For users like us, not much, except for some secondary devices, but for others this will be a big hit. I see this being the first OS to hurt MS’ marketshare. I see emerging countries getting more connected and simple applicances with Chrome OS connected to cheap monitors or TV will be the gateway to the internet with Google touching every aspect of what they do. If a user needs to output data instead of just injesting it then there will be Windows and Mac computers for them, but this is a commodity OS for the rest of the world.
Well, possibly over the long haul (and I make no claims to having much of an idea about the long haul, too many variables), but one problem I see with that (Chrome as ultra-cheap appliance OS for emerging markets) is that emerging markets are less likely to have much in the way of fast internet deployment. I would imagine low-bandwidth access would severely impact performance of a cloud based OS?
And isn't this the same argument that was or is being made for Android? That it's all simple and cheap and open, so you can customize it for your toaster? To which I say, if all you need is a custom browser and access to a few web based apps, aren't Chrome or Android already overkill? TV manufacturers are already including Java based widgets as part of their "experience", I would think that Samsung, say, might be more interested in rolling their own "web TV" than handing the keys over to Google.
… one problem I see with that […] emerging markets are less likely to have much in the way of fast internet deployment. I would imagine low-bandwidth access would severely impact performance of a cloud based OS?
Sure, but the problem with emerging markets is not so much the availablity of the internet but the cost of devices to connect to the internet. A service provider could build a ver cheap internet-capable appliance that is completely closed up so no dirt can get in and have USB ports for keybaord or mouse and VGA for a TV or monitor on a rental system. I pay $3/month for a cable box that I know costs a couple hundred to replace, but I’m buying cableTV service. A service provider could charge even less and offer ADSL, dial-up or cable internet. It doesn’t have to be fast, it just has to be fast enough.
Take the cloud computing aspect out of it. I use iDIsk but never worry about it syncing. It does when it does when it can, everything is still local to my machine. A browser as an OS does not mean that you have to be connected to the internet to use it. Look at WebOS. You use the phone app that is rendered with HTML, CSS, and JS and sicne it’s Sprint you are obviously not connected to the internet while on a call. That is all local randering. Same goes for a lot of apps on WebOS. Chrome OS is just a larger version of it for larger devices.
Very interesting perspective, thanks for the link. I also note that the same guy, a month ago, was pretty upbeat on Android's chances to make serious inroads in the handset market. It seems like the explosion of devices and flavors may have caught Google off-guard, so that what appeared to at first be great news for the platform could quickly become a huge headache.
How long, I wonder, before we get the first big tech news story about dissatisfied Android users wondering why they can't use the same apps on two Android devices?
Compare that to the likely scenario of an Apple tablet device, which is pretty much a shoe-in to run every app in the App Store.
Very interesting perspective, thanks for the link. I also note that the same guy, a month ago, was pretty upbeat on Android's chances to make serious inroads in the handset market. It seems like the explosion of devices and flavors may have caught Google off-guard, so that what appeared to at first be great news for the platform could quickly become a huge headache.
How long, I wonder, before we get the first big tech news story about dissatisfied Android users wondering why they can't use the same apps on two Android devices?
Android as a platform obviously has a problem but it may be awhile before it becomes an issue for the average user. I expect developers will be up in arms first since they are at the forefront. Users who are satisfied with the Droid may not even realize there is an issue until they go buy another one in a couple years.
Quote:
Compare that to the likely scenario of an Apple tablet device, which is pretty much a shoe-in to run every app in the App Store.
I sure hope so. There are iPhone apps i?d love to run on my Mac, even if they only came up as wdigets. I find myself grabbing my phone for anything that requires a GPS since it?s auto locates my location. Even for apps that I don?t need it for, like the calculator, i find I grab my iPhone simply because it?s faster all around.
Android as a platform obviously has a problem but it may be awhile before it becomes an issue for the average user. I expect developers will be up in arms first since they are at the forefront. Users who are satisfied with the Droid may not even realize there is an issue until they go buy another one in a couple years.
No doubt, although we may seem some problems crop up sooner than that when friends with differing Android iterations try to use the cool app they saw on their buddy's device.
Quote:
I sure hope so. There are iPhone apps i’d love to run on my Mac, even if they only came up as wdigets. I find myself grabbing my phone for anything that requires a GPS since it’s auto locates my location. Even for apps that I don’t need it for, like the calculator, i find I grab my iPhone simply because it’s faster all around.
I have no idea, of course, but it does seem a little unlikely that Apple would introduce an ultra-mobile device that didn't leverage the App Store. I think the real question is if such a device will be able to run anything but iPhone apps, and possibly some Apple optimized productivity apps.
I have no idea, of course, but it does seem a little unlikely that Apple would introduce an ultra-mobile device that didn't leverage the App Store. I think the real question is if such a device will be able to run anything but iPhone apps, and possibly some Apple optimized productivity apps.
They already have the simulator app for devs. It wouldn?t take long to retool it a bit for the consumer, but they may just want a separate SDK and App Store for their tablet device without allowing for iPhone apps to be windowed on the tablet.
But I insist. The article was not about Chrome. Why do you keep hammering it in?
Ok ok, point taken. I can't help but think the Chrome OS announcement motivated the writing of this article, which is I guess why I brought it up. Enough, moving on.
I work in a phone store and we have been selling the HTC Magic for quite some time now.
When you tell the average punter "this is a "Google" phone and even point out the "Google" brand on the back, nine times out of ten you are met with a blank stare of incomprehension.
We tried rather unsuccessfully to "push" them during iPhone shortages.
The customers who tend to buy Android phone's come straight in and ask for them, they are extremely rare.
This is based on personal experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
My point is people know and generally trust Google. When they have computers "running Google" in stores they will sell...
Sure, I second virtually everything in your article. Unfortunately, my detailed comment was lost because of technical problems of login.
Quote:
How Google can catch up
They need to figure out the niche for that Android of theirs.
The Linux, which Android is patterned after, reigns the kingdom of networking/clustering. The niche has been found right.
There's nothing like Google in delivering awareness experience of all kinds. They are closer than anyone to achieving the breakthrough in augmented reality. They should play their best cards.
We already saw everything which can be shaped as cellular phone. That market is definitely saturated. It's not that much of rewarding to try catching up on there...
Apples biggest success with the iPhone, its app store, is a well executed afterthought (or, more correctly, change of mind) requested by developers.
As no one seems to remember, Steve Job explicitly stated - when he introduced the iPhone - that web apps where the only apps allowed on the iPhone platform.
Native apps where expressly forbidden because of security concerns and the lack of necessity. Jobs stated that modern web apps could be sufficiently advanced and comparable to the native apps Apple build for the iPhone.
This was in fact demonstrated to prove the point.
So, it is absolutely clear that Apple wasn't prepared to let third party developers develop native applications - now and in the future - and that this was Apples explicit intention.
Apple changed its mind because of the well articulated requests (by some) of a lot of developers.
So, although Apple can be credited for its app store, the credit should be that they listened to valid arguments of others and reacted quickly. But they didn't anticipate it or planed it in advance as is mentioned in the article.
From my POV 90% of folks on AI fail to see the bigger picture here with regards to chrome OS. And from what I gather they'll continue to try to persaude themselves why Google hasn't a hope until Google sells a lot of Google computers and they change their minds with a lot "yeah but's...". For 10% of the people on this planet Google's system, when finished will be good enough. And not only that, but it will do what they want from a computer faster. Up and running Reading their e-mail, using their chat and playing their Farmville. For some people this will be their only computer, and as the years progress the web and a system like this only gets more powerful. There will be more people who know very little about computers who used to say: "why is my computer so slow..." saying: "hello my facebook".
did you read the article ??
google had abandoned android already
the dregs and scrape heap of lost free crap share ware world won't even bother
andriod is clunky un wielding crap waiting for A 2nd/3rd android version/s white knights to somehow write SW games .apps for all the limimations of 70 diff platforms all using android ,
That SD card work around shows how ignored the whole shebang is .
De Soto comes to mind
great f>>ing article AI is the best when it on its top game .
Sure, but the problem with emerging markets is not so much the availablity of the internet but the cost of devices to connect to the internet. A service provider could build a ver cheap internet-capable appliance that is completely closed up so no dirt can get in and have USB ports for keybaord or mouse and VGA for a TV or monitor on a rental system. I pay $3/month for a cable box that I know costs a couple hundred to replace, but I?m buying cableTV service. A service provider could charge even less and offer ADSL, dial-up or cable internet. It doesn?t have to be fast, it just has to be fast enough.
Take the cloud computing aspect out of it. I use iDIsk but never worry about it syncing. It does when it does when it can, everything is still local to my machine. A browser as an OS does not mean that you have to be connected to the internet to use it. Look at WebOS. You use the phone app that is rendered with HTML, CSS, and JS and sicne it?s Sprint you are obviously not connected to the internet while on a call. That is all local randering. Same goes for a lot of apps on WebOS. Chrome OS is just a larger version of it for larger devices.
Thanks for pointing out what you think a "lie" is so it's obvious you are simply wrong.
As for 20 apps at 10MB, that's true. There's only around 200MB of space available for installing apps from Android Market. And while you can hope for vaporware dreams that someday those apps will save data to your SD card, that's currently not the case among real apps (which is why there's no real games, certainly none that weigh in at 200MB or more!), and it's not likely to happen because developers are leaving Android because the sales aren't there.
"We have significantly cut our investment in Android platform, just like ... many others," Gameloft finance director Alexandre de Rochefort said at an investor conference.
Rochefort said the company has cut back on investment mostly due to weaknesses of Android's application store.
"It is not as neatly done as on the iPhone. Google has not been very good to entice customers to actually buy products. On Android nobody is making significant revenue," Rochefort said.
Games for iPhone generated 13 percent of Gameloft's revenue in the last quarter. "We are selling 400 times more games on iPhone than on Android."
Get your facts straight first. Believe it or not, there are applications that use SD for data storage right now. So it is not vaporware, it is reality.
If you believe iPhone is better market for you, go for it. Especially as startup. Good luck differentiating from 100 000 apps already there.
Clearly, Apple made an impact and won't let a search engine company take over the mkt share. They have made a gargantuan financial commitment (just like MS who spent millions all along), and have a well integrated business model with other hardware and gizmos.
Anyways, I am eagerly waiting to see what Nokia can do with the droid. They have been the best wwide unlike in the US. I was so disappointed with their handsets here. Instead of flocking the apple store, I waited 2 years for 3GS version.
This is a phenomenal metamorphosis in the industry! There is so much incentive with more players, more apps, competitive pricing and just like open source tools, there are jailbreakers (who already made iphone independent of Apple). And time is not far when monopolies like AT&T will unfurl to accomodate customers demands. Just like in Hong Kong or Japan which boasts beyond 4G now. Yeah, there is so much competition in HK that churn has made them with skins of rhinos. Time is not far when we all will be able to download a video in a minute and monsters like AT&T will be compelled to upgrade their services/spotty EDGE network and have less control over the spectrum, or apps or on which browser should run on a handset (Safari is so not cool)....
Clearly, Apple made an impact and won't let a search engine company take over the mkt share.
I don?t think Apple can stop Google. They are giving away two OSes. It won?t be easy to stop marketshare growth if ease-of-use is even a basic concern of developers.
I don?t think Apple can stop Google. They are giving away two OSes. It won?t be easy to stop marketshare growth if ease-of-use is even a basic concern of developers.
Actually I meant brand equity since the market share will be determined between handset makers, not OS makers. iphone will compete with other handsets that may or maynot be based on Google's OS.
Ease-of-use= User friendly? But is Android user friendly and a well integrated solution? NO! The solution will be made my blood and sweat of the developers. Look at what HTC and Moto have done so far...
Actually I meant brand equity since the market share will be determined between handset makers, not OS makers. iphone will compete with other handsets that may or maynot be based on Google's OS.
We still see that Apple?s Mac marketshare compared to Windows OS marketshare instead of otehr vendors like Dell and HP.
Quote:
Ease-of-use= User friendly? But is Android user friendly and a well integrated solution? NO! The solution will be made my blood and sweat of the developers. Look at what HTC and Moto have done so far...
Not even close. It can?t be with close integration of the HW and SW. But it is a sliding scale and if they can get it ?good enough? and with enough vendors producing devices the number of users could easily outpace the iPhone in a few years.
Once again, AppleInsider misuses the term "storage RAM". It is wrong to use "storage RAM" to describe flash memory because not all are based on "RAM" technology. iPhone uses NAND flash for storage, which is more similar to ROM (EEPROM) than RAM.
Despite their best efforts this problem will get worse. On top of that there are now two SDKs for Android and nether has the rich APIs and frameworks that iPhone OS SDK has.
As I recall, you have no knowledge about iPhone development. And you trying to judge Android/iPhone application development process based on your absent of knowledge?
Comments
For users like us, not much, except for some secondary devices, but for others this will be a big hit. I see this being the first OS to hurt MS’ marketshare. I see emerging countries getting more connected and simple applicances with Chrome OS connected to cheap monitors or TV will be the gateway to the internet with Google touching every aspect of what they do. If a user needs to output data instead of just injesting it then there will be Windows and Mac computers for them, but this is a commodity OS for the rest of the world.
Well, possibly over the long haul (and I make no claims to having much of an idea about the long haul, too many variables), but one problem I see with that (Chrome as ultra-cheap appliance OS for emerging markets) is that emerging markets are less likely to have much in the way of fast internet deployment. I would imagine low-bandwidth access would severely impact performance of a cloud based OS?
And isn't this the same argument that was or is being made for Android? That it's all simple and cheap and open, so you can customize it for your toaster? To which I say, if all you need is a custom browser and access to a few web based apps, aren't Chrome or Android already overkill? TV manufacturers are already including Java based widgets as part of their "experience", I would think that Samsung, say, might be more interested in rolling their own "web TV" than handing the keys over to Google.
… one problem I see with that […] emerging markets are less likely to have much in the way of fast internet deployment. I would imagine low-bandwidth access would severely impact performance of a cloud based OS?
Sure, but the problem with emerging markets is not so much the availablity of the internet but the cost of devices to connect to the internet. A service provider could build a ver cheap internet-capable appliance that is completely closed up so no dirt can get in and have USB ports for keybaord or mouse and VGA for a TV or monitor on a rental system. I pay $3/month for a cable box that I know costs a couple hundred to replace, but I’m buying cableTV service. A service provider could charge even less and offer ADSL, dial-up or cable internet. It doesn’t have to be fast, it just has to be fast enough.
Take the cloud computing aspect out of it. I use iDIsk but never worry about it syncing. It does when it does when it can, everything is still local to my machine. A browser as an OS does not mean that you have to be connected to the internet to use it. Look at WebOS. You use the phone app that is rendered with HTML, CSS, and JS and sicne it’s Sprint you are obviously not connected to the internet while on a call. That is all local randering. Same goes for a lot of apps on WebOS. Chrome OS is just a larger version of it for larger devices.
Decent blog on some of the problems facing Android as a platform…
Very interesting perspective, thanks for the link. I also note that the same guy, a month ago, was pretty upbeat on Android's chances to make serious inroads in the handset market. It seems like the explosion of devices and flavors may have caught Google off-guard, so that what appeared to at first be great news for the platform could quickly become a huge headache.
How long, I wonder, before we get the first big tech news story about dissatisfied Android users wondering why they can't use the same apps on two Android devices?
Compare that to the likely scenario of an Apple tablet device, which is pretty much a shoe-in to run every app in the App Store.
Very interesting perspective, thanks for the link. I also note that the same guy, a month ago, was pretty upbeat on Android's chances to make serious inroads in the handset market. It seems like the explosion of devices and flavors may have caught Google off-guard, so that what appeared to at first be great news for the platform could quickly become a huge headache.
How long, I wonder, before we get the first big tech news story about dissatisfied Android users wondering why they can't use the same apps on two Android devices?
Android as a platform obviously has a problem but it may be awhile before it becomes an issue for the average user. I expect developers will be up in arms first since they are at the forefront. Users who are satisfied with the Droid may not even realize there is an issue until they go buy another one in a couple years.
Compare that to the likely scenario of an Apple tablet device, which is pretty much a shoe-in to run every app in the App Store.
I sure hope so. There are iPhone apps i?d love to run on my Mac, even if they only came up as wdigets. I find myself grabbing my phone for anything that requires a GPS since it?s auto locates my location. Even for apps that I don?t need it for, like the calculator, i find I grab my iPhone simply because it?s faster all around.
Android as a platform obviously has a problem but it may be awhile before it becomes an issue for the average user. I expect developers will be up in arms first since they are at the forefront. Users who are satisfied with the Droid may not even realize there is an issue until they go buy another one in a couple years.
No doubt, although we may seem some problems crop up sooner than that when friends with differing Android iterations try to use the cool app they saw on their buddy's device.
I sure hope so. There are iPhone apps i’d love to run on my Mac, even if they only came up as wdigets. I find myself grabbing my phone for anything that requires a GPS since it’s auto locates my location. Even for apps that I don’t need it for, like the calculator, i find I grab my iPhone simply because it’s faster all around.
I have no idea, of course, but it does seem a little unlikely that Apple would introduce an ultra-mobile device that didn't leverage the App Store. I think the real question is if such a device will be able to run anything but iPhone apps, and possibly some Apple optimized productivity apps.
I have no idea, of course, but it does seem a little unlikely that Apple would introduce an ultra-mobile device that didn't leverage the App Store. I think the real question is if such a device will be able to run anything but iPhone apps, and possibly some Apple optimized productivity apps.
They already have the simulator app for devs. It wouldn?t take long to retool it a bit for the consumer, but they may just want a separate SDK and App Store for their tablet device without allowing for iPhone apps to be windowed on the tablet.
But I insist. The article was not about Chrome. Why do you keep hammering it in?
Ok ok, point taken. I can't help but think the Chrome OS announcement motivated the writing of this article, which is I guess why I brought it up. Enough, moving on.
When you tell the average punter "this is a "Google" phone and even point out the "Google" brand on the back, nine times out of ten you are met with a blank stare of incomprehension.
We tried rather unsuccessfully to "push" them during iPhone shortages.
The customers who tend to buy Android phone's come straight in and ask for them, they are extremely rare.
This is based on personal experience.
My point is people know and generally trust Google. When they have computers "running Google" in stores they will sell...
Sure, I second virtually everything in your article.
How Google can catch up
They need to figure out the niche for that Android of theirs.
The Linux, which Android is patterned after, reigns the kingdom of networking/clustering. The niche has been found right.
There's nothing like Google in delivering awareness experience of all kinds. They are closer than anyone to achieving the breakthrough in augmented reality. They should play their best cards.
We already saw everything which can be shaped as cellular phone. That market is definitely saturated. It's not that much of rewarding to try catching up on there...
As no one seems to remember, Steve Job explicitly stated - when he introduced the iPhone - that web apps where the only apps allowed on the iPhone platform.
Native apps where expressly forbidden because of security concerns and the lack of necessity. Jobs stated that modern web apps could be sufficiently advanced and comparable to the native apps Apple build for the iPhone.
This was in fact demonstrated to prove the point.
So, it is absolutely clear that Apple wasn't prepared to let third party developers develop native applications - now and in the future - and that this was Apples explicit intention.
Apple changed its mind because of the well articulated requests (by some) of a lot of developers.
So, although Apple can be credited for its app store, the credit should be that they listened to valid arguments of others and reacted quickly. But they didn't anticipate it or planed it in advance as is mentioned in the article.
J.
From my POV 90% of folks on AI fail to see the bigger picture here with regards to chrome OS. And from what I gather they'll continue to try to persaude themselves why Google hasn't a hope until Google sells a lot of Google computers and they change their minds with a lot "yeah but's...". For 10% of the people on this planet Google's system, when finished will be good enough. And not only that, but it will do what they want from a computer faster. Up and running Reading their e-mail, using their chat and playing their Farmville. For some people this will be their only computer, and as the years progress the web and a system like this only gets more powerful. There will be more people who know very little about computers who used to say: "why is my computer so slow..." saying: "hello my facebook".
did you read the article ??
google had abandoned android already
the dregs and scrape heap of lost free crap share ware world won't even bother
andriod is clunky un wielding crap waiting for A 2nd/3rd android version/s white knights to somehow write SW games .apps for all the limimations of 70 diff platforms all using android ,
That SD card work around shows how ignored the whole shebang is .
De Soto comes to mind
great f>>ing article AI is the best when it on its top game .
Sure, but the problem with emerging markets is not so much the availablity of the internet but the cost of devices to connect to the internet. A service provider could build a ver cheap internet-capable appliance that is completely closed up so no dirt can get in and have USB ports for keybaord or mouse and VGA for a TV or monitor on a rental system. I pay $3/month for a cable box that I know costs a couple hundred to replace, but I?m buying cableTV service. A service provider could charge even less and offer ADSL, dial-up or cable internet. It doesn?t have to be fast, it just has to be fast enough.
Take the cloud computing aspect out of it. I use iDIsk but never worry about it syncing. It does when it does when it can, everything is still local to my machine. A browser as an OS does not mean that you have to be connected to the internet to use it. Look at WebOS. You use the phone app that is rendered with HTML, CSS, and JS and sicne it?s Sprint you are obviously not connected to the internet while on a call. That is all local randering. Same goes for a lot of apps on WebOS. Chrome OS is just a larger version of it for larger devices.
why don't you sync your idisk >>
what have you hidden in there , ??/<>><
the future of 8 companies
rests on 4 games titles
Thanks for pointing out what you think a "lie" is so it's obvious you are simply wrong.
As for 20 apps at 10MB, that's true. There's only around 200MB of space available for installing apps from Android Market. And while you can hope for vaporware dreams that someday those apps will save data to your SD card, that's currently not the case among real apps (which is why there's no real games, certainly none that weigh in at 200MB or more!), and it's not likely to happen because developers are leaving Android because the sales aren't there.
Gameloft says it, others reining in Android plans
"We have significantly cut our investment in Android platform, just like ... many others," Gameloft finance director Alexandre de Rochefort said at an investor conference.
Rochefort said the company has cut back on investment mostly due to weaknesses of Android's application store.
"It is not as neatly done as on the iPhone. Google has not been very good to entice customers to actually buy products. On Android nobody is making significant revenue," Rochefort said.
Games for iPhone generated 13 percent of Gameloft's revenue in the last quarter. "We are selling 400 times more games on iPhone than on Android."
Get your facts straight first. Believe it or not, there are applications that use SD for data storage right now. So it is not vaporware, it is reality.
If you believe iPhone is better market for you, go for it. Especially as startup. Good luck differentiating from 100 000 apps already there.
Anyways, I am eagerly waiting to see what Nokia can do with the droid. They have been the best wwide unlike in the US. I was so disappointed with their handsets here. Instead of flocking the apple store, I waited 2 years for 3GS version.
This is a phenomenal metamorphosis in the industry! There is so much incentive with more players, more apps, competitive pricing and just like open source tools, there are jailbreakers (who already made iphone independent of Apple). And time is not far when monopolies like AT&T will unfurl to accomodate customers demands. Just like in Hong Kong or Japan which boasts beyond 4G now. Yeah, there is so much competition in HK that churn has made them with skins of rhinos. Time is not far when we all will be able to download a video in a minute and monsters like AT&T will be compelled to upgrade their services/spotty EDGE network and have less control over the spectrum, or apps or on which browser should run on a handset (Safari is so not cool)....
Clearly, Apple made an impact and won't let a search engine company take over the mkt share.
I don?t think Apple can stop Google. They are giving away two OSes. It won?t be easy to stop marketshare growth if ease-of-use is even a basic concern of developers.
I don?t think Apple can stop Google. They are giving away two OSes. It won?t be easy to stop marketshare growth if ease-of-use is even a basic concern of developers.
Actually I meant brand equity since the market share will be determined between handset makers, not OS makers. iphone will compete with other handsets that may or maynot be based on Google's OS.
Ease-of-use= User friendly? But is Android user friendly and a well integrated solution? NO! The solution will be made my blood and sweat of the developers. Look at what HTC and Moto have done so far...
Actually I meant brand equity since the market share will be determined between handset makers, not OS makers. iphone will compete with other handsets that may or maynot be based on Google's OS.
We still see that Apple?s Mac marketshare compared to Windows OS marketshare instead of otehr vendors like Dell and HP.
Ease-of-use= User friendly? But is Android user friendly and a well integrated solution? NO! The solution will be made my blood and sweat of the developers. Look at what HTC and Moto have done so far...
Not even close. It can?t be with close integration of the HW and SW. But it is a sliding scale and if they can get it ?good enough? and with enough vendors producing devices the number of users could easily outpace the iPhone in a few years.
Despite their best efforts this problem will get worse. On top of that there are now two SDKs for Android and nether has the rich APIs and frameworks that iPhone OS SDK has.
As I recall, you have no knowledge about iPhone development. And you trying to judge Android/iPhone application development process based on your absent of knowledge?