Windows IT Pro
Connect With Us
Home > Systems Management > Mobile > Schmidt: Android and Chrome to Remain Separate

Schmidt: Android and Chrome to Remain Separate

That rumored combining of Android and ChromeOS might be further away than expected
Mar. 21, 2013 Paul Thurrott
Google Ideas INFO Summit 2012

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt this week addressed rumors that the online advertising giant would combine its two computing platforms, Android and ChromeOS, into a single OS. He said they’d remain separate but “could” have more overlap. It’s unclear, however, whether Schmidt is communicating the firm’s official strategy.

Indeed, no actual quote from Schmidt is currently available. Instead, news of the executive’s comments comes courtesy of Reuters, which saw Schmidt speak during a business trip in India. According to the report, “Google’s Chrome and Android operating systems will remain separate products but could have more overlap, executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said.”

TechCrunch has added a bit of color to the story, noting that Schmidt previously suggested that the merging of the two OSs could in fact occur over time. “We’re working overtime to get those technologies merged in the right way,” Schmidt said back in 2011. “I learned a long time ago: Don’t force technology to merge when it’s not ready. Wait for the technology to mature to the point when it can be merged.” The publication also notes that Schmidt used the word “commonality” this week in India to describe ways in which the two systems could evolve in lock-step.

Speculation about the possible combining of Android and ChromeOS arose last week when Google revealed that it was placing both OSs under the aegis of executive Sundar Pichai, as discussed in "Andy Rubin Is Stepping Down from Google's Android Business." Many believe that Pichai’s rise—he previously controlled Google’s Chrome and Apps businesses—suggests that Google would standardize ChromeOS as its only OS. But with Android as the more capable alternative, I’ve theorized that any combining should go in the opposite direction because, after all, the Chrome browser already runs on Android.

With Google’s next major event, Google I/O, scheduled for May, many likewise believe that show would be the logical time for the firm to discuss its OS plans. But Schmidt’s comments appear to have preempted that possibility.

Reuters also reports that Schmidt has no plans to leave Google, as has been rumored. “Google is my home,” he said, describing the rumors as “completely false.” At least we got an actual quote on that one.

Discuss this Article 10

papamoto
on Mar 21, 2013

It will be interesting to see where this all heads. Google has a big push underway for Chrome OS. I know of two school districts here that switched to Google Apps for their email, calendaring, and productivity apps. My kids no longer use Word for papers. They use Google docs and submit papers via their personal google drives at their middle or high school. I also know they are using chromebooks in the classroom now.

Paul, I'm not sure I agree with your insistence on calling Google an 'Online advertising giant.' They are a technology company that produces: search, operating systems, online services, etc. They happen to pay for it with advertising revenue. That would be like calling your site an advertising firm. Your site is engineered to display ads, but that is not the product you are providing. The product is a technology blog, that is paid for (at least partially I assume) via ad revenue. The NFL makes lots of money on advertising revenue, I wouldn't however refer to the NFL as an advertising firm. Their product is football games. Without that there would be no reason for the ads. My 2 cents and worth every penny!

oroslak
on Mar 21, 2013

I also think derisively referring to Google as an advertising company, while certainly partly true, is a (deliberately?) unfair characterization. A distinction can, and perhaps should, be drawn here between how they make their money and where they spend it, as papamoto says. It would be more than a little unfair to say that Google's spending is exclusively, or even mostly, directed towards developing technologies that will make advertising more profitable/efficient.

Would be kind of like saying the New York Times (back when there was only print) was mainly in the business of distributing advertising flyers. Their only revenue was from ads, but that revenue was put into funding new reporting.

pthurrott
on Mar 21, 2013

That's fascinating.

Two data points.

1. In its most recent financial report, Google noted that exaclty 95 percent of its revenues came from ads, and not from technology services or whatever other products.

2. Please read "Why I left Google," which was just posted by a former Google executive. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/archive/2012/03/13/why-i-left-google.aspx

He writes, "Google has always been an advertising company ... [but] the old Google made a fortune on ads because they had good content ... The new Google seems more focused on the commercials themselves."

Google is an advertising company. Period.

pthurrott
on Mar 21, 2013

And to be clear, I'm not doing this "derisively." I do this "descriptively." I called Microsoft a "software giant" for years, and I call Apple a "consumer electronics giant." Because that's what they are/were.

oroslak
on Mar 21, 2013

But Google does produce some great "tech" with the money it makes through advertising, does it not? Google Maps is a great map service (I want to say "Period"), no? Street View is amazing, and I can't think of a comparable service. I've always used Google search just for search, and it is great for this.

These are technology products which are amazing and which (one presumes) would have commercial value ...except that Google's model is to give these away and pay for them through advertising. Their revenues might skew a little less heavily from advertising if they adopted a different model (e.g., actually selling/licensing these products).

Also, your quote from the former Google exec is taken a little out of context, He also says: "The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus."

"Technically I suppose Google has always been an advertising company, but for the better part of the last three years, it didn’t feel like one."

The criticism of Google's ever increasing ad-focus is certainly one I take on board. But, even now, it is far from "just" an advertising company.

Admit it, it was a little derisive :-)

pthurrott
on Mar 22, 2013

Google does make some great services, absolutely.

But if I have to describe the company in a sentence quickly, "tech company" isn't it. Google is an ad company. And again, not derisively. Just descriptively.

oroslak
on Mar 22, 2013

Yes, but in the case of Google this just underscores that a quick one line description of them as an advertising company, while "technically" true (as the former Google exec put it), is also a little misleading.

Take mobile devices and services as an example. One could say, not unfairly, that MS and Google are doing exactly the same thing in this sphere. That is, each has developed a mobile OS, and licensed it to OEMs. The difference is that, whereas Google licenses Android "for free", and makes its money indirectly through advertising, MS charges a license fee directly and (in theory, at least) makes money that way. They are both providing technology services, it is just that Google is not generating any revenue from them (not directly, that is). To call one a tech company and the other an ad company on this basis would obscure the fact that they are engaged in the same activity.

I agree that it is important to shine a light on Google's business model, because this has a profound effect on the company's priorities as a "tech company." When you call them "an advertising company. Period," however, it begs the question of why Paul Thurrott is writing about them at all.

Google is a company that defies a neat description. I suppose that's all I'm saying.

pthurrott
on Mar 22, 2013

I guess we could just keep debating it. I find it easy to describe Google, given that all their non-advertising activities amount to bumpkus, revenue-wise. And I'll keep describing them in this obvious way until or unless that changes.

mhaney@sssonline.com
on Mar 21, 2013

Not to stray too far from the topic, but the difference between Paul's fine site or the NFL and Google is that Paul or the NFL use advertising to fund their respective interests, while Google uses their services to drive their advertising. There is nothing they do or provide that doesn't feed their advertising engine. Every email you write, every document you type, every picture you take, all funnels through the engine so they can advertise to you better. It has nothing to do with providing a service and everything to do with making a buck.

That said, if you don't mind this type of invasive advertising, their services and devices are, admittedly, pretty cool at times.

cbsturgill
on Mar 22, 2013

PT said: "But with Android as the more capable alternative, I’ve theorized that any combining should go in the opposite direction because, after all, the Chrome browser already runs on Android."

ChromeOS is not particularly less capable, it just has less capabilities exposed to the developer. Both Android and ChromeOS have a full Linux underneath. I am still hoping that Android will appear in _Chrome_ (the browser, not the OS) as a Native Client port. Essentially you would install an Android subsystem into your browser, then you could run Android apps in tabs like you do Chrome apps. Native Client has high speed graphics and networking already, so this is at least theortically possible, it just involves getting the Dalvik VM to use that instead of direct hardware facilities [effectively you are using the non-Linux portion of Android on top of another OS, displaying inside a browser window]. Android apps should then run at near native speeds.
This would of course run on Chromebooks as well.

But I must admit that Schmidt's remarks have made me less hopeful.

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles
IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• The Microsoft
Technology Roadmap
• Office 365 Implementation
• Hyper-V Optimizing
• Windows 8 Deployment
and much more!

Come See Paul Thurrott & Rod Trent in Person!

Early Registration Now Open

Upcoming Training

Mastering System Center 2012

During over 6 hours of training you can join John Savill from your computer as he will walk you through the key components and capabilities of System Center 2012, what’s involved in using the components, and the benefit they can bring to your environment.

Register Now

Current Issue

May 2013 - The NameTranslate object is useful when you need to translate Active Directory object names between different formats, but it's awkward to use from PowerShell. Here's a PowerShell script that eliminates the awkwardness.

CURRENT ISSUE / ARCHIVE / SUBSCRIBE

Windows Forums

Get answers to questions, share tips, and engage with the Windows Community in our Forums.

Featured Products
Windows 8 Tips
Windows 8 Tips

You’ve been told that Microsoft has somehow compromised the beloved desktop environment and ruined it with Metro...

VIP - Premium Membership
For the IT Professional that needs access to training, premium content, discounts, and more, joining our VIP group just...
Testing with Visual Studio 2012

June 25th
Presented by: Brian Minisi

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT -...

View CatalogView Shopping Cart

WindowsITPro.com
Related Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc