The Android N Developer preview includes support for split-screen mode, allowing you to run two apps in side-by-side windows. But eventually you may be able to run multiple apps in resizeable windows… much the way you can on a Windows, OS X, or Ubuntu computer.
Google calls this mode “freeform,” and makes a slight mention of it in the Android N multi-window documentation. But as Ron Amadeo at Ars Technica notes, it doesn’t look like freeform mode is enabled in the first developer preview.
Remix OS
Amadeo noticed several references to freeform support in the Android N framework-res.apk file, but he hasn’t found a way to switch the value from “false” to “true” yet.
It certainly sounds like Google plans to implement something similar to what Jide has done with Remix OS: a multi-window mode that lets you launch apps in resizable windows that can be moved anywhere on the screen.
While this won’t be all that useful on smartphones, it could come in handy on tablets, notebooks, or even desktop computers with larger displays… and it could make Android function more like a desktop operating system.
What does that mean for the operating system Google already positions as a desktop OS? Chrome OS will probably stick around for a while… but the lines between Chrome OS and Android have been blurring in recent years. There are tools in Chrome OS that allow the operating system to run some Android apps, and if/when Google adds support for extensions to the Chrome browser for Android, there won’t actually be much difference between the capabilities of an Android tablet and a Chromebook.
Leave a Reply
They’ve put this off for long enough. The time is now.
Once the Chrome people took over Android they’ve opposed this from that point on. I think Remix OS and similar offerings have just finally forced their hand. The alternative is to go after the Unofficial Android-x86 project that stands behind them. This would even be high-handed for the folks at Google Chrome who have been suppressing Android on the desktop in general, probably as a desperate move to keep Chrome OS relevant.
Sorry, mobile edits can be annoying… accidentally replied to the wrong post…
well, chrome os is a “closed system” tightly controlled. android is not.
I don’t understand this sentiment which I see often. The entire push of Chrome OS is that the web is the platform. And that is not a closed system at all. It is the most massively open system going.
Android, meanwhile, is pretty closed. You can side load apps but that really isn’t recommended for every day Joe user as it invites mucho security problems.
Saying Chrome is the most open simply because it’s a Cloud OS is akin to saying the Federal Government is the most Open just because it covers the whole country and isn’t locally limited… Simply put the Cloud doesn’t automatically mean a system is open… Like everything else it depends on how it is used and how regulated by its creators it is as to whether it can be considered truly closed or open… Are anyone besides Google allowed to contribute directly to the main Chrome OS development?… No… only to separate branches that don’t have direct access to end users… Are users allowed by default to change how Chrome works without doing the equivalent of modifying the system to allow it or installing components that the system did not come with?… No… There are essentially aspects of Chrome that are clearly not open and that’s generally for the end… Read more »
These are two different things. The system being open to modification vs what you can install in the way of apps. Most people talk about iOS and Android being closed in the sense of the walled garden apps store and it is that context which I’m referring to when I say Chrome OS is open due to the web being the platform.
Of course iOS and Android have web browsers too.
As for system modification no Chrome OS is not open and for the reasons you state and I prefer it that way. However all the technology it is based on is open. So there is no reason another company couldn’t come along and utilize the same stuff to put out there own system – much like Amazon has done with Android.
You cannot say the same for iOS.
No, that’s just nitpicking and assuming what everyone thinks… Walled Garden doesn’t just apply to a specific type of limitation and for iOS it most definitely isn’t limited to just the apps store anyway as the whole OS is locked down… As pointed out a cage by any other name is still a cage… It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t look like a cage and gives you more freedom than another cage… While just like Android, while there are open elements, the system is still stacked against any other competitors… Amazon is the only company to successfully branch from Google’s version of Android, everyone else failed for this reason… Google doesn’t have to outright block them, just make it too hard for most… and they don’t allow 3rd parties to contribute to the development… Amazon, etc had to work from what Google releases instead of having direct access to the… Read more »
You start by telling me I’m assuming what everyone thinks and finish by informing you know how people see it. In any event both are opinions and we each have a right to one. My observation is that ‘walled garden’ refers to the locked down app ecosystems present in iOS, Android, and similar attempts to establish the same by Windows etc…Both AOSP and Chromium are open source projects. Anyone can contribute that wants to. Google is under no obligation, obviously legally – but also morally, to create product for other people’s businesses. I wouldn’t say it is ‘making it harder’ by not handing out a completely finished and functional system ready to deploy on plate with a bow on it. They build their own platforms on top of those and other open source projects and anyone else is free to as well. It’s clear that it’s simpler for Amazon to… Read more »
What I told you is more than just opinion, it’s pointing out that there are indeed limitations that you did not account for and pointing out that other people can see this limitations as a issue is the point to your original apparent confusion as to why anyone would consider it a closed system! You do not have to agree that those are concerns for you but it’s silly not to see how they can be concerns for others… While no, Amazon did fork… it’s a simple fact they had to do a lot more than skin it, they had to also replace all of Google’s proprietary services and apps. All of that is a lot more than just skinning it… If it was just a matter of skinning it then anyone could do it and there wouldn’t be much difference between the versions aside from how it looks but… Read more »
Well, it’s apparently less costly and time consuming than doing it once and simply maintaining and building what you think is a great reworking of code.
There is no requirement to replace Google’s services unless you want to offer services. And then, yes, you should produce the software to run them.
They do basically skin it. That’s why apps run just fine between those platforms. You can run apps from amazon store on standard android devices. That would not work if Amazon was greatly re-working the base OS in some way. They might change a feature or two and make sure they have proper drivers for their hardware etc, plus do work on any services of their own. But more or less it is just a skin on AOSP.
Sorry, but revisionist history and other BS don’t fly with me and never will… Amazon had to provide their own version of the app store, their own version of the other proprietary apps Google normally provides, etc. as only that way can they completely remove Google from the decision process of how the OS gets set up… and they did customized their version of Android! Having the same apps being able to run on either doesn’t change this or mean they didn’t put in a lot of work because the OS is a lot more than just what apps it can run! Fact is Google uses their proprietary apps and services to exert a level of control over the Android market, along with locking out everyone else from helping to develop the main Android branch and is why so many companies still try to come up with alternatives like Tizen… Read more »
So your point is that Google is not a 100% open source company providing substantial products and services of ongoing substantial cost to other for-profit companies as a matter of charity or free-software ethos? I agree with you. I never claimed they were. What I said was Chrome OS is a vastly open platform as the web is the central platform and the web is open wide. You are free to deploy any application or service through it without meeting Google’s approval or paying them a cut of your revenue. That is very much in contrast to something like iOS – where Apple can completely dictate your product as well as pull your access to your customer and also takes a large financial cut of any dealings you have with them. If you can’t see that plain contrast then I don’t know what to tell you.In any event I don’t… Read more »
Sorry but the contrast is nowhere near as big as you’re trying to make it out to be… Neither Chrome or Android are as Open as your typical desktop Limux distro and the web is not completely open…
It may be like comparing a lake to a swimming pool but there are still borders and other limits…
Most people don’t even access most of the Internet and couldn’t unless they had a lot more going for them than just a browser and typical search engine.
You don’t have control over other peoples web sites either… Being able to look is a far cry from a truly open system… Never mind security concerns…
If you can’t see that then you simply not looking at everything involved…
What are you talking about? No – other people don’t have control over your web sites. At least not beyond governmental laws and restrictions. That is exactly why it is very much open. You don’t need to pay Google (or for that matter Opera or Mozilla or Microsoft or Apple or anyone else) to run a web site in their browser. Nor do you have to get their permission as to what you put on your web site. And 99.9% of the Internet is available through a browser today. What is it missing in general usage? A usenet client? Hell you can even get torrent clients as extensions. Now extensions are being locked down as walled gardens due to security issues but that hardly matters with the new web technologies coming online. I’m sure you could implement a service worker as a torrent client if you wanted to. And I… Read more »
What am I talking about? Really? Common, it’s real simple, you tried to argue that using the Internet means Open… Fact is it does not! Open means a lot more than just having access and we don’t even have completely open access to the whole Internet… First, what you call the Internet accounts for only about 10%, maybe a bit more, of what’s out there… The Deep Web accounts for a lot more than what you will ever find in a typical search engine… Second, ever since its inception the Internet has struggled between Open and Closed. big companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc have produced a more closed Internet due to their business model… Third, stop confusing bigger with being more free… There’s little difference between a Internet and a Intranet except for scale… You’re still limited to what the Chrome Browser allows you to do and you can’t… Read more »
I’d love to know what you think this ‘deep web’ is. Here’s news – if it’s called web then you can access it through a browser. That’s literally what that means. A web browser is the client for web pages which comprise the ‘web’ – dark or not. Finding it is your problem. Parts of the internet aren’t as accessible through a browser but they are nothing like 90% of it. Most protocols do have clients which can be implemented in browsers in any case. And some other popular protocols are typically implemented right in the browser. FTP comes to mind. And while extensions are locked down or in the process of being locked down the web is not. You want an app to do something you are free to write a web app to do it and utilize that without any interference or indeed even the knowledge of Google.… Read more »
Uh no, the deep web isn’t indexed by any search engine so unless you know the exact address and/or have know how a given part of the deep web can be accessed (encryption and other security) then you’re not going to be accessing it with any normal browser, let alone access anywhere near all of it… While the point of using Chrome is to also be using Google services with it, which locks you into their ecosystem! So sorry, you can keep replying like you have a point but you really don’t. You’re just in denial because you never researched and/or don’t want to believe what’s really going on. Which is why you should really start listening to that analogy, a cage is still a cage whether you’re aware you’re in one or not! It’s fine if you’re perfectly happy in your cage but it doesn’t change that you’re in… Read more »
Web – deep or not, is indicative of the protocol. A web browser is a client for the web. That’s the tool you use to view it. Finding it and the security it uses are completely beside the point. What do you think people are using to access the deep web? Forks? Spoons? I didn’t see anything about a ‘point’ to Chrome in the documentation. It’s a web browser essentially. You can access whatever services you’d like with it. Sure there are shortcuts to Google’s services behind that waffle icon, but so what? You can pin whatever you like in the bar or make whatever bookmarks you’d like. You can also change the search service. So it is not at all inconvenient to completely avoid Google while using one. Want to use bing for search and microsoft mail? have at it. Nothing stopping you. What research do I need to… Read more »
I told you before, BS doesn’t work with me… You can pretend to rationalize it any way you want the point remains you don’t have full access to everything and never will… A web browser by itself won’t give you any access to anything it is not set up to give you access to and much of the deep web is not set up to just be accessed by anyone! The fact you even need to question this only goes to show how little you actually know… The Deep web is used for a ton of things, a small portion alone accounts for the Dark Web that deals with black market, among other things, as well as personal remote servers and again tons of other things… Saying you can have full access to the deep web is akin to saying you have full access to everything the government has on… Read more »
Try to follow this. ‘Web’, deep or not – indicates that access is by a ‘web browser’. Where the server/page is and what security it employs and how you find it and log in is completely beside the point. If it is a web site it is accessed via a web browser.
Sorry but your understanding of the what is on the deep web is obviously based on assumptions that you never bothered to check out.
Can any browser access a encrypted site without the encryption key?… Nope!
Can any browser access a web site that has no public address that you can just look up?… Nope!
Can you access someone else’s VPN without knowing the working details of that VPN and have valid access to it?… Nope!
Can all websites be accessed without a account, special plug-in or extension, support for protocols that may not be supported by a standard browser?… Nope!
Can you access sites that require hacker skills to access if you have no hacker skills?… Nope!
Is using something like Tor the same as using a standard browser?… Nope!
Are you done trying to pretend you know what you’re talking about?… Hopefully…
Android allows only one app running at the same time. Other apps are put into pause state. This behavior is not likely to change in any version of Android as it saves battery power. What I mean is that there are different objectives in Desktop OS vs small handheld device and I don’t see how you can do both. Microsoft phone OS is a disaster precisely because of that Windows is tuned for desktop usage.
Just saying…
I don’t think it be too hard to add an option.
That’s not exactly true. The one app at a time limit was always true of iOS, but Android started with unrestricted simultaneous processes. I used to run Ubuntu in a chroot as an app and it would run in the background without hindrance.
Android later introduced features that would let apps be suspended to conserve battery life, effective working like the iOS model, but this was/is optional.
It’d be trivial to have multiple running apps in Android since it already does it.
I did some android development, the point is your app lifecycle is dependent on the system. Generally speaking when the user switch to another app your app goes into pause state and as a developer you need to switch off any CPU demanding usage at this point. Of course you can ignore it but this means your app will consume system resources even if the user has moved to another app and it is not visible. This behavior (putting your app to sleep while in background) is built into any app that is written to android and it does make sense for a mobile device, not so much for a desktop with multiple windows hanging around you desktop.Edit: I don’t know exactly what you mean by running ubuntu on android my best guess is that’s a linux system running on top of android kernel with VNC viewer always running in… Read more »
I care about battery life on my laptop, even though I still want it to have multiple windows.
It would not be difficult for them to code around this though – providing options depending on system type, power state (plugged in or battery) or even exposing it directly to user choice.
It might take a little extra work by developers to make an app which functions well in the different possible environments but Android has gotten good at showing how apps use resources including battery. That means people would have the means to know when an app wasn’t working well in that regard and could make other market choices based on that.
Exactly. So all the system has to do is not send the suspend command for all foreground windows. There’s no issue here.
If you really want finer grained background process control then the app can decide whether or not to sleep depending on whether you’re running a multi-window environment or not.
From what I gather the only difference from the system perspective is giving a higher priority to apps that are visible but in paused state. This is fundamentally different from how desktop OS treat windows (which is entirely up to the user).
I don’t see any evidence that windows phone is targeted for laptop/desktop use, either in terms of UI or battery performance.
Not much difference in the capabilities but a world of difference in the implementation and usage of the platform. Chrome OS is greatly superior to Android as a platform in regard to the user. The rolling updates directly from Google using a transactional system is simply the shit.
Waiting and waiting for a simple reboot and really waiting and waiting for huge yearly updates which your carrier never provides both suck.
That aside – Freeform Windows mode, if implemented well, is a “Boom! – Windows competitor” feature. The only other piece missing is just as you say, opening the power taps on the browser with extensions.
Still, I’d rather have Chrome OS running Android and straight Linux apps in containers.