5 ms·

You can destroy your Chrome Notebook and then walk to another and pick up where you left off. That’s not true of Android and, by design, IT NEVER WILL BE. Coun

You can destroy your Chrome Notebook and then walk to another and pick up where you left off. That’s not true of Android and, by design, IT NEVER WILL BE. Counterpoint one: If I treated an Android device like a Chrome OS device, i.e. using nothing but the browser, it pretty much would be. Counterpoint two: All that Android would have to change to satisfy that requirement is to default to storing data on a "cloud" filesystem.

tghw 16y ago
Agreed. Chrome OS is almost a strict subset of Android in terms of functionality. There are also a lot of reasons that storing everything in the cloud, especially from a laptop, isn't really a "feature" anyway.
- jsmcgd 16y ago
  But also you have to agree that there are lots of reasons why storing everything in the cloud is a feature. It wholly depends on the user's situation and Chrome OS caters to one such situation.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  There are also a lot of reasons that storing everything in the cloud, especially from a laptop, isn't really a "feature" anyway. If you stopped at storing in the could, there would be huge drawbacks. If you stored in the cloud and cached locally, then a lot of the drawbacks are mitigated.
- chrisaycock 16y ago
  I don't get this whole "cloud vs. local" debate. We've had tools/protocols that sync local and remote for years, like rsync for files, IMAP for email, Git for version control, various package management schemes for upgrading software, etc. I can do all of my work locally and then sync remotely.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    For me, a lot of the controversy surrounding the debate relates to who gets access to the data I generate. It would seem that the "cloud" crowd wants me to give up control over my data, evidently in order to further their business goals, and they're trying very hard to make the case to me that it's to my advantage. I just can't think of a reason I'd choose to limit myself from having more options to manage my data on my own terms rather than being at the mercy of various third parties.
eru 16y ago
> You can destroy your Chrome Notebook and then walk to another and pick up where you left off. That’s not true of Android and, by design, IT NEVER WILL BE. Some co-workers (of mine) are working on a system to make that property true for any laptop and any operating system. (It obviously involves virtualization and sending (encrypted) hard disk diffs around.)
nostrademons 16y ago
But people won't. If everyone restricted their FaceBook statuses to 140 characters, you'd have Twitter. Twitter is literally a strict subset of the functionality of the technical functionality of FaceBook. But that hasn't stopped it from becoming popular: Twitter's limited feature set provides a social cue for how to use it, and so people continue to use it for that purpose even when there are alternatives that can do that and more.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
My argument would be that it's not so much about technical functionality as it is about mindset. To do what ChromeOS does you would have to "take away" functionality from Android to force people to use cloud storage. No one would ever go for that. Google's goal here is to prove a cloud based environment is viable without native access. That's what ChromeOS does. So yes, from a technical perspective you're absolutely right. But from a real world perspective Android could never do what Google hopes ChromeOS will. Edit: jsmcgd's comment in this same thread makes a good point. ChromeOS' killer feature (if it succeeds) is "storing everything in the cloud" and you don't get that just by storing some things.
- mikeryan 16y ago
  It seems to me the only way to provide a cloud based environment is viable is with local storage. Even Chrome OS allows for local storage of data for offline use.
- orangecat 16y ago
  It seems that Chrome OS has two major policies that are often conflated, but are actually independent of each other: 1. Store everything in the cloud. 2. Only support web apps. I agree that #1 is usually a good idea, although there are times when I specifically don't want it. And Android could and should support transparent cloud storage with minimal changes. I don't agree with #2 at all. HTML+JS+CSS is far from an ideal application framework; after many years we've gotten to the point where it mostly works, but there are plenty of cases where native apps provide a much better experience.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    A big feature of limiting yourself to the functional subset of #2 is that you can access it 100% from anywhere you can install Chrome (e.g. a full Mac, Windows or Linux desktop or laptop) and probably 80% of it from any device with a browser, and thanks to #1 all your data is right there so you can hop from big screen desktop machine with a comfy chair to a lightweight low power laptop on the road (and back again) with minimal disruption. Compare with current road warriors who probably dock their travel machine when at home to achieve the same goal. It's like accessing your email via a desktop client but always having the option to access it via a web interface. If you shift the assumptions slightly so that you've not always got access to the exact same desktop machine then just a good web interface across all the machines you use starts to get competitive. Plus there's the security benefits of a limited core functionality.

tghw 16y ago

Agreed. Chrome OS is almost a strict subset of Android in terms of functionality. There are also a lot of reasons that storing everything in the cloud, especially from a laptop, isn't really a "feature" anyway.

jsmcgd 16y ago
But also you have to agree that there are lots of reasons why storing everything in the cloud is a feature. It wholly depends on the user's situation and Chrome OS caters to one such situation.
stcredzero 16y ago
There are also a lot of reasons that storing everything in the cloud, especially from a laptop, isn't really a "feature" anyway. If you stopped at storing in the could, there would be huge drawbacks. If you stored in the cloud and cached locally, then a lot of the drawbacks are mitigated.
chrisaycock 16y ago
I don't get this whole "cloud vs. local" debate. We've had tools/protocols that sync local and remote for years, like rsync for files, IMAP for email, Git for version control, various package management schemes for upgrading software, etc. I can do all of my work locally and then sync remotely.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  For me, a lot of the controversy surrounding the debate relates to who gets access to the data I generate. It would seem that the "cloud" crowd wants me to give up control over my data, evidently in order to further their business goals, and they're trying very hard to make the case to me that it's to my advantage. I just can't think of a reason I'd choose to limit myself from having more options to manage my data on my own terms rather than being at the mercy of various third parties.

eru 16y ago

> You can destroy your Chrome Notebook and then walk to another and pick up where you left off. That’s not true of Android and, by design, IT NEVER WILL BE. Some co-workers (of mine) are working on a system to make that property true for any laptop and any operating system. (It obviously involves virtualization and sending (encrypted) hard disk diffs around.)

nostrademons 16y ago

But people won't. If everyone restricted their FaceBook statuses to 140 characters, you'd have Twitter. Twitter is literally a strict subset of the functionality of the technical functionality of FaceBook. But that hasn't stopped it from becoming popular: Twitter's limited feature set provides a social cue for how to use it, and so people continue to use it for that purpose even when there are alternatives that can do that and more.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

My argument would be that it's not so much about technical functionality as it is about mindset. To do what ChromeOS does you would have to "take away" functionality from Android to force people to use cloud storage. No one would ever go for that. Google's goal here is to prove a cloud based environment is viable without native access. That's what ChromeOS does. So yes, from a technical perspective you're absolutely right. But from a real world perspective Android could never do what Google hopes ChromeOS will. Edit: jsmcgd's comment in this same thread makes a good point. ChromeOS' killer feature (if it succeeds) is "storing everything in the cloud" and you don't get that just by storing some things.

mikeryan 16y ago
It seems to me the only way to provide a cloud based environment is viable is with local storage. Even Chrome OS allows for local storage of data for offline use.
orangecat 16y ago
It seems that Chrome OS has two major policies that are often conflated, but are actually independent of each other: 1. Store everything in the cloud. 2. Only support web apps. I agree that #1 is usually a good idea, although there are times when I specifically don't want it. And Android could and should support transparent cloud storage with minimal changes. I don't agree with #2 at all. HTML+JS+CSS is far from an ideal application framework; after many years we've gotten to the point where it mostly works, but there are plenty of cases where native apps provide a much better experience.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  A big feature of limiting yourself to the functional subset of #2 is that you can access it 100% from anywhere you can install Chrome (e.g. a full Mac, Windows or Linux desktop or laptop) and probably 80% of it from any device with a browser, and thanks to #1 all your data is right there so you can hop from big screen desktop machine with a comfy chair to a lightweight low power laptop on the road (and back again) with minimal disruption. Compare with current road warriors who probably dock their travel machine when at home to achieve the same goal. It's like accessing your email via a desktop client but always having the option to access it via a web interface. If you shift the assumptions slightly so that you've not always got access to the exact same desktop machine then just a good web interface across all the machines you use starts to get competitive. Plus there's the security benefits of a limited core functionality.