4 ms·

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" functio

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.

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.