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 556051
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: At least
by WorknMan on Thu 21st Mar 2013 19:58 UTC 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[4]: At least
by WorknMan on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 00:48 in reply to "RE[3]: At least"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

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.


Well, it's like email in that way... you need somewhere for the data (email) to be stored, but you don't need to have the APP in the cloud. I think what we really need is for the RSS standard to be updated that defines a standard way of storing FEEDS in the cloud, so you can use whatever app you want and then have a server that stores the feeds, and if the server goes down, you just move the feeds to a different server, and continue using the same app.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: At least
by zima on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:10 in reply to "RE[3]: At least"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

nothing ever gets missed

OTOH, we have enough information overload already...

Reply Parent Score: 2