Chrome OS can now run Android apps, no porting required

"App Runtime for Chrome (Beta)" is an entire Android stack built in Native Client.

Read the whole story

 

[dfjdejulio]

So, this is just on top of NaCl? Am I correct to believe that this means we might expect it to work on other "Chrome on Linux" systems at some point, or is NaCl on ChromeOS very different from NaCl on Linux?

 

[floyd42]

Edit: Whoops... never mind Chrome OS, not Chrome browser!

 

[dfjdejulio]

So, I decided to investigate. The "Evernote" that's packaged this way is in the Chrome web store right now. If I visit the page for it in Safari, it says "this runs in chrome". If I fire up Chrome under OS X, it won't install, because it says this app only runs on ChromeOS (without saying why).

My next step will be to try a version of Chromium, possibly hacked so that it pretends to be on ChromeOS. But that's for later.

(If I can get a real Evernote client running on a standard Linux desktop, most likely I will no longer ever run Windows on my netbook during meetings.)

 

[hackRme]

dfjdejulio[/url]":2c8mivu8]So, this is just on top of NaCl? Am I correct to believe that this means we might expect it to work on other "Chrome on Linux" systems at some point, or is NaCl on ChromeOS very different from NaCl on Linux?

I doubt its NaCl. Its the entire android stack built into chrome OS. As both chrome OS and android are linux based.

 

[joshv]

So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

 

[hackRme]

So is it finally the year of the linux? I see great potential here for Chrome OS. This might finally bring Chrome OS to mainstream.

 

[hackRme]

joshv[/url]":1tz5r3vh]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

 

[drksilenc]

probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":16cufgd8]

joshv[/url]":16cufgd8]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

 

[JiveTurkeyJerky]

I've been hemming and hawing over a ChromeBox vs a NUC.. this is another positive for the Chromebox

Anyone tried running PlexServer in Crouton on a Chromebook/Box? That's the only thing that still has me leaning NUC this winter..

 

[joshv]

hackRme[/url]":1lkv7g6v]

joshv[/url]":1lkv7g6v]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

I don't know about yours, but my hard disk is awfully big.

 

[hackRme]

drksilenc[/url]":1vm9k14u]probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":1vm9k14u]

joshv[/url]":1vm9k14u]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.

 

[hackRme]

joshv[/url]":2vcp133t]

hackRme[/url]":2vcp133t]

joshv[/url]":2vcp133t]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

I don't know about yours, but my hard disk is awfully big.

Consider this. Chrome installation requires around 50 Mb of download. Add to it the art runtime libraries. And visualization for running apps on AMD64/x86. The browser would be bloated beyond allowed limits. Maybe it won't hurt you but the emerging markets wouldn't favour such a thing.

 

[dfjdejulio]

hackRme[/url]":38ie1uxv]

drksilenc[/url]":38ie1uxv]probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":38ie1uxv]

joshv[/url]":38ie1uxv]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.

It could do that, but that's not all it would do.

It would increase Chrome usage. Today, I do not use Chrome on Linux much. If I could use it to run Android apps, I'd at least always have it installed, and might make it my primary browser. That's a win for Google.

It would increase Android app usage, and investment in that ecosystem. Today, I have a very small number of Android apps, and I haven't spent more than ... maybe $15 total on them across all stores, ever, because my primary phone and tablet are iOS devices. I've got a Nexus 7, an Ouya, and a FireTV too, but they're very much not primary devices for me.

Maybe this line of reasoning is too complicated for the Google businessfolk to follow, but, if I could run the Android apps on more devices, I would buy more Android apps, and I would use them more often (eg. taking notes on the Android version of Evernote instead of the Windows or iOS version). That's all a win for Google.

In any event, the guts of these things are in fact Chrome apps using NaCl. At this moment, they may depend on shared library support and such that's on ChromeOS but not other environments, but someone is going to figure out how to get around that. And then my netbook will become tremendously more useful.

 

[hackRme]

dfjdejulio[/url]":29vteapw]

hackRme[/url]":29vteapw]

drksilenc[/url]":29vteapw]probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":29vteapw]

joshv[/url]":29vteapw]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.

It could do that, but that's not all it would do.

It would increase Chrome usage. Today, I do not use Chrome on Linux much. If I could use it to run Android apps, I'd at least always have it installed, and might make it my primary browser. That's a win for Google.

It would increase Android app usage, and investment in that ecosystem. Today, I have a very small number of Android apps, and I haven't spent more than ... maybe $15 total on them across all stores, ever, because my primary phone and tablet are iOS devices. I've got a Nexus 7, an Ouya, and a FireTV too, but they're very much not primary devices for me.

Maybe this line of reasoning is too complicated for the Google businessfolk to follow, but, if I could run the Android apps on more devices, I would buy more Android apps, and I would use them more often (eg. taking notes on the Android version of Evernote instead of the Windows or iOS version). That's all a win for Google.

In any event, the guts of these things are in fact Chrome apps using NaCl. At this moment, they may depend on shared library support and such that's on ChromeOS but not other environments, but someone is going to figure out how to get around that. And then my netbook will become tremendously more useful.

But then again running android apps that would have been a selling point for chromebooks would be lost. There would be nothing that chromebooks do that other platform cannot. It would hurt sales for google.

 

[bumblepuppy]

Any chance of sideloading?

I have some apps on both the Google Play and Amazon stores, don't own an Android device anymore, but just got a Chromebook.

 

[shav]

joshv[/url]":2pxrydwi] A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

I don't know how much Android development you've done but I do both web dev and Android dev work. I'd take HTML+CSS any day over Androids XML layout. Its like they decided to reinvent the wheel just because and then they decided to rename everything. Spokes are now radii, why why not. I'm considering PhoneGap for a personal project just because things would be easier.

 

[ethd]

hackRme[/url]":nes0gj1f]

dfjdejulio[/url]":nes0gj1f]

hackRme[/url]":nes0gj1f]

drksilenc[/url]":nes0gj1f]probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":nes0gj1f]

joshv[/url]":nes0gj1f]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.

It could do that, but that's not all it would do.

It would increase Chrome usage. Today, I do not use Chrome on Linux much. If I could use it to run Android apps, I'd at least always have it installed, and might make it my primary browser. That's a win for Google.

It would increase Android app usage, and investment in that ecosystem. Today, I have a very small number of Android apps, and I haven't spent more than ... maybe $15 total on them across all stores, ever, because my primary phone and tablet are iOS devices. I've got a Nexus 7, an Ouya, and a FireTV too, but they're very much not primary devices for me.

Maybe this line of reasoning is too complicated for the Google businessfolk to follow, but, if I could run the Android apps on more devices, I would buy more Android apps, and I would use them more often (eg. taking notes on the Android version of Evernote instead of the Windows or iOS version). That's all a win for Google.

In any event, the guts of these things are in fact Chrome apps using NaCl. At this moment, they may depend on shared library support and such that's on ChromeOS but not other environments, but someone is going to figure out how to get around that. And then my netbook will become tremendously more useful.

But then again running android apps that would have been a selling point for chromebooks would be lost. There would be nothing that chromebooks do that other platform cannot. It would hurt sales for google.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. Until now, Chromebooks couldn't do anything that other platforms couldn't already anyways.

EDIT: Clarified statement.

 

[eschaefs]

Just bring me the Skype app and i'll be happy

 

[lodc]

arg... Google specifically uses the word "port" in their I/O video, and the fact that only three apps were planned seemed to imply there is an involved process that takes some months. now, they say there is no porting process? yet still only four apps are available, and still they are asking which apps the users would like to see "not ported" to ChromeOS?

I want to believe I will be able to run any Android app easily with a Chromebook. Its great to hear them say there is no porting process, but why are they doing everything as if there is a process?

confusion

 

[PhilGil]

hackRme[/url]":3j0fxzan]

dfjdejulio[/url]":3j0fxzan]

hackRme[/url]":3j0fxzan]

drksilenc[/url]":3j0fxzan]probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":3j0fxzan]

joshv[/url]":3j0fxzan]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.

It could do that, but that's not all it would do.

It would increase Chrome usage. Today, I do not use Chrome on Linux much. If I could use it to run Android apps, I'd at least always have it installed, and might make it my primary browser. That's a win for Google.

It would increase Android app usage, and investment in that ecosystem. Today, I have a very small number of Android apps, and I haven't spent more than ... maybe $15 total on them across all stores, ever, because my primary phone and tablet are iOS devices. I've got a Nexus 7, an Ouya, and a FireTV too, but they're very much not primary devices for me.

Maybe this line of reasoning is too complicated for the Google businessfolk to follow, but, if I could run the Android apps on more devices, I would buy more Android apps, and I would use them more often (eg. taking notes on the Android version of Evernote instead of the Windows or iOS version). That's all a win for Google.

In any event, the guts of these things are in fact Chrome apps using NaCl. At this moment, they may depend on shared library support and such that's on ChromeOS but not other environments, but someone is going to figure out how to get around that. And then my netbook will become tremendously more useful.

But then again running android apps that would have been a selling point for chromebooks would be lost. There would be nothing that chromebooks do that other platform cannot. It would hurt sales for google.

Google isn't a hardware vendor. With the exception of Chromebooks sold on the Play store they make very little from Chromebook sales. The only question for Google is which strategy will bring more users to the Google ecosystem and generate more revenue, keeping Android app capability exclusive to ChromeOS or expanding it to the Chrome browser on all platforms (as an optional add-on/extension to keep the bare browser download reasonably small).

It seems like a great move for Google to increase interoperability between Android and ChromeOS.

 

[John074]

With a basic ChromeOS now running on Windows using canary:

http://www.ghacks.net/2014/09/03/you-ca ... -well-now/

Does this mean we'll be able to run Android apps on Windows in a not too far future?

 

[hackRme]

ethd[/url]":48tiox8q]....

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.
It could do that, but that's not all it would do.

It would increase Chrome usage. Today, I do not use Chrome on Linux much. If I could use it to run Android apps, I'd at least always have it installed, and might make it my primary browser. That's a win for Google.

It would increase Android app usage, and investment in that ecosystem. Today, I have a very small number of Android apps, and I haven't spent more than ... maybe $15 total on them across all stores, ever, because my primary phone and tablet are iOS devices. I've got a Nexus 7, an Ouya, and a FireTV too, but they're very much not primary devices for me.

Maybe this line of reasoning is too complicated for the Google businessfolk to follow, but, if I could run the Android apps on more devices, I would buy more Android apps, and I would use them more often (eg. taking notes on the Android version of Evernote instead of the Windows or iOS version). That's all a win for Google.

In any event, the guts of these things are in fact Chrome apps using NaCl. At this moment, they may depend on shared library support and such that's on ChromeOS but not other environments, but someone is going to figure out how to get around that. And then my netbook will become tremendously more useful.

[/quote]

But then again running android apps that would have been a selling point for chromebooks would be lost. There would be nothing that chromebooks do that other platform cannot. It would hurt sales for google.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. Until now, Chromebooks couldn't do anything that other platforms couldn't already anyways.

EDIT: Clarified statement.

Google is creating an ecosystem just like apple. They have web and mobile. And the only place left is PC which is covered by chromebooks. Asking google to allow its ecosytem specifc apps to run anywhere would be like asking Apple to do the same.
Binding users to an ecosystem is an easy way to keep a loyal user base.
EDIT: Syntax

 

[alanmies]

John074[/url]":2ik1dr7i]With a basic ChromeOS now running on Windows using canary:

http://www.ghacks.net/2014/09/03/you-ca ... -well-now/

Does this mean we'll be able to run Android apps on Windows in a not too far future?

*insert Inception reference here*

 

[lvlln]

Is there any reason someone who owns a Chromebook couldn't manually put APKs onto it to run Android apps beyond the few already released? That would be a pretty killer feature.

 

[dfjdejulio]

lodc[/url]":yadzjw1c]arg... Google specifically uses the word "port" in their I/O video, and the fact that only three apps were planned seemed to imply there is an involved process that takes some months. now, they say there is no porting process? yet still only four apps are available, and still they are asking which apps the users would like to see "not ported" to ChromeOS?

I want to believe I will be able to run any Android app easily with a Chromebook. Its great to hear them say there is no porting process, but why are they doing everything as if there is a process?

confusion

So, from a little digging, here's what it looks like to me:

The "porting process" itself, in terms of changing the code that goes into your APK, doesn't have to be complicated and won't always be necessary at all. But if you've got an app that only supports multitouch for its user interface, that's not going to be delightful on a system with a keyboard and trackpad but no touchscreen.

Further, NaCl is at the heart of this thing. If you're using native code, and you only build for ARM, that's not going to run on an x86 Chromebook. So make sure you have a native code "bundle" (or whatever the right term is) for not only the Android targets you want to support but also the Chromebook targets.

Further, if you make sophisticated use of notifications or widgets or whatever, you'll have some things to think about.

Then, what's in the Chrome store isn't an "Android runtime" that you load your own APKs into. It's the wrapped Android app itself. I don't yet know how they're built -- maybe the developer runs a script that shoves the APK into a container with some extra metadata? The result looks like a "self-contained" Chrome application (that uses metadata to indicate "only runs on ChromeOS").

(And that has implications for Android apps that self-update. One shouldn't yet assume that precisely the same self-update mechanisms will work the same way under ChromeOS as under Android.)

So for some developers, "porting" may mean "run the chromification script", and for others it may mean "completely redesign your UI and recompile the hand-tuned assembly for a different processor architecture". (Gravy: this should increase the number of apps designed to work well on an Android set-top box with a keyboard and mouse attached.)

 

[Boskone]

hackRme[/url]":3006zb47]

drksilenc[/url]":3006zb47]probably around 2 GB

hackRme[/url]":3006zb47]

joshv[/url]":3006zb47]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

There is something else to consider too. Why would Google allow Apps running on android and chrome OS to run freely on all platforms? It would only hurt chromebook sales.

I dunno.

Getting past the snarky "What sales?" type comments, Chromebooks/boxes would maintain their advantages (inexpensive, lightweight, etc). It would just add a new capability to full-up devices.

It might also be bad for ChromeOS, but good for Google and Google apps developers; a larger possible market than just Android/ChromeOS.

 

[dfjdejulio]

hackRme[/url]":2hujzcpr]Google is creating an ecosystem just like apple. They have web and mobile. And the only place left is PC which is covered by chromebooks. Asking google to allow its ecosytem specifc apps to run anywhere would be like asking Apple to do the same.
Binding users to an ecosystem is an easy way to keep a loyal user base.

But one "problem" for this approach is, lots of their ecosystem is built on top of Linux and other open source code.

Someone is going to try to get this stuff working in a less-controlled environment. Google can either fight that, and get into a pissing match with open source communities including the folks behind the Linux kernel, or they can embrace that and not try to be as heavy-handed with lock-in.

The point is, going full-on Apple here is not a no-brainer for them. (And they can't fully succeed if they try, so hopefully there will be a limit on how hard they try.)

 

[dfjdejulio]

John074[/url]":2rx73gcm]With a basic ChromeOS now running on Windows using canary:

http://www.ghacks.net/2014/09/03/you-ca ... -well-now/

Does this mean we'll be able to run Android apps on Windows in a not too far future?

You already can. BlueStacks is one example of an Android runtime for Windows.

http://www.bluestacks.com/app-player.html

 

[hackRme]

dfjdejulio[/url]":1pbu32k9]

hackRme[/url]":1pbu32k9]Google is creating an ecosystem just like apple. They have web and mobile. And the only place left is PC which is covered by chromebooks. Asking google to allow its ecosytem specifc apps to run anywhere would be like asking Apple to do the same.
Binding users to an ecosystem is an easy way to keep a loyal user base.

But one "problem" for this approach is, lots of their ecosystem is built on top of Linux and other open source code.

Someone is going to try to get this stuff working in a less-controlled environment. Google can either fight that, and get into a pissing match with open source communities including the folks behind the Linux kernel, or they can embrace that and not try to be as heavy-handed with lock-in.

The point is, going full-on Apple here is not a no-brainer for them. (And they can't fully succeed if they try, so hopefully there will be a limit on how hard they try.)

Correction. Android is both open and closed source. Many of the SDKs are google specific and tightly controlled by google. Yes android apps have been ported everywhere. Bluestacks does it. But for the average user they just want whats bundled up in the package.
Anyone can run android apps anywhere but they don't. Someday iOS apps might be made to run everywhere. But that won't break apple's ecosystem.

 

[dfjdejulio]

hackRme[/url]":fvo5xvjy]

dfjdejulio[/url]":fvo5xvjy]

hackRme[/url]":fvo5xvjy]Google is creating an ecosystem just like apple. They have web and mobile. And the only place left is PC which is covered by chromebooks. Asking google to allow its ecosytem specifc apps to run anywhere would be like asking Apple to do the same.
Binding users to an ecosystem is an easy way to keep a loyal user base.

But one "problem" for this approach is, lots of their ecosystem is built on top of Linux and other open source code.

Someone is going to try to get this stuff working in a less-controlled environment. Google can either fight that, and get into a pissing match with open source communities including the folks behind the Linux kernel, or they can embrace that and not try to be as heavy-handed with lock-in.

The point is, going full-on Apple here is not a no-brainer for them. (And they can't fully succeed if they try, so hopefully there will be a limit on how hard they try.)

Correction. Android is both open and closed source. Many of the SDKs are google specific and tightly controlled by google.

How is that a "correction"? Did you mistakenly confuse "built on top of" with "built using nothing at all except for"?

The kernel is open source. This is why Google pretty much can't do anything to stop the entire stack from running on heavily modified versions of Android, like the CyanogenMod on my Nexus 7. If the bottom layer is open source (and it is), control gets really difficult.

 

[John074]

dfjdejulio[/url]":2l6n0xna]

John074[/url]":2l6n0xna]With a basic ChromeOS now running on Windows using canary:

http://www.ghacks.net/2014/09/03/you-ca ... -well-now/

Does this mean we'll be able to run Android apps on Windows in a not too far future?

You already can. BlueStacks is one example of an Android runtime for Windows.

http://www.bluestacks.com/app-player.html

Well, I haven't played with Bluestacks for a while but last time it wasn't exactly a completely smooth experience.

 

[hackRme]

dfjdejulio[/url]":3iqzoc89]

hackRme[/url]":3iqzoc89]

dfjdejulio[/url]":3iqzoc89]

hackRme[/url]":3iqzoc89]Google is creating an ecosystem just like apple. They have web and mobile. And the only place left is PC which is covered by chromebooks. Asking google to allow its ecosytem specifc apps to run anywhere would be like asking Apple to do the same.
Binding users to an ecosystem is an easy way to keep a loyal user base.

But one "problem" for this approach is, lots of their ecosystem is built on top of Linux and other open source code.

Someone is going to try to get this stuff working in a less-controlled environment. Google can either fight that, and get into a pissing match with open source communities including the folks behind the Linux kernel, or they can embrace that and not try to be as heavy-handed with lock-in.

The point is, going full-on Apple here is not a no-brainer for them. (And they can't fully succeed if they try, so hopefully there will be a limit on how hard they try.)

Correction. Android is both open and closed source. Many of the SDKs are google specific and tightly controlled by google.

How is that a "correction"? Did you mistakenly confuse "built on top of" with "built using nothing at all except for"?

The kernel is open source. This is why Google pretty much can't do anything to stop the entire stack from running on heavily modified versions of Android, like the CyanogenMod on my Nexus 7. If the bottom layer is open source (and it is), control gets really difficult.

My bad. Didn't read your statement properly. But the gut of the matter is google wouldn't like to share its user base. Having users on a chromebook means controlling every aspect of the user's PC. Allowing what it has built for so long to be distributed among everyone wouldn't suit Google as a corporation.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

hackRme[/url]":59y5hbiu]

dfjdejulio[/url]":59y5hbiu]

hackRme[/url]":59y5hbiu]

dfjdejulio[/url]":59y5hbiu]

hackRme[/url]":59y5hbiu]Google is creating an ecosystem just like apple. They have web and mobile. And the only place left is PC which is covered by chromebooks. Asking google to allow its ecosytem specifc apps to run anywhere would be like asking Apple to do the same.
Binding users to an ecosystem is an easy way to keep a loyal user base.

But one "problem" for this approach is, lots of their ecosystem is built on top of Linux and other open source code.

Someone is going to try to get this stuff working in a less-controlled environment. Google can either fight that, and get into a pissing match with open source communities including the folks behind the Linux kernel, or they can embrace that and not try to be as heavy-handed with lock-in.

The point is, going full-on Apple here is not a no-brainer for them. (And they can't fully succeed if they try, so hopefully there will be a limit on how hard they try.)

Correction. Android is both open and closed source. Many of the SDKs are google specific and tightly controlled by google.

How is that a "correction"? Did you mistakenly confuse "built on top of" with "built using nothing at all except for"?

The kernel is open source. This is why Google pretty much can't do anything to stop the entire stack from running on heavily modified versions of Android, like the CyanogenMod on my Nexus 7. If the bottom layer is open source (and it is), control gets really difficult.

My bad. Didn't read your statement properly. But the gut of the matter is google wouldn't like to share its user base. Having users on a chromebook means controlling every aspect of the user's PC. Allowing what it has built for so long to be distributed among everyone wouldn't suit Google as a corporation.

That's exactly backwards. Google is always very clear that they want their services on as many platforms as possible. That's why gmail and maps etc. are available pretty much everywhere (with the glaring exception of Windows Phone, which it appears is being semi-embargoed until Microsoft stops its behind-the-scenes patent-trolling war on Android (I have to say, I can't blame Google much for that)). Sure, they'd like you to use ChromeOS or Android, but in the end ChromeOS and Android don't make any money for Google- their services do. Getting you to use chrome, gmail and maps etc. is far more important to their ecosystem than what platform you use them on.

 

[GaidinBDJ]

dfjdejulio[/url]":2vn1h0dx][But if you've got an app that only supports multitouch for its user interface, that's not going to be delightful on a system with a keyboard and trackpad but no touchscreen.

I'm not sure about others but the Acer c720 trackpad supports multi-touch and it's large enough that maybe there's some kind of mapping from the trackpad right to the app interface that would let multi-touch apps work. You'd probably need some kind of capture/release key for the input It probably wouldn't be as nice as using the actual screen but it'd be a way.

 

[gmerrick]

Is it me, or am I the only one that thinks that Evernote is overrated? I much prefer colornote myself.

 

[dfjdejulio]

gmerrick[/url]":2kgsu509]Is it me, or am I the only one that thinks that Evernote is overrated? I much prefer colornote myself.

Tell me more: does it have native Windows, OS X, Android, and iOS sync clients that all interoperate? Because that's the thing that keeps me on Evernote, even though for any single platform I've got note-taking apps that I vastly prefer.

 

[gijames1225]

If this made it's way to Chrome in general it could be a great stopgap for W8.1 tablets while native apps are still pending.

 

[InfernoBlade]

hackRme[/url]":21cv8imx]

joshv[/url]":21cv8imx]So.... If they are going to all this trouble, why not bring this feature to the chrome browser, period. I know it seems a really round about way to get back to java applets running in your browser, but it seems we might finally have the technology and the security model required to do it right.

Why bother? A rich and stable platform neutral development framework that doesn't have the headaches of HTML/JS/CSS.

Because chrome is a browser. Period.
It is not like the apps are ported to HTML/Javascript. They are using probably the ART in Chrome OS. Imagine what would the size of chrome installation if they bundled entire ART runtime into the browser.

Not that huge. On my phone libart.so + friends adds up to about 6 MB. Add in a few things like libEGL.so and framework.jar (plus a few of the other ones needed from /system/framework) and you're probably looking at 20-30 MB for a minimal android runtime with no apps. Remember, android system images for nexus devices, which package up android chrome into them, are only typically a few hundred megs, and most of that is going to the apps in /system/app and the OS itself.

 

[MattEvansC3]

Isn't Google almost running the risk of making ChromeOS as relevant as WindowsRT by doing this?

Why develop a ChromeOS specific app when you can just modify an existing Android app? If you can modify the Android apps to work with a keyboard and mouse why not do the same for the Android OS? Why have ChromeOS running Android apps when you can have a non-touch branch of Android running Android apps.


Microsoft is finally on the right track with its universal apps policy, merging WindowsRT with WindowsPhone and moving Threshold away from the Start Screen all while running the same kernel. This step by Google just seems to show the same lack of faith in one of its products Microsoft showed when it reintroduced the Start Button to try and appease those that wanted the Start Menu back.