Right... It could almost pan the way to an applet 3.0 renascence. Considering all the neat stuff Google manages to stuff into Chrome (lately a native PDF viewer), it's not too far fetched to imagine the Chrome browser itself being able to host Android apps as well. Certainly it can't be in Google's interest to push two completely different OS'es and we already know Google TV is Android based. Could Google be so bold to piggy-bag on an already bootstrapped ecosystem (Android) to spread to another (browsers)?
On Nov 10, 5:32 pm, Dick Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > It's an interesting thought though. If Android apps could be made to > run fast on a host OS, and given the size and nature of most of the > apps, it might make a nice widget layer. > > On Nov 10, 12:47 am, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > For that to happen, surely we'd need a faster emulator than the > > current QEMU-based one. It's currently much faster to deploy to a real > > connected device than a virtual one. As nice as the emulator is, speed > > is not it's best feature. So for what you propose, I think it would > > make more sense to compile natively (x86). I would be surprised if > > this is not somehow a feature of the rumored Chrome OS. > > > On Nov 10, 6:04 am, JamesJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I was just thinking, and realized that if someone polished up the > > > emulator a bit, full screen, with some bindings for keys and controls, > > > wouldn't it be possible for a windows machine to just run Android very > > > nicely as an application? Does anyone think that we might see users > > > cross the line and actually use some Android apps on other platforms > > > through emulation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
