5 ms·

> If not, how is it any less open than ChromeOS? You're setting up an artificial comparison with ChromeOS. I think most people are comparing the iPad to a Mac

> If not, how is it any less open than ChromeOS? You're setting up an artificial comparison with ChromeOS. I think most people are comparing the iPad to a Mac or PC. There's no question that it's far less open than either.

ubernostrum 17y ago
And yet one can't help feeling there's a double standard here. When Apple released the original iPhone and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser engine, there was outrage, and Apple's "culture of control" was blasted from all sides. When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides. "Nobody expects a Chrome OS device to be a desktop/laptop" doesn't hold up, since there are going to be Chrome OS devices which have specs at least as good as and almost certainly better than the iPhone and probably the iPad as well; why do we rant and rage and demand that Apple devices have to be "real computers", then, while giving Google the free "oh, it's just a netbook/tablet/appliance" pass?
- abstractbill 17y ago
  I would be surprised if Google doesn't make it possible to completely replace Chrome OS on any tablet device they sell. That would be a pretty big difference.
- thwarted 17y ago
  Good point. But the difference is that Google releasing a browser based platform where the only application is the browser forces them to use the same technology as everyone else to create applications, no one can create native applications for ChromeOS (or everyone can, since "native" means "web based") -- this is, in fact, good engineering because it means there are no secret APIs that give Google's apps an advantage so the Google employees writing apps are more likely to end up with a good API because they see exactly what non-google employees have to deal with. In fact, Google gives developers the same technology they use to develop apps, things like HTML5 and GoogleGears, etc. In contrast, Apple originally told people they couldn't develop native apps because only Apple could release native apps.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Open = 3rd Party Parity with in-house Good point. I still remember a lot of Microsoft shenanigans along these lines.
    - thwarted 17y ago
      I was going to mention Microsoft, but I couldn't remember the specifics and didn't have time to track them down. But yeah, there were things like improperly emulating DOS in windows so only MS-DOS would run, secret APIs that Office used (for drawing?) that gave Office increased performance. The moving target that is SMB and NT domain services that has kept samba from being on-par.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    no one can create native applications for ChromeOS So it's deliberately even more crippled than iPhone/iPad ;) (which is what people would say if Apple released a web-apps-only system, which is kinda my point)
    - thwarted 17y ago
      Is a blender deliberately crippled if it can't microwave food? It helps Google, I guess, to be a company that releases web-based software, because then web browsers run their software, even a web browser that they release. "Our web based OS only runs web based software" is a pretty goofy definition of "crippled". Would Apple release a web-apps-only system? I doubt it, it wouldn't provide the level of interactivity and UI/UX that Apple wants to give their customers, and Apple wants to be both the the provider of the best experience and apps, and giving that ability to their developers is only secondary (even the guy who reimplemented coverflow from scratch and didn't use any secret Apple APIs was denied app inclusion initially).
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        a pretty goofy definition of "crippled" Yes, which is why I wrote it that way. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike, I would bet money that the response, from all corners of the tech world, would be to denounce it as unnecessarily "crippled", invoking theories of Steve Jobs' pathological need to prevent anyone from ever learning how to write native applications ever again. And that response would be about as stupid and misinformed as the attitudes consistently displayed toward Apple for, e.g., the iPhone/iPad.
- endtime 17y ago
  >When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides. I don't remember that at all. I seem to remember everyone agreeing that it was a stupid mistake and no one would ever want to use it, because why not just use a real OS and install Chrome?

ubernostrum 17y ago

And yet one can't help feeling there's a double standard here. When Apple released the original iPhone and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser engine, there was outrage, and Apple's "culture of control" was blasted from all sides. When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides. "Nobody expects a Chrome OS device to be a desktop/laptop" doesn't hold up, since there are going to be Chrome OS devices which have specs at least as good as and almost certainly better than the iPhone and probably the iPad as well; why do we rant and rage and demand that Apple devices have to be "real computers", then, while giving Google the free "oh, it's just a netbook/tablet/appliance" pass?

abstractbill 17y ago
I would be surprised if Google doesn't make it possible to completely replace Chrome OS on any tablet device they sell. That would be a pretty big difference.
thwarted 17y ago
Good point. But the difference is that Google releasing a browser based platform where the only application is the browser forces them to use the same technology as everyone else to create applications, no one can create native applications for ChromeOS (or everyone can, since "native" means "web based") -- this is, in fact, good engineering because it means there are no secret APIs that give Google's apps an advantage so the Google employees writing apps are more likely to end up with a good API because they see exactly what non-google employees have to deal with. In fact, Google gives developers the same technology they use to develop apps, things like HTML5 and GoogleGears, etc. In contrast, Apple originally told people they couldn't develop native apps because only Apple could release native apps.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Open = 3rd Party Parity with in-house Good point. I still remember a lot of Microsoft shenanigans along these lines.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    I was going to mention Microsoft, but I couldn't remember the specifics and didn't have time to track them down. But yeah, there were things like improperly emulating DOS in windows so only MS-DOS would run, secret APIs that Office used (for drawing?) that gave Office increased performance. The moving target that is SMB and NT domain services that has kept samba from being on-par.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  no one can create native applications for ChromeOS So it's deliberately even more crippled than iPhone/iPad ;) (which is what people would say if Apple released a web-apps-only system, which is kinda my point)
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Is a blender deliberately crippled if it can't microwave food? It helps Google, I guess, to be a company that releases web-based software, because then web browsers run their software, even a web browser that they release. "Our web based OS only runs web based software" is a pretty goofy definition of "crippled". Would Apple release a web-apps-only system? I doubt it, it wouldn't provide the level of interactivity and UI/UX that Apple wants to give their customers, and Apple wants to be both the the provider of the best experience and apps, and giving that ability to their developers is only secondary (even the guy who reimplemented coverflow from scratch and didn't use any secret Apple APIs was denied app inclusion initially).
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      a pretty goofy definition of "crippled" Yes, which is why I wrote it that way. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike, I would bet money that the response, from all corners of the tech world, would be to denounce it as unnecessarily "crippled", invoking theories of Steve Jobs' pathological need to prevent anyone from ever learning how to write native applications ever again. And that response would be about as stupid and misinformed as the attitudes consistently displayed toward Apple for, e.g., the iPhone/iPad.
endtime 17y ago
>When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides. I don't remember that at all. I seem to remember everyone agreeing that it was a stupid mistake and no one would ever want to use it, because why not just use a real OS and install Chrome?