Then there are my friends and family. While I've seen thousands upon thousands of these people using Dell, Apple, Toshiba, HP and Lenovo laptops, I don't think I've ever seen anyone using a Chromebook. If Chromebooks make up 10% of the market, then after seeing thousands of everyday laptop users, I should expect to see at least some Chromebooks. But I just don't see them being used.

      If they actually do make up that share of the market, I can only presume that many of those purchases were made accidentally by people thinking that the Chromebooks were just low-priced Windows laptops, not realizing that a Chromebook is nothing like a typical Windows or Apple laptop.

    4. Re:Android by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cynic in me suggests this is a pre-emptive strike against alternative open-source OSes Tizen and Firefox OS.

      By utilizing a Chrome-only technology (NaCl), by value-adding, Google kills off Gecko and Webkit competitors running a pure HTML5 platform.

      (Also stifling adoption of BB and Sailfish, which both include Android compatibility)

    5. Re:Android by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They aren't being used by students because they need to be able to run general purpose software. They are bought by budget minded people who only need a web browser and web apps to use a computer which is the case for most non-technical people these days.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Android by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that this new "Android in Chrome" capability will end up most commonly used to play Candy Crush on Windows systems. And that's fine. The nicest thing about Chrome (the browser) is it's (largely realized) potential as a meta-platform that works on just about every device out there - except iOS. And if Apple would allow it, it'd be on iOS too. That was the initial promise of Netscape before Microsoft got scared and started with their dirty tricks. It was never the promise of IE, which was primarily built to prevent Netscape from realizing that potential.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    7. Re:Android by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      If anything is being preempted, it's the still present threat that developer resources will be diverted into application rewrites for Windows 8 Metro - locking users into Windows-only apps for another generation. Whatever qualms you may have about Google, Chrome is about the best supported large multi-platform app, and there's nothing about Chrome (the browser) itself that locks you into Google apps or services. It's primary purpose is to keep the open web open and available on all devices, living up to its full potential. That just happens to fit well with Google's business plan, but it also fits well with what most people use computers for these days.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  5. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure, if you're the dev for Duolingo, Evernote, Sight Words, or Vine.

  6. Why not all apps at once? by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google launched "App Runtime for Chrome (Beta)" which allows Android apps to run on Chrome OS without the need for porting. At the moment, only Duolingo, Evernote, Sight Words, and Vine are available on the platform with the rest of the Play Store's offerings to come later.

    I wonder why all apps aren't available at once. I understand this App Runtime for Chrome akin to the Java RunTime, which when installed, would have all Java applications available. What am I [mis]understanding?

    1. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The massive testing required to ensure all the apps will work.

    2. Re:Why not all apps at once? by nleven · · Score: 2

      I would assume this emulation layer is still not perfect. Say, many android apps have arm binaries. There are other subtle gaps in user differences as well. You really don't want to make it look like an android emulator for chrome os.

    3. Re:Why not all apps at once? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if it were perfect, almost no ChromeOS devices have touchscreens and almost all Android devices do (especially if you count on the ones Google even slightly endorses, not the media-player-mystery-HDMI-dongle stuff). For applications that are basically hobbled by the touchscreen, a keyboard and mouse will be an improvement. For those that are enhanced by, or actively dependent on, it, that will be a bit of a mess no matter how perfect the runtime is.

      Unless those proportions change fairly markedly, it probably makes sense for them to start with some popular, mouse and keyboard friendly, applications that don't lean on native ARM blobs much or at all.

    4. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gradual rollout is also used for updates to play store apps. In fact, I think it is google practice, as they also test changes to their products on a small fraction of their users before they roll out the feature to everyone.

    5. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Say, many android apps have arm binaries.

      Well, many Chrome OS devices are ARM-- and supporting multiple architectures is something all Android apps have to deal with on actual Android.

      With only a few apps released, I'm guessing not everything is ready and they want to do it slow and steady. I wish they'd release this stuff and let everyone develop in the open on the canary builds of ChromeOS and let devs know what this environment is like, what SDK might be needed, how to configure the manifest, how to prepare, test, etc, how to send bug reports, how to submit to the web store, etc. In other words, tell everyone what's going on. Running Android apps in Chrome is too cool and exciting to go in drips and drabs... if it's NaCL I wonder whether it will show up on regular chrome as well...? If so, that might mean Android apps on OS X and Windows as well... lots of potential...

      The Vine app looks and behaves like the L-preview, which is cool tho...

    6. Re:Why not all apps at once? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they want to make sure it works for a few selected apps, so the developers of all the other apps in the play store don't get flooded with complaints if there are issues?

    7. Re:Why not all apps at once? by mhkohne · · Score: 1

      The first big issue will be screen sizes - Android has provisions for apps supporting multiple screen sizes, but it's kind of weird in how it works, and not every app works well (or at all) if you hand it a screen size markedly different than what it was designed for.

      --
      A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    8. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some points here:

      - Most Android apps are Java bytecode, not native code, so the underlying processor architecture is irrelevant (for those apps)
      - x86 is a supported Android platform, so many apps that do require native code have x86 binaries available
      - Intel provides an ARM emulator for the x86 version of Android so that x86 Android devices can run ARM binaries
      - Some ChromeOS devices use ARM processors to begin with.

    9. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't get why this is so highly rated. Try plugging a mouse or keyboard into an android device via on-the-go USB or bluetooth... You'll get a mouse that you can use to create events by clicking on things. They'll work fine with Android.

      There's no "mess" inherent in Android w/a mouse. Maybe some multi-touch apps will have issues, but I would think that the lack of other hardware (GPS, accelerometer, etc.) may be more important. That said, Android developers have to deal with missing peripherals all the time-- either you compensate via alternative input/displays/etc or you just dont' make the app available to devices that won't support it.

      I'm sure the chromebook creates a hardware profile w/available peripherals and platform info, and ideally just like the google play store, will make only those apps available that will work...

    10. Re:Why not all apps at once? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      Say, many android apps have arm binaries

      Android apps are interpreted byte-code, not native binaries, same as java class files are interpreted byte code. The only binary you need is the dalvek apk interpreter, same as the only binary you need to run java on a windows machine is a windows java interpreter, and the only binary you need to run the same java class files on a linux box is a linux java interpreter.

      So, if they've come up with a dalvek interpreter that runs on chromebooks, this is a good thing. It shouldn't look like the crappy android development emulator that simulates a whole smartphone - just running the app itself. Android already has the calls for laying out app widgets differently / intelligently based on different-sized screens, right up to big-screen TVs.

      Compare this to Canonical, which had announced their Android Execution Environment in 2009 and, like Ubuntu TV, Ubuntu Smartphone, Ubuntu One, Ubuntu for Android, the failure to crowd-source the Ubuntu Superphone, and who knows how much other vapour-ware, an android interpreter that runs on a lappy is what people wanted to play with ... 5 years ago.

      What next - run android apps on iPhones via a side-loaded dalvek interpreter? Android for Windows? (Could help make up for the dearth of app developers for Windows Phone, or whatever they're going to call it next week).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      The Evernote app, at least, appears to "solve" this by putting a fixed-size window on the screen. Not resizable, or dockable.

    12. Re:Why not all apps at once? by iamacat · · Score: 2

      Luckily all chromebooks come with multitouch touchpads which are perfectly capable of handling pinch/rotate gestures.

    13. Re:Why not all apps at once? by scorp1us · · Score: 2

      Google's NaCL only works with x86[64] the majority of apps use native libraries that are ARM. Only pure Android SDK apps (Java and java dependencies) will work. So say if you use libZbar (bar code decoding library) which is supplied in x86 and ARM, will work, is that app packaged the x86 version... which they didn't do becuase no one runs android on x86....

      So that's the main technical reason.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    14. Re:Why not all apps at once? by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Many android apps have arm binaries.

      https://developer.android.com/...

      Many do not, to be fair, but most games do at the very least.

    15. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - x86 is a supported Android platform, so many apps that do require native code have x86 binaries available

      If that is true then this is irrelevant:
      - Intel provides an ARM emulator for the x86 version of Android so that x86 Android devices can run ARM binaries

    16. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Android apps are interpreted byte-code, not native binaries

      Why do ignorant people post? I mean couldn't you do a 30 second search before making yourself out to look so incompetent? You couldn't even spell Dalvik correctly. Your entire statement is a trainwreck.

    17. Re:Why not all apps at once? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Android apps are interpreted byte-code, not native binaries

      Unless they use the NDK.

      The only binary you need is the dalvek apk interpreter

      What about if they use the NDK? What happens if the application uses OpenGL ES?

    18. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      The first point means that you can run x86 binaries in emulated mode on an ARM device.
      The second point means that you can run ARM binaries in emulated mode on an x86 device.
      If both architectures exists then both functions are useful.

    19. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want games get an xbox or a ps.

    20. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few non-game apps use the NDK, and even several GPU-intensive games don't use it, because Android now has three CPU ISA's: ARM, x86 and MIPS. I'm pretty sure the first several Android apps to be ported over will not only be apps that stay far away from the NDK, but will be apps that benefit from a screen, keyboard and mouse.

    21. Re:Why not all apps at once? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Since when did Google test android apps?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there is porting required

    23. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so F#@$%#% wrong!

      There are so many security and gaming apps that depend on some escape mechanism from the ADK to the NDK to do optimized stuff like gaming, security and networking and then they provide shared libs along with their apk to achieve this. The problem is that when you have different hardware targets i.e. intel, arm, mips and different SOC's (i.e qualcomm, samsung, rockchip, allwinner, etc... ) they are also considered different targets because their graphic chipsets are all different so it's not simply just different cpu architectures either. it's a real mess in the SOC world and it complicates things. If things were simple GNU/Linux desktops would be running on ARM hardware consistently everywhere by now, but that is not the case. For example Merri A80 dev boards look enticing, but the non-MALI graphics chipset on them is undocumented(BLOB) so there are no GNU desktops for them, just a Linux kernel from what I understand. I don't mean to single out Merri, but to demonstrate the complexity of the situation. It isn't just compile once run anywhere as stated in the JAVA motto. It's compile for every hardware target, run only on that hardware target. This makes for complicated software repositories in Google Play. There is no advantage for Play when compared to the standard GNU/Linux repositories available for Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, etc...

      Building for a standard GNU/Linux desktop has always been simpler than windows or android. ChromeOS is based on Gentoo Linux which says much.
      Now if we could only influence Google enough to drop the idea that every app is a browser app or android app we would get things done faster.

    24. Re:Why not all apps at once? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      I wonder why all apps aren't available at once. I understand this App Runtime for Chrome akin to the Java RunTime, which when installed, would have all Java applications available. What am I [mis]understanding?

      Probably partly because it's not stable yet, but allso many/most apps won't work well since they tend to assume that the device has touchscreen support. That's reasonable for Android devices, but usually wrong for ChromeOS. Properly supporting keyboard navigation is a bit of a task when you've designed for touch... as Windows 8 metro demonstrates... Metro's OK if you have a touchscreen but a nightmare with a mouse.

    25. Re:Why not all apps at once? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      The only people I know who own chromebooks are university students. They already have smartphones to play their games on. And regular pcs. And game consoles. Also, a quick look shows that stores are now offering dual-core intel cpus on their chromebooks, so apps running using native arm methods are going to have to be ported anyway. The upside of this is two-fold.
      1. Given the larger screen size and different input methods, this is an opportunity to re-imagine any game or other app.
      2. Given the faster cpus compared to, say, 5 years ago, native methods might no longer be needed. (remember all those old phone ads that showed incredibly fast scrolling, and had a disclaimer at the bottom saying "simulated screen"? No need to fake it any more on modern hardware ... )

      The hardware situation is only going to improve in the future, so there will be less and less need to use native code, even in games.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      - Android apps are compiled into Google's Dalvik bytecode, not java.
      - x86 and arm does not play well together, despite 'emulation'

    27. Re: Why not all apps at once? by chikanamakalaka · · Score: 1

      NaCL works on ARM, but you can compile to pNaCL which runs on both architectures.

    28. Re:Why not all apps at once? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      - The difference is irrelevant, the apps are stored as platform-independent bytecode that (as of the next Android release) is then converted to machine code by ART or done on-the-fly by Dalvik itself. As a result, so long as Dalvik or ART supports the processor architecture, the application doesn't need to.

      - As long as the ARM app doesn't use NEON (which I believe Intel's Houdini emulator doesn't support), it shouldn't have any problems running the ARM code on the x86 devices. In fact, you're likely to have better compatibility running emulated on x86 than you are natively on some older ARM devices.

    29. Re:Why not all apps at once? by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make what you said any less incorrect.

    30. Re:Why not all apps at once? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Actually, the incorrect part was you writing "Incorrect. Many android apps have arm binaries." There's a difference between using native methods, and being an arm binary. Something that's an arm binary doesn't need dalvik to run (example - the linux os that dalvik runs atop of). Apps, even those using native methods, cannot run stand-alone on the arm cpu..

      The very first part of the very first sentence you linked to:

      The NDK is a toolset that allows you to implement parts of your app using native-code languages

      There is simply, by definition, no such thing as an "arm binary android app." All apps require dalvik to start. They can't run on the bare metal or directly atop the host os.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  7. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    The Moto G series of Android phones is cheap, easy to put into developer mode to load your apps via usb, runs kitkat, and takes less time to load your compiled app onto than it takes to even start up the emulator on a quad core pc. And there's plenty of $100 android tablets around if you want to test larger displays. The AVD emulator absolutely sucks, and would have been better with a simulator.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Somebody should mod up the parent comment. It's not flamebait, it's a good description of reality. My sister-in-law needed a new computer since her old one died, so her husband bought her a Chromebook. She's just a casual computer user, so he thought it'd be great for her, since those are the users that Chromebooks are supposedly good for. Well, she was very disappointed when she finally got it and started using it. There were a few Windows games she liked to play now and then, but they would obviously not run on Chrome OS. They also live in a rural area, and don't have the best Internet connectivity, so she often couldn't access the docs she needed to access (she's an amateur historian and is working on a book about some local history). She hated everything about the Chrome OS and Chromebook experience. We spent a weekend at the cabin with them a few weekends ago, and she was still very angry about it. It's all she talked about. Hell, the rest of us were getting tired hearing her complain about it, so we were about to pool our money and buy her a real notebook just so she'd shut up!

  9. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There were a few Windows games she liked to play now and then, but they would obviously not run on Chrome OS.

    Big deal. There were some scanners and printers which used to work on Windows, but they would obviously not run on Windows.

    That's what people gain for buying 7 and not sticking to XP.

  10. Android apps on all Linux distros? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that we'll be able to run Android apps on Linux soon? ChromeOS is basically just Gentoo as far as I am aware.

    1. Re:Android apps on all Linux distros? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentoo is a distribution of Linux (or GNU/Linux or whatever you want to call it) probably best known for its method of software updates where source is compiled on-the-fly to binary as part of the "portage" update system.

      ChromeOS is Google's linux (kernel)-based operating system which essentially has a Chrome browser act as the entire user-facing operating system. Apps are written in HTML5/Javascript, etc.

      NaCl (Native Client) is a new feature of Chrome that lets you run native (or in PNaCl, ie Portable Native Client, it's a platform-agnostic format that is quickly converted to native binary before running) code from within the browser, all in a sandboxed environment. You can actually get a shell within the browser and compile and run binary apps inside the browser as well. See the Google IO video about this.

      The app code is all running on top of the Chrome platform, specifically inside of Native Client. In this way the ARC (Android Runtime for Chrome) apps run in the same environment as other apps you can download from the Chrome Web Store, even though they are written on top of standard Android APIs.

      The runtime probably includes some modified version of the entire android framework, etc. meant to be wrapped up by a Chrome browser window and interact with Chrome's input/output, etc.

      I don't see how this WON'T be ported quickly to Linux by someone, though it'll likely need Chrome/Chromium. Nothing has stopped Android source from being ported to regular ol' linux except that no one has done it yet. But this work by Google will probably make it easier to include in Chrome.

      Incidentally, on Ubuntu, NaCl isn't compiled in, so you may want to get a version in which it is. You can turn it on by following the instructions here.

    2. Re:Android apps on all Linux distros? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do not forget http://www.android-x86.org/

      I use it within KVM to run closed source Andriod apps that have no native app for Linux.

  11. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Genymotion stops requiring registration w/personal info and shows me where the source is, I'll consider using it...

  12. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Teresita · · Score: 2

    Here's why ChromeOS (and Chrome and Chromiumn) is not idiotic: I'm tired of having to install the latest Flash player just so the ads don't crash the whole shooting match. So to hell with it, I have a Chromebox attached to the living room TV for Youtubes and Netflixes, let Google keep the thing updated. If I install 7 on something, I get Firefox and DON'T add Flash. Life is good. For Slashdot I use Lynx since there's no pictures anyway, it's faster, loads ALL the comments on one page, and has a much smaller RAM footprint.

  13. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by msobkow · · Score: 5, Funny

    So your friend's husband bought a web-connected device, knowing fully well that they live in a rural area with shitty web connections?

    What your you going to complain about next? Not being able to tow semi-trailers with your Yugo?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  14. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, good luck sticking with XP. Ignoring the whole "we're not supporting XP" spiel from Microsoft, and the lack of security updates, you won't be able to run any programs code signed with SHA2 certificates or access SSL web sites using SHA2 certificates. And you can't get any new SHA1 certificates any more, once the current ones expire you have to go SHA2.

    I converted my partner from XP to OSX recently and, like the GP's sister--in-law, she bitched and moaned about it for the first couple of months. Now she bitches and moans about the fucked Windows experience she has at work. OSX was only a stepping stone to get her to a linux platform - she's already extricated herself from all her Windows dependencies. (Thank goodness I don't have to support MS-IE at home any more!)

  15. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been there, done that. Show me a $100 tablet that's actually running Ice Cream Sandwich or Kit Kat... as opposed to all of the ones running Gingerbread with a skin hack to look like ICS/KK and displaying a bullshit version number in Setup.

  16. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
    There are still plenty of XP boxes out there, and plenty more that are running XP in a VM.

    Most of these boxes have zero need to access the greater Internet, since they're for internal use (business, civil service) or running stand-alone games or whatever (home), so nobody in these scenarios cares about SHA2 certs. XP will still have users at the end of the decade, same as DOS and Win3x apps are still around.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  17. Here's where this gets funny by atari2600a · · Score: 2

    There are 2 Acer C710's in the house right now. My own spec-upped one w/ a custom seabios booting directly to ubuntu, & my little brother's friend has a stock one. I bolt in all OMG go to the app store go to the app store! You can download Google Play! He's all what's Google Play? "The app store!"

  18. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Been there, done that. Show me a $100 tablet that's actually running Ice Cream Sandwich or Kit Kat... as opposed to all of the ones running Gingerbread with a skin hack to look like ICS/KK and displaying a bullshit version number in Setup.

    Neighbor just bought 2 today running Jelly Bean, which is newer than ICS. Dell Venue 7, $105.00 each. 2 gigs ram, 16 gigs storage, 2 (rather crappy) cams, but nice displays and long battery life.

    I doubt Dell went to the trouble to print up packaging with fake specs and get them stocked in stores ... so these are the real McCoy. Same as the 32 gig Kingston USB 2.0 stick I bought on sale this week for $15 that I'm installing Fedora 20 on for another laptop. There's some crazy loss-leaders out there if you look.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He probably wasn't fully aware how crippled Chromebooks truly are. He probably saw a $200 Chromebook on Amazon, thought it was just a cheap laptop, and bought it without realizing how fucking useless it is, especially without a reliable Internet connection. For a device that's supposedly targeting non-technical people, it sure can catch people by surprise unless they do some pretty serious technical investigation into what they're actually getting and the tradeoffs that are involved. Anyone can go out and buy a typical Windows or Mac laptop and get something that works well with or without an Internet connection. Yet if they go out and buy a Chromebook, which looks almost identical, they'll unexpectedly get a system that's damn near useless.

  20. Preempting mobile OSes that are total non-threats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What exactly are they preempting here?

    Aside from BlackBerry OS, which only has something like 1% of the market these days, the other mobile OSes you listed are well, well under 1%. They're all irrelevant today, and have no hope in hell of ever becoming relevant.

    Fuck, Firefox OS goes out of its way to make itself undesirable. All of the reviews I've read suggest that the software is total shit, the hardware it has been available on so far is total shit, there are next to no apps for it, and that it offers an awful experience. It hurts itself more by merely existing than Google could ever hope to hurt it with Android or Chrome OS.

    And Firefox OS at least has Mozilla and the Mozilla fanbois to hype it whenever they can. Nobody really gives a damn about Tizen or Sailfish. You know a mobile OS is completely irrelevant when even Firefox OS looks superbly viable compared to it!

    Google doesn't have to do a damn thing and their software will still be massively more widely used than all of the competitors you listed put together, ten times over. Even if Google managed to drive away more than half of the existing Android users, they'd still have a 30% market share lead over Firefox OS and the other no-name mobile OSes! That's just how irrelevant Firefox OS and the others are.

  21. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    He probably wasn't fully aware how crippled Chromebooks truly are..

    Perjhaps he has about your levell of just how cripled Chromebooks are.

    Now you'rehow about some specifics of just how crippled Chromebooks are?

    I have one, and we'll compare notes..

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. Very soon by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    As in years ago.
    http://www.linuxinsider.com/st...

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  23. "with no porting" what about native code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that Java will just work, but what about native code? Will we have to compile for a 3rd target (ARM, x86 and now PNaCl)? Or will this just take the .so for whatever CPU the chromebook is running on and just execute it? That seems to go against everything NaCl and HTML5 stand for..

  24. Never failed before by Sun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, OS/2 running Windows apps was a huge push forward for IBM. Wine completely changed the Linux desktop picture, and BSD's Linux binary compatibility made it an effective super set of Linux, to the point nobody bothers to install the later (not to mention the similar capability of SCO Unix: they wouldn't be where they are today without it).

    I hear that ChromOS is a nice platform and is doing well. I'm glad, in a "diversity is good" non-committed sort of way. I don't think this particular feature will change much.

    Shachar

    1. Re:Never failed before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wine!? Bwahahahha. It takes almost 2 hours just to get it run notepad.exe, let alone anything remotely production based.

    2. Re:Never failed before by Sun · · Score: 1

      Actually, Wine does a surprisingly good job on a surprisingly large number of applications.

      But also, and I cannot stress this enough, whoosh. In your haste to spew unfounded ridicule, you completely missed the sarcasm.

      Shachar

    3. Re:Never failed before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The critical difference between this and Wine (and all the others) is who controls the binary interface underlying this. Microsoft is extremely determined, to the level of being willing to repeatedly carry out criminal act to block others from breaking its monopoly. They will always act to make sure that major parts of Windows software have problems on Wine and Wine will only be able to work reactively against this.

      In this case the Android binary interaces are not controlled by a criminal orgainisation; it's even nice for Google that it's part of the same company. The will be able to know about and test changes; they will be able to give preference in Play marketplace to apps which work on multiple platforms. The technical issues may be similar, however the commercial and human issues are completely different.

      * (see repeated judgements from various US courts, especially Judge Jackson's findings of fact)

    4. Re:Never failed before by Sun · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I heard that claim before. Aside from the Novel Wordperfect stink, that is just not so.

      What people fail to consider when saying this is that, even if it were still true (and I don't think it is), it is immaterial. Wine does not need to, and does not do so, implement every one of Windows' APIs. It just needs to implement those APIs that programs are actually using.

      MS cannot change interfaces to existing APIs. That will break application compatibility (without which, MS has no monopoly). They can add new functionality all they want. Until applications start using them (i.e. - after release), they are immaterial to Wine.

      Also, you simply assumed everything else I said was the same. Linux interfaces in BSD are not subject to the same rules, and yet they did very little to drive adoption of BSD based OSes.

      It all boils down to this. If you want to run Windows apps, you are going to do so on Windows. If you want to run Linux apps, you are going to do so on Linux. If you want to run Android apps, you are going to do so on Android. Every so often, you will want 90% from your native OS, and the support for those extra 10% would be great. It is not, however, something that drives large scale market shifts.

      Shachar

      P.S.
      Judge Jackson's finding of facts had everything to do with IE integration, some to do with Java embrace and extend, and nothing at all to do with private APIs.

    5. Re:Never failed before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Wine does a surprisingly good job on a surprisingly large number of applications.

      That is after you tediously tweak the proper environment for each application. We're still far from a situation where we can just double-click an EXE.

      "Hey, it seems that you are running a Windows application. Would you like to install Wine, the Windows application runtime environment?"

      "Welcome to Wine. You are running 'SETUP.EXE', which has been detected to be 'Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Installer'. Would you like to automatically download and apply the optimum environment settings for the application and its installer?"

    6. Re:Never failed before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the argument I usually hear is that the downfall of such compatibility layers is not that they work poorly but that they work well. You get the loop of OS/2 can run Windows apps but Windows can't run OS/2 apps, so dev for Windows to support both, but then there's no OS/2 specific apps, so there's not much reason to get OS/2. I'd argue Chrome OS and Android are a special case here because they are both developed by Google, and Google is in the awkward position of having two OSes that occupy closely related niches. This is a major step in merging the two OSes together, which would simply things for Google and make their product offering simpler.

    7. Re:Never failed before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just double-click an exe." is pretty much my experience with WINE. I should note that I use it to run games, not productivity software, so perhaps it's different.

  25. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dell Venue 7, $105.00 each. 2 gigs ram, 16 gigs storage, 2 (rather crappy) cams, but nice displays and long battery life.

    Cheapest model in Australia: $398. Thanks Dell.

  26. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by hetz · · Score: 1

    Few things, AC:

    1. Chrome on Android is way, way slower compared to Chrome on Chrome OS. Go ahead, run any benchmark and see the numbers.
    2. Chromebooks are locked down to prevent end users damaging their system. nothing prevents you from pressing a combination of keys and switching to developer mode, and then you can format the machine, install Linux or anything else that you want (although not Windows since the firmware doesn't support it).
    3. The hardware sucks? I beg to differ. The whole point was to make cheap machines so you can grab it, log-in and start browsing, and you can do it without a problem on those machines. Sure, more memory would help (4GB instead of 2GB) and hardware vendors starts to "get it" (most of them used to offer only 2GB machines, now you got 4GB version and on devices like ASUS Chromebox, you can open it without voiding your warrenty and expand up to 16GB, and replace the SSD.
    4. Android has support for keyboard and mouse, but that support is an "afterthought". It really sucks, almost no keyboard short support, and the mouse support is horrible (go ahead, press the right mouse button while doing some work...) and I haven't mentioned yet issues like landscape/portrait mode (try to open Dolphin browser on a PC running Android, see what I mean)

    Android on ChromeOS runtime will let the ChromeOS have access to tons of Android apps, but only after the developers of those apps will add some UI that reflects the situation where you cannot switch display modes, there is no touch screen, etc.. It's not some "emulator" which you can stick an APK and run the app.

    --
    nah, no sig... move on..
  27. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What your you going to complain about next? Not being able to tow semi-trailers with your Yugo?

    How is a non expert supposed to know that opening a document or playing a game is comparable to towing semi-trailers in the computing world? I do the first almost every day, and I've never come close to trying to tow a semi-trailer.

  28. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by hetz · · Score: 1

    Here, Dell Venue 7 - $120 offer (you'll have to add shipping costs): http://hetz.me/sq-xk

    --
    nah, no sig... move on..
  29. XBMC by adam.jimenez · · Score: 1

    Hopefully we will eventually see an android port of XBMC or similar for ChromeOS. Not being able to conveniently stream local content is the biggest limitation to CrOS imo.

    1. Re:XBMC by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

      There is Android MX Player, right? As soon as Android apps are running OK, problem of multimedia on ChromeOS is solved.

      --
      839*929
  30. Full speed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we can expect an android emulator that doesn't run like a dog at some point in the distant future then ?

  31. Re:Preempting mobile OSes that are total non-threa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software adoption is not a function of marketshare *only*. Android has become a consumer oriented toyland. Alternative OSes will start from 0 marketshare but if any of them is able to revive the linux on a portable radio nokia n900 experience, intelligent devs will start using it, maybe even only for themselves.

  32. But I already reflashed my chromes into linux only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Figures this would come out not long after I flashed my chromebook and chromebox to be full time coreboot, linux mint machine with a weird logo. (They won't boot chrome os anymore). I guess I could install chromium os, but meh.

    One of the sites with the ROM for people who are curious: https://johnlewis.ie/

  33. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for you, but why do you want ChromeOS for that? I don't have flash installed on my PC and use Lynx also from the terminal. With regards to home appliances, you are doing it wrong if you have to reach that far, maybe should buy something else which works from the begining?

  34. Wait wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It couldn't do that already... the hell?

  35. What's the diff? by countach · · Score: 2

    So to ask a stupid question... since Android contains Chrome, and now Chrome contains Android, why are they different, and/or why do they need to be different?

    1. Re:What's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think about it to hard and it will all make sence.

    2. Re:What's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome OS is the Linux-based OS that runs on Chromebooks, and this article is about running Android OS apps on Chrome OS. Chrome is a browser that runs on Chrome OS, Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux. There is no technology I know of to run Android apps on Chrome (the browser), which is why the 4 apps mentioned will not install on Chrome running on Mac OS X, Windows, or Linux. Only Chrome running on Chrome OS, which is to say Chromebooks and Chromeboxes.

    3. Re:What's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to ask a stupid question... since Android contains Chrome, and now Chrome contains Android, why are they different, and/or why do they need to be different?

      When you browse with a ChromeOS browser, you don't get kicked back to a crappy mobile site. Ever.

  36. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by hink · · Score: 2

    RE: "Locked down" http://lmgtfy.com/?q=install+l...
    RE: "no offline use" http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chromeboo...
    Things that were true when they first came out have changed. Wow, that NEVER happens with software and hardware. Try keeping up with things.

    --
    - speaking only for myself, as always
  37. Minecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evernote and that other stuff is great and all, but the burning question is that when will Minecraft run in Chrome OS natively? My 9-year-old is dying to know!

  38. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by afidel · · Score: 1

    You can get a refurb 2013 Nexus 7 for less than $150, it will run 4.4.4 today and is guaranteed to get L. Asus MemoPad 7 is available for $124 new at Walmart.com and runs 4.4, though for a developer the Atom might not work (it depends on if you're using native code, though if you're going there you shoudl probably get a sample of the top x devices you plan to support)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  39. Re:Is this the new emulator story for Android devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats what u get for not being able to make ur own shit

  40. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Minwee · · Score: 2

    Perjhaps he has about your levell of just how cripled Chromebooks are.

    Now you'rehow about some specifics of just how crippled Chromebooks are?

    I have one, and we'll compare notes..

    I didn't know this before right now, but it looks that Chromebooks have bad keyboards.

  41. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I didn't know this before right now, but it looks that Chromebooks have bad keyboards.

    You are correct, for at least he Acer 720 has had trouble with the left space button on the bottom. Mine did, and a search found others. Same key mostly. I think at issue is the plastic the keys are made of can break too easily. I took the computer back to order a new key, and they replaced the whole thing, so I'm pretty certain they knew, and I believe they fixed it, because the new one they gave me is all good so far.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  42. Re:Why not just run Chrome on Android on Chromeboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an owner of a chromebook, you have no idea what you're talking about. That's OK, you're an AC, and noone should believe you. I'm AC here, too, so noone should believe me, either. With a little bit of investigation, they can work it out for themselves, and see what an idiot you are.

    I own 2 Android tablets, and 1 Android phone. It works great with the phone, until you get an app that requires a larger screen. The tablets, OTOH, just suck. The Chromebook is what I should have bought in place of those god-awful tablets.

    I hope you're kidding about "locked-down". They're not. As far as "pieces of shit" goes, that's a wonderful opinion you have there, albeit an incredibly wrong one. I think you're talking about these Android tablets that you can barely type into, can't really develop on, and are just small clunky pieces of garbage. My chromebook can build with python, gcc, perl, and about a dozen or maybe a million other things. The Android tablet is, at best, difficult to create a useful app with. That's why I use the desktop at home to build Android apps, and I only use the Android devices for test. The chromebook is the opposite story, and I can make it do what I want by writing the damn code straight on the device. Oh, but I can't actually do that in your world-view, can I, because chromebooks are so "locked-down". You bullshit artist.

  43. Not true, NaCl supports arm as well by Technomancer · · Score: 2

    http://blog.chromium.org/2013/01/native-client-support-on-arm.html

    And PNaCl supports whatever you have, since it uses intermediate code that is compiled and optimized on the client system.

  44. Aren't plugins bad?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man I wish they Google and MS put Silverlight into their browsers...

  45. Are you a transtesticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?

  46. Are you a transtesticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?

  47. Are you a transtesticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?

  48. Are you a transtesticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?

  49. Are you a transtesticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?

  50. STFU you twisted fucking weirdo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're literally a transsexual multiple sockpuppet using online stalker (by ac posts too) by your own admissions shown in your post history freak. You're a completely fucked up psycho. Anyone doubt any of that, look in BarbaraHudson's post history. He/She is one sick fuck.

  51. STILL WAITING FOR DOTA2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    once they get dota2 on a chromebook ill start recommending them.,==

  52. BarbaraHudson: "Eat your words"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644) Homepage Journal FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in the YEAR 2011 years ago no less

    I never claimed a HOSTS file can secure you completely... show me where I have? I want a quote, big talker... you'll never get it, because I never, EVER said that: HOSTS files are, however, a valuable layer of defense for the concept of "layered security".

    * You couldn't produce proof THEN, & you certainly can't now (vainly *trying* to put words in my mouth I NEVER ONCE SAID!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Still @ your LIES, you transsexual weirdo? Ok, asking it again now nearly 5 yrs. later now in response to your bullshit lies again here quoted:

    "APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @07:06PM (#47932519) Homepage

    Under your NEW sockpuppet account too no less: SEE my challenge to you above - where've I ever said they completely secure you? I never have, liar...

    Of course, YOU ARE welcome to disprove my points on them after you said this lately too:

    "I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage

    Oh, really?

    Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?

    ... apk

  53. Get to know the REAL 'BarbaraHudson'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the 1st times "Barb" libeled me stating "APK is a know-nothing that's never worked in the industry" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in 1 of her numerous sockpuppet fake accounts kept active @ the same time here she uses to upmod herself & downmod opponents she can't get the better of (everyone's onto your games, freak).

    Funny part is I've DONE FAR BETTER than ole' "cyclops Frank N. Furter" ever has shown in that exchange too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , lol!

    ---

    Later, he/she kept a journal on me & libeled me even more but worse -> http://slashdot.org/journal/25...

    (Typical b.s. to *try* to 'put down' computer "geeks/nerds" saying "I live in a basement with my mommy" etc. when *ANYTHING BUT THAT* is true, considering I am a taxpaying homeowner!).

    ---

    * From the dates you can SEE she's kept this up unceasingly since early to mid 2010 no less, & that's only scratching the surface (there's far more).

    (Even TELLING OTHERS TO HARASS ME BY ANONYMOUS COWARD POSTS, calling me a "pedo" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... )

    He/She left in May 2012 after being exposed for ALL OF THAT, but came back with this NEW account of hers, & what started up again (I did *NOT* bother "shim" even once before that)?

    You guessed it (more harassment) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    Where I challenged her for her usual CRAP she always runs from (to validly disprove my points on hosts, which she clearly, cannot):

    "I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage

    Oh, really?

    Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Barb/Tom (whatever, with multiple sockpuppets too http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... ) you've destroyed yourself yet again...

    ...apk