Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Mar 2013 12:49 UTC
Google "Google's Chrome and Android operating systems will remain separate products but could have more overlap, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said, a week after the two came under a single boss." That's that, then.
Thread beginning with comment 556041
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: At least
by ronaldst on Thu 21st Mar 2013 16:50 UTC in reply to "At least"
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Running Android apps isn't important in the long term. HTML5 is getting heavily invested to reach parity with modern APIs. Pretty soon, people be able to differ between regular native apps and web apps.

People who follow the adventures of ChromeOS and Chromebook will see where Google is going.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: At least
by moondevil on Thu 21st Mar 2013 17:09 in reply to "RE: At least"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Meanwhile companies keep on switching back to native after discovering HTML5 is just a fad and the support is still quite far from what native offers.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: At least
by ronaldst on Thu 21st Mar 2013 17:45 in reply to "RE[2]: At least"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Talking about Facebook and its IPO fiasco?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: At least
by bowkota on Thu 21st Mar 2013 20:45 in reply to "RE[2]: At least"
bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

Meanwhile companies keep on switching back to native after discovering HTML5 is just a fad and the support is still quite far from what native offers.

The problem is that to get to a point where the HTML5 app is similar to the native one, they need to spend way more time and money.
It's not looking promising any time soon.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: At least
by WorknMan on Thu 21st Mar 2013 19:58 in reply to "RE: At least"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Running Android apps isn't important in the long term. HTML5 is getting heavily invested to reach parity with modern APIs. Pretty soon, people be able to differ between regular native apps and web apps.


With the recent announcement of the demise of Google Reader, I think people have a vested interest in wanting to run local/offline apps. Who wants to run apps that can be yanked by the developer at any given time? I don't. This is a conversation we're not having about web apps being the future, but really should be.

Of course, some apps, such as Facebook or Google Voice, could never really be run entirely offline, but those are not the ones I'm talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: At least
by butters on Thu 21st Mar 2013 21:15 in reply to "RE[2]: At least"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Google Reader could not have been implemented without a remote service for synchronizing subscriptions, content, and state across devices. At the very least, a local app would need to connect to a personal server. But if you also want the social features, than you need a public cloud.

There are thousands of feed readers, but most of them either had no cross-device synchronization or relied on the Google Reader API. Only a few web apps like Feedly or NewsBlur had an independent synchronization service. But those services could conceivably disappear as well.

Your vision depends on the uptake of private cloud appliances or other personal server solutions. That's the only way to implement a seamless mobile computing experience without depending on the fleeting whims of web companies. It could happen, but it's a long-shot.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: At least
by Delgarde on Thu 21st Mar 2013 22:55 in reply to "RE[2]: At least"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

With the recent announcement of the demise of Google Reader, I think people have a vested interest in wanting to run local/offline apps. Who wants to run apps that can be yanked by the developer at any given time? I don't. This is a conversation we're not having about web apps being the future, but really should be.


Actually, the biggest problem with the demise of Google Reader is that it can't easily be replaced by offline apps. It's chief advantages are that it's always online - meaning that nothing ever gets missed - and that storing state on a central server allows feeds to be accessed from multiple devices without syncing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: At least
by Nelson on Thu 21st Mar 2013 22:59 in reply to "RE: At least"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Running Android apps isn't important in the long term. HTML5 is getting heavily invested to reach parity with modern APIs. Pretty soon, people be able to differ between regular native apps and web apps.


This isn't going to happen. HTML5 proponents have only harmed HTML's long term adoption by pushing HTML5 on shops too early. The recoil from this will cause developers to be wary of HTML for years for app development.

Reply Parent Score: 3