The underlying programming language (Java) has been cross-platform since it's inception, what they seem to be adding is cross-platform services (which is Google's bread and butter) and packaging the whole thing up in to a platform.
I guess HTML5/Javascript is really supposed to be the lowest common denominator non-proprietary platform that all computers large and small support, but we'll see where this goes.
The inability to test everything doesn't mean you can't test anything. It's a much easier way to test various screen sizes, and to get a feel for UI flow without having to keep a stack of devices charged and ready to go on your desk. This is not a solution for full system test of an app, but it is a big help for integration testing.
You don't need a stack of devices on your desk. If you're developing for android you can already test these things in the emulator, which has supported hardware-accelerated images for a while. The whole point of shipping the android sdk with a full-blown emulator instead of a lightweight simulator is to let the developer check these details without having to actually procure physical devices. So it's not clear what advantage this chrome runtime brings to the developer.
LOL. You almost certainly already "have spyware" on your iMac. Worse you probably can't do a thing to prevent it either short of never visiting any website. Even Apple tracks your usage when you visit one of theirs which you might not have been aware of. They just may not use cookies to do so which seems to be the only tracker most folks seem to know about.
For god's sake go to an Android site will you and quit the constant pro Google crap. Can you imagine folks like Soli or the other regulars here spending all day on a Samsung / Android / Google fan site just to constantly push Apple's POV? Get a fracking life!
I don't know about you, but for me Word (and Excel) macros deliver a lot of value. Weird inclusion in that list.
Yes they do/did but they were also the first conduit for actual viruses on the Mac back in the pre-OSX days. My reference to Microsoft was for historical reasons.
You don't need a stack of devices on your desk. If you're developing for android you can already test these things in the emulator, which has supported hardware-accelerated images for a while. The whole point of shipping the android sdk with a full-blown emulator instead of a lightweight simulator is to let the developer check these details without having to actually procure physical devices. So it's not clear what advantage this chrome runtime brings to the developer.
The existence of these emulators doesn't change the fact that the Chrome option is a convenient one. Yes, for system test, the emulators are a better solution, but you do still need a stack of devices depending on what your app does. I've developed a couple of augmented reality apps, you absolutely need to test on target hardware, outdoors, dealing with the phone orientation. Twitter can test their stuff in an emulator and be all done, but I cannot.
Still, even for apps that don't make full use of the sensors in the phone, the Chrome Arc Welder option is much simpler than an emulator. I hate waiting to produce the emulator for a specific device, and a bunch of them will take up a lot of space on your development machine. Being able to point your browser at an apk, choose some device options, and launch is a much simpler way to do some basic feature integration testing or UX validation.
For god's sake go to an Android site will you and quit the constant pro Google crap. Can you imagine folks like Soli or the other regulars here spending all day on a Samsung / Android / Google fan site just to constantly push Apple's POV? Get a fracking life!
I'm sure you know about the ignore button. You should consider using it rather than get so upset at relatively benign but truthful posts. I thought you said you were doing just that a couple weeks back. Instead you've been making things increasingly personal.
Our exchanges have become a distraction and really shouldn't continue. I'll ignore you for the most part and you ignore me. How's that?
I'm not sure why there are so many negative comments about this, running Android apps in Chrome is pretty fantastic. Though I agree it doesn't have much use on a Mac device but for things like a Chromebook or Chromebox it's absolutely invaluable. My ChromeBox connected to the TV is now the absolute perfect media device. Though in Chrome OS Android apps run like stand alone apps, individual icons and everything. I now have things like Spotify, VLC, Zattoo TV (a Swiss TV app that streams in HD), Kodi (which is the coolest thing to have installed on TV set box, period), Netflix, games galore (Nova 3, MC4, 5, etc.). With my ThinkPad Yogo there is no longer a reason to have a separate Android install, I can now run Android apps natively under Windows 8. Since the Yoga is a touchscreen device with a Wacom Stylus as well, this is a more than welcome addition. I think you guys are being to critical here because you don't see the use, those of us who use Chromebooks, Windows 8 tablets or any touch enabled device is loving it. My Google Pixel Chromebook now has MS Office, same version that your using on your iPad and it looks and works amazingly, I actually prefer it more than the full version on Windows. Anyway, try it before passing judgment, I think you will be pleasantly surprised to how much you might actually like it.
Comments
My exact thoughts as well. Android apps are bad enough on tablets as it is, why would I want un-hardware-optimized Java phone apps on my PC/Mac?
The underlying programming language (Java) has been cross-platform since it's inception, what they seem to be adding is cross-platform services (which is Google's bread and butter) and packaging the whole thing up in to a platform.
I guess HTML5/Javascript is really supposed to be the lowest common denominator non-proprietary platform that all computers large and small support, but we'll see where this goes.
No, it's Metro as 99% of people call it. No one cares what Microsoft marketing is trying to rename it to.
99% of people don't call it anything. They don't care. The rest call it Modern UI. Because that's its name.
I'm another one who can't see myself ever using this- or wanting to.
Putting up with what sounds like a flaky run-time, while helping Google sell a vision of write-to-Android-run-anywhere?
Nah. No thanks.
The inability to test everything doesn't mean you can't test anything. It's a much easier way to test various screen sizes, and to get a feel for UI flow without having to keep a stack of devices charged and ready to go on your desk. This is not a solution for full system test of an app, but it is a big help for integration testing.
You don't need a stack of devices on your desk. If you're developing for android you can already test these things in the emulator, which has supported hardware-accelerated images for a while. The whole point of shipping the android sdk with a full-blown emulator instead of a lightweight simulator is to let the developer check these details without having to actually procure physical devices. So it's not clear what advantage this chrome runtime brings to the developer.
For god's sake go to an Android site will you and quit the constant pro Google crap. Can you imagine folks like Soli or the other regulars here spending all day on a Samsung / Android / Google fan site just to constantly push Apple's POV? Get a fracking life!
I don't know about you, but for me Word (and Excel) macros deliver a lot of value. Weird inclusion in that list.
Yes they do/did but they were also the first conduit for actual viruses on the Mac back in the pre-OSX days. My reference to Microsoft was for historical reasons.
You don't need a stack of devices on your desk. If you're developing for android you can already test these things in the emulator, which has supported hardware-accelerated images for a while. The whole point of shipping the android sdk with a full-blown emulator instead of a lightweight simulator is to let the developer check these details without having to actually procure physical devices. So it's not clear what advantage this chrome runtime brings to the developer.
The existence of these emulators doesn't change the fact that the Chrome option is a convenient one. Yes, for system test, the emulators are a better solution, but you do still need a stack of devices depending on what your app does. I've developed a couple of augmented reality apps, you absolutely need to test on target hardware, outdoors, dealing with the phone orientation. Twitter can test their stuff in an emulator and be all done, but I cannot.
Still, even for apps that don't make full use of the sensors in the phone, the Chrome Arc Welder option is much simpler than an emulator. I hate waiting to produce the emulator for a specific device, and a bunch of them will take up a lot of space on your development machine. Being able to point your browser at an apk, choose some device options, and launch is a much simpler way to do some basic feature integration testing or UX validation.
Our exchanges have become a distraction and really shouldn't continue. I'll ignore you for the most part and you ignore me. How's that?