Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Releases Chrome For Android Beta

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the support-extensions-please dept.

Android 142

An anonymous reader writes "Today Google announced the availability of a beta version of its Chrome browser for Android. Unfortunately, it's limited to Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) devices. Google is trying to keep Chrome fast and easy to use, and part of that involved redesigning tabs so they work more naturally with touchscreens. 'You can flip or swipe between an unlimited number of tabs using intuitive gestures, as if you're holding a deck of cards in the palm of your hands, each one a new window to the web.' They've also including synchronization functionality that allows you to move from desktop browsing to phone or tablet browsing and pick up right where you left off."

cancel ×

142 comments

great start but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38958755)

Needs flash and desktop mode.

Re:great start but (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959265)

What is this stupid obsession with Flash? Do you know that even Adobe has dropped all support and future plans for Flash on mobile devices?

Re:great start but (5, Informative)

ZiggieTheGreat (934388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959309)

When the websites I routinely visit stop posting content in Flash, I won't want it on my mobile devices anymore.

Until then, I either put flash on my android phone, or email myself a link to check out the site when I'm near a desktop computer.

Re:great start but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38960809)

Flash support will be useful as long as there's Flash content on the web, no matter how much Apple paid Adobe to scupper it.

Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (-1, Offtopic)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960295)

Unfortunately, it's limited to Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) devices

So are all the people who trashed Apple for making Siri exclusive to the iPhone 4S going to trash Google for making Chrome exclusive to ICS devices? Recall that ICS is currently only on 1% of Android devices [androidcentral.com] .

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38960349)

No, I'll trash them too. I use android and think chrome is a terrible browser anyway.

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (2)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960491)

Well its one thing when the iPhone 4S has the same amount of memory as all the other iPhones.

All ICS devices have at least 1 gigabyte of ram or more - most older android phones only have 512 megs - it makes a big difference.

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38961065)

The Nexus S (which has ICS) and the Nexus S 4G (which soon will be getting it) only have 512Mb of memory and strangely enough...ICS runs great on it.

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38961173)

The Siri thing is not a memory issue. Likely it has to do with the iPhone 4S' on-chip (A5) noise cancelation processor (and the iPad2 lacks the second mic needed for noise cancelation), this has been debunked on /. repeatedly

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960585)

Sounds like it's pretty buggy and definitely a beta so I wouldn't complain too much for not getting it.

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38960657)

So are all the people who trashed Apple for making Siri exclusive to the iPhone 4S going to trash Google for making Chrome exclusive to ICS devices?

1) Making an off-topic reply to the first post (or at least nearly first, if there are others that Slashdot is hiding), just so your post's near the top - classy as ever, bonch.
2) Presumably Chrome for Android requires new features introduced in ICS. (If it turns out that it doesn't, bash away.) Siri doesn't require any new hardware features of the iPhone 4S - it may benefit from some of them, but it doesn't require them, as proven by the fact that people have hacked it to run on earlier models, and the fact that it was previously a standalone app before Apple took it over.

Re:Restricted to Ice Cream Sandwich--1% of devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38961115)

If Google makes it a selling point artificially bound to some otherwise unremarkable device - sure. But as it is, it's just another application limited by available APIs.

Unlike, you know, some voice command app with NLP that can run on iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4, but is bound to a minor hardware upgrade of iPhone 4.

Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (4, Interesting)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958791)

Didn't Android *always* have Chrome?

When Google first announced Android, they stated it's web browser was based on WebKit with the V8 JavaScript engine, just like Chrome on the Desktop.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (2, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958871)

Safari is WebKit based.

Is Safari Chrome?

A browser is a lot more than an HTML and Javascript engine.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (4, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959019)

Chrome = WebKit + V8
Safari = WebKit + SunSpider
Konqueror = WebKit + KJS

So, no... Safari is not Chrome.
However, do you care to explain what else is necessary to make something a browser besides some UI bits?

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959103)

Religious fanaticism. All the browsers have it.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959757)

The most common feature. The most boring feature.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38961003)

Hi, I'm looking for a browser with a comfy chair theme, and maybe some extra pillows? It should also go ZING! when it loads a page...

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (2)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959267)

The same sandboxing for a start, Android Webkit is a plain and simple port of Webkit, Chrome is more than that

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959389)

The same sandboxing for a start, Android Webkit is a plain and simple port of Webkit, Chrome is more than that

Unfortunately, Chrome for Android doesn't have sandboxing. Yet.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960345)

"SunSpider" is a JavaScript benchmark. Safari's JavaScript engine is called Nitro (formerly SquirrelFish).

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958873)

Nope. It has (had) a simple browser based on the Webkit API.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1)

avirrey (972127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958875)

You used two key segments there, "based on" and "just like" which not equal to "equal to".

--
X's and O's for all my foes.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959123)

Yeah, but I'd be able to argue that the "Android Version of Chrome" is also not "equal to" the Standard Desktop Version for Linux, Mac and Windows.

I guess some animals are more equal than others...

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38958891)

No, the stock Android browser has never been Chrome. It has a completely different WebKit port, developed independently by a different group, with far worse support for newer web standards; is single-process; has a completely different UI stack (e.g. no omnibox); and doesn't have the same level of data syncing support.

The stock Android browser could be called "Chrome" only to the same degree that Safari could be called Chrome.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959537)

It also lacks extension support. I can't wait till the Android browser syncs my Chrome bookmarks, passwords, history, and extensions. That will make for a lot less typing on the phone and I can drop the stupid GBookmark app which only exists because Google can't integrate their own services.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (2)

jsh1972 (1095519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960723)

As soon as I saw this article, I downloaded it on my touchpad running cm9 ICS alpha, as soon as I opened it and signed in on the welcome page, all my open tabs on the computer opened on my tablet. This is awesome!

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959647)

with far worse support for newer web standards

Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.

is single-process

Chrome for Android also is single-process.

has a completely different UI stack

Different platforms *have* different UI stacks... As does Chrome for Android in comparison to Android as well as Chrome for Windows, Mac and Linux as stated in TFA.

doesn't have the same level of data syncing support.

Yes, this seems to be the only *real* distinction between Chrome and Android's Web Browser.

The stock Android browser could be called "Chrome" only to the same degree that Safari could be called Chrome.

Chrome and Safari are pretty different, as they are WebKit + very different stuff.
Chrome and Android's web browser are both WebKit + V8, in which there was a fork from Chromium at Version 4, as outlined in the Google Android Commit Logs. Seems more as though Android's web browser has always been Chrome, with modifications to support mobile devices, from what was at the time a Current Chromium version (read: Chrome). Seems as though Google has simply made a more up-to-date build of their web browser available.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (5, Informative)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960535)

Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.

That 100 isn't the whole story, if the rendering isn't also correct.

Acid3 is also a cherry-picked group of tests, some of which are still drafts, some of which have no real use in standard practice.

AND... most importantly, here - it doesn't test HTML 5. That's one of the big things Google is pushing with Chrome for Android, hardware-accelerated HTML 5 rendering and support.

(This could be related to the ICS requirement - GPU acceleration of UI elements)

Chrome for Android also is single-process.

Do you have a source? TFA says otherwise, official docs [google.com] say otherwise.

Yes, this seems to be the only *real* distinction between Chrome and Android's Web Browser.

Clearly you're ignorant on the subject, so please don't take offense if I continue to ignore your claims.

Now, I don't have an exhaustive list... But there are the things mentioned above, addition of the Omnibox, better developer tools, Incognito Mode, pre-loading and rendering pages as an option for don't/wifi only/always, no limit for number of tabs to have open, hardware accelerated rendering, redesigned UI that seems to be both better and more consistent with the desktop platform... Sandboxing isn't there yet, though they claim to be working on it.

Chrome and Android's web browser are both WebKit + V8, in which there was a fork from Chromium at Version 4, as outlined in the Google Android Commit Logs. Seems more as though Android's web browser has always been Chrome, with modifications to support mobile devices, from what was at the time a Current Chromium version (read: Chrome). Seems as though Google has simply made a more up-to-date build of their web browser available.

Chrome 4 was ages ago. At the time, sure, maybe the Android browser was Chrome 4 + enhancements for mobile devices - really don't care to go research the state of Chrome 4 and what Android Browser had then and what has been added since. But how well has the Android stock browser kept up with Chrome development?

There's some obvious, fundamental differences to how the two versions worked. They apparently was a fair amount of neutering done to make it work on the phone quickly and easily, or it was from such an early Chrome build that a lot of the features associated with Chrome weren't present yet.

That's a big part of this. They're working to keep both versions working off the same codebase. This will keep the Android browser more current going forward.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38960989)

Where are you getting that Chrome for Android is not single-process? I think you completely made that up. There's even a special single-process mode (com.android.chrome.tests.SingleProcessActivity) that you would have to manually launch to use, which strongly implies the main activity is multi-process. As Calos points out, the official docs [google.com] also state that it's multi-process.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959989)

I have to say the chrome browser loads slash dot a lot faster on my Samsung galaxy s running CM9 ice cream sandwich than the default android browser does (talking about the rendering of the page)

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960771)

It may not be, but I have to tell you that I was extremely impressed by it this week. I went to nj.com for the New Jersey Star-Ledger's list of Super Bowl Commercials. They had a list with YouTube links with a little commentary on each one. I loaded it on my Android tablet (Asus Transformer I) and we were watching the commercials full screen. Later, we tried to pull it up on the PS3 and it kept giving us an out-of-memory error.

Now, granted, on the tablet, we would have to restart the browser after about every 7-8 videos. But the real shocker was when we went up to my server to watch (4 CPUs, 16GB RAM) and we actually had to wait over 30 seconds to watch the first video on Chrome. I was amazed that when my beefy server was struggling this much to show the YouTube preview windows that the tablet had done so well.

So, already it's no toy browser, making me wonder what Chrome for Android really brings to the table.

Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38958941)

Sort of, but now it's Chromier!

Occupy Fragmentation (4, Interesting)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958793)

Android users who are able to run Chrome Beta (that is, who are running ICS) are literally the 1%, according to Google's platform pie charts:
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html [android.com]

I prefer that they exploit the full power of their latest and greatest, but it's sad that only a mere 1% can access the latest and greatest :( (as of today, I'm sure this will change very quickly)

Shortsighted much? (2, Informative)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958903)

They're not looking at who can run it today, but who will be able to run it in the future.

On a side note, I think it's a good thing that the app is not part of the core OS, (like Gmail was removed from the core OS a few versions ago) and can as such be updated separately.

Re:Shortsighted much? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959549)

Actually given the number of apps which consume the browser component I think it SHOULD be part of the base OS and should also be updated regularly.

Re:Shortsighted much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959771)

Good luck getting the carriers to update the OS's on a regular basis. I'd rather have Google push out a timely update than sitting and stagnating waiting for the miracle updates to grace my phone. The carrier will want you to buy a new phone and therefore they have little motivation to push out updates to end users.

Re:Shortsighted much? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959893)

I was thinking they could allow the browser component to be updated outside the rest of the OS just like they did for Google Maps.

Re:Shortsighted much? (2)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960025)

That's exactly what they're going to do... Chrome will be a part of GAPPs, and will get regular updates. Because of some of the advanced features, they had to decide to make it for Android 4.x+ only.

Re:Shortsighted much? (2)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960049)

By part of the core OS I meant the open source portion of android, not GAPPs. Chrome is a part of the GAPPs package (maps, gmail etc)

Re:Shortsighted much? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960163)

Hmm, that means if you're developing for Android (not Android with Google) you can't assume the browser component will be available in the future, that kind of blows. I wonder if that means some third party Webkit library will become popular for developers who want to get their apps on things like the Kindle Fire and the Nook Tablet but still need a browser component?

Re:Shortsighted much? (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960573)

There's the android browser named "browser" (and the ICS version is pretty decent) that'll possibly/probably still be available. Besides, nook/kindle use their own browsers anyway.

They'll roll chrome in GAPPS and merge nice stuff from"browser" into it in time for the J release of android methinks.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (2)

dmesg0 (1342071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958911)

It's only beta. If it is the typical Google beta, ICS will be obsolete by the time Chrome is out of beta.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959711)

It's only beta. If it is the typical Google beta, ICS will be obsolete by the time Chrome is out of beta.

On the other hand a Google Beta is usually better than anyone else's Release 7.2.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958943)

Most people will be able to run it within 2 years. This is enough time for a few early adopters to help with bug detection.

I say 2 years because most people end up stuck with phones the carrier doesn't waste development effort working on OS upgrades for - of course they'd rather people bought a new phone than be able to keep the one they already own current. I'm sure they felt it could be ICS only for simplicity's sake, and the problem would fix itself.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959247)

it's sad that only a mere 1% can access the latest and greatest

That 1% earned it. Are you some kind of communist?

Tax 'em (2)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959795)

Tax those 1%-ers. Make 'em send in 30% of the bits.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959531)

We could camp out in the park to protest. There's one by my house that is already chock full of drug addicts. We could stay with them!

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (1)

Archibald Buttle (536586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959813)

It's significantly less than 1% right now.

Firstly as has been pointed out elsewhere, the beta is only available in a restricted set of countries right now.

Secondly the beta doesn't currently support devices with MIPS CPUs, which counts out several low-cost Android tablets.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38960237)

"Beta"

By the time it leaves Beta more people will have ICS. Just because it only runs on ICS right now doesn't mean they can't extend support to previous releases at some future date.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960501)

Android users who are able to run Chrome Beta (that is, who are running ICS) are literally the 1%, according to Google's platform pie charts:

"Google's Android Update Alliance Is Already Dead" [pcmag.com] . Doesn't look like that 1% segment is going to expand all that fast either.

I'd been thinking about buy a Sprint Marquee, but LG's being quite squirrelly about whether it will ever get an upgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (1)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960565)

I'm curious, what does it need in ICS that is not in honeycomb? there are quite a few honeycomb tablets out there.

Re:Occupy Fragmentation (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960807)

But those stats don't count those who are running ICS unofficially are they? (Not being smart, I'm actually curious)

There's a lot of people running oscomic, CM9, and other AOSP builds on devices that don't have ICS.. such as me with my galaxy s gt-i9000

Beta (1)

mitoyarzun (1428713) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958835)

Google should stop putting "beta" to their products, it's like we're going to see a 'final' version in the future.

Re:Beta (1)

Daniel_is_Legnd (1447519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958853)

Since this is limited to 4.0 devices I think the beta tag is appropriate. I'm sure they will port it to earlier versions and eventually remove the beta.

Re:Beta (1)

mitoyarzun (1428713) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958935)

Good point, but I don't think that beta applies... or at least remove it sooner. Remember Gmail Beta?

Re:Beta (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959001)

The many Lords of the parthenon forbid that Google actually uses the term "beta" correctly unlike 99% of the software companies out there. Beta does not simply mean "pre-release".

Re:Beta (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959319)

The many Lords of the parthenon forbid that Google actually uses the term "beta" correctly unlike 99% of the software companies out there. Beta does not simply mean "pre-release".

"it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Re:Beta (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958965)

Is there an extensive history of android apps written for version X being ported back to version X?

Re:Beta (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958971)

That's the amazing part of this story that no one seems to be picking up on.

Google actually produced a beta which, by intent or accident, seems to actually be restricted to a beta-sized community, and not their entire customer base.

It's unprecedented, and if they follow through by removing the "beta" tag before making the browser widely available, it'll be the Singularity!

Re:Beta (2, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959133)

Just like Gmail, Google+ and a host of other Google services started out limited to a very small group... and then they expanded the beta to their entire user base later on.

Re:Beta (1)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960675)

From what I can tell, it has more to do with the GPU-accelerated GUI and HTML5 rendering.

They could neuter it and backport it... maybe they will... but I'd guess they'll opt to leave Browser as "good enough" for those devices.

This really does behave like a browser, after all - not all features you expect from Chrome are implemented, there are some reports of crashes, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like it's prime-time Browser-replacing material yet.

Re:Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959131)

I doubt they'll port it to older versions. Older versions have been getting by just fine with "Browser" and it makes way more sense to focus their engineering efforts on improving Chrome Beta for Android, rather than trying to back-port it to an older obsolete version of Android.

Where is the Source Code? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38958861)

Chrome is based on the open source projects WebKit, but I can not see any source code released yet, just a vague promise of "upstreaming" changes to WebKit, no promise of release the code. Sorry, that is not good enough.

Unfortunately violating the license of WebKit seems be becoming a trend. Apple has not yet managed to release their WebKit changes for iOS, but in fact just released the binaries in their so-called source-code, see: Apple's binary WebCore source-code [apple.com] .

Is the LGPL really this weak, or has the big companies just stopped caring about legality?

Re:Where is the Source Code? (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38958949)

http://www.webkit.org/coding/bsd-license.html [webkit.org]

Really nothing more to say...

Re:Where is the Source Code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959093)

Which means the arrogant Googlers used Apple's Webkit work but don't want to release the source code of their proprietary browser. Well done, guys.

--
I value my privacy so I never ever use any Google services.

Re:Where is the Source Code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959099)

http://www.webkit.org/coding/lgpl-license.html [webkit.org]

Yeah, so they have a copy of both the LGPL and BSD license on the web site.

Re:Where is the Source Code? (1)

jggimi (1279324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959061)

Is the LGPL really this weak...?

The LGPL license permits proprietary code to be linked with licensed libraries. The resulting program can be distrubuted under any terms unless it is derivative work. I cite Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] so feel free to change it if you disagree with it. :)

Re:Where is the Source Code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959659)

The LGPL license permits proprietary code to be linked with licensed libraries.

The code I referred to is not code using a LGPL library, it is actual code from the library that has been held back. This is the difference between a proprietary application using the library (which is allowed), and a derived work (which has to be released under LGPL).

I cite Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] so feel free to change it if you disagree with it. :)

So do I. So keep reading ;)

Re:Where is the Source Code? (1)

Torne (78524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38961123)

The source is linked to from the Chrome for Android developer FAQ; see http://code.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/faq.html [google.com]

The actual tarball is at http://chromium-browser-source.commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chrome_android.v0.16.4130.199.tgz [googleapis.com] and contains ordinary, buildable source code, not binaries.

My Phone Works (0)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959039)

I won't install any beta software on my phone if I have a choice. I try to avoid unstable and poorly functional software in general. And if they feel their software is stable and functional, they shouldn't call it beta.

Re:My Phone Works (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959157)

Good for you? I don't think Google cares a whole hell of a lot.

Re:My Phone Works (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959777)

I try to avoid unstable and poorly functional software in general.

I'm guessing you don't use an android phone then!

Re:My Phone Works (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959845)

Beta is for when they want others to test it. That means they know it has bugs. Only those that want to help find the bugs should apply. Obviously this is not your cup of tea.

Re:My Phone Works (1)

stevenfuzz (2510476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960101)

I wish I could mod this up as interesting or incitful... "I try to avoid unstable and poorly functional software in general.": I agree, and I also like to avoid pooping before I brush my teeth.

'You can flip or swipe...' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959067)

'You can flip or swipe between an unlimited number of tabs using intuitive gestures, as if you're holding a deck of cards in the palm of your hands, each one a new window to the web.'

Pretentious bullshit advertising.

Re:'You can flip or swipe...' (2)

merky1 (83978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959107)

More like a merge of the Palm WebOS UI with Chrome. If it is the same, It's actually pretty cool and not just pretentious BS advertising.

Re:'You can flip or swipe...' (1)

stevenfuzz (2510476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960137)

Well until Apple comes out with it as their next big thing, it's pretentious BS advertising. I can say this with certitude and without sounding pretentious at all.

The WebOS card metaphor lives on. (2)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959079)

Now implement synergy, native cards for multitasking, unobtrusive notifications, and a gesture area with intuitive, consistent gestures throughout the OS and all applications.

CM9 + Chrome Beta = Zoom to the Future! (4, Informative)

rafial (4671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959145)

I've put this on my Galaxy Tab 10.1, which I recently updated to a developer release of CyanogenMod9 (The forthcoming ICS based Cyanogen). It really is nice. I can load up the full desktop version of Google+, which only sorta-kinda worked under the standard ICS browsers, and sorta-kinda worked differently under Firefox mobile, and it works 100%, no compromises. And doesn't feel much slower than my desktop either. That's great! The only annoyance is that it does seem to identify itself as a mobile browser, and I haven't yet found an option to change the user agent. No problem for sites like Wikipedia or G+ that give you a link to escape their mobile versions, but could be annoying elsewhere, since so many mobile sites are terrible. Surprising overside, since the stock browser in ICS includes an option to "request desktop site".

Re:CM9 + Chrome Beta = Zoom to the Future! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959437)

release of CyanogenMod9 (The forthcoming ICS based Cyanogen).

SWEET! YOU'VE GOT AN ICS BASED CYANOGEN!? BRILLIANT!

Re:CM9 + Chrome Beta = Zoom to the Future! (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960183)

Well, one thing what I loved on ICS browser was in Menu > Request desktop version. As tapping it and you got always a full site instead question of mobile version or automatically a mobile version.

CyanogeMod is great modification of Android, but they really should primarily offer a vanilla version first and THEN separated packages for modifications like root, CM7 power widgets, CM7 theme and own custom apps.

Doesn't support *all* ICS devices... (3, Informative)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959183)

If it's not an official ROM, don't expect support. Running EncounterICS Beta 3 on a Droid X here. And like other users of unofficial ICS ROMs, it doesn't work. For me, the problem is that all web pages are blank. Being that us bleeding edge custom ROM users are used to being bug testers, this is good for the beta and hopefully will be fixed soon.

Re:Doesn't support *all* ICS devices... (1)

jsh1972 (1095519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960823)

It's hit or miss, I guess... typing this on it on my HP touch pad w/cm9

Works on Nexus S (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959207)

Works perfectly on my Nexus S with ICS. Some people are complaining that Flash is not supported, but I could watch Vimeo videos just fine. Even has an incognito mode ;-)
Feels very snappy - but I'm used to the built-in browser, so can't compare it with Opera or Dolphin or the others.

Re:Works on Nexus S (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959853)

I don't care about Flash. I just want WebM+VP8 everywhere.

Oh come on! (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959223)

My phone is still stuck on android 2.3 -.-
4 is god knows how far away.

Re:Oh come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959337)

At least thats not as bad as my phone, which is stuck on 2.2 and it was released only about 7 months ago...

Re:Oh come on! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959895)

Wow, I was thinking the same thing.

You're most likely a TMobile user in the USA [bing.com] user like me, perhaps on prepaid also, since contract members rarely bother with unattractive low-end phones thanks to subsidies.

For the record, it's a Samsung Gravity Smart (SGH-T589), running Android 2.2.2 with kernel "2.6.32.9-perfuyoung.lee@SEP-19 #1"
The phone was just $200 USD and at least they backported 2.3's Swype to it. Seeing the kernel label hint of September [2011] and having paid full price in the last quarter of 2011, I think I'll be stuck until I can justify upgrading in another 18 months.

We saw a version fragmentation article months ago showing a small subset of companies that have gotten pretty bad with new release upgrades, and also that very few releasing actually give you the newest version even months after the new Android version is out. One of my friends with a pricier phone got 2.3 over the air. I've recently begun to wonder whether phones with very low free 'internal' memory even bother to download these silent updates.

Re:Oh come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38960603)

We all know it's you, bonch. Give it up.

Re:Oh come on! (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959379)

Put ICS on it. I have the original Galaxy S (US Cellular Mesmerize) that only had 2.3, but I found ICS on Rootzwiki and it works great.

Firefox mobile? (4, Interesting)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38959299)

Firefox has been doing this for a while. It is one of the primary reasons I use it since there is great synchronization of bookmarks along with it being a great mobile browser. I'm surprised it has taken chrome this long to do it and I'm also surprised it is only good for the newest version of android. I'll stick with Firefox mobile for now until the chrome works in 2.2 or 2.3.

Re:Firefox mobile? (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960107)

Hopefully Firefox mobile will get good enough that by then you wont want to switch ;-)

And I'm saying that because if we lose diversity on mobile the web will become very locked in again hehe.

Re:Firefox mobile? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960185)

They did bookmark sync between Chrome and Android browser some time ago, so sync is not all there is to it.

how do you comment on new format? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959459)

Old format easier to browse and decide.

Region locking? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38959615)

Who was the moron who decided to region lock a web browser? Jesus H. Christ, Google's stupidity never ceases to amaze me, in a very bad way.

No proxy support (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38960197)

If you want to try that, be aware that it doesn't support HTTP proxying. Kind of an epic fail on Google's behalf, given that they have just added system-wide proxy setting in ICS after several years of users complaining about the lack of this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...