3 ms·

I'm excited to hear that but also surprised. When I checked on Chrome OS project page only a few weeks ago, it looked like the project had done very little of

by devmonk 16y ago

I'm excited to hear that but also surprised. When I checked on Chrome OS project page only a few weeks ago, it looked like the project had done very little of public mention since a year ago. And the video on the linked page with the demo is a year old. And, I'm confused about what Google is doing with Chrome OS and Android. Google TV runs an old version of Chrome, stamped as a newer version, but is supposed to later run newer Chrome and Android apps. I know that Android isn't really mean for netbooks (even though it has been run on some), and I like the idea of Google providing an operating system that can run seemlessly like the rest of the web in a browser. But, it almost feels like these two efforts (Chrome OS and Android) should be managed by two different companies. I just don't see how the company can effectively focus on one or the other in marketing and not cause problems for the other: If I create an ad for Chrome OS that implies running in a web browser OS is smarter, that would be a slight against Android, even if it is unrealistic to run Chrome OS on a mobile device; similarly, if I create an ad for Android saying that people should buy Android because there are 50 million apps (not yet, but just an example) then that might be a slight against Chrome OS which may have many fewer apps available in the Chrome OS Web Store ( https://chrome.google.com/webstore https://chrome.google.com/webstore ).

bstrong 16y ago
The Android/ChromeOS strategy makes sense from Google's point of view. At this stage in the game, it's unclear whether the future of app development is browser-based or native, but it's incredibly important to get the answer right. So what do you do? If you're Google, you run a big A/B test and let the data decide. Apple is doing something similar on a smaller scale by investing heavily in both webkit and native apps. In the short term it causes some developer and user confusion, but it's worth it to make sure they aren't left behind if web apps win in the end.
- wmf 16y ago
  Except Google TV doesn't fit into that strategy; why have a version of Android that only runs a browser? Why have two browser codebases for Android?
- devmonk 16y ago
  I don't think it is an A/B test. They just want to dominate the web in the short and long term. The majority of their efforts support this hypothesis. To own the web in the current day and age, they would want to: - Own the browser (so they started the Chrome project) - Own the OS (preferably using Chrome, to reduce complexity/overhead/duplication) - Own the applications/be what people use (Google apps, App Engine, Search, Gmail, ...) - Own the data (Search, Maps/Street View/Google Earth, Google Base, Google Apps, Google Groups, Gmail, ...) - Make business dependent on Google (Search, Ads, ...) To own the web in the future they would want to: - Embrace web to transition world from client-centric/thick-client to fully browser-based that just happens to run on their browser. (I doubt they will make the browser pluggable, using the excuse that this would be way too complex.) Android does not further this purpose as much as Chrome OS. Android was originally supposed to be a temporary solution to the mobile OS (like iOS, Windows Mobile, etc.). However, when it took off (exceeding their expectations, I imagine) they had to temporarily deprioritize Chrome OS. But, eventually mobile devices could run Chrome OS, at which point they'd ditch Android. I think Apple is making a similar play now, heading towards the eventual "merge" of iOS and OS X, using the iOS model of controlling the apps sold via the app store in OS X until mobile devices are powerful enough to run (the future version of) OS X (after it has been redesigned to better support usage on a smaller screen without mouse, etc.). Except that Apple won't (in this century) ditch the significant investment in Cocoa for a browser-based OS.

by devmonk 16y ago

bstrong 16y ago

The Android/ChromeOS strategy makes sense from Google's point of view. At this stage in the game, it's unclear whether the future of app development is browser-based or native, but it's incredibly important to get the answer right. So what do you do? If you're Google, you run a big A/B test and let the data decide. Apple is doing something similar on a smaller scale by investing heavily in both webkit and native apps. In the short term it causes some developer and user confusion, but it's worth it to make sure they aren't left behind if web apps win in the end.

wmf 16y ago
Except Google TV doesn't fit into that strategy; why have a version of Android that only runs a browser? Why have two browser codebases for Android?
devmonk 16y ago
I don't think it is an A/B test. They just want to dominate the web in the short and long term. The majority of their efforts support this hypothesis. To own the web in the current day and age, they would want to: - Own the browser (so they started the Chrome project) - Own the OS (preferably using Chrome, to reduce complexity/overhead/duplication) - Own the applications/be what people use (Google apps, App Engine, Search, Gmail, ...) - Own the data (Search, Maps/Street View/Google Earth, Google Base, Google Apps, Google Groups, Gmail, ...) - Make business dependent on Google (Search, Ads, ...) To own the web in the future they would want to: - Embrace web to transition world from client-centric/thick-client to fully browser-based that just happens to run on their browser. (I doubt they will make the browser pluggable, using the excuse that this would be way too complex.) Android does not further this purpose as much as Chrome OS. Android was originally supposed to be a temporary solution to the mobile OS (like iOS, Windows Mobile, etc.). However, when it took off (exceeding their expectations, I imagine) they had to temporarily deprioritize Chrome OS. But, eventually mobile devices could run Chrome OS, at which point they'd ditch Android. I think Apple is making a similar play now, heading towards the eventual "merge" of iOS and OS X, using the iOS model of controlling the apps sold via the app store in OS X until mobile devices are powerful enough to run (the future version of) OS X (after it has been redesigned to better support usage on a smaller screen without mouse, etc.). Except that Apple won't (in this century) ditch the significant investment in Cocoa for a browser-based OS.