Chrome's shine could blind Android

[rhoenix]

It's been a year of milestones for Android in the U.S. The number of handsets with the Google-developed software has grown from one to eight. Three of the four major national carriers, including Verizon Wireless, the country's largest, now offer Android phones. HTC's Hero and Motorola's CLIQ have shown how Android supports customization by manufacturers. And the Motorola Droid has marked the debut of Android 2.0.

When the T-Mobile G1 was launched, Switched On discussed Google's growing rivalry with Apple. But now Google itself an even more formidable threat to the Android than Apple or even Microsoft. Growing out of the group that created the Chrome browser, Google's Chrome OS creates a relatively lightweight layer of hardware management code primarily for the purpose of running one native app, the Chrome browser. While Chrome OS can take advantage of local processing and resources, the OS foregoes local applications, citing a need to preserve speed, security and simplicity.

That argument resembles one Apple made in the early days of the iPhone with web apps before it committed to releasing an SDK and launched the App Store -- a reversal that's created one the most vibrant mobile software ecosystems ever seen. And unlike iPhone apps, Android apps can operate in the background. Indeed, Android's multitasking, alerts, and upgrade notifications are among the most elegant in the industry; clearly the OS development team has put a lot of thought into how to deliver the benefits of local applications in the stringent smartphone environment.

So, should developers invest in local apps for Android or is the future Web apps delivered via the Chrome browser? The mixed message Google is giving developers with Chrome OS and Android smacks of the worst kind of corporate infighting and politics where the left hand not is not only unaware of what the right hand is doing, but is also competing with it. Google postulates noncommittally that Android and Chrome OS may merge at some point, but they are unlikely to do so via entropy. Just ask Microsoft, which spent a decade trying to marry the user interface and hardware support of its consumer Windows products (95, 98) with the plumbing of its enterprise Windows versions (NT, 2000).

More seriously, the treatment of desktop and handset platforms as two disparate opportunities that have contradictory app strategies runs counter to the marketplace success that Apple has had with a unified OS X foundation running on Macs and iPhones. Even Microsoft, which has struggled to create the richness of mobile applications that it has on the PC desktop, strives to leverage developer knowledge with common development tools for Windows and Windows Mobile. Nokia, which once relegated Maemo for being fit for "PC-like" mobile experiences, is now more seriously considering integrating the Linux-based OS more deeply into its smartphone offerings. This is because handsets have finally become contextual mobile computers -- Android itself is evidence of that.

And if we can trust and enrich these omnipresent epicenters of our digital lives with third-party applications, we should certainly be able to manage apps on some tertiary PC companion. In the high-stakes competitive environment in which Android competes, developers deserve to know that sponsoring organizations believe in the value of third-party applications that engage the user with appropriate user interfaces and offline functionality. It would be a shame for Android developers and users if its path were derailed by a browser that has developed megalomania.

Quite honestly, I think Google's big enough to multitask and approach things from both ends toward the middle later; at least, that was my take on it. I'm not sure about this whole take of "right hand" vs. "left hand", since it implies that Google's flying by the seat of their pants when it comes to development, and I really doubt that's the case. To accuse Google of not having a roadmap is a bit silly.

With that said though, I'm quite honestly not sure what Google's trying to do with their OS. It's fast, yeah, but the entire design structure flies right in the face of how everyone uses computers (or smartphones).

[Destructionator XV]

but but didnt you hear people only use computers for SURFING THE WEB

and with superior GOOGLE WEB APPS traditional apps are COMPLETELY OBSOLETE

Fucking morons. I loathe Google.

[The Cleric]

People like my mother wouldn't notice the difference between the two. All she does in go online and basic word processing. It's being marketed at different people, who had different uses.

[Destructionator XV]

I'm curious: has she actually tried to convert to a web only experience?

There's such huge differences between web word processor and something like Microsoft Word, just in the layout and feel of it, that I'd expect one to find the difference quite jarring. This results in product returns, even when all the features the person wants are all there - Linux tried this on the netbook, and we see how well it worked out for them.

[General Havoc]

There are however discrete advantages to web-based apps. I could not practice most of my hobbies without the assistance of Google Docs in various types, despite the additional features from traditional docs. Or shall we sit here and re-hash the usual inanities about "Anyone who employs technology in a manner other than the manner which I do is stupid, and those companies that permit it are loathesome."

[Destructionator XV]

There are however discrete advantages to web-based apps.

You can always run your web apps on a full featured operating system if you want them. What Google is trying to do with their operating system is restrict you to only running web apps, which Apple originally tried with the iPhone, and failed. The app store is their biggest selling point now. Linux tried a step higher on the netbooks - browsers and a handful of linux apps - and also failed, since it didn't live up to user's expectations.

I can't think of a single product to find success on the market that offered only the ability to run web apps.

Or shall we sit here and re-hash the usual inanities about "Anyone who employs technology in a manner other than the manner which I do is stupid, and those companies that permit it are loathesome."

You do realize that this is exactly what Google is doing with their Chrome OS? That system runs Google's browser and ONLY Google's browser. It doesn't permit you at all to employ technology in a manner other than the manner in which they provide it.

Whereas, on every other operating system, you can run a browser - possibly even Google's - in addition to a myriad of other apps, which can be customized for the specific device. You can have the best of both worlds.

Android might be competitive on the market. The Chrome OS doesn't have a chance.

[The Cleric]

I'm curious: has she actually tried to convert to a web only experience?

There's such huge differences between web word processor and something like Microsoft Word, just in the layout and feel of it, that I'd expect one to find the difference quite jarring. This results in product returns, even when all the features the person wants are all there - Linux tried this on the netbook, and we see how well it worked out for them.

So we are in agreement that the major drawback is familiarity and ease of transition for adoption? That's a not a very strong argument against it.


And of course Chrome is the only browser you can use, since it's using that platform to do EVERYTHING. It would be like getting rid of File Explorer on Windows.

[Destructionator XV]

So we are in agreement that the major drawback is familiarity and ease of transition for adoption? That's a not a very strong argument against it.

That's why it is guaranteed to fail commercially (inertia is very strong), but there are loads of arguments against web apps from a technical perspective too.

A big one is they target the browser, not the device. This means interacting with them is likely to be awkward on something like a phone - how do you handle multi-touch screens in a web app? How do you interface with the camera or the vibration motor? What if its keyboard is completely unlike a PC?

Also, being in the browser requires them to be foreground programs. How do you make a web app that can push notifications to the user?

You'd have to go to the site every time you want it - what if the network is slow or down today? Or what if you are paying by the kilobyte?

Suppose you want sound or bitmapped graphics. Oops, no standard way to do them in web apps. The best we have is Flash, which doesn't mesh with the rest of the site very well.


Chrome will probably get around some of these with non-standard extensions (fucking hypocrites. When Microsoft offers an extension, it is evil, but when Google does it, it is innovative), but some of it is innate to the environment. HTTP simply isn't made to do applications.

It would be like getting rid of File Explorer on Windows.

Which you can actually do, easily even. But the comparison is invalid - Windows Explorer is just one of thousands of programs you can run on the system, and itself does a fairly small role. On the Chrome OS, Chrome is one of one program you can run on the system.