Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously!

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the because-you-can dept.

Operating Systems 325

Thinkcloud writes "A user named Hexxeh has posted a video online of the iPad running Google's upcoming Chrome OS. Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state, but it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook. Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?"

cancel ×

325 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Music? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806778)

Why do the creators of these tech videos always add annoying music where silence or narration would be better?

corrected... (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806808)

Why do the creators of these disposable pieces of shit always add annoying software crap where paper and pen or narration would be better?

Re:Music? (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806892)

I liked the music. You can silence it easy enough if you don't. Narration might have been useful, as would a better angle of the camera or an actual description on the video. I guess it's part of the mystery in revealing this. I'm wondering though -- is this an iPad running Chromium or an iPad running Chrome OS as TFA/TFS claims? It seems as if the former would be far easier to pull off (jailbreak it and get a chromium build running). And even if you buy into the whole the-browser-is-the-OS thing, surely it's significant that the whole Apple software stack is still running the show.

First Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806790)

will this bring peace to a world raggled by the google apple wars ?

Re:First Chrome (1)

MatthewCCNA (1405885) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807310)

will this bring peace to a world raggled by the google apple wars ?

More likely it's just another sign of the coming zombie apocalypse.

Can't RTFA at work. Question: (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806796)

Does the article indicate whether it ran better than the version of Safari that the iPad comes with?

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806828)

Yes.

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question: (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806844)

Chrome OS. Not the Chrome Browser.

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question: (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806878)

Flippin'....::slaps self::

Does it say if it runs better than the version of iOS that comes with the iPad?

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806976)

Yes, it does.

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807226)

Flippin'....::slaps self::

Does it say if it runs better than the version of iOS that comes with the iPad?

Define better.

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807578)

I can't answer that question while you're at work.

How appropriately named... (-1, Troll)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806994)

poofyfuzzbutt [socuteurl.com] , hehe... how fitting!

Re:How appropriately named... (0, Troll)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807044)

And this one is quite as well, maybe a little bit too obvious:
http://socuteurl.com/gooseygoopoo [socuteurl.com]

Re:How appropriately named... (0, Troll)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807070)

http://socuteurl.com/cutesybutt [socuteurl.com] . Yeah, that's what it is, after all!

go direct to the source luke (5, Informative)

m1ndrape (971736) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806798)

Windows XP Emulator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806800)

ProgressQuest [progressquest.com] comes with a Windows XP Emulator on iPad.

Going forward? (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806820)

Now that's really pushing the envelope.

The end is near... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806846)

Chrome OS will eat your soul!

Re:The end is near... (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806990)

They are iPad owners.

Their souls have long since been eaten and shat out.

Re:The end is near... (2, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807098)

Are you implying Chrome OS eats shit? :p

Re:The end is near... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807150)

Are you implying Chrome OS eats shit? :p

It runs on bio-fuel!

Re:The end is near... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807518)

They are iPad owners.

Their souls have long since been eaten and shat out.

Oh, fuck off and stop being such a smug prick.

is Chrome OS any good? (-1, Flamebait)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806866)

because Android is terrible

Re:is Chrome OS any good? (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807120)

It is at least eleventy-dozen times better than anything created in the next ten years, starting tomorrow.

Re:is Chrome OS any good? (0)

jo42 (227475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807164)

Yes, Chrome OS is "cutting-edge": It doesn't run native apps and it requires an always on Internet connection. How could that not be "cutting-edge" these days? Unless "cutting-edge" has been redefined as "back in the dark ages"...

Re:is Chrome OS any good? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807418)

Actually it can run "native apps" with the help of native client.

Idiotic Summary (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806902)

it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis? That is exactly the level of openness Apple has consistently shown to be in their "playbook".

Seriously, the only thing that would make someone think this sensationalist hypothesis might be true is if one paid attention to previous sensationalist hypothesis but did not pay attention when they were proved completely wrong. Apple locks down their services and keeps a lot of their "secret sauce" code closed and is very secretive about it. Apple is secretive about upcoming projects. There are good business reasons for all of the above. Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?

Re:Idiotic Summary (3, Insightful)

jschottm (317343) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807066)

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers

The iPad is not a computer, it's a device. Apple has a much different attitude about their devices than their computers.

There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it.

You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?

Re:Idiotic Summary (0, Troll)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807176)

Their "long-running battles" extend only to voiding the warranties of jailbroken devices.

Re:Idiotic Summary (1, Insightful)

jschottm (317343) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807318)

If you have to use an exploit to install your alternative OS, that means the vendor is not receptive to you doing so. And do you have a 6th generation iPod running Rockbox or the like?

Re:Idiotic Summary (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807416)

There is a difference between "actively attempts to prevent" and "does not provide the means to".

Re:Idiotic Summary (1, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807490)

Their "long-running battles" extend only to voiding the warranties of jailbroken devices.

No it hasn't. Apple has repeatedly blocked jailbreaks. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Idiotic Summary (1, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807072)

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

Re:Idiotic Summary (2, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807352)

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

Now does that sound like a sustainable business process to you?

Re:Idiotic Summary (3, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807398)

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

You read it that way, I read it as "hey, if you're going to install new firmware and then also install our firmware updater, we aren't responsible if it screws something up. I mean, we haven't even seen your code... how can we possibly know ahead of time if our updater won't wipe some important part of the memory of your homebrew firmware? Look, if you're going to modify the guts of your phone, it's all your responsibility if it fails. Don't come crying to us."

At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update? That'd be like installing OSX on a computer and then running a Win7 security update. It could do nothing, or it could wipe out the kernel.

Re:Idiotic Summary (4, Insightful)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807094)

On the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone. It took new rules to allow unlocking, for instance. You might argue that the locking had more to do with contracts with ATT than anything else... Maybe you have a point here.

But ... How about Project Gutenberg? The Kama Sutra? I think Apple has rightfully earned their reputation as a nanny mothership. They may allow alternate OSes. We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).

Re:Idiotic Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807268)

Yeah, they're such nannies that the same Kama Sutra is available in ebook form on the ibooks store, amazon kindle format, and freely downloaded and added to your ibooks app in .epub format from the project gutenberg website.

DAMN THEIR CONTROL! DAMN IT STRAIGHT TO HELL!

Re:Idiotic Summary (2, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807436)

We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps, and you can even distribute them using the ad hoc distribution method. The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of. Complaining about this is like complaining that you can't walk into Best Buy and put your own software on their shelves without their approval. They're under no obligation to provide you with shelf space and payment at their registers.

Re:Idiotic Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807522)

Apple is a hardware company, thus why everything they sell is so overpriced. Unlike most other companies, they dont really tend to dump the hardware and charge you for other crap now do they? As for the app store, well yes, they are a rather annoying mother because that store is their reputation, and they want to have a clean as reputation as possible, unlike other companies that routinely sell their souls (and reputation) to the devil.

In short, I see no evidence that Apple would lock-out other OSs. They dont benifit by doing so, and it doesnt seem as tho its required of them. Unless those other OSs started being able to run iOS apps, then Apple probably would sue the OS makers into the ground any maybe lock out everyone for good measure.

Re:Idiotic Summary (-1, Troll)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807336)

Puhlease. Apple's iOS line is set to completely different standards than their desktop and laptop products. Apple has everything to gain by allowing users to run Windows on their Mac products. This is not true of the iOS devices. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by promoting such things. Just because they haven't found a way to crack down on it doesn't mean they like it, approve of it, and won't try to prevent it in the future.

Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the iOS line is as a hardware shopping portal to the various iStores and for iAd. Hack the device to run ChromeOS or Android and all that lovely revenue flies out the window. Surely you can see how Stevie J won't like that one bit.

Re:Idiotic Summary (1)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807388)

Yes, because they view this particular piece of hardware as a terminal for their proprietary iTunes and AppStore venue. That is the where a majority of the revenue comes from, why they are willing to so carefully walk the thin line of monopoly to attempt to keep competing software out of their draconian store, why they lied for so long about how it was illegal to jailbreak, why they then instituted code to report/disable jail-broken hardware (to the extent that said monopoly laws allow), why iPods can no longer do things like file transfer outside of iTunes, and a host of other measures they've taken. All this with the singular goal of keeping their online pay service as the sole means of access to these revolutionary new hardware platforms.

Its not that they dont care whether you run other software, its that they can only legally go so far. The very last thing they want is for you to be able to install 3rd party apps without their approval, or worse yet, an entirely new OS that bypasses all their control measures. The only leg they've had to stand on so far is the claim that such things (jail-breaking, non-itunes accepted apps, alternate OS's) create instability for the hardware. But even that has to stand up to a good bit of scrutiny, lest they be caught intentionally creating this instability, as both they and Microsoft have been seen doing in the past. As long as they can claim that their software is really the only safe solution, they can keep the reins. What happens when somebody comes along and proves that another solution, and worse a fully supported competitor's solution, is equally viable?

Yes, Apple did a good thing making the MacBook run multiple OS's, but that was a far different situation, and more of the exception than the rule. In that case they had already lost the market share, as the majority of users had for years decided they'd rather deal with lesser hardware (which until the whole Macbook thing was not widely believed or demonstrated) on a more open and common OS than deal with Apples imposed limitations on software diversity. They were clawing from the bottom, not looking down from the top. Now they are the kings of the mountain, with a solid and dominant grip on this emerging market. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve that position, and nothing will erode it faster than Options.

Re:Idiotic Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807442)

What about the encrypted firmware on iPods? Now you can't run Rockbox...

Re:Idiotic Summary (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807526)

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that.

On the contrary, it's providing Boot Camp and (at least for windows) hardware drivers exactly for that purpose.

Nevertheless, the iPad and iPhone are locked-down devices, so in their particular cases, I think the submitter is still right.

False dichotomy (1)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806954)

Robust *is* cutting-edge.

Re:False dichotomy (1, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807202)

Yeah, say that after running the experimental branch of any operating system.

Why wouldn't users love that?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806960)

Oh, maybe because for 99.99% of the iPad users out there iOS is just fine.

Yeah, I jailbroke my iPod Touch.I can ssh into it. Now what?

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?" (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807144)

Why not turn your iPod Touch into a web server?

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807420)

Why not turn your iPod Touch into a web server?

Well, let's think about it. Even though it has 64MB of 'disk' it doesn't have very much RAM. Getting content onto it isn't particularly hard, but it definitely takes an extra step. Throughput over the wireless is much lower/slower than over the gigE I use inside my firewall, even if my Comcast broadband connection isn't a whole lot faster. On the other hand my laptop-based firewall doesn't use much power and is already running my web server with CPU cycles and bandwidth to spare; moving my web server to an iPod Touch would be a bit like climbing Everest -- I'd only be doing it because I can. And finally, because I use my iPod Touch to play music where ever I go.

Unless you meant running a portable web server where ever I go and doing clever tricks with dyndns to change the address every time it connects to a new AP has pretty marginal utility to me.

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?" (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807562)

Why not turn your iPod Touch into a web server?

I've been known to turn my Android phone into a web server. There's an app that lets you compose SMS messages in your desktop web browser.

I'm sure there's lots of other reasons you might want to contact your phone over HTTP.

I Don't Get Chrome OS (4, Interesting)

cob666 (656740) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806964)

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (0)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807042)

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Then you lack imagination.

Seriously, there's plenty of environments where internet connectivity is a given. For example, if I had a tablet (iPad, Android, ChromeOS, whatever) it would probably seldom leave the house. I'd use for web stuff on the sofa and in bed. It would never leave my WiFi router's range.

If you pay for it, you can get effectively uncapped mobile broadband that works close enough to "everywhere" for most people -- in well populated areas at least.

There are plenty of iPhone/Android apps that are useless without an internet connection; people seem to get on OK with them.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (2, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807314)

there's plenty of environments where internet connectivity is a given.

And there's plenty of shit that "happens": from small stuff like a broken router or cable modem or check that got lost in the mail, to big stuff like a back hoe accidentally cutting a cable.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (0)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807450)

there's plenty of environments where internet connectivity is a given.

And there's plenty of shit that "happens": from small stuff like a broken router or cable modem or check that got lost in the mail, to big stuff like a back hoe accidentally cutting a cable.

It's 2010. You fall back on mobile broadband until your main service gets fixed.

Or to look at it from another direction - I'm on Windows. In theory it works offline, but if the office network connection goes down, I still give up and go home.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807068)

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Doesn't sound like you've tried very hard. How about an OS that won't work at all? There must be lots more too.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807128)

I don't know. Though my tone was definitely different several years ago, its come to a point now where I can't think of anything more useless than a computer with no internet connection. Yes, I know, you can do a lot of stuff without it. I been using computers for nearly 25 years, since long before networked connections were common. Still, today, even doing those tasks I find myself constantly needing to access something online.

Everyone wont' share this opinion, but there is some merit to the fact that if you don't need the computer at all if the net is down, then the OS not working with the net down is really a non-issue.

The main downside I see to "web-apps" and such is the constant possibility that specific companies will go out of business. With offline apps you can keep using software long after the developer folds. With open source software you can even continue development if your interest or needs warrant it. With webapps, if a company goes under they go under, taking your data with it.

Still, at this point most of my online app usage is through Google - Gmail, Documents, Reader, and Picasa Web. The only other significant service that I use is Dropbox (on the paid 50GB account), which seems financially stable, but if Google ever offered the same service I'd switch.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807302)

The main downside I see to "web-apps" and such is the constant possibility that specific companies will go out of business. With offline apps you can keep using software long after the developer folds

True, but almost infinitely more likely is the dev upgrades the app from version 4 to version 5. Ooops, you have version 5. I guess you need to pay, again.

How many times has my wife bought "discus" the (otherwise excellent) dvd label editor? How many times has she had to buy "garage sale"? Thats the business model to avoid at all costs.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807184)

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Humorously, you posted that in an article about the ipad, since its arrival mine has never been out of range of my wifi router. Apple also sells a 3G model that is always "in range" of the internet.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807444)

But if you were to leave the range of your router. Or go out of the country where you really don't want to be using your 3g radio. You can still use the apps installed on the device.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807524)

I get ChromeOS. I don't get it on a tablet. It's obviously focused towards netbooks and pc's where you want an "instant on" option. It's designed to be used like a desktop browser...with a mouse or track pad. Tablets should have a mobile OS designed around touch screens.

I$ (0)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806980)

When they are selling the iShit for serious money, why would they care what you do with them?

Now, if they decide to sell their hardware for cheap, like the console market, then they would be pissed about it.

Wait? What? (4, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806982)

Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

A dual booting iPad with Chrome OS would essentially give you ... a second browser.

I'm not sure what there is to get excited about. The iPad one is pretty damn good, also uses WebKit and you get a bunch of other functionality thrown in for free - some of which is rather useful - without having to be permanently connected to the internet.

In response to a probably screwy summery (3, Insightful)

koterica (981373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806984)

Didn't read TFA- but the summery is worth responding to in its own right.

Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

Apple isn't going for cutting edge as much as they are going for reliable. iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product, they want it to work, quickly and beautifully, out of the box.
In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

Re:In response to a probably screwy summery (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807204)

iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product

Depends on what you mean by "configure". If you mean downloading apps, and re-arranging my icons? Lots of time spent so far. If you mean almost any other form of "configure", you're absolutely correct -- not something I want to do on that device.

In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

Not all of Slashdot, but the number of iPad users from Slashdot is also not zero.

And, I have to say ... kudos to this guy for getting something else running on an iPad, but I'm utterly not interested. I like the OS on my iPad, and I'm looking forward to when iOS 4 becomes available.

I'll also second the sentiment about not being interested in an OS which requires a constant internet connection. I recently took a business trip with my iPad. When I'm on a plane, being able to turn off the wifi and only use it for movies/music/games is one of the best features of it -- in fact, not having really thought about business travel when I bought it, it really proved to be a good traveling companion. I used it far more than my laptop, and every airport and hotel I was in had free wifi so I could check my email and the like.

I'm not sure of what Chrome would give me.

Some work needed (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806988)

The article states that it "reacts flawlessly to user inputs", but it's still doing mouse emulation for the clicks and it looks like he has some trouble clicking on some buttons.

It's also very sluggish looking (despite the hyper music) which isn't too promising for something that's suppose to be a light weight operating system. Looks more like he just made a Chrome app for the iPad.

Apple "allows"? (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807022)

not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

Since when did Apple disallow other OSes from running on its hardware? Back in the day, I recall Windows NT 4 running natively, and I've since seen XP and Linux running on Apple hardware with no modifications to the machine.

Re:Apple "allows"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807262)

Since when did Apple disallow other OSes from running on its hardware? Back in the day, I recall Windows NT 4 running natively, and I've since seen XP and Linux running on Apple hardware with no modifications to the machine.

I would agree with you if they hadn't taken such an adverse position to Jailbreaking.

Re:Apple "allows"? (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807400)

Jailbreaking to put an alternate OS on the phone is no big deal. Replacing parts of your current OS and then expecting Apple to support it is the problem (and considering that a large portion of the l33t folk who jailbreak their phone have no idea what they're doing or even why they're doing it, that's a sizable number of folk). Part of Apple's success is that they sell Solutions, not Products, and they support the entire Solution instead of passing the buck around. This changes that model.

Re:Apple "allows"? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807408)

NT never ran native on Apple hardware.. there where 3 flavors

x86
Alpha
PPC

some people belived the PPC would work on Apple hardware but it wouldn't due to Apple using it's own implemntation.

while MacOS supported PReP and later CHRP - the apple hardware didn't.. meaning that you could have in theory installed MacOS on the same IBM PPC box that NT would go on.. but you would not have been able to install NT or AIX on the Apple PPC box.

are are reports of some apple hardware being CHRP compliant but you would be very hard pressed to figure out which ones it was and get your hands on them (if they even exist).

it's only recently with apples move to x86 that the cross platform to allow windows onto Apple hardware is possible - although it took the switch from BIOS to EFI or BIOS emulation over EFI (which i don't consider native) for it to work.

Re:Apple "allows"? (1)

puto (533470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807426)

You mean you recall NT. 4.0 running natively on Power PC architecture, not natively on macs, but on machines made by Motorola and IBM.

Not in Apple's playbook? (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807028)

Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows." What's more, they encourage dual booting with their bootcamp.

Now while it would be unexpected for Apple to endorse alternate OSes for iPad, it's not fair to say it's not in their playbook. This would be especially true if, for some reason, Win7 based tablets began to catch on. (I seriously doubt they will, but still!)

Re:Not in Apple's playbook? (0, Flamebait)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807118)

You guys should coordinate better next time... accidentally got two apologists reading from the same apologetic in adjacent postings.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook? (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807162)

But the iPad is not a true computer. Its not like their Macs but instead just a device like an iPod or Apple TV. You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad? There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume. Masquerading the iPad as a full computer helps them in their aims and that is to have people locked-in just like Microsoft does. There is a reason why you can't just hook an iPhone up to a computer and use it as a mass storage device like 99.999% of similarly capable phones, there is a reason why iP(o/a)ds can't play many standard, open codecs, there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking. Apple wants people to install iTunes, use iTunes, buy things from the iTunes/App stores, and Apple makes a boatload off of things that they normally couldn't get a cut off of.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook? (3, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807512)

You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad?

Technically, what they said was "if you replace the firmware on your phone and then be an idiot and install our firmware updater which assumes certain files are in certain places, then don't come crying to us if it doesn't work."

There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume.

Or it could be that a "full operating system" doesn't really work well with a touch-based UI.

there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking.

Google "ad hoc distribution". What you meant was "there are reasons why Apple refuses to waste storage and bandwidth costs in their store for apps that they don't want to host."

Re:Not in Apple's playbook? (1)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807222)

It will be in Apples playbook when someone publishes an app for installing the 'cool new OS' without any hassle.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807300)

Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows."

Since when are poor performance and the lack of solid drivers signs of running "better?" The main high point of MacBooks, the very good battery life, is cut in half when running Windows, as Anandtech shows every few months.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807306)

Apple "allows" the iPad to run other OS's just as much as android device makers "allow" it on their devices. Meaning you can do it if you hack it on and people will laugh in your face if you bitch about bricking it and losing your warranty. No mainstream company actively encourages or makes it easy to install anything other than what the portable device came with. To single out Apple for scorn just shows an irrational pettiness.

end-user mostly dont care what OS is running (2, Insightful)

atchijov (527688) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807036)

Unless there is some "OMG I Absolutely Have To Have This" Application which is avilable only on Chrome OS, 99.999% of iPad users will see no reason to even think about it. Lets face if, MS Windows had some horrible usability problems and still most of the people never bother to look around for something better. And in case of iOS vs. Chrome - at best we have toss up.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807122)

THANK YOU!

These idiots who write these articles need to understand the end user. End Users don't care.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807188)

An end-user will care when there are applications which Apple rejects that they can't find. A lot of my friends who were going to get the iPhone chose an Android device simply because Apple doesn't let you have emulators on their phones. While I myself think ChromeOS is a downgrade even for the pathetic excuse for an OS that is iOS, if it has apps that people want and can't get through Apple, it will have a fanbase.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running (1)

AccUser (191555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807232)

While I myself think ChromeOS is a downgrade even for the pathetic excuse for an OS that is iOS

How the hell is iOS a pathetic excuse for an OS? Or, like most detractors who simply haven't developed for the platform, are you simply referring to the application launcher?

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807290)

Lets see here:

A) I can't run whatever I want on it, everything has to be "approved" by Apple

B) Applications essentially run in a "black-box" with Android I know what my apps have access to. If a soundboard wants to access the internet and my GPS location I'm not going to install it because it could track me and has no legitimate reason to.

C) Only one source for applications and no built-in ability to add in other repositories

D) Minimal customization out-of-box, to change something as basic as icons you have to edit the direct image file itself, etc.

On the other hand, if I was running something on Linux or Windows, I can run whatever I want on it, through things like packet sniffers and the like I can see what my applications are accessing, there are many sources for applications on both platforms and adding other repositories is as simple as typing into a dialog box. With both Windows and Linux you can customize to your desires. You can leave the stock OS how it is, or you can make it be radically different to suit your style.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running (1)

AccUser (191555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807482)

A) I can't run whatever I want on it, everything has to be "approved" by Apple

OK, I'll give you that. But that is not really issue with iOS - it is more about the platform.

B) Applications essentially run in a "black-box" with Android I know what my apps have access to. If a soundboard wants to access the internet and my GPS location I'm not going to install it because it could track me and has no legitimate reason to.

Which is why iOS itself asks you to grant permission to an application that wants to use GPS, and indicates when the internet and GPS is being used. Wasn't there report recently about a spate of Android apps tracking users without consent?

C) Only one source for applications and no built-in ability to add in other repositories

Again, I'll give you that. Again, this is a platform issue and not iOS.

D) Minimal customization out-of-box, to change something as basic as icons you have to edit the direct image file itself, etc.

Hmm. You don't like the stock icons. Sorry.

On the other hand, if I was running something on Linux or Windows, I can run whatever I want on it, through things like packet sniffers and the like I can see what my applications are accessing, there are many sources for applications on both platforms and adding other repositories is as simple as typing into a dialog box. With both Windows and Linux you can customize to your desires. You can leave the stock OS how it is, or you can make it be radically different to suit your style.

iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are devices designed for end users who care about being able to use their devices productively without having to worry about details like the above. Are you seriously telling me that you will run a packet sniffer every time you download a new application for your Android device?

Your comments that iOS is a pathetic excuse for an OS are based on your perceived experience as a user and not a developer.

Whatever.

Just wondering... (2, Insightful)

ChaoticCoyote (195677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807056)

Why is Chrome OS considered "cutting edge"?

Re:Just wondering... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807220)

Because most people aren't old enough to remember terminal clients, which is what ChromeOS essentially is. No native apps, etc.

If anything, Chrome OS is a downgrade from iOS.

Re:Just wondering... (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807378)

Because most people aren't old enough to remember terminal clients, which is what ChromeOS essentially is.

... and if you were to show those "most people" an old terminal app alongside a rich web app, they'd have no idea why you consider them to be "essentially" the same. ... and if you were to show those "most people" a native app alongside a rich web app, they'd be hard pushed to know which was which.

By "rich web app" I mean something like Google Docs.

It's all very well to shout "IT'S NO DIFFERENT TO A MAINFRAME" every time cloud computing is mentioned -- but in terms of user experience it's a world of difference from using a VT220 (every keystroke is sent to the server) or a 3270 (Your UI is EBCDIC panels or nothing).

To address the original question; why is ChromeOS "cutting edge" -- I don't think it's entirely justifiable to say it is, or that iOS is not. However ChromeOS has some strong innovation in the areas of fast booting, and cached offline access to Web apps.

Re:Just wondering... (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807348)

Because it's incomplete & unreleased. Until it's released, we can dream of all the AWESOME features it's going to have, like free, on-demand hookers and a beer tap.

Then we'll actually see it and realize that, functionally, it's just another web browser. But single-use devices are *awesome* when they're open source. Not like those locked-down one-trick ponies Apple sells at all.

A Robust OS like Apple's??? (0, Flamebait)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807140)

Does the thing even print yet?

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's??? (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807382)

Looks like somebody's confusing "robustness" with "huge set of infrequently-used features." :(

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's??? (2, Funny)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807600)

You fluffers crack me up!

Yea, cause printing is something you would never want to do from a computer. We should inform Apple that way they don't implement it in 4.2. They seem to be working on it for nothing.

Although you are right. A "feature" (LMAO at printing being a "feature") does fit into the "infrequently-used" category when it is not even present.

What's to love? (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807216)

Why wouldn't users love that?

Probably because adding Chrome OS to the iPad doesn't add anything.

I'm all in favor of running something other than iOS on an iPad, but that's because I think it could be running a more robust OS (OS X, Linux, or Windows, to name a few). Running Chrome OS isn't much better than running iOS, and probably worse, because there aren't as many apps.

Re:What's to love? (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807424)

"Probably because adding Chrome OS to the iPad doesn't add anything."

Maybe, i dont know, Flash?

the Wrath of Jobs (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807250)

Emperor Jobs will surely smite you for such heresy!

The question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33807256)

How do we know that's it's actually running chromeOS and not just chromium on top of iOS? The demo is kinda sketchy...

Why? (1)

ntdesign (1229504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807330)

Installing Chrome OS over iOS is effectively turning your iPad into a JooJoo. The only reason I could see anyone doing this is for the challenge. If you're ideologically opposed to iOS, then you wouldn't own an iPad anyway.

Thanks for the video but (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807396)

what the fuck are you on about ?

users (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807458)

Why wouldn't users love that?

Because (non-geek) users care mostly about being able to use the thing. Freedom, Free Software, "cutting edge" (aka "half of the stuff doesn't work yet) and other concerns like that take a distant second to turning it on and having whatever it is you need ready and waiting in front of you.

Geek people simply don't get what users want, and that's why "Linx on the desktop" won't happen for another 10 years. And that's why the iPhod, not the Nomad, is the #1 MP3 player. Why iPhones catch the headlines, not Android. Why - despite the great sales numbers - commercial developers still see the iPhone as the #1 for the forseable future, not Android. Heck, it's even why windos, as crappy as it is, still beats Linux hands down, one leg tied up, because it simply is there and it works - barely, but it works. And that is what users care about, that and that alone.

Like Liberace (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33807534)

Like Liberace, Apple will cry all the way to the bank.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>