Google’s convergence of Chrome and Android is taking a big step forward this week. After launching a limited App Runtime for Chrome (ARC) back in September, Google is expanding its beta project to allow Android apps to run on Windows, OS X, and Linux. It’s an early experiment designed primarily for developers, but anyone can now download an APK of an existing Android app and launch it on a Windows / Linux PC, Mac, or Chromebook.
Still not particularly user friendly in its setup, but it seems to work quite well. I’m very interested to see where Google is taking this.
Who needs an android app on a Windows, Linux or Mac? It’s interesting at best, that stuff is primarily for Chrome OS. And it is quite obvious which way Google is taking it, it is taking it its own way; use more of its services, give it more data, make it more money.
no need to say anything else really.
Who needs an android app on a Windows, Linux or Mac?
I do, to be able to use Whatsapp on the pc, it saves me the expense of a smartphone…. I use Bluestack now but that is not free (unless you agree to have software installed that you do not need) and slows down the computer.
Edited 2015-04-04 16:41 UTC
Are you sure that can work without having radio on a PC?
Just needs internet and a phone number you can verify the login code with. Everything else in Whatsapp is media agnostic so long as you’ve got a working net connection.
It seems that the expense is SIM card then.
Well, it obviously doesn’t seem to be you.
Don’t generalize your poor case and situation to the millions of Android users that also have a PC.
For the Operating System part of OS abbreviation, I think that installing foreign OS environment inside another OS (in a browser at that), in order to run its apps that are using different UI language and were made for a different context, is, in GENERAL, nothing more than a gimmick.
Of course one will find exeptions, I might even be one of those, but that only proves the lack of the host OS apps and doesn’t change the general gimmick part.
On the other hand, Chrome OS, also Google’s product, can develop it into something sensible. Hence I think that’s the real story here.
Many develop for Mobile first, and perhaps a website but skip the desktop. Effectively make the desktop OS’s legacy platforms.
Windows 10 and ARC could bring lots of apps that wouldn’t be there otherwise.
xylifyx,
I hate the fact that this is true. My bank has some useful apps that they only release for mobile devices. I’m not interested in using a mobile device for banking when I have a much better desktop computer to do it on. They’re investing in the whole mobile fad, which I couldn’t care about either way, but it’s frustrating that they’re doing less for desktop users.
Also, I agree with the posters who say google is doing this to promote their own interests, but I still find it beneficial that apps be available for use on other platforms. I am not interesting in buying android apps for the desktop though.
Edited 2015-04-05 13:45 UTC
I’m developing the Tenjin Japanese dictionary for Android.
I, for one, will welcome the fact that my app can be available anywhere and eventually earn me money on any platform (you can unlock advanced features inApp) all the more since it’s so hard making money as an android developer.
Around 2010, I chose to develop for android because I thought it was a platform with a future.
With android apps being already available on cars, watches, fridges, toasters and maybee soon on linux, windows, mac, it was probably the right decision.
You are being realistic. This is the number one reason most dev create apps mostly for the iPhone. It’s just one device they actually have to care about.
Running on n-tire types of devices is simply hell because you can’t control the specs / api each OEM implements.
It’s not like Google invented the wheel here. What happened with goold old Java?
Experienced Java developers are paid very well (because they are fewer and fewer to come by) and they also have a solid place in the corporate environment.
Edited 2015-04-04 10:09 UTC
Java would have made it BIG if they had allowed the JVM to be integrated in browsers, instead of being an plugin people had to install.
Also, Sun Microsystems tried to punish Windows users for running Windows and not Unix like the Gods Of Computing demanded. You updated Java, but you had both version 6 and 7 in the add/remove panel, because the updater was too dumb to remove the old 6 entry. And you couldn’t just uninstall 6, because some of the files had been overwritten by 7 and it would break 7 too.
Also, when they discontinued Java 7 a while ago, the updater didn’t got you to 8, but it showed you have the latest updates. Hello security holes.
Adobe learned from Sun’s mistake and let FlashPlayer be integrated into Chrome, so it’s part of the browser and updates with the browser, so the user doesn’t even know it’s there. Clever. That’s what makes sites not rush to replace their Flash content (like they rushed to replace Java applets), despite the fact Adobe screwed app royaly porting Flash to Android.
Edited 2015-04-04 13:53 UTC
The crappy thing about that is that Chrome sucks, it doesn’t follow a lot of X.org’s built in functionality correctly, like middle mouse click for paste, not to mention it has it’s own widgets so looks out of place in all desktop environments.
Fortunately there is freshplayer that will allow Firefox to use pepperflash. Works great.
There is a world of difference between ‘available’ and actually being used.
Does a toaster need your app? Not in a million years.