One year ago, Google announced that it was bringing Android apps to Chromebooks in a move aimed directly at Windows. But that vision has never turned into reality. And this week, we found out that it is delaying this hybrid solution yet again.
What the hell is going on here?
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Granted, this is a slow-motion train wreck: Google originally promised that Android apps would be broadly available on Chromebooks by the end of 2016. And media reports throughout last year were perhaps overly positive about Google’s expected impact on Windows PCs and Macs. This was supposed to be game-changing.
To be clear, if Google can pull this off, Android apps on Chrome will indeed be disruptive, as I opened pondered a year ago in Can Google and Apple Pull the Plug on the PC Market? A June 2016 video described the wonders of this solution.
And then things got silent. As I wrote in January, in Still Waiting for the Chromebook Revolution that Never Came (Premium), Google’s late 2016 promise was smoke, and only a very slim selection of devices ever got Android app support, and then only in pre-release form.
The back-to-back releases of the Samsung Chromebook Plus and Chromebook Pro in early 2017 were supposed to turn things around. These Surface-like hybrid PCs offer touch screens and pens, and can be used like a traditional laptop or like a tablet.
There’s just one problem: Samsung has only released the Chromebook Plus so far, and this expensive device hasn’t moved the needle at all. The Pro, which features an ARM processor instead of an Intel processor, was delayed from March to April. And then to May.
And now we’re told that this new version of the device will ship sometime “this spring.” And according to many reports, the reason for the delay is, yep, you guessed it, that Google actually cannot figure out how to combine Android apps and Chrome OS. This attack that Google announced a year ago is effectively vaporware.
I still believe that this kind of solution can be hugely damaging to Microsoft … but that is predicated on Google actually making it work. And so far, they have not.
So breathe easy, Microsoft fans. Once again, the company has been saved. Not by its own technical excellence, but because of the feeble ineptitude of its competitors. Classic.
skane2600
<p>Windows on ARM might turn out to be similar. Certainly it should have been far easier to port the Android environment from one ARM device to another, then it would be to port a much larger OS functionality from Intel to ARM. This is true regardless of what form the "porting" takes.</p><p><br></p><p>Having said all that, I still think that running Android apps on Chromebooks might be considered a disadvantage to the market segment that has embraced it – education. The fundamental philosophy of a Chromebook is that the web is all you need. Adding Android apps undermines that philosophy. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113457"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>Of course modern Windows is a lot bigger and more complex than the original NT and even the original version on Alpha wasn't 100% compatible. Besides, only a tiny, tiny percentage of people ever ran those other versions so the compatibility across thousands of applications was never tested. Presumably the number of users of Windows on ARM will be orders of magnitude greater. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113548"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>Windows on ARM is obviously intended to appeal to a market segment larger than any of the non-intel CPUs. If it doesn't achieve that, it will be considered a failure. So I was giving it the value of the doubt. You're right it could be a flop in which case my "orders of magnitude" comment would obvious be wrong.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113304"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Right now Windows is the only OS that's been commercially successful that was created in the last quarter century. "</p><p><br></p><p>It depends on what criteria you use. Windows was created over 30 years ago. Yes, there have been updates and architectural changes, but Windows 10's relationship to original Windows is at least as strong as Linux's or OSX's relationship to Unix.</p><p><br></p><p>But I agree with you that System Software is hard which is why I'm not taking the claims of Windows on ARM at face value. When it's finally released, we'll see. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113453"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, I know the history quite well, but your position is that the kernel makes the OS which is an opinion that isn't universally shared. Besides, Linux has been very successful outside of the desktop and its kernel is completely independent of any kernel running in an "old minicomputer OS designed almost half a century ago." So I think you're bending your definitions to suit your point.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113543"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>I'm saying that you have to consider the OS as a whole, not just the kernel. I suggest you check out The Old New Thing to see how pre-NT aspects of Windows are still in play today. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113545"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>Come on. Even the worst of the early PC clones had more in common with an IBM PC than Linux does with Unix. MSDOS and PC DOS were nearly identical. It was mainly the BIOS that was different which wasn't technically part of the OS. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113405"><em>In reply to fishnet37222:</em></a></blockquote><p>Again, it depends on definitions. The fact that NT didn't depend on DOS didn't mean it was "completely" new. If it were, it would have failed due to an inability to run legacy programs.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113683"><em>In reply to SvenJ:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's a matter of judging how much "newness" qualifies for "creation". In any case, Linux is no less "new" with respect to AT&T unix than Windows NT is with respect to earlier versions of Windows. I don't say that because I'm Linux fan, because I'm really not, but the claim that "Windows is the only OS that's been commercially successful that was created in the last quarter century" is simply false. If one includes Windows NT, one must also include, Linux and possibly iOS, and Android as well.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113751"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>Linux's userland has a lot in common with Unix's just as Windows NT's userland has a lot in common with prior versions of Windows. In both cases the kernels aren't the same. I don't buy this distinction you are trying to make.</p><p><br></p><p>I can't find any reference to OSX or ios being licensed from AT&T, but I assume you have read about it somewhere and can provide a link. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113653"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>The funny thing is if you point out a vulnerability in a Linux distro, some fans will say "No, it doesn't count because Linux is a just a kernel" but if you were to say "Linux doesn't have a word processor" than suddenly Linux is not just a kernel to them. </p><p><br></p><p>The distinction between a kernel and the rest of an OS is useful from an architectural point of few, but as a practical matter, it's the totality of an OS that matters. </p>
Bats
<p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">I said this once and I'll say it 1 million times, if I have to. Everything Paul Thurrott writes and predicts almost always goes wrong. When i say "almost always" I am talking over 90%.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">GOOGLE CAN TAKE ALL THE TIME THEY NEED.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">The fact of the matter is this: Android Apps can be used on ChromeOS. Paul knows that. He already reported it. People can get Android Apps now, if they want. If Paul care to do any research (like reading forums, google blogs, etc..), it's not how Google envision Android Apps to be. </span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">All in all, it doesn't change the fact that PC and Surface sales have dropped. All this "…BUT GOOGLE PROMISED!!!" is all in Paul's head, which I believe is finding an excuse to write something bad about the company that he hates.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">You know what's ironic? Remember years ago, when Paul was launching his personal Scroogled campaign? It was during the time of that commercial featuring the Pawn Bros or Pawn Shop (I forgot the name of the show). Isn't it ironic that with Paul using Calendar, Gmail, Chrome, Search, and now Android that he (himself) is purposely and willingly allowing himself to be Scroogled? LOL.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">WIth this said, you can't trust anything Paul writes about. The definition of "Collapse" is something or someone that fallen down. Android on Chrome clearly hasn't fallen.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">I think my percentage just increase to 91%. (LOL) </span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">When it does happen, that number moves to 92%</span></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113410"><em>In reply to Jorge Garcia:</em></a></blockquote><p>You took your percentages out of your.. well, head. I expect that HP, Dell etc would prefer to cater to the much, much larger market for Windows PCs than to go to all the trouble of forking Android for desktop systems with the hope that demand will eventually appear. Android is a decent OS for what it was designed for – smartphones (if you ignore fragmentation), but a desktop OS has different needs and one of them is running industry standard applications.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113431"><em>In reply to Jorge Garcia:</em></a></blockquote><p>So do the workers at Best Buy ever approach you and ask why you show up every day and hang out during all the business hours? Or do you fly around the country observing all the Best Buys? Because if you don't, how would you know that people aren't buying Windows PCs there? Best Buy is a business. If nobody is buying PCs they wouldn't still be in the the store.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113679"><em>In reply to SvenJ:</em></a></blockquote><p>Back in the day, you could run C programs that ran on a variety of different OS's but it didn't make those OS's all the same. There was a time when MS Word source code was shared between Windows and the Mac even though the Mac was using a different OS and a Motorola 68000 and Windows an 8088. So common code is nothing new and doesn't create "universality" of applications. Windows 10 may make it a bit easier, but the platform-specific tasks are still there. Resizing doesn't solve the platform-independence problem in the general case. Sometimes you have to change the "objects" in the UI. What usually happens with UWP apps is that they accommodate the mobile environment to the detriment of the desktop (e.g. Wasted space, overly large objects, etc). </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113753"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>If it's truly one OS, then every single application that runs on one device can run on all others. This is simply not the case. There are different device families that enable features that are unique to that family. If MS wants to define a "single OS" as an OS that has common features on different devices, that's fine, but as a practical matter these differences matter. Even MS's nomenclature argues against the "One Windows" branding. What need is there to call Windows 10 builds that run on a phone Windows 10 "mobile". Why, for example, is the PDF enhancements not included in the mobile version yet if it's "one windows"? </p><p><br></p><p>UWP advocates like to talk about resizing, but as I've said before, that is insufficient in the general case. </p><p><br></p><p>I see in your last sentence that you've resorted to insults. In that case, I'm dropping out of this discussion.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#114547"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a></blockquote><p>I'm not going to argue with you further on technical matters, but if you don't think you were insulting me you're delusional.</p>
Lateef Alabi-Oki
<p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">How long did it take Android to become the most dominant computing platform?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">How long did it take Google Chrome to become the most dominant web browser?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">How long did it take Gmail to become the most dominant email service?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">How long did it take Google Maps to become the most dominant mapping service?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">How long did it take YouTube to become the most dominant online media platform?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">How long did it take Chromebooks to become the most dominant devices in the education sector in the US?</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">These were all products tech bloggers predicted will "collapse". </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">I wonder if 5 years from now I'll look back at this post and chuckle.</span></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113426"><em>In reply to Lateef Alabi-Oki:</em></a></blockquote><p>"How long did it take Android to become the most dominant computing platform?"</p><p><br></p><p>I don't know, we can figure it out if it ever happens.</p><p><br></p><p>I don't recall any tech bloggers saying that any of these products were going to collapse.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113666"><em>In reply to Jules Wombat:</em></a></blockquote><p>Android is the dominant smartphone OS. That doesn't make it "the most dominant computing platform". </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113906"><em>In reply to PeteB:</em></a></blockquote><p>It depends on the parameters of "computing platform". There are probably billions of embedded computing devices in the world that don't run android. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113452"><em>In reply to Jorge Garcia:</em></a></blockquote><p>Apparently Millennials "roll" by using a UI that's just in your imagination. One could argue that a student who has Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and WhatsApp open is going to be too distracted to complete that essay.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#113681"><em>In reply to Jorge Garcia:</em></a></blockquote><p>When did Millennials vote you in as their spokesman? </p>