right on

yeah!

wow >11,000

Yeah!

Yeah!

@Kratos I agree with Pyronick. Not only because of his pyromania, but because Chrome and Android are bound to meet up relatively soon.

The newest ARM-architecture CPUs are being positioned as competitors to Intel's Atom, but they can't run x86 OSs. Android is free and has been available, so we're seeing Android on these devices now. Moblin is being developed with Intel for the Atom CPU, so it's not intended for ARM CPUs. Now that Chrome OS is going to be available, manufacturers will start working with Chrome OS as well. If it's a netbook, Chrome OS will probably serve as a better (that is, easier and therefore less expensive) starting point than Android. Both OSs are free, but they see subsequent development for different platforms.

There is no guarantee of Google Experience integration in Android, and there are no apps in the Android Marketplace for netbooks. They're really just using the Android as the OS, because it's free and it's already ARM CPU compatible. What will be interesting about Chrome OS is that it will be both x86 and ARM CPU compatible.

Google has already been on record promoting the idea that access to the internet can be subsidized by advertising. Everything they do is more or less driving towards that idea. A free OS that drives down the cost of devices and is subsidized by ads while guaranteeing full, fast access to internet is a move along those lines. Basically, all of Google's services are available to the public for free, while Google tries to make money in ways that are unobtrusive and possibly helpful. I personally find their overall philosophy and the consistency with which they apply themselves to be more interesting and significant than the driving force behind most technology companies. Where Google has not yet been successful is in producing the reality of free networking. While the concerns of data privacy and constant targeted advertising are inevitably raised, people like free, useful stuff. There is no bigger advocate in the U.S. political system for free-to-the-public networking than Google, while there are many large companies who are naturally opposed.

@TheyDidItFirst I've written a fair amount about Chrome OS in my comments already. But in brief, I think Chrome OS is a great secondary OS, and for many circumstances, a good primary OS to replace Windows 2000/NT on all of those computers running just a browser in libraries, businesses, etc. In those contexts, many functions have moved from local apps to online or intranet hosting.

Chrome OS + ARM CPU + 2GB flash drive < $150, plus huge power savings, no need for anti-virus and internet security apps, no cost for the OS itself, and virtually no need to maintain or update the OS.

Add that sub-$150 combination to your average x86 notebook, and you have a secondary mode that can double your battery life exactly when you want it: when you need to conserve battery life while surfing the internet. The bigger the power requirement differential between the x86 CPU and the ARM CPU, the greater the relative difference between battery life running the x86 CPU and the ARM CPU. So, take a top of the line gaming notebook PC with a quad-core CPU, dual HDDs, and a discrete GPU; the Chrome OS "module" takes the 1.5-hour battery life to a 20-plus-hour battery life. (The numbers are only guesstimates.) If Chrome boots and shuts down around the same time it takes to get network access and start up the browser on your main OS, then it's obviously useful in a number of real world cases.

@(Unverified) I'm so irritated after reading this column over again that I'm going to respond to my own post. What is the best app on the iPhone? I'm going to say: Google Maps, hands down. (The email app is obviously similarly useful, although gmail running in Mobile Safari has more features.) Google Maps gives me access to data that I couldn't possibly have in a locally stored application, and that information is adaptable to a whole range of circumstances: driving, walking, public transportation, plus Streetview, local business information, and real-time traffic. There is no competition for that service, and there is no better demonstration of how content in one form on the internet needs to be converted into another form in a mobile device. A phone that has Google Maps and no other apps is far more useful than a phone with 100,000 apps minus Google Maps. The whole idea that Google is causing some kind of fatal confusion to arise about the status of Android apps vs. webapps is nonsense, total and complete bunk.

I'm underwhelmed by this commentator for the second week in a row. It's not just that I disagree with his views, but rather that his basic arguments are more or less incomprehensible to me.

Apple has done a good job with the iPhone OS, whereas MS has definitely had a hard time scaling its OS over a larger variety of devices. In particular, when WM was in its prime, the most important feature was data synchronization between a computer and a portable device, which WM did and still does very well (better than Apple, at least in syncing with Windows).

It seems to me that, looking all of the negative commentary on Chrome OS and this more or less obvious statement about the eventual merging and Android and Chrome OS, people don't really understand Google at all. They're acting like it's some other software company. Android is clearly a good primary OS forsmall, portable devices which benefit from an optimized UI. Chrome OS is clearly a benefit as a secondary OS on notebooks and desktops, which don't require a specialized UI to access internet content. For devices in between, the field is less defined. But the problem is the same: the delivery of internet content in a usable fashion for each device.

I don't see how Google is "sending a mixed message" at all, or suffering from "corporate infighting." All of that is completely in the mind of the commentator, I suspect out of his blind devotion to Apple. If and when Apple releases a tablet requiring all new apps optimized for a larger, higher-resolution multitouch screen, this guy will probably think its an ingenious move on Apple's part. But Google, trying to meet a real demand for full compatibility with the internet with a free OS for every type of device, is somehow a complete moron. Okay, whatever.