Software

Android, Chrome OS Relationship Confusing Everyone, Including Google

By John Herrman on July 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Just as companies were starting to get serious about installing Android, a mobile Linux OS, on netbooks, Google announces Chrome, a netbook Linux OS. The relationship between the two OSes is already getting tense, or at the very least, awkward.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt is now admitting that it took him quite a while to warm to the idea of Chrome the browser, even longer to come to terms with the possibility of Chrome the OS, and in both cases only after Larry Page and Sergey Brin literally nerded him into succumbing:

I just gave up, but there is no question I am hugely supportive of Chrome and Chrome OS. They are game-changers. They change the way you think about your computer.

Meanwhile, Android’s perceived role in the world was expanding. After all this soul-searching, though, Schmidt must have a vision for parallel, non-conflicting roles for Android and Chrome OS, right?:

Although it appears they are two separate projects, there’s a great deal of commonality. Eventually they may merge even closer.”

This is somewhere between “oops!” and “I have no idea.”

But hold on! There could be a third way! Digitimes is reporting that Intel is in talks with Google to help adapt Android for use in MIDs, the so-far ill-fated bridge devices between netbooks and smartphones. Technologically, this actually seems like a reasonably secondary use for Android. Commercially, though, MIDs are something of a ghetto; a category broached by few manufacturers, and unfamiliar (or unattractive) to most customers.

The most obvious conclusion to all this is for Android (and Android enthusiasts) to draw back ambitions and focus on what we know it’s good at: mobile phones, and possibly portable media players—something that will probably happen organically, but only after a few more news cycles worth of bewildering quotes and announcements from Google. [WSJ, Digitimes]

Tagged:

Comments (AU Comments | US Comments)

  • Purple Monkey Dishwasher
    July 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: Joking aside though, I agree with the comment about the icon, they really need to work on that but the name isn't half bad. Very few people say they have Microsoft Windows XP. Instead, they will just call it Windows XP. The same will happen for Google Chrome OS. It will likely just evolve into Chrome OS (or OSChrome for the Macboys) which isn't a bad name.

    Purple Monkey Dishwasher

  • Purple Monkey Dishwasher
    July 10, 2009 at 11:11 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: Chroogle

    Purple Monkey Dishwasher

  • Blender
    July 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM
    god forbid the environment be the same on multiple devices of varied size!
  • 92BuickLeSabre
    July 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM
    @VenomIreland: Ain't that the truth. But I'm gonna guess it'll be the other way around. "Oh mine is on the Google Windows, not the Microsoft Windows," she said proudly. My unknowledgeable family members have no idea what kind of Windows they are running, but do know it's made by MS.
  • OMG! Ponies!
    July 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM
    How about they come up with a separate name? How about they come up with a name that is not the same as their browser which is still in the "word of mouth" phase and not trailing IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera? It's hard enough for me to tell people they should check out "Google Chrome"; getting a non-geek to check out "Google Chrome OS" is nigh impossible, especially against "Check out Ubuntu". Also, I've never been a fan of the icon for the browser. As the icon for the OS, it is a terrible idea given that the bold primary color scheme is what has been the Windows boot screen for two decades. It doesn't differentiate itself. Give it a new name and a new icon. This of the OS names out there:
    Windows, Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7, OSX, Jaguar, Tiger, Leopard, Linux, Ubuntu, Android, Windows Mobile, OSX Mobile
    These are simple, straight-forward names that work quickly. I don't see what's wrong with "Google OS" without the word Chrome. You can even be cute and nickname it "Goose".
  • strider_mt2k
    July 10, 2009 at 10:52 PM
    @VenomIreland: -or that they're "In the Cloud". I already knew that much. It's why they call me to fix their machines all the time! ;)
  • VenomIreland
    July 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM
    I for one can't wait to hear inept family members say they have Windows Google, sigh.
  • Gizmodoholic
    July 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM
    I don`t see a short term impact for google... like android phones, it will start slow. In Romania (i know, middle of nowhere) few people know about android, or everything that google offers (docs, talk).... so in near future i dont see a future for this market from google.... yet! But.. for the long term.. i hope the best for google inc :x
  • Dilpickle1
    July 10, 2009 at 10:38 PM
    Why not just make Android more compatible? Seems dumb to make ANOTHER os that people will probably only use because it has "google" on it.

    Dilpickle1

  • strider_mt2k
    July 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM
    Give me HUNDREDS of ways to do stuff, as long as they all WORK.
  • chefgon
    July 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM
    The difference seems pretty obvious to me. Android is built from the ground up to be all about apps, and Chrome OS is built from the ground up to be all about the web.

    Even if Android can technically be installed on a netbook, it doesn't really make any sense. It isn't tailored for that experience AT ALL.

    Just like Chrome OS would probably be terrible if you plopped it onto a touchscreen phone.

    To me this is the exact same thing as Microsoft offering both Windows 7 and Windows Mobile. They're designed from the ground up for different platforms and different experiences, and whenever somebody tries to install one of them on the other's form factor it ends up being garbage.

    The only real news here is that Google is joining the push alongside Moblin to actually attempt to define netbooks as a new platform and not just another kind of laptop.

    chefgon

  • strider_mt2k
    July 11, 2009 at 8:16 AM
    @rhoderickj: Since when is having a choice of OSs a bad thing? My point is that everyone can run WHATEVER as long as it doesn't suck.
  • Pazu
    July 11, 2009 at 5:29 AM
    @OMG! Ponies!: You could say the same about the "Windows" name. It's just a cute name Microsoft came up with, and now it's Google trying to create a new brand with Chrome.
  • Josh Dill
    July 11, 2009 at 4:14 AM
    I think this confusion could be easily cleared up if you think of "Chrome" as a brand rather than a product name. Right now we have the Google Chrome Browser (a product) and soon we'll have the Google Chrome OS, another product under the Chrome brand. It's similar to how Microsoft has a Windows brand and then products under that brand heading like "Windows Media Player" or "Windows Movie Maker." The problem here is that Google's CEO seems out of touch with his own company's product vision by not knowing how to separate the Chrome brand from the Android brand. Maybe it's time to step down, Eric Schmidt, and let someone else field the questions that could make or break your developing software platforms.

    Josh Dill

  • 可愛い兎
    July 11, 2009 at 2:28 AM
    @VenomIreland: Running on their Mac Book...

    可愛い兎

  • PhineasJW
    July 11, 2009 at 2:15 AM
    @thebigcheese: Same here. It screwed up Google reader. Not happy.
  • Aaron Monroy
    July 11, 2009 at 1:37 AM
    @Dilpickle1: well for people like me... the Android name is already tainted. (really shallow reason sorry) It seems like it is a mobile phone OS going to a computer OS. The other way around sounds better (like the way Microsoft and Apple did).

    Aaron Monroy

  • thebigcheese
    July 11, 2009 at 1:29 AM
    You know, ever since you guys updated your comment system, I keep seeing "The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser" when I use Google Reader, even with dinky little images like this. What's the deal?

    thebigcheese

  • kernel panic
    July 11, 2009 at 12:55 AM
    @Timothy Collins: android is optimized to be embedded on ARM platforms. Starting from scratch with an x86 kernel makes more sense than porting android's.

    kernel panic

  • orthorim
    July 11, 2009 at 12:51 AM
    @frigg: Nobody plans technology 10 years ahead. Google's solution to those awkward offline moments is offline technology like Google Gears. So in the end you have web apps that run locally and sync with a server. Not bad. I guess they intentionally named the OS the same as the browser because to them, the Chrome OS' primary responsibility is to start the Chrome browser. So maybe they don't want to differentiate the two. Still, I agree it's a mistake, it should have a better name than that. About the confusion - maybe the idea is to keep everyone guessing. Or to put it another way, they are not going to reveal their grand plan to take over the world prematurely. They want to keep that to themselves until it's too late.

    orthorim

  • tande04
    July 11, 2009 at 12:33 AM
    @chris401: Mobile internet device

    tande04

  • chris401
    July 11, 2009 at 12:27 AM
    And a MID is?

    chris401

  • bonedog73
    July 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM
    What's wrong with Android? Cool name and it's already making headway in the market. You can have Android for Phones, MID's, Netbooks and Desktops. This is what MS and Ubuntu do...seems to work and people know what they're getting.

    bonedog73

  • IDSkittlez
    July 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM
    The should google there problem... oh wait never mind.
  • frigg
    July 11, 2009 at 12:18 AM
    @OMG! Ponies!: That's a good point, but I don't think it jibes with Google's corporate culture. Search and advertising are the essence of Google's business and expected to succeed. However, everything else is an experiment, liberally figleafed with Beta. Google throws 100s of arrows at a wall with the hope that some will stick, but expect and tolerate failure.

    I'd bet Google is willing to let Chrome OS suck for a few years, like Google Apps (which, like a lot of Google's plans, depends on bandwidth) with the hope that it may eventually succeed. You could even picture Schmidt's dour expression as he plays with his chin while Page and Brin nerd him up... "yeah, we'll give that a try. You've got 5 billion, but no more. For now." In the meantime, Google as a synonym for search is so valuable ("Google that on Bing") that I doubt they'd let even their nascent plans for world domination dilute that.
  • Who Shot Who in the What Now?
    July 11, 2009 at 12:18 AM
    It think it makes perfect sense that their mobile OS and netbook OS "share commonality," seeing that mobile devices and netbooks are used for similar purposes. For now though, netbooks are slightly beefier than phones, so they can have a slightly more complex operating system. I don't see the conflict. As for the name: Chrome OS seems to be (perhaps this in an over-simplification) an expansion in the functionality of the Chrome browser, so the name makes sense, too.

    Who Shot Who in the What Now?

  • Timothy Collins
    July 11, 2009 at 12:12 AM
    @OMG! Ponies!: I never really disliked the Chrome icon... But to be honest, I don't see the need for a separate OS just to run a browser anyway. Why not simply use Android as the underlying OS and stick their browser on top? Let's face it - both Android and Chrome OS are Linux underneath, so it feels like Google is going to great expense and trouble to do something twice when they already have it working once... It make no sense to me...

    Timothy Collins

  • OMG! Ponies!
    July 11, 2009 at 12:11 AM
    @citizen024: That's the problem - it doesn't roll off the tongue. I had no idea that Android is Dalvik on a Linux kernel. That esoterica is not good for marketing. Calling an OS "Linux" may be technically flawed, but if you're aim is name-retention it isn't. Keep it short. Lauren needs to be able to remember it.
  • AkkiRonin
    July 11, 2009 at 12:08 AM
    @Dilpickle1: Yeah they're both Linux distros.... why not do it as versions of Android? Really wacked to think they are building separate distros under one roof.
  • Gann
    July 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM
    @OMG! Ponies!: I imagine their decision had alot to do with EU's anti-trust case against Microsoft. You can't package your browser with your OS, but if they are one in the same...
  • 可愛い兎
    July 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM
    @tok3ninja; is still in Beta: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=macbook+air&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

    可愛い兎

  • hoffmanbike
    July 11, 2009 at 12:05 AM
    @OMG! Ponies!: would that make a networked home full of Gooses (Geese?) a ..... Gaggle?

    hoffmanbike

  • Scaramanga
    July 11, 2009 at 12:01 AM
    Both Android and Chrome OS are Linux based, at the core they likely share a lot of code. The main difference it seems to me is that Chrome OS has a full version of Chrome Browser + Flash + JAVA on the OS (according to the press release). Android uses a cut-down version of the browser that is also based on Webkit.

    Scaramanga

  • rhoderickj
    July 10, 2009 at 11:59 PM
    @strider_mt2k: If they all WORK, you don't need HUNDREDS, just one.

    rhoderickj

  • citizen024
    July 10, 2009 at 11:56 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: If you're going to refer to operating systems then GNU/Linux would be more appropriate, Ubuntu is a flavor of GNU/Linux, while Android is Dalvik on top of the Linux kernel. Using "Linux" to describe a OS is FLAWED.
  • Chewbenator
    July 10, 2009 at 11:53 PM
    Is there any confusion about windows mobile and the light versions of windows 7? I don't see how there is a problem here.
  • OMG! Ponies!
    July 10, 2009 at 11:52 PM
    @frigg: The solution is to not go into it thinking "If this thing sucks, it will taint the company brand." Show that you're willing to put your name on it. It's still Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office just like it's the Apple iPhone and the Apple iPod and Keebler Cookies. I knew a lawyer who used to put every document as an exhibit to his motion. He said it was so that it would be preserved for the Record on Appeal. Another lawyer told me that the message it sends is "Judge, I expect you to deny my motion." Show that you expect your product to enhance your brand.
  • frigg
    July 10, 2009 at 11:46 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: I think they'd want to stay away from the name of the company for the OS... imagine: Apple OS, Microsoft OS, or Nabisco OS. If anything goes wrong, it taints the primary brand.

    Also, I think Google's not really interested in next year, but 10 years down the road when there's enough bandwidth so cloud truly rivals desktop, and both Chromes become one and the same.

    In the meantime, for the sake of clarity, if I were Schmidt I'd rename Android, Chrome, and Chrome OS, Prince Michael Jackson I, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II, or simply Blanket. Who wouldn't want to use Blanket OS?
  • tok3ninja; is the best non-star
    July 10, 2009 at 11:40 PM
    @可愛い兎: I dunno what version of Google you use. My page results still come up like they used to.
  • tok3ninja; is the best non-star
    July 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: They could go the route of Ubuntu and name every release using the alphabet with some funky animal theme. Maybe Google will use flower names. Powerful Pansy?
  • 可愛い兎
    July 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: Everything Google is trash, so why not have trashy retail color on the logo. Try and use Google these days, you almost have to go to page two before you see non advertorial results!

    可愛い兎

  • Axelph
    July 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM
    @Dilpickle1: WOuld you be surprised if I tell you: "That's marketing"?
  • Justinpaulson
    July 10, 2009 at 11:32 PM
    @citizen024: Yeah, I almost feel like everyone trying to put android on netbooks is what caused google to create a proper netbook OS.
  • Idrive
    July 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM
    @OMG! Ponies!: I totally agree with you...it needs to be named so that it appears to EVERYONE as two separate things. My parents surely wouldn't understand the difference as things stand now!

    Idrive

  • trontron
    July 10, 2009 at 11:26 PM
    @Blender: If a practical OS is thought up and executed then it is better if all the devices have the same environment, because it's familiar.

    In the future people will only carry around one device. It will be able to do EVERYTHING.

    Right now we don't miss it, cause we don't know it exists, because it doesn't - and its hard to imagine :D

    trontron

  • citizen024
    July 10, 2009 at 11:24 PM
    I'm just happy that they are releasing a separate netbook OS so that silly manufacturers don't feel the need to put Android on netbooks, its not suited for that.
  • Jonesy555
    July 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM

    @OMG! Ponies!: I'm not getting all the Chrome logo hate? I love that icon. It is second only to the Firefox logo. But Chrome matches AVG's logo so well

    Jonesy555

Post Your Comments

Got something to say? There are two ways to comment:

1. Guests

Click here to comment instantly.

2. Facebook Users

Click below to comment using your Facebook account.

We're looking for comments that are interesting, substantial or highly amusing. If your comments are excessively self-promotional, obnoxious, or even worse, boring, you will be banned from commenting. All comments are moderated.