10 ms·

Is this an actual plan of Google as a company, or is this some sort of Microsoft-style war between divisions where the Chrome team has just decided on its own t

Is this an actual plan of Google as a company, or is this some sort of Microsoft-style war between divisions where the Chrome team has just decided on its own that the future is based on Chrome and Dart? Also, considering the way that the ARC runtime for Chromebooks was a failure and had to be replaced by a system that apparently essentially runs Android in a container, will it really be possible for a completely different OS to provide reasonable backward compatibility?

pavanky 10y ago
The blog talked about many different things. Not all of them may be related to each other. It is pure speculation from the author.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
I think Google just wants to transition to an OS with a micro-kernel architecture with the smallest possible attack surface. Also, user space drivers should help with the update problems they've always had with Android.
throwawaydbfif 10y ago
I would say that Google is trying to replace JavaScript with dart in any way they possibly can. The reason is simple, JavaScript is an open standard, dart is owned by google. Their reasons that "dart is better" is the typical google koolaid before they attempt a market takeover. As we've seen over and over with Android, chrome, and AMP especially. Google loves to make glass house open source projects you can't touch. You're free to look at how great it is, feel it's well refined curves and admire the finish, but God help you if you don't like how the project is going and want to fork it for yourself. Don't bother trying to commit a new feature to any of Google's software that they don't agree with. It will languish forever. Don't bother forking either, because they'll build a small proprietary bit into it that grows like a tumor until it's impossible to run the "open source" code without it. Fuck dart, I don't care how great it is. Microsoft is being the good one in this case by extending js with typescript, google is trying to upend it into something that they control
- skybrian 10y ago
  But the thing is, you really can fork. There's nothing preventing forking. I think you're complaining about merging. But every open source project has standards about what they merge. Try getting a patch into Linux and see what they say; it won't be a rubber stamp.
  - throwawaydbfif 10y ago
    Yeah, you can fork. Take AMP or Android for example. With AMP, the instant you fork and change a single character of code it becomes incompatible because part of AMP is a verifier that makes sure only the official version is used with Google's cache. Without being able to serve your custom AMP pages from Google's AMP cache the entire point to its existence goes away. The reason? Typical "security". "Tampered" versions of AMP could "do bad things", laughable considering that vanilla web pages allow you to do absolutely anything javascript allows and google has no problem showing those pages in search results or letting them freewheel in a Chrome tab. If Google wanted AMP to be open they would have built it into their chrome browser so the browser could enforce restrictions while allowing users to run whatever customized AMP implementation they want. And Android. Android used to honor the promise of being open. Years ago. This was before every manufacturer was encouraged to lock bootloaders, and back when platform SDK's and drivers for hardware were generally available even if they were kinda hard to get. This was also before the Android kernel heavily diverged from mainline Linux, and before "google play services" grew from a tiny app to a framework that powers half the OS features. Nowadays you can only run your own Android on devices specifically built for it. Open distributions like CyanogenMod are dead or dying. Google Play services is closed and proprietary, and probably about 95% of popular apps require it to work. Even if you manage to get your own Android distribution built and running you will need to side load all your apps, and most apps just don't work because they've been built to depend on proprietary bits that Google has snuck in all over the place. Google is better at the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy than Microsoft ever was. So good, in fact, that they have many well intentioned people defending them to the death even as they choke off the very open source projects they created. Virtually every platform that Google runs for more than about 5 years goes from completely open to something impractical to run yourself. If you don't believe me look into any of their older projects that are "open source". After a certain point it's free software as in "free coupons". Somewhere in the mix, eventually, the price of of their "charity" is passed on to you.
quanticle 10y ago
I have my doubts. Hiroshi Lockheimer, the SVP of both Android and ChromeOS stated, "There is no point in merging them. They're both successful. We just want to make sure that both sides benefit from each other," referring specifically to rumors at the time that said that ChromeOS and Android were merging. http://bgr.com/2016/12/13/android-chrome-os-merging-google/ http://bgr.com/2016/12/13/android-chrome-os-merging-google/
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I suspect this is true, in that Fuchsia is simply a potential replacement for both... not a "merge". But bear in mind, marketing voices like Hiroshi's job is to promote and sell people on the existing product... right up until the day they decide to officially announce something else. So, even if they were presently 100% focused on merging the two OSes, Hiroshi's job would be to convince you they aren't as not to risk impacting the bottom line of their sales and their partnerships with OEMs that are continuing to print money for them.
  - quanticle 10y ago
    But bear in mind, marketing voices like Hiroshi's job is to promote and sell people on the existing product... right up until the day they decide to officially announce something else. Absolutely. I'm reminded of how Steve Jobs claimed that Apple was absolutely, 100% committed to PPC... right up until he announced the first Intel Macs at Macworld in 2006. And Apple, at that point, didn't even have OEM partners to worry about.
    - munificent 10y ago
      Yup. The Osborne effect[1] is widely known now, so most companies are very careful not to telegraph a future change that may impact current sales. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
happosai 10y ago
Like the plan9 people working at google pivoted plan9 into golang, this is the BeOS people working at google re-inventing BeOS into something new. But golang could be started in internal use with incredimental steps. fuchsia/andromeda in contrast have non-code barriers for entry like management approval and industry adoption. My guess is that it will pivot from a full-blown android replacement into something more focused.
nostrademons 10y ago
Dart is part of Ads, not Chrome. Chrome didn't want them, while Ads Frontend is heavily dependent upon them. Aside from Google+ (which was pushed directly by Larry and grudgingly integrated-with by the rest of the company), Google hasn't really had plans "as a company" since the mid-2000s. Big companies (other than Apple under Steve Jobs) don't actually work like that; once you've got a product-focused org chart and strong executives that push their own focus areas, you will necessarily get product-focused initiative that respond to resource availability & market opportunity. The executives are not doing their jobs otherwise.
- fuck_google 10y ago
  Are you saying that big companies shouldn't have company-wide plans or that big companies tend not to have company-wide plans (because of poor leadership)?
pswilson14 10y ago
The idea of factions in Microsoft fighting for control is interesting to me from a historical perspective - do you have any books or sources I can read to get the full story?
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  I don't have any detailed links handy, but it's definitely common knowledge that this is the case (or used to be, anyway). Manu Cornet's comic captures it well: http://www.bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts/ http://www.bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts/
  - pswilson14 10y ago
    I'd agree it's common knowledge, but I love reading detailed accounts of that kind of thing. Cheers anyway!
iainmerrick 10y ago
I think it's just a speculative effort that probably won't go anywhere. I googled for "google magenta", and all the top hits are actually about an entirely separate (I assume?) project about AI music: https://magenta.tensorflow.org/welcome-to-magenta https://magenta.tensorflow.org/welcome-to-magenta. So they didn't think very hard about the name for a start. I'm also skeptical that a big new effort like this would be done entirely in the open. The Chrome team has something of a history of doing that and then throwing stuff away (e.g. Chromium mods and hardware configuration for a Chrome tablet that never got off the ground). The Android team, on the other hand, seems to prefer developing stuff in private before open sourcing it. And their stuff seems to have more traction (or maybe we just don't see all the aborted efforts because they're private). I feel like the Chrome team really believes in open source, and developing in the open, whereas the rest of the company (and especially Android) doesn't care as much and prefers being secretive. But as Sundar Pichai used to run Chrome, maybe he's changing things up a bit?

pavanky 10y ago

The blog talked about many different things. Not all of them may be related to each other. It is pure speculation from the author.

bitmapbrother 10y ago

I think Google just wants to transition to an OS with a micro-kernel architecture with the smallest possible attack surface. Also, user space drivers should help with the update problems they've always had with Android.

throwawaydbfif 10y ago

I would say that Google is trying to replace JavaScript with dart in any way they possibly can. The reason is simple, JavaScript is an open standard, dart is owned by google. Their reasons that "dart is better" is the typical google koolaid before they attempt a market takeover. As we've seen over and over with Android, chrome, and AMP especially. Google loves to make glass house open source projects you can't touch. You're free to look at how great it is, feel it's well refined curves and admire the finish, but God help you if you don't like how the project is going and want to fork it for yourself. Don't bother trying to commit a new feature to any of Google's software that they don't agree with. It will languish forever. Don't bother forking either, because they'll build a small proprietary bit into it that grows like a tumor until it's impossible to run the "open source" code without it. Fuck dart, I don't care how great it is. Microsoft is being the good one in this case by extending js with typescript, google is trying to upend it into something that they control

skybrian 10y ago
But the thing is, you really can fork. There's nothing preventing forking. I think you're complaining about merging. But every open source project has standards about what they merge. Try getting a patch into Linux and see what they say; it won't be a rubber stamp.
- throwawaydbfif 10y ago
  Yeah, you can fork. Take AMP or Android for example. With AMP, the instant you fork and change a single character of code it becomes incompatible because part of AMP is a verifier that makes sure only the official version is used with Google's cache. Without being able to serve your custom AMP pages from Google's AMP cache the entire point to its existence goes away. The reason? Typical "security". "Tampered" versions of AMP could "do bad things", laughable considering that vanilla web pages allow you to do absolutely anything javascript allows and google has no problem showing those pages in search results or letting them freewheel in a Chrome tab. If Google wanted AMP to be open they would have built it into their chrome browser so the browser could enforce restrictions while allowing users to run whatever customized AMP implementation they want. And Android. Android used to honor the promise of being open. Years ago. This was before every manufacturer was encouraged to lock bootloaders, and back when platform SDK's and drivers for hardware were generally available even if they were kinda hard to get. This was also before the Android kernel heavily diverged from mainline Linux, and before "google play services" grew from a tiny app to a framework that powers half the OS features. Nowadays you can only run your own Android on devices specifically built for it. Open distributions like CyanogenMod are dead or dying. Google Play services is closed and proprietary, and probably about 95% of popular apps require it to work. Even if you manage to get your own Android distribution built and running you will need to side load all your apps, and most apps just don't work because they've been built to depend on proprietary bits that Google has snuck in all over the place. Google is better at the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy than Microsoft ever was. So good, in fact, that they have many well intentioned people defending them to the death even as they choke off the very open source projects they created. Virtually every platform that Google runs for more than about 5 years goes from completely open to something impractical to run yourself. If you don't believe me look into any of their older projects that are "open source". After a certain point it's free software as in "free coupons". Somewhere in the mix, eventually, the price of of their "charity" is passed on to you.

quanticle 10y ago

I have my doubts. Hiroshi Lockheimer, the SVP of both Android and ChromeOS stated, "There is no point in merging them. They're both successful. We just want to make sure that both sides benefit from each other," referring specifically to rumors at the time that said that ChromeOS and Android were merging. http://bgr.com/2016/12/13/android-chrome-os-merging-google/ http://bgr.com/2016/12/13/android-chrome-os-merging-google/

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
I suspect this is true, in that Fuchsia is simply a potential replacement for both... not a "merge". But bear in mind, marketing voices like Hiroshi's job is to promote and sell people on the existing product... right up until the day they decide to officially announce something else. So, even if they were presently 100% focused on merging the two OSes, Hiroshi's job would be to convince you they aren't as not to risk impacting the bottom line of their sales and their partnerships with OEMs that are continuing to print money for them.
- quanticle 10y ago
  But bear in mind, marketing voices like Hiroshi's job is to promote and sell people on the existing product... right up until the day they decide to officially announce something else. Absolutely. I'm reminded of how Steve Jobs claimed that Apple was absolutely, 100% committed to PPC... right up until he announced the first Intel Macs at Macworld in 2006. And Apple, at that point, didn't even have OEM partners to worry about.
  - munificent 10y ago
    Yup. The Osborne effect[1] is widely known now, so most companies are very careful not to telegraph a future change that may impact current sales. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect

happosai 10y ago

Like the plan9 people working at google pivoted plan9 into golang, this is the BeOS people working at google re-inventing BeOS into something new. But golang could be started in internal use with incredimental steps. fuchsia/andromeda in contrast have non-code barriers for entry like management approval and industry adoption. My guess is that it will pivot from a full-blown android replacement into something more focused.

nostrademons 10y ago

Dart is part of Ads, not Chrome. Chrome didn't want them, while Ads Frontend is heavily dependent upon them. Aside from Google+ (which was pushed directly by Larry and grudgingly integrated-with by the rest of the company), Google hasn't really had plans "as a company" since the mid-2000s. Big companies (other than Apple under Steve Jobs) don't actually work like that; once you've got a product-focused org chart and strong executives that push their own focus areas, you will necessarily get product-focused initiative that respond to resource availability & market opportunity. The executives are not doing their jobs otherwise.

fuck_google 10y ago
Are you saying that big companies shouldn't have company-wide plans or that big companies tend not to have company-wide plans (because of poor leadership)?

pswilson14 10y ago

The idea of factions in Microsoft fighting for control is interesting to me from a historical perspective - do you have any books or sources I can read to get the full story?

iainmerrick 10y ago
I don't have any detailed links handy, but it's definitely common knowledge that this is the case (or used to be, anyway). Manu Cornet's comic captures it well: http://www.bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts/ http://www.bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts/
- pswilson14 10y ago
  I'd agree it's common knowledge, but I love reading detailed accounts of that kind of thing. Cheers anyway!

iainmerrick 10y ago

I think it's just a speculative effort that probably won't go anywhere. I googled for "google magenta", and all the top hits are actually about an entirely separate (I assume?) project about AI music: https://magenta.tensorflow.org/welcome-to-magenta https://magenta.tensorflow.org/welcome-to-magenta. So they didn't think very hard about the name for a start. I'm also skeptical that a big new effort like this would be done entirely in the open. The Chrome team has something of a history of doing that and then throwing stuff away (e.g. Chromium mods and hardware configuration for a Chrome tablet that never got off the ground). The Android team, on the other hand, seems to prefer developing stuff in private before open sourcing it. And their stuff seems to have more traction (or maybe we just don't see all the aborted efforts because they're private). I feel like the Chrome team really believes in open source, and developing in the open, whereas the rest of the company (and especially Android) doesn't care as much and prefers being secretive. But as Sundar Pichai used to run Chrome, maybe he's changing things up a bit?