I've had the opportunity to work with this project and it does deliver. In terms of code portability it's pretty good. Small changes had to be done to accommodate some yet to be supported APIs. No big deal though. The performance is good. Even on the low end chromebook I test with. Myonly concern is related to how the (my) codebase might need to evolve over time to adapt to ARC updates. Right now it's pretty sane with only a handful of extra settings on the manifest file. But I worry about being forced into forking. Having two similar but slightly different codebase for the same app is silly.
The overall experience with the Google team has been very positive. Which, in all honesty, surprised me. I was expecting the typical corporate attitude towards outsiders. The way the ARC team has gone above and beyond to help has been refreshing.
I do worry as to how this would affect the openness of the web. A closed source container used to run other closed sourced clients is not my idea of how the Web should be. Even Mozilla is going down this route with their browser apps. Though I have more trust in Mozilla than in Google in regards to having and keeping an open web. Either way, it raises an important question: Where is the Web going in the next 10 years? I wish I knew. Right now it looks like a toss up.
> Even Mozilla is going down this route with their browser apps.
Why are you saying that?
What Mozilla is doing is to develop web APIs needed for those apps and then push for their standardization, but all the apps listed in the Firefox Marketplace are just web apps, having no problem in running in other browsers (assuming they don't rely on APIs that haven't been standardized yet). Google is also doing this with Chrome on Android, as they've also been pushing for certain standards to be adopted that would benefit apps.
Of course, I also worry about ARC or NaCL or Dart (what's with Google these days?), however the work that Mozilla and Google are doing on those web APIs meant for apps is really not the same thing.
Everything involved in Firefox OS and their web apps is open as far as I know, what are you thinking of when you say they're going down the 'closed source container / clients' route?
This is absolutely huge and I think some people may be missing its significance.
Back in the 90's Windows had a huge monopoly due to network effects - developers would target Windows because it had the greatest number of potential users. But now they will target Android for the same reason because it can run on Windows, Mac, ChromeOS and Android smartphones.
This "Android First" model will affect several major areas, all in Google's favour:
1. It strengthens ChromeOS over Windows.
ChromeOS is already a strong player in the education and low-price sectors. Having a huge range of Android apps will make ChromeOS far more attractive and grow its market share. Moreover if corporate, boring-office-CRUD developers switch to an Android-first model then it will very quickly kill Windows.
2. It strengthens Chrome over Firefox and IE.
Many apps will now require the Chrome browser to run. Oh, you are running Firefox on Windows and want to play that cool Android game your friend told you about? Just switch to Chrome and sign in with your Google account! Again there are network effects - the greater Chrome's market share the more willing developers are to create Chrome-only apps.
3. It strengthens Android over iOS.
Android has about 85% of smartphone market share, but many startups are still undecided about an Android-first approach because a single Apple user generates far more revenue than a single Android user. Having Android run on desktops will push some startups off the fence in favour of Android-first. A few developers switching from iOS to Android doesn't sound like much, but if there are a ever a critical mass of Android-only apps it will quickly kill iOS. Apple should be worried.
4. It strengthens Native over Web-app development.
Ok this isn't a huge benefit for Google, but it is significant for developers. Back in 2005 every startup chose browser-based web apps as their target platform. The rise of smartphones has pushed the pendulum back towards native development, but desktops have remained the preserve of web apps. Many startups now develop both a Web App and Android version of their product - by dumping Web App development startups will now be able to (a) save costs; (b) produce a desktop app that has native performance and better access to Google Play Services.
It's certainly a fascinating piece of tech and a very politically intriguing play by Google, but I don't see it suddenly changing the calculus of app development. Here's why: the set of apps that I run on my phone are disjoint from the set of apps that I run on my laptop or desktop. My laptop doesn't need a flashlight, or turn-by-turn navigation, or the ability to hail a cab, because I don't have it out or open or even with me when I do the things that need these apps. My phone doesn't need Photoshop or Notepad++ because the form factor doesn't favor it. Write-once-run-everywhere isn't a selling point for your app because I don't actually want to run it everywhere.
The one exception could be games, which are a lucrative market. That said, mobile games will offer a limited set of interactions compared to typical PC offerings, which will limit appeal to people who are already playing mobile games but who wish to play those games on their desktop as well. It will increase time spent in the app, but not grow the market substantially relative to new users coming in from mobile devices. And because it requires a browser anyway and because ARC is never going to run on iOS, if the web can advance fast enough to keep the market satisfied (asm.js is a start, but payment is still horribly lacking) then there will be pressure to just do everything on the web anyway.
I have to admit that this is a brilliant move by Google. In one sweep, they have put the might of the formidable Android ecosystem behind ChromeOS. Well done. Chrome OS is instantly comparable to Linux and Windows if it can run native apps.
> Chrome OS is instantly comparable to Linux and Windows if it can run native apps.
Windows and Linux have many, many more applications that are meant for trackpad-and-keyboard-with-'large'-screen interaction. Adding phone and tablet apps to ChromeOS doesn't make it instantly comparable to Linux and Windows.
Well let's be clear on one thing, what's the benefit of a desktop over mobile? Usually we say productivity.
Editing photos, video, text, is all less productive, slower, less capable, more superficial on mobile. Adding an instagram filter is kind of iconic for mobile's productivity factor in my opinion.
So is ChromeOS suddenly comparable to desktops if it can run mobile-productivity software? Of course not. Far from it.
This may change as we're seeing mobile/laptop blur a bit (iPad Pro with force touch, a stylus and USB ports for externals, 12" Macbook with Intel Core M processor, for example. Or any of the 2-in-1s, the MS Surface etc). Once we see Mobile software running on Laptops, and see Tablets equipped with a keyboard/stylus, converging around the 11" form factor, with ever improving mobile chips, then we'll probably see more 'real' productivity software.
But it's a bit too soon to call ChromeOS comparable all of a sudden. It's a great move, though. I remember you couldn't/can't even run Skype on ChromeOS. Soon, stuff like that will be of the past, without requiring massive Tizen-like investments to have developers completely rebuild a hundred thousand mid-high quality apps for your store.
> Chrome OS is instantly comparable to Linux and Windows if it can run native apps.
Oh, because if you add an OS made for touch/small screens on a notebook equipped with a keyboard, that immediately makes it as good as regular desktop OS ?
"One sweep" and "instantly" are flamboyant at best. There is a long way to go before running android apps on desktops is the norm. Sure, some run Android emulators but its for special cases.
This seems technologically awesome, but I don't really know how useful this will be presently to everyday people. I can't really think of any Android apps people would want to run on their computer.
Here's hoping this is eventually gets made into a standalone library or program that can be run without Chrome. Don't get me wrong, Chrome definitely has some benefits over other browsers, but I don't want to have to have it to use this and I definitely don't want to have to run a browser to use apps.
And that library would be Chrome. Which is to say, whether or not you ship a web browser UX, you need 95%+ of Chrome to run NaCl/PPAPI apps, which this Android virtualization layer targets.
Really, Chrome itself isn't so much a web browser any more. I swear, at some point they're going to let you generate seeming-OS-native-binaries from Chrome Apps which will then bootstrap themselves by silent-installing Chrome—but only the "app launcher" part, not the "web browser" part. At that point, Chrome will be a capital-P-Platform: exactly the same as Silverlight/Adobe Air/etc.
That would probably be very sweet indeed :) .
Android's GC is constantly improving but I just don't know if it will hit the point where it is entirely invisible for a reasonably coded app (ie if you create heavy objects during each onDraw cycle, it is your fault and would result in shitty performances with any OS).
ARC sounds like an interesting way to do GC. From my limited understanding, the reference counting adds a non-null cost but it looks like a good trade-in against unpredictable GC pauses.
"ARC runs Windows, Mac, Linux, and Chrome OS thanks to Native Client (abbreviated "NaCL"). NaCL is a Chrome sandboxing technology that allows Chrome apps and plugins to run at "near native" speeds"
Straight out of the MS playbook, 'lets use our dominant browser as a pincer move to gain developer/market share'.
On the one hand this is really awesome because by opening ChromeOS up to Android apps it becomes much more useful.
The other side of the medal is that this might slow down progress on the open web-platform as developers would rather develop a native android app than put effort to make a web-app.
It somehow funny:
Recent developments around the web platform (service workers, etc) are supposed to make web-apps compete with native apps and even Microsoft is starting to embrace this (web based skype). At the same time now native apps run in the web. It will be interesting how to this will evolve.
It also shows why Google developed NaCL and that it doesn't really matter that it hasn't been adopted by other browsers. Because its main use case is for ChromeOS.
What mobile browser doesn't support web apps? They may not support proprietary app stores and the nonstandard "web" (but not really) apps tied to them, but actual web apps are generally supported on major mobile browsers.
I think that in the medium/long run google will, at least, add a new language officially supported and a bit more modern that the pseudo-java5 they are using right now. I mean something like what apple made with swift. Also considering google is already working on Go and Dart, there could be already something in preparation related to them.
If this means Microsoft's Office Apps for Android (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook) come over to Chrome OS and Google manages to integrate them in a nice fashion - Microsoft has one more headache to deal with.
That aside, this will seriously increase the appeal of Chromebooks - who doesn't want a simple, secure platform that can run all the bazillion Android apps? Google just needs to pay some more attention to Chrome OS desktop interface - it is shitty frankly.
"Write once, run everywhere" is the web applications promise. Unfortunately we have a lot of work to do to make web applications comparable to native apps.
As a marketer, this allows me to manage social accounts like Instagram and Vine from the desktop env. In fact, we have those two working for our team now:
The Google page linked from the article does not support the claim that this extends beyond ChromeOS for deployment via the Web Store -- in fact, it repeatedly says the opposite --only that the packaging and testing process works on Mac/Windows/Linux.
To me this seems like a hope and pray response to where Windows is heading with a heterogeneous platform strategy. What people want is high quality robust full featured applications on their mobile devices, not app store quality word processing on their laptop.
I already have all the Gmail and hangouts on my desktop I could ever want. I don't think I'll use the Clojure REPL app in lieu of $> lein repl or the Maps app in lieu of my browser. To a first approximation, apps are better than nothing but I don't see this as a Windows 8 app killer ~ their standard of fit and finish is generally higher.
There's a niche where this will be great but I don't see an app replacing audacity or blender anytime soon.
Hrm. I converted one of my Android apps with ARC welder and uploaded it to the Chrome store but it will only install from there on Chromebooks =( Anyone know how to enable desktop distribution?
Will this support NDK apps? I don't really care about most Android apps -- I'd rather have an HTML version, and the web is a better universal runtime than the Android API for a bunch of reasons -- but it'd be cool to be able to play Android games on a Chromebook.
[+] [-] bliti|11 years ago|reply
The overall experience with the Google team has been very positive. Which, in all honesty, surprised me. I was expecting the typical corporate attitude towards outsiders. The way the ARC team has gone above and beyond to help has been refreshing.
I do worry as to how this would affect the openness of the web. A closed source container used to run other closed sourced clients is not my idea of how the Web should be. Even Mozilla is going down this route with their browser apps. Though I have more trust in Mozilla than in Google in regards to having and keeping an open web. Either way, it raises an important question: Where is the Web going in the next 10 years? I wish I knew. Right now it looks like a toss up.
[+] [-] bad_user|11 years ago|reply
Why are you saying that?
What Mozilla is doing is to develop web APIs needed for those apps and then push for their standardization, but all the apps listed in the Firefox Marketplace are just web apps, having no problem in running in other browsers (assuming they don't rely on APIs that haven't been standardized yet). Google is also doing this with Chrome on Android, as they've also been pushing for certain standards to be adopted that would benefit apps.
Of course, I also worry about ARC or NaCL or Dart (what's with Google these days?), however the work that Mozilla and Google are doing on those web APIs meant for apps is really not the same thing.
[+] [-] kevingadd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] on_and_off|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|11 years ago|reply
Back in the 90's Windows had a huge monopoly due to network effects - developers would target Windows because it had the greatest number of potential users. But now they will target Android for the same reason because it can run on Windows, Mac, ChromeOS and Android smartphones.
This "Android First" model will affect several major areas, all in Google's favour:
1. It strengthens ChromeOS over Windows.
ChromeOS is already a strong player in the education and low-price sectors. Having a huge range of Android apps will make ChromeOS far more attractive and grow its market share. Moreover if corporate, boring-office-CRUD developers switch to an Android-first model then it will very quickly kill Windows.
2. It strengthens Chrome over Firefox and IE.
Many apps will now require the Chrome browser to run. Oh, you are running Firefox on Windows and want to play that cool Android game your friend told you about? Just switch to Chrome and sign in with your Google account! Again there are network effects - the greater Chrome's market share the more willing developers are to create Chrome-only apps.
3. It strengthens Android over iOS.
Android has about 85% of smartphone market share, but many startups are still undecided about an Android-first approach because a single Apple user generates far more revenue than a single Android user. Having Android run on desktops will push some startups off the fence in favour of Android-first. A few developers switching from iOS to Android doesn't sound like much, but if there are a ever a critical mass of Android-only apps it will quickly kill iOS. Apple should be worried.
4. It strengthens Native over Web-app development.
Ok this isn't a huge benefit for Google, but it is significant for developers. Back in 2005 every startup chose browser-based web apps as their target platform. The rise of smartphones has pushed the pendulum back towards native development, but desktops have remained the preserve of web apps. Many startups now develop both a Web App and Android version of their product - by dumping Web App development startups will now be able to (a) save costs; (b) produce a desktop app that has native performance and better access to Google Play Services.
[+] [-] kibwen|11 years ago|reply
The one exception could be games, which are a lucrative market. That said, mobile games will offer a limited set of interactions compared to typical PC offerings, which will limit appeal to people who are already playing mobile games but who wish to play those games on their desktop as well. It will increase time spent in the app, but not grow the market substantially relative to new users coming in from mobile devices. And because it requires a browser anyway and because ARC is never going to run on iOS, if the web can advance fast enough to keep the market satisfied (asm.js is a start, but payment is still horribly lacking) then there will be pressure to just do everything on the web anyway.
Interesting times are in store, regardless.
[+] [-] drvortex|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwyers|11 years ago|reply
Windows and Linux have many, many more applications that are meant for trackpad-and-keyboard-with-'large'-screen interaction. Adding phone and tablet apps to ChromeOS doesn't make it instantly comparable to Linux and Windows.
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|11 years ago|reply
It remains to be seen if more Chrome OS devices will come with touch screens or if app developers will modify their apps to work well without them.
[+] [-] IkmoIkmo|11 years ago|reply
Editing photos, video, text, is all less productive, slower, less capable, more superficial on mobile. Adding an instagram filter is kind of iconic for mobile's productivity factor in my opinion.
So is ChromeOS suddenly comparable to desktops if it can run mobile-productivity software? Of course not. Far from it.
This may change as we're seeing mobile/laptop blur a bit (iPad Pro with force touch, a stylus and USB ports for externals, 12" Macbook with Intel Core M processor, for example. Or any of the 2-in-1s, the MS Surface etc). Once we see Mobile software running on Laptops, and see Tablets equipped with a keyboard/stylus, converging around the 11" form factor, with ever improving mobile chips, then we'll probably see more 'real' productivity software.
But it's a bit too soon to call ChromeOS comparable all of a sudden. It's a great move, though. I remember you couldn't/can't even run Skype on ChromeOS. Soon, stuff like that will be of the past, without requiring massive Tizen-like investments to have developers completely rebuild a hundred thousand mid-high quality apps for your store.
[+] [-] ekianjo|11 years ago|reply
Oh, because if you add an OS made for touch/small screens on a notebook equipped with a keyboard, that immediately makes it as good as regular desktop OS ?
[+] [-] alttab|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rifung|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noteloop|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] halosghost|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|11 years ago|reply
Really, Chrome itself isn't so much a web browser any more. I swear, at some point they're going to let you generate seeming-OS-native-binaries from Chrome Apps which will then bootstrap themselves by silent-installing Chrome—but only the "app launcher" part, not the "web browser" part. At that point, Chrome will be a capital-P-Platform: exactly the same as Silverlight/Adobe Air/etc.
[+] [-] yincrash|11 years ago|reply
[1]http://www.bluestacks.com/
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PirateDave|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickbauman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] on_and_off|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodgerd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bootload|11 years ago|reply
Straight out of the MS playbook, 'lets use our dominant browser as a pincer move to gain developer/market share'.
[+] [-] pjmlp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timeu|11 years ago|reply
The other side of the medal is that this might slow down progress on the open web-platform as developers would rather develop a native android app than put effort to make a web-app.
It somehow funny: Recent developments around the web platform (service workers, etc) are supposed to make web-apps compete with native apps and even Microsoft is starting to embrace this (web based skype). At the same time now native apps run in the web. It will be interesting how to this will evolve.
It also shows why Google developed NaCL and that it doesn't really matter that it hasn't been adopted by other browsers. Because its main use case is for ChromeOS.
[+] [-] robmcm|11 years ago|reply
We now have a development platform for desktop quality apps in a proprietary format that run via a plugin in the web and in a runtime on desktop.
The only missing link is publishing the plugin so other browsers can run the apps, oh and renaming it to Flash.
[+] [-] amelius|11 years ago|reply
ARC is going to be the next Flash(TM). And now developers still have to target multiple platforms (web, android, ios), instead of just the web.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akhilcacharya|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmondo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yulaow|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|11 years ago|reply
That leaves things like Scala, Kotlin, Grovy, etc.
[+] [-] ianlevesque|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donatj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinkingled|11 years ago|reply
That aside, this will seriously increase the appeal of Chromebooks - who doesn't want a simple, secure platform that can run all the bazillion Android apps? Google just needs to pay some more attention to Chrome OS desktop interface - it is shitty frankly.
[+] [-] pekk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msoad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucio|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smd686s|11 years ago|reply
https://medium.com/@seanmdixon/run-android-apps-in-chrome-78...
[+] [-] gitah|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mintplant|11 years ago|reply
a) Android becomes the "write once, run anywhere" platform, attracting developers away from native iOS development.
b) Android loses app exclusivity that pulled/locked users into the platform.
[+] [-] robmcm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|11 years ago|reply
I already have all the Gmail and hangouts on my desktop I could ever want. I don't think I'll use the Clojure REPL app in lieu of $> lein repl or the Maps app in lieu of my browser. To a first approximation, apps are better than nothing but I don't see this as a Windows 8 app killer ~ their standard of fit and finish is generally higher.
There's a niche where this will be great but I don't see an app replacing audacity or blender anytime soon.
[+] [-] empressplay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohjesusthatguy|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mkozlows|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jyaif|11 years ago|reply