Google: No plans to merge Android with Chrome OS

Last week, Google announced that the longtime head of its Android OS division, Andy Rubin, would be leaving his post for another position in the company. His replacement was named as Sundar Pichai, who already runs the Chrome division at Google, which led to speculation that Google would eventually merge Android and Chrome, but the company now says that's not the case.

Reuters reports that during a visit to India today, Google's Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said that the company has no plans to merge the Android OS with Chrome. Schmidt added that there could be some overlap between the two operating systems, but it's not clear just how much they would interconnect. It does seem reasonable that with Pichai now running both the Android and Chrome divisions, there will be more of an effort to put in more collaborations between the two operating systems.

While Google has had massive success with third parties selling Android-based smartphones, sales of Chromebook that use its Chrome OS have been limited. A recent report claims that only 500,000 Chromebooks have been sold in the past two years.

The same Reuters story also quotes Schmidt as saying he has no plans to leave Google, despite recent rumors to the contrary, with Schmidt stating, "Google is my home."

Source: Reuters | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft quietly ends Office 2010 sales

Next Story

Microsoft expands Bing Snapshot features

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Of course they're going to deny merging the products. Companies always deny everything they're going to do until they're ready to do it.

There is absolutely no logical reason for them to maintain two completely separate and incompatible touch-friendly OSes when the only difference is the size of the screen and the presence of a mouse. While the merge might be unconventional, it's no doubt under consideration, and it could very well be VERY similar to the Windows 8 formula, where there's a combination of desktop (Chrome OS) and mobile (Android) platforms, and pure mobile devices will only support that subset of the platform, while full workstations support the expanded suite.

I guess if they were to merge, that'd take away from the Chrome OS's security and ability to say they are malware free. A serious marketing blow really.

i remember seeing Google specifically say they had no plans to make a consumer OS either right before Chrome and Android came out.

The sales of the Chromebook has been rather nice this year. Schools have been getting in on the cheap computers fro the classroom. I doubt it is forgotten.

DarkNet said,
The sales of the Chromebook has been rather nice this year. Schools have been getting in on the cheap computers fro the classroom. I doubt it is forgotten.

Yes, because selling 500,000 ChromeBooks over two years with a massive marketing campaign means that it is a raging success. And a $1300 web browser will only make those successes continue.

recursive said,
Just like all other desktop operating systems including Windows.

If anyone knows a failed OS, it would be you. It is the year of Linux!!!!

SoylentG said,

Yes, because selling 500,000 ChromeBooks over two years with a massive marketing campaign means that it is a raging success. And a $1300 web browser will only make those successes continue.

Chromebooks are certainly not a success but a) they haven't been in the market for two years yet, and b) where's that massive marketing campaign you are talking about?

The 500,000 number is from one manufacturer (Acer). You call 80% of all servers and 498/ the top 500 supercomputers, plus 70% of all smartphones running Linux a failure?

If anything is a massive fail, it is the Windoze Phones and the Surface. 2% in two years, after billions in advertising, only 400k units, ouch thats gotta hurt! If M$ keeps throwing money that way, that mountain of cash they are sitting on will soon be a molehill.

recursive said,
The 500,000 number is from one manufacturer (Acer). You call 80% of all servers and 498/ the top 500 supercomputers, plus 70% of all smartphones running Linux a failure?

If anything is a massive fail, it is the Windoze Phones and the Surface. 2% in two years, after billions in advertising, only 400k units, ouch thats gotta hurt! If M$ keeps throwing money that way, that mountain of cash they are sitting on will soon be a molehill.

So Surface Pro, one device from one manufacturer, sells 400,000 in one month, was out of stock for most of that time, dwarfs the number of Linux desktop installations in use, and that is a failure? But ChromeBooks from one manufacturer sells the same number in two years, and that means that ChromeOS will overtake the world? You are pathetically delusional. And WP has far outsold the number of ChromeOS devices sold.

I know, it is hard to hear that Google, the savior of the world from the evil Microsoft is failing, but you will get over it. Now keep hugging your little penguin doll, and keep repeating your mantra "but it really is the year of Linux and Microsoft is a failure."

Began shipping on June 15, 2011 so it's close enough to two years, unless you think 3 months is going to somehow have a significant impact outside of the holiday season.

SoylentG said,

Yes, because selling 500,000 ChromeBooks over two years with a massive marketing campaign means that it is a raging success. And a $1300 web browser will only make those successes continue.


Wrong. That number is from the second generation Acer Chromebook which has been out since October/November 2012

The $1,300 Chromebook Pixel is a concept you don't understand. It serves two purposes. 1) It is high-end to appeal to those that want quality 2) This is the big one here, this serves as a halo product. This will drive OEMs to build better hardware but at cheaper prices than the Pixel. Google did this as to not anger their OEMs and potential ones in the future.

I would love this product but I can't afford it. I would buy something similar to it if it was $599. It is beautiful. But you are right, $1,300 for a browser is crazy. But $1,300 for an $1,800 1TB storage is a steal. There is a reason why they bundled it with 1TB Drive storage for 3 years. At $50 a month, you'd be saving in the long run if you required that much storage.

You see where Microsoft failed at is they made the Surface and it competes with OEMs. What they needed to do was make a halo product so it doesn't anger their OEMs. Why do you think HP, Lenovo, Samsung and Acer are all making Chromebooks? Are these OEMs all high or do they know a good selling product? This will only serve as bargaining power when it comes to Windows license on the products they sell.

DarkNet said,

Wrong. That number is from the second generation Acer Chromebook which has been out since October/November 2012

The $1,300 Chromebook Pixel is a concept you don't understand. It serves two purposes. 1) It is high-end to appeal to those that want quality 2) This is the big one here, this serves as a halo product. This will drive OEMs to build better hardware but at cheaper prices than the Pixel.

You see where Microsoft failed at is they made the Surface and it competes with OEMs. What they needed to do was make a halo product so it doesn't anger their OEMs. Why do you think HP, Lenovo, Samsung and Acer are all making Chromebooks? Are these OEMs all high or do they know a good selling product? This will only serve as bargaining power when it comes to Windows license on the products they sell.

Oh, I don't understand what the Pixel is. That makes sense, it is not the device is useless to a majority of the people, it is my fault. Criticize the Surface Pro for having poor battery, while the Pixel has worse battery. Criticize the Surface RT for not being able to run all the apps that desktops do, while the Pixel has an even more limited library of apps. Criticize Surface for driving OEMs away, but Google building their own device will somehow cause OEMs to gravitate to them. But the Pixel, a device that nobody actually owns yet, is a device for people who want a "quality" device (and that is very debatable) but a completely shi* software experience.

Wow. DarkNet, my hats off to you man. You're the first among many communities I've visited who actually is taking the Pixel a bit seriously. The only arguments I've heard for the Pixel are to "give it a chance", but even those are few and far in between.

recursive said,
The 500,000 number is from one manufacturer (Acer). You call 80% of all servers and 498/ the top 500 supercomputers, plus 70% of all smartphones running Linux a failure?

If anything is a massive fail, it is the Windoze Phones and the Surface. 2% in two years, after billions in advertising, only 400k units, ouch thats gotta hurt! If M$ keeps throwing money that way, that mountain of cash they are sitting on will soon be a molehill.


BTW, why are you talking about Surface and Windows Phone? This is not an article about Surface, Surface is a tablet while this is a laptop. This is not an article about Windows Phone, Windows Phone is a phone while this is a laptop. Of course, if I were to compare the sales of Windows over the past two years, with the hundreds of millions of copies of Windows sold since ChromeOS were sold with it's handfull of sales, you would be having a fit screaming that I mentioned Windows and we should not be comparing them. But here you are, talking about Surface and Windows Phone. Maybe those two products are on your mind, and you know that as how as they try, ChromeOS is an abysmal failure when compared to the products from Microsoft that you like to claim are failures, but are still doing quite well when compared to the failure and embarrassment for Google that is ChromeOS.

recursive said,
The 500,000 number is from one manufacturer (Acer). You call 80% of all servers and 498/ the top 500 supercomputers, plus 70% of all smartphones running Linux a failure?

If anything is a massive fail, it is the Windoze Phones and the Surface. 2% in two years, after billions in advertising, only 400k units, ouch thats gotta hurt! If M$ keeps throwing money that way, that mountain of cash they are sitting on will soon be a molehill.

Please tell me how servers running Linux have anything to do with Chrome OS? The Linux kernel is not an OS and you can't just combine distributions together like that. For the record, there are almost the same amount of Windows Server instances as Linux instances so the FUD that Linux is on every server is just that, FUD.

DarkNet said,

Wrong. That number is from the second generation Acer Chromebook which has been out since October/November 2012

The $1,300 Chromebook Pixel is a concept you don't understand. It serves two purposes. 1) It is high-end to appeal to those that want quality 2) This is the big one here, this serves as a halo product. This will drive OEMs to build better hardware but at cheaper prices than the Pixel. Google did this as to not anger their OEMs and potential ones in the future.

I would love this product but I can't afford it. I would buy something similar to it if it was $599. It is beautiful. But you are right, $1,300 for a browser is crazy. But $1,300 for an $1,800 1TB storage is a steal. There is a reason why they bundled it with 1TB Drive storage for 3 years. At $50 a month, you'd be saving in the long run if you required that much storage.

You see where Microsoft failed at is they made the Surface and it competes with OEMs. What they needed to do was make a halo product so it doesn't anger their OEMs. Why do you think HP, Lenovo, Samsung and Acer are all making Chromebooks? Are these OEMs all high or do they know a good selling product? This will only serve as bargaining power when it comes to Windows license on the products they sell.


The Surface his existence is identical to the Pixel, to set an industry standard, increase quality for OEM's...
So its a perfect competitor. Stop defending this dying OS please.
And didn't Google basically beg for schools and institutes to use their chromebook? quite sure half of those 'sales' are practically given away for free.

dead.cell said,
Began shipping on June 15, 2011 so it's close enough to two years, unless you think 3 months is going to somehow have a significant impact outside of the holiday season.

Apparently you know nothing. Quite frankly, it shouldn't shock anyone. http://www.engadget.com/2012/1.../acer-c7-chromebook-review/
http://gigaom.com/2013/01/28/a...away-at-windows-8-revenues/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6476/acer-c7-chromebook-review
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1...6/google-acer-c7-chromebook

I did say it was the second generation numbers.

SoylentG said,

Oh, I don't understand what the Pixel is. That makes sense, it is not the device is useless to a majority of the people, it is my fault. Criticize the Surface Pro for having poor battery, while the Pixel has worse battery. Criticize the Surface RT for not being able to run all the apps that desktops do, while the Pixel has an even more limited library of apps. Criticize Surface for driving OEMs away, but Google building their own device will somehow cause OEMs to gravitate to them. But the Pixel, a device that nobody actually owns yet, is a device for people who want a "quality" device (and that is very debatable) but a completely shi* software experience.


I'm criticizing the fact that Microsoft knows how to anger its OEM partners. Excellent job. That will sell those niffty Windows 8 licenses real fast /s

Shadowzz said,

The Surface his existence is identical to the Pixel, to set an industry standard, increase quality for OEM's...
So its a perfect competitor. Stop defending this dying OS please.
And didn't Google basically beg for schools and institutes to use their chromebook? quite sure half of those 'sales' are practically given away for free.

How is a dying OS growing then. Wouldn't it be the opposite. Silly me what do I know.

dead.cell said,
Wow. DarkNet, my hats off to you man. You're the first among many communities I've visited who actually is taking the Pixel a bit seriously. The only arguments I've heard for the Pixel are to "give it a chance", but even those are few and far in between.

Really, a lot of tech communities have been praising the product and not the price., just like I did here. Here's a wild idea, try visiting a sites that isn't filled with delusional fanboys living in a bubble. I'm not recommending anybody buy this, I am saying it is a great product. Apparently you missed that part and your hater mouth went off. Try reading what people write next time instead of being a hater. Perhaps next time we can have an intelligent debate.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2...gle-chromebook-pixel-review
http://www.slashgear.com/googl...book-pixel-review-05272694/
http://www.pcworld.com/article...an-expensive-curiosity.html
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...and-too-good-for-chrome-os/
http://www.businessinsider.com...omebook-pixel-review-2013-3
http://www.techradar.com/us/re...mebook-pixel-1132911/review

Edited by DarkNet, Mar 22 2013, 12:37am :

ichi said,

Chromebooks are certainly not a success but a) they haven't been in the market for two years yet, and b) where's that massive marketing campaign you are talking about?


Something are not built to be successful. I don't know what Google had in mind for chrome os , maybe some testing for something better but everyone knows a browser is not an os and if you want to target low budget why not using Linux like Ubuntu. Its user friendly, certainly free and definitely more capable and guess what, it has chrome too. So either its another failure such as Google plus or some sort of test lab like windows phone 7

DarkNet said,
<snip>

I'm not being a hater. You can link me to every review you like, I'm talking about from the people's perspective. You really think I'd hate a product that cost $1,300? Probably not. The difference is WOULD I PAY for something that cost that much. Sorry, but the answer is no. I barely scrolled down from the first link, and found this in the comments:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35370579.jpg

Honestly, it's not much different than the Apple Macbooks which get a lot of crap for their price. Sure, they have damn good reviews from people who actually own them, but many people have issue justifying a price on a $1,000+ laptop they could get with similar specs at a cheaper price.

It's easy to get passed the price when you know you'll at least have Windows or OSX though. Same can't be said about Chrome OS. I'm not even hating, I work retail, and I get to see how many Chromebooks are placed in the open item cage, having been returned. And those are just the $199-249 range laptops, as it stands...

If you want to throw money down for a Pixel, cool. Go on ahead, I'm not going to tell you how to spend your money. Just not sure why you're getting all butthurt over a stupid laptop.

dead.cell said,

I'm not being a hater. You can link me to every review you like, I'm talking about from the people's perspective. You really think I'd hate a product that cost $1,300? Probably not. The difference is WOULD I PAY for something that cost that much. Sorry, but the answer is no. I barely scrolled down from the first link, and found this in the comments:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35370579.jpg

Honestly, it's not much different than the Apple Macbooks which get a lot of crap for their price. Sure, they have damn good reviews from people who actually own them, but many people have issue justifying a price on a $1,000+ laptop they could get with similar specs at a cheaper price.

It's easy to get passed the price when you know you'll at least have Windows or OSX though. Same can't be said about Chrome OS. I'm not even hating, I work retail, and I get to see how many Chromebooks are placed in the open item cage, having been returned. And those are just the $199-249 range laptops, as it stands...

If you want to throw money down for a Pixel, cool. Go on ahead, I'm not going to tell you how to spend your money. Just not sure why you're getting all butthurt over a stupid laptop.

You really don't pay attention do you. We are both saying the same thing. We think it's great but expensive. The only difference is you are assuming I am going to buy it.

Not once did I say I was buying it. You are the one getting butthurt over this thread.

DarkNet said,
Apparently you know nothing. Quite frankly, it shouldn't shock anyone. I did say it was the second generation numbers.

I wasn't the one that quoted the numbers. I was simply referencing SolentG's comment. The one who corrected that statement on the numbers didn't have their post shown before I submitted my comment, as that thread blew up rather quickly.

Also, if we're saying the same thing, I'm not sure how I end up being the hater here.

My bad for misunderstanding your post. And honestly, my jimmies aren't even rustled so I have no idea what you're talking about.