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!

Google Adds Tablet UI Elements To Chrome OS Betas

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the sure-why-not dept.

Chrome 50

Apparently current builds identify themselves as CrOS, elements have been giving more whitespace to ease finger based navigation, and an on-screen keyboard is now built in. This only adds further to the questions about the positioning of ChromeOS vs Android: developers probably don't want to work on both.

cancel ×

50 comments

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

The real question (4, Insightful)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745474)

Will it be able to left-click on /. links?

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35745532)

Indeed.

Re:The real question (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745752)

Will it be able to left-click on /. links?

Sure, you can click with your left hand or your right hand. ;-)

Re:The real question (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745884)

And click on "Post Anonymously". Oh well, I guess it's keeping us honest :)

Re:The real question (1)

jijacob (943393) | more than 3 years ago | (#35748012)

I know this was a joke, but posting this from a CR-48 ChromeOS notebook, I can verify that you can, indeed, left and right click on the links.

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35748740)

Do they actually open up a new page? Because /.'s new broken javascript breaks that for me.

Middle Click FTW (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35749244)

Who left-clicks on /. links? Do you reload the page for the comments?

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751360)

Are you using the classic discussion system? And if not, why would you expect anything to work at all?

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751496)

mod parent up

The More The Merrier! (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745508)

Sure ChromeOS will force developers to either split their efforts or focus on just one, but this is a situation developers face everyday. We're always picking our platforms and targets.

Google has some pretty smart people, and I'm sure they've got something up their sleeves. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up sharing common APIs between platforms so recompiling (perhaps with a bit of tweaking) using separate make files will let developers work on both platforms (as close to) simultaneously as possible.

Re:The More The Merrier! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35745636)

Programmers already have to split efforts between Android and Honeycomb; the future will add ChromeOS, Chrome, and GoogleTV. So yes, Google desperately needs a convergence plan.

Re:The More The Merrier! (2)

Wiiboy1 (1699132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745728)

Programmers already have to split efforts between Android and Honeycomb; the future will add ChromeOS, Chrome, and GoogleTV. So yes, Google desperately needs a convergence plan.

There's no difference between Chrome and Chrome OS, from a developer's perspective. And since all it runs are webapps, anything you write for Chrome or Chrome OS would also work fine on any other platform.

There's really no need to consolidate the different projects (except Gingerbread/Honeycomb), although different Google people have said that Android and CrOS will be merged at some point.

Re:The More The Merrier! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35745918)

Actually there's no stated intention that Chrome OS will support NaCl at release, unlike Chrome proper.

Also, minor app fragmentation for Chrome/ChromeOS already exists.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35746146)

So minor examples are irrelevant, apparently...

Re:The More The Merrier! (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745738)

If you're not stealing market share from yourself, someone else is.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

chartreuse (16508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745800)

There you have it — market share is theft!

WebOS vs. ChromeOS (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35746048)

Speaking of which: does anybody who's in the know, know what major differences there are between WebOS and ChromeOS?

Also, since this looks to be an otherwise quiet /. story, would this be an appropriate place to hash out the pronunciation of OS ("Oss" vs. "Oh-Ess"?), since the word's going to now be put in front of consumers? For people who say "Oh-Ess", did you pronounce MS-DOS as "EmmEssDeeOhEss"? DR-DOS "Doctor Doss"?

Opinions on SQL (Sequel/EssQueElle) also welcomed.

Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35747436)

Oh-Es, Em-Es Doss, Es-Qu-El

Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35747586)

Can we also settle, once and for all, to-may-toe vs. to-mah-toe, po-tay-toe vs. po-tah-toe, and a-pri-cot vs. ay-pri-cot?

IMHO, a little inconsistency adds spice to life. I'm glad not everyone is like me (as is, most likely, the rest of the world).

Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35748198)

I was really taken aback the first time I heard "GUID" [wikipedia.org] pronounced as "goo-id".

Some people seem to pronounce URL as "Earl". I though everybody said "You-Are-Elle". I guess there are also some that say "Yurl".

Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751962)

I've heard to-may-toe/to-mah-toe as an expression but have never heard to-mah-toe for tomato by itself.

Re:WebOS vs. ChromeOS (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35748462)

Also, since this looks to be an otherwise quiet /. story, would this be an appropriate place to hash out the pronunciation of OS ("Oss" vs. "Oh-Ess"?)...

"Oh-Ess". I use "Oss" for, well, OSS.
EmEssDoss, but "Microsoft Office". Usually drop it altogether for "Windows $FOO"
EssQueElle, but I've never used it.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745774)

It won't be hard to add Android libraries to ChromeOS for compatibility.

Re:The More The Merrier! (2)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745830)

The obvious answer is, if you develop for all these different platforms you are probably doing it wrong (unless you have a specialized app). You probably should just use HTML/CSS/JS and something like PhoneGap.

I'm sure some kind of 'webapps' based on webtechnologies will be supported for ChromeOS. :-)

That way you can also target the iPhone, iPad, HP WebOS and everything else with the same codebase.

Re:The More The Merrier! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35746166)

Developers tried doing that for iPhone. What they learned was: users fucking hate web apps.

I just looked at PhoneGap. Reminds me of Adobe AIR. Awful technology.

Users love web apps. (1)

meuhlavache (1101089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35749788)

Developers tried doing that for iPhone. What they learned was: users fucking hate web apps.

Google.com, Facebook.com, .... They are "web apps" !

Re:Users love web apps. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750668)

Yeah, and what do we primarily use on the phone for Facebook? Google services?

I'll give you the answer: it's native apps.

On Android, if the person is already browsing, they do GSearch through the browser (because it's a browsing assistant); otherwise, they access GSearch via widgets.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745652)

From what I understand there's nothing to "compile" in ChromeOS in the traditional sense. The OS really only runs web apps and browser extensions.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745842)

It's going to support Google's nacl technology, which is specially compiled x86 code (and with pinnacle in the future, cross platform llvm bitcode).

Re:The More The Merrier! (3, Interesting)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745934)

Google has some pretty smart people, and I'm sure they've got something up their sleeves.

Not this time. ChromeOS was targeted at netbooks while they were the "next big thing" and Android was set to go for phones. ChromeOS never made it out the door and Android has expanded to tablets (the current "big thing"). ChromeOS is walking dead which will eventually get chopped.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35747500)

I would buy a chrome book for a similar price to a net book.

(trading a real OS for 100MB free data/month).

The ability to buy day passes is kind of nice too.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35748694)

Exactly. Until everyone's Internet connection is as fast as the link between a CPU and its RAM, and until Web pages can be designed to take advantage of the most recent advances in GPUs, there will ALWAYS be the desire for the speed that native apps bring.

I have absolutely no idea why Google is still going forward with the idea of Chrome OS. If they really think there's a market for an OS with no apps except a browser, they can always release a stripped down version of Android. Chrome OS was announced almost two years ago (July 2009) and if they could have shipped something quickly it might have been worthwhile (and for fuck's sake, how hard is it? I remember there was a browser-centric Linux distro over five years ago) but I can't think of a single reason for it to exist today. They might as well announce that they're going to build it on top of Hurd for all the good it'll do them.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35755648)

>> Chrome OS was announced almost two years ago (July 2009) and if they could have shipped something quickly it might have been worthwhile (and for fuck's sake, how hard is it?[...])

The reason is very simple: The iPad. They were probably ready to deploy sometime in 2010, but then the iPad was released and changed the game.

>> [...]but I can't think of a single reason for it to exist today.

Exactly. ChromeOS was announced back when the tech pundits claimed that the plain-ol' Web and netbooks were the future of computing. That is no longer the vision. The existence of ChromeOS has really no point at this time.

        -dZ.

Re:The More The Merrier! (2)

shmlco (594907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35758692)

I think you have it backwards. Google is open when it suits their purposes. And when it suits their purposes, their "openness" will end.

I think they're is going to get all of the tablet folk to commit to Android, then ship their own superior tablet based on Chrome, upon which they'll drop Android development like a hot potato, leaving all of the suckers gasping for air and wondering what the hell just happened.

Don't forget Schmidt was on Apple's board, saw the iPhone, and then snuck out and developed Android.

Being a Google Android partner is almost as safe as being a Microsoft "PlaysForSure" partner...

Re:The More The Merrier! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35745974)

You can wipe that google jizz off your mouth. Chrome OS is HTML, there won't be any API sharing. Feel free to tell us how the future is actually web-pages.

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35747872)

Google has some pretty smart people, and I'm sure they've got something up their sleeves.

I wouldn't count on that. Google has its share of flat out failures, some of which are kept on perennial life support for no good reason.

Re:The More The Merrier! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35749362)

Bitter much?

Re:The More The Merrier! (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750262)

Coward much?

"CrOS Touch" (4, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745574)

The summary sort of misses the point about "current builds identifying themselves as CrOS".

The pertinent bit of the article is:

The browser now reports itself as "CrOS Touch" for sites that have specific touchscreen elements.

... meaning that a web site can know that it's dealing with a browser with a touch interface, and present a UI to suit.

Re:"CrOS Touch" (1)

Needlzor (1197267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35745810)

It also means that with web applications that are adapted to touch screens, Honeycomb and ChromeOS might compete on the same field (to some extent). I'm not sure about Google's strategy here.

Re:"CrOS Touch" (1, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35746092)

Is Google trying to fragment its own platform or what? I thought Honeycomb was their touchscreen tablet OS. Does Google even have a plan?

Re:"CrOS Touch" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35746806)

One reasonable plan I've always held to is to try several things and then use the one that works out best. Google is big enough that it can afford to "compete against itself" a little and see what works out.

Re:"CrOS Touch" (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35747260)

That kind of Microsoft-like model hurts third-party development and confuses consumers. Google should be focused on making one thing that is the best, not hanging back to see which one just happens to work out.

Re:"CrOS Touch" (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35747308)

Is Google trying to fragment its own platform or what? I thought Honeycomb was their touchscreen tablet OS. Does Google even have a plan?

More like hedging bets - remember that Google wants to sell ads and to put those ads everywhere. First in apps (whether it be Android, iOS, etc - free apps supported by AdMob sold ads), websites, and now in their cloud-based OS.

If their Android tablet takes off, great. If their OS takes off, even better. If one fails, no big deal, they have fingers in the other pot as well and can sell ads any which way.

developers don't want to work on both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35745616)

and they aren't. Chrome OS is just another 20% project that went nowhere. Like Google TV.

like being caught between a rocket & land mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35746170)

better to take heed before that happens? the genuine native american elders rising bird of prey leadership initiative (teepeeleaks etchings) has suggestions on how to survive being attacked by 'friends', or other disguised motive rulers etc

Android in ChromeOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35746768)

I expect some level of unification will occur. What's to stop them from pulling a QNX/RIM and letting you run Android apps in ChromeOS? I don't really see the need for both, but I don't think it will be as bad as all that. The browser will no doubt be very similar to Chrome in both Android and ChromeOS.

Re:Android in ChromeOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750302)

Chrome OS and android are different teams, they might as well be different companies. They could bolt android app support onto Chrome OS (and GM could bolt a pickup bed onto the volt) but that's not the point of it.

Had Google, not HP, bought Palm... (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750084)

webos has shipping devices, an OS roadmap for a forthcoming tablet and a community. The App model is also similar - html frameworks supplemented by a native C API.

Instead of pumping money into a stillborn platform, google should just focus on wooing pre3 and veer users with retrofitted chromeos services for webos. Cloud revenues...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?