Why Chrome And Android Are Incomplete
I have to admit that I was pretty impressed by Google's announcements this week. There is quite a bit of innovation in those new products and the hope that Google can transform the way we access information and use computers.
Yet I was surprised that a key problem is still not addressed.
I could not help but compare Microsoft's Mango Windows Phone 7 update and the rumors of a few new features with Google's promised Android update. I won't go into detail about those, since you already know everything about ADK, Android @ Home, Android 3.1, Ice Cream Sandwich and Market updates, if you are interested in this topic. There were some maintenance updates and fixes for some hiccups, but ADK and Android @ Home are the big news items and represent huge bets that Android can expand beyond mobile computing devices and basically invade every electronic device in your home.
We have seen those ideas in the past, but they never got any traction as they were limited in their functionality and reach. Android has a tremendous user base that is now apparently growing by 400,000 devices every day and it is a natural though to expand the platform. Google wants Android to be the Os of your household and, in a larger sense, the OS of your everyday life.
On the other side, Google is developing another OS, which slowly emerges from its Chrome browser (at some point, I would actually believe that Google will drop the "OS" and call both the browser and OS simply Chrome.) We are now getting the first commercial Chromebooks, the Chrome Box as a software/hardware management device, different availability programs as well as a greater focus on applications. And if we look a bit closer, apps are critical to the success of both Chrome and Android.
Separate ways
Since Chrome OS was released as a beta software, there have always been those who claimed that there is no room for Chrome OS and Google should just merge it into Android. Today we know that Android and Chrome OS are pitched as two very different products - one for mobile devices as well as household products with a touch UI and the other as a PC OS for devices with a keyboard, even if I am scratching our head over the fact why Chrome needs a touch UI that is pushed so hard by Google.
Google grows two increasingly complex operating system trees that are kept separate and it appears that Google does everything it can do to keep it that way. There is only a loose connection between Android and Chrome OS via specific apps - its own Docs, Mail and Calendar apps, as well as some third party apps that are available on both platforms. Examples are, for example, Dropbox or Evernote. Google's approach is very different from the unified platform approach that Apple follows.
Synergies
Google's value is in its core product: search. The company has done a stunning job building apps around the information it stores on its servers for Android. Maps, Skymap, voice integration and Goggles are just a few examples. I still believe that much of Android's success is based on unique applications that have enough appeal so people go and buy those devices. Apps will drive Android in the future as well as the software expands into the home. However, they may not be enough anymore to keep momentum and push Android fast enough. I am wondering whether Google can afford to keep Chrome OS and Android separate or whether it should be thinking about much greater synergies, especially since we are talking about cloud services. What if there was a Chrome browser for Android (which strangely does not exist?) and future apps would be entirely be built on top of HTML5 technologies? What if there was a software bridge that would allow you to use those apps that are installed on a Chromebook on your tablet or smartphone? What if cloud computing would not just apply to data but to such a software and application bridge?
Apple has that bridge - it's called iOS and there are signs that Apple may be thinking about bridging the gap to Mac OS X as well. The result is a much more valuable and less complex user experience and I am convinced that this is the way to go. For Google, that bridge is missing - given the effort to build two cloud computing platforms from scratch, it is somewhat surprising that this bridge does not exist at this time, which makes Android and Chrome OS incomplete at this time.
Google's ADK and @Home idea could benefit very much from a bridge to chrome - and you could control your air conditioner, access light controls, or your treadmill not just via a phone, but via Chrome OS as well. Certainly not necessary, but surely a compelling feature that would be appreciated by users. This goes the other way, of course as well: If your phone/tablet could access your Chrome OS apps, your browsing history (there are third-party apps for that), or any document, how much easier could this make your life? You shouldn’t have to worry what device you use in the cloud computing age - especially if we are now having dual-core smartphones and highly-capable tablets - yet it seems that the barrier of application transparency will once again be the OS platform.
The bottom line? As ambitious as Google is with its new ideas, the platform synergy just isn't there yet. Android and Chrome OS will need each other to compete with Apple. If they are in sync, and the user does not have to care anymore what operating system is installed and when all computing features simply revolve about data, we may truly be able to grasp the benefits of cloud computing, at least as long as we do not forget that our data should be reasonably protected.
The same goes, of course, for Microsoft. The idea of having a separate Phone OS appears to be old. Windows 8 for ARM is a step in a unified OS platform direction , which Google will need to take serious. A tablet that can connect to a smartphone and a PC instantly has much greater value than two separate devices that require a user to figure out how data (and apps) move from one device to the next. It is easier to justify $400-$500 for a Chromebook that is closely tight to an Android smartphone than justifying it for what is a standalone device when it debuts. It would be silly not to take advantage of the entire ecosystem of Chrome and Android users that already exist.
- Comcast: We're NOT Blocking The Pirate Bay
- Complete Zeus Trojan Source Code Leaked
- AT&T T-Mobile Deal May Need Revision
- Game Lets You Recreate Osama's Death Raid
- Water-based Jetpack Goes on Sale for $99,500
- Facebook Gave Out Access to Millions of User Info
- Android Phones to Get 18-Month Support Cycle
- Google Activates Its 100 Millionth Android Device
- Labels: Apple is Better Than Google, Amazon
- Aqua-Clock Displays Time Ambiguously
- Audi Invites Architects to Reveal New York 2030
- Boxes of Light Create Modular Lighting Fixtures
- Netflix Finally, Finally Arrives on Android
- United States Leads Global Malware Infections
- Cycling Backpack Provides LED Turnsignals
- Solar Powered Lounger Provides Shade, Gadget Power
- Capcom: Sony Breach Could Cost Us Millions
- VOTW: Store Uses Kinect to Dress Shoppers
- Facebook Hires PR Firm to Smear Google
Google should go for a single OS. Soon there will be no huge difference between portable pocket devices and desktops (well there will be some of course but it won't matter) . The only significant difference will be the user interface.
Google should extend Android from the smallest smartphone to the larger desktops, port LibreOffice to Android, enable more external devices (they've actually done it already) and chew a huge chunk of Microsoft's domain - the desktop/mobile OS.
The world is changing, computing is changing. Maybe it's time to end the Wintel monopoly for good.
agreed
is it possible for you to write an article and not put Apple in it?
No, it's not time to end the monopoly. Businesses cannot keep on spending cash all the time and in all honesty, remove Microsoft and Google will gladly step in to TAKE your money.
P.s. Do you know how much Google charges companies? A whole heck of a lot. No thanks
is it possible for you to write an article and not put Apple in it?
That would be good but for some reason, they can't.
Since the last Androind supports mouse, external keyboard, and some other PC components, it's most likely that it will run on Chromebooks sooner or later (probably with the help of a virtualisation at first)
I've never understood the purpose of Chrome OS. Wouldn't it just be easier to modify Android for desktop use? As the world of mobile computing and desktops merge, I hope Google just simplifies the process and makes Android instantly customizable to each. Keeping Chrome OS diverts resources away from Android development, which could easily be used for the home PC market.
It's not because some technofart believes that one unified OS should exist between Personal Computers and smartphones (or derivatives of it), that everyone else believes that too.
I certainly don't.
I want my computers to have the best OS for the task at hand which is usually very different from what I do with my handheld devices. Handheld devices are fine for passive media like music, movies and browsing. Interactivity on handhelds stops at messaging, email and (online) games. But you don't build, create and program on a phone or tablet. Especially not a jailed, sealed, crippled, closed system (usually with severe computational limitations) like most of them are (no matter what they want us to believe).
But then again. Chrome OS is targetted at the same market as Android. Media zombies who's only interaction is facebook or twitter, who's surfing needs start the Google homepage.
Of which are millions.
Just nitpicking here.
I have always wondered why the masses of people are always ready to accept what Google tells them. Like they've "innovated" this and that.
What has Google really "innovated" in the last few years with their platform(s)? Search preview was the idea of Bing. Pictures on search home screens were also ideas by Bing. That's just one example of Google lacking innovation now.
Such examples extends to Android as well. Home screens were ideas pioneered by Apple. Android@Home has been implemented successfully by Japanese/European telecoms for years.
My point is that whatever that people now claim to be "innovations" by Google, other companies have done before. The four examples listed above is (perhaps) just the tip of the iceberg. Given that, I wonder why people salivate all over one of the most evil corporations in the world, one that knowingly breaches constitutions of other nations and when pointed out, pretend that they knew nothing.
Guess it's easy to claim innovation when there are legions of loyal followers repeating the overlord's every words. The same goes for Apple too.
Seriously did you just use the word synergy?
Ah, I think you missed the point. You are saying that Google is not getting synergy because they have 2 OS's .. mobile (Android) and desktop (ChromeOS) ... and yet Apple does have the synergy with their mobile (iOS) and desktop (Mac OSX) ... am I missing something. They both seem to have 2 platforms.
Mattering how you look at it, Google is a head of the game, their 2nd platform is an integration of the web browser and the OS such that many features translate to the Chrome browser you can load on top of other OS's. Mac OSX and Safari are separate products and are comparable to Windows/IE. Googles entire thought process is in the cloud.
If with proper UI Android allows users to multitask as easily as on Windows, then I have nothing against one OS for all devices. Customer support will rejoice at this event also all over the world. And rooting the device generally means you know what you are doing, often knowing better than the customer service person, and taking the proper risks when deciding to go for it. The general user would be happy with a controlled experience. If users have mouse and keyboard, and the ability to run multiple displays and windows instead of every program (widgets excluded) in full screen, then go for Android
Google is in similar mud with Microsoft, which is extremely different that from Apple is. Mind you that I don't like Apple (or more so it's users) but I have to admit that currently they seem to excel because of a clearer vision and roadmap.
For Microsoft the roadmap seems to be -keep doing the same old thing you did before- that is that they are still pumping out Win 95 like OS and Office which are the milking cows. Google seems to be flying in a myriad of different directions, lacking any coherence and a unifying idea about what it is exactly that they want to shape our future like.
Apple seems to be the only one with that vision and the vision right now seems to me like -we will shape it to be magical, but it's going to cost you-. That will be followed by magic-esque replicas from all the rest of the manufacturers.
I remember reading an article not too long ago regarding the disbelieve that supposedly Gates had when he was first confronted with the idea the Google was offering gigs of email inbox space. His point was "why is that needed in the first place". I think that explains a lot. The answer is, of course, "because why not?" and the people who lead the companies who wish to sell the future to us should have this answer in mind.
The future is great and pinkish and not littered with accountants and lawyers and such...
As with amazing search engines and the concept of online storage, and many other ideas out there, we're constantly reminded that amazing things are not only plausible but can also, maybe, be profitable.
But you have to try, you have to give it a shot. You cast your magic Xware into the wild and you make us feel that it's magic, and we'll effing buy it by the truckloads.
I'm tired of people saying that portables and desktops will merge. They treat desktop computers as stagnant technology. Hello? 6-core computers, upwards of 8GB RAM, monster graphics, how are any of these going to be on a portable device before the desktop tech industry innovates again? Sheesh.
I'm tired of people saying that portables and desktops will merge. They treat desktop computers as stagnant technology. Hello? 6-core computers, upwards of 8GB RAM, monster graphics, how are any of these going to be on a portable device before the desktop tech industry innovates again? Sheesh.
Windows XP runs on your monster, on the old Pentium2 with 128 MB RAM, and on the atom ultra portable or tablet. Not saying Windows XP as in that OS exactly should be running on these devices, but having one OS and one UI compatible for most devices including phones with half screen and half physical keyboard is a good idea to me. The phones will not run the heavy applications and games, don't worry, they will never be the monsters you described.
I agree.
Apple will probably use the same OS on both Macs and iOS devices.They already brought many features of iOS to Mac which could mean there will be an universal OS for both platforms soon.
I was expecting google to do the same but they clearly mentioned Chrome and Android are going separate ways
Not strangely. Android is java, Chrome is C++ and webkit based, for which a decent Java version does not exist yet. Sure, Google could program a java Chrome, but it wouldn't be Chrome, it'd just have the same icon.
from consumers perspective, the only different between android and chrome os is that they have a different name. One is a browser and one is a system that runs on devices. Consumers tend to assume that they are compatible since they are both by Google. The consumers aren't wrong completely or at all, since a lot of basic features such as chrome to phone, springpadit, map, etc run on both android and chrome browser seamlessly.
Now, they need to make an application that consumers will be able to control and run their chromebooks from their android for presentations for free, and that will make it even more attractive for businesspeople to buy both devices.
I think that chrome will focus on being cheap while android will cost more (since it costs more for android to run). Al though chromebooks are not very cheap at the moment, but they will become cheaper. Its harder to make things cheap and then expensive. So this way, Google can adjust prices accordingly to how the market react to this. Wasn't the first iPhone cost like $600 + tax + earphone +other BS ??? Chromebook WILL get cheaper in the next couple of years.
Good article.