Schmidt does not rule out Android and Chrome OS merger
Summary: Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt actually did not say that Chrome OS and Android would remain forever apart.
Numerous news stories, based on a single Reuters report, which state that Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, had said that Android and Chrome OS would remain separate products with possibly some overlap, appear to be incorrect.
Schmidt actually did not rule out the new Linux-based operating systems eventually merging. Joe Wilcox of BetaNews found a video of Schmidt's question and answer session at the Google Big Tent Summit in New Delhi, India. In the video, we see Schmidt answering a question about whether or not Google might put an end to Android or Chrome OS now that one person, Sundar Pichai, will lead both Android and Chrome groups.
Schmidt responded, "No, is the answer. We don't make decisions based on who the leader is … [Google makes decisions] based on where the technology takes us."
He then segued into talking about how: "Chrome and Chromium are the world's best HTML5 authoring and developing systems. You should be using Chrome. It's faster, it's safer, it's more secure than any of your other browser choices. In Android, which is more of a Java-like development environment, it [the Chrome web browser] solves a different problem. There will be more commonality for sure, but they will remain separate for a very, very long time because they solve different problems."
First, Schmidt ruled out killing either operating system platform. I don't think anyone actually thought Google would do this. Google has invested considerable resources in both Android and Chrome OS. Android is now the world's most popular smartphone operating system, and Chrome OS and its associated Chromebook laptops are gaining more fans by the day.
Schmidt then started talking about the two operating systems' different development models. Finally, he spoke about how eventually the two will merge. At no point does he state that a marriage between the two platforms won't happen.
So it seems clear to me that when you take his off-the-cuff comment in context, there's every reason to believe that eventually we'll see Android and Chrome OS coming together to make one operating system.
To be precise, I still think we're going to see a Google operating system with Linux-Android as its foundation and a Chrome web-browser interface that will incorporate both Chrome OS-style HTML5 web applications and Android-style Dalvik local applications. The first platform you'll see this will be on the Chromebook Pixel. After all, Google is already nine-tenths of the way to already delivering the software — and the Pixel has both the keyboard Chrome OS likes and the touchscreen that Android requires.
Related Stories:
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
It really depends on what they are after
This is exactly right
Android on the other hand, is extremely useful. However, it is a security nightmare. The nice thing: for most intents and purposes, Android isn't an OS, its a VM (Dalvik). And that makes it very portable.
Run Android apps in the browser (and thus within a sandbox) and all of a sudden you get something with the simplicity (aka stupid-proof) of ChromeOS with the capability to actually do something useful when you need it to. There is no reason that, in addition to JavaScript, the browser couldn't also process Dalvik code. And even native code isn't a big deal using a plugin structure.
It'd turn the paradigm on it's head: instead of running the browser as an application, run applications in the browser.
Suddenly, both Android and ChromeOS look pretty good.
And with the carriers-can't-get-in-the-way update policy around ChromeOS, there goes another problem, too.
ChromeOS has its own advantages.
If you merge Android and ChromeOS in a way that does does not preserve these things, ChromeOS becomes worthless - what you get is Android with a Chrome browser on it, which is something we already have - although not yet will all desktop Chrome browser features. To add Android functionality into Chrome OS instead of the other way around, keeping ChromeOSes raison d'etre, it will probably be necessary for Android to run in the cloud. This would mean releasing a Dalvik equivalent of J2EE for third party app servers, and adding security for running external code with access to local safely. This is probably why Google is very wisely taking its time over merging the two.
Also what a lot of posters don't understand is that ChromeOS is a full blown OS albeit one which uses open WC3 standards over proprietary ones. The proof that it is a full OS capable of doing anything and everything that Windows, OSX, Linux, Android and iOS can do (including run fast native code and apps requiring heavy CPU/GPU computation locally) is demonstrated by the fact that you can run a fully functional chrooted Linux distribution as an app within ChromeOS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-8zTYwKag . It is only the lack of that many HTML5 apps and Portable Native Client at present that is resulting in the main use of Chromebooks being web browsing and media consumption. That won't remain the case for long. Unlike Windows RT/Metro apps which will run only on a Windows RT/Metro device, HTML5 apps will run on any device with a browser, and Portable Native Client apps will run on any device with a Chrome browser or a Native Client plug-in installed. That is a huge market - far larger than even all versions of Windows combined, and far larger than Android too. The reason why HTML5/PNaCl apps have been slow so far, is that HTML5 has only recently been ratified, and the offline HTML5 packaged app spec for ChromeOS only recently been specified, and PNaCl will only be released this summer. When all these are in place (very soon), web apps will rapidly outpace proprietary app development - the open standards and write once run anywhere capability of web apps will see to that.
@Mah
1) It runs in ARM architecture. Which means no x86 or x64 runs on it. It even filters out most of the linux apps there. Sure. You can write HTML5 code for the OS. But, you can do the same for the Windows Phones too. Even though I like Windows Phone, we all know where it stands in terms of applications right?
2) Zero maintenance is great. But it comes at the cost of No software install in the machine. Everyone calls Apple a walled garden. This, we can safely call as a prison.
3) No local data. Give me a break. Cloud is nice. Awesome. Great. I agree. But just imagine. Everyone doesn't have unlimited fast internet connection. How will you watch, lets say, lord of the rings some 3 times in a month? I can do it with even a windows 98 or ubuntu 6.04 or even an android mobile.
4) The market is supposed to be flooded with HTML5 apps from 2010! I can even safely bet that even by 2015, HTML5 apps will not flood anywhere.
5) Running a linux distribution as an app is an option that can be taken. Put it this way. It will be more like installing a VM or taking remote.
Your knowledge is woefully wrong.
2) Cost of no software to install? Isn't that a saving?
3) Chromebooks can cache local data, and do. For example offline GDrive caches offline files locally, transparently uses the local copy when there is no Internet connection, and transparently syncs back to the Internet when connectivity is restored, all without a pause and without any thought or effort from the user. You get the best of both worlds with Chrome offline apps.
4) The full HTML5 standard has only recently been agreed very recently, and is set to be ratified in 2014, so your talk about 2010 is nonsense.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Final-HTML5-Standard-Coming-in-2014-HTML5-1-in-2016-294062.shtml
Parts of HTML5 were provisionally agreed earlier, and use of HTML5 web sites has been widespread and most browsers have already adopted the agreed parts, but application developers are reluctant to commit to developing complex HTML5 applications until full ratification - particularly for things like offline apps which took time agreeing.
5) A VM has to use the OSes resources to access screen display, network access, file storage, sound etc. If the guest OS can do all the things that its installation on bare metal allows, then it follows that the host OS (ChromeOS) provides those facilities, and is therefore a full blown OS. In this case it is even more profound than that. The full Linux OS is not running as a VM but running chroot, so the Linux installation uses the host ChromeOS kernel, and drivers. It simultaneously runs the full set of apps and services found in Linux in a separate chroot directory under the same ChromeOS operating system.
I think..
Will it run full content creation suites?
@SungFire23
Schmidt & Google can't be trusted
Its time that the EU, US and the rest of the world take action against Google and stop its illegal business practices. The Chinese government was wise enough to kick Google out of China.
The wise Chinese government
Unfortunately Google gave up and has accepted censorship, I know it's all about money but it's almost pathetic how fast Google can forget the "don't be evil".
The liar and clown .....
Wow, you just make stuff up as you go huh?
Owllll1net is a vacuous troll.
The subtle moniker changes...
facts right.
Wow, that was a quick defensive atrticle
One more steven speculation down the tubes.
Keep that perfect score going Steven, you know, the kiss of death for any product you support!
Just keep showing how out of touch you are with reality!
Headline?
This just in!!!!
A CEO should rarely say "never"
One of these days....