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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it's quite clear, Google has to choose: either Chrome OS or Android. Because of this schism, tablet support for Android was delayed, which was one of the biggest strategic blunders of Google, letting Apple entrench itself firmly there. Google often has competing projects and they have to attitude "we'll just let them duke out, let the data decide which is better." When you're talking about adding this or that button on the home page this is OK, but when you're dealing with huge industry-scale bets, this approach is appalling.
Google's misguided approach here not only hurts them but others, like Motorola and carriers, who have bet big on Android success. I think they should put all their forces behind Android. They'll need all they've got to beat Apple.
It's not at all clear to me why they have to choose. ChromeOS seems to me like an experiment completely unrelated to Android -- "Can we use computers without any desktop software at all?" Like any technological stretch it's highly likely to fail, but not because of Android, because its hypothesis has been proven false.
Exactly, it's "an experiment [mostly] unrelated to Android." My point is that it's sucking valuable resources from Android in Google and what's worse it's dividing the mind-share within the company. Look at Apple, one OS, one approach, one mind. They're throwing everything they've got to it. I think Google must do the same. Android already has made great progress, why not push it to the hilt.
Google isn't Apple. Google is experiment driven. Similar advice several years ago might have been, "Google needs to stay they hell away from E-Mail! They're a search company." I don't think it "costs" Google anything to have many projects going at once -- they're optimized for that.
You're right. The point was that this not Google's initiative alone, a lot of device manufacturers are riding along too. In hardware business you cannot experiment like that.
Apple and Microsoft have two, but one's a touch/mobile OS, and the other is a desktop OS. You wouldn't run OSX on an iOS device, and you wouldn't run iOS on an OSX device.
You might, however, run Chrome OS on a tablet that's built for Android, or Android on a Chrome OS netbook. Google has made two potentially competing OSes, and that's the big difference.
I don't have an internal memo or something to prove that, of course :-) But think about it, why didn't they include support for large screens in Froyo at least? This delay caused hardware manufacturers to delay Android tablets, that's why there's no good Android contender to iPad now (other than some Chinese manufactured junk).
I think Google was still caught in thinking Android solely in terms of a system for phones and pushing Chrome OS (and untested OS, still under development) for larger devices.
+1 for the touche! Thanks for your keen eye for exposing made up comments in a funny way.
I talked to people at Google, just developers not themanager of Chrome or anything, so I cannot be sure what they are thinking. People I talked had the same feeling, though.
26 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 61.7 ms ] threadCounterpoint 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Google's misguided approach here not only hurts them but others, like Motorola and carriers, who have bet big on Android success. I think they should put all their forces behind Android. They'll need all they've got to beat Apple.
Where does the obviously false folk belief that one OS is the ideal number come from?
You might, however, run Chrome OS on a tablet that's built for Android, or Android on a Chrome OS netbook. Google has made two potentially competing OSes, and that's the big difference.
reference please.
I think Google was still caught in thinking Android solely in terms of a system for phones and pushing Chrome OS (and untested OS, still under development) for larger devices.
I talked to people at Google, just developers not themanager of Chrome or anything, so I cannot be sure what they are thinking. People I talked had the same feeling, though.