Google reportedly wants Asus to ditch dual Android-Windows 8.1 notebook

Asus first revealed its plans to release the Transformer Book Duet in January, which would have offered people a chance to own a notebook-tablet hybrid that runs both Android and Windows 8.1. Now two stories, each citing their own unnamed sources, claim that Google is trying to keep the Transformer Book Duet from being released.

Both CNet and Digitimes report that Asus has postponed plans to launch the product under pressure from Google; it was originally supposed to go on sale in the second quarter of 2014. As promoted by Asus in January during CES 2014, the 13.3 inch Transformer Book Duet uses Intel's Core i7 processor and can switch from running Android to Windows 8.1 by just pressing one button. It was designed to run both operating systems in notebook mode and when the display is separated from the keyboard to work in tablet mode.

It would appear that Google is worried that devices such as the Asus Transformer Book Duet could allow for Microsoft's Windows 8.1 OS to gain more traction in the marketplace. CNet reports that Microsoft has not offered any objections to the Asus hybrid.

Digitimes also reports that other PC makers who have been developing their own Android-Windows hybrid products have now put those plans on hold. This would be a blow to Intel, who previously were rumored to be pushing for its processors to be used inside PCs with both operating systems installed.

Source: CNet and Digitimes | Image via Asus

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

From The Forums: Neowin members offer impressions of Windows 8.1 Update 1

Next Story

BlackBerry CEO takes a jab at iPhone battery, calls users "wall huggers"

150 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't see what the whole fuss is about with all those comments... People, this is not a hybrid device, those are 2 or, arguably, 3 separate devices.. Think of it as a windows PC and an android tablet. The only selling point is that the android tablet screen can be used as a screen for the windows PC.. That's it! Nothing more... So there is no reason for google to be scared of this device nor is there a reason for microsoft to be happy with it... They are two separate devices.. and sure the price tag can confirm that... I bought the device because I needed both an android tablet and a windows PC and I assure you I use them both separately 90% of the time.. So stop this fuss..

o.O @ Topic of the article at hand.

Wow... way to go Google (if that's really true). So much about ...

1. "Don't do evil"
Obviously it's now "Do ONLY evil"

2. "Open Source"
Seems I was wrong and the AOSP source is now licensed under some "Mafiaware" type license.

3. "Reputation"
Well, seems Google only wants to accelerate their declining reputation (effing up services to the level of unusability - like scrooGledMail, enforcing G-- on YouTube, "revamping" the YouTube UI into a utter mess, "revamping" the Maps interface in a utter and unholy mess).

I guess my next device will be powered by some Ubuntu Phone OS and no longer by some scrooGled OS.

Stormbringer said,
o.O @ Topic of the article at hand.

Wow... way to go Google (if that's really true). So much about ...

1. "Don't do evil"
Obviously it's now "Do ONLY evil"

2. "Open Source"
Seems I was wrong and the AOSP source is now licensed under some "Mafiaware" type license.

3. "Reputation"
Well, seems Google only wants to accelerate their declining reputation (effing up services to the level of unusability - like scrooGledMail, enforcing G-- on YouTube, "revamping" the YouTube UI into a utter mess, "revamping" the Maps interface in a utter and unholy mess).

I guess my next device will be powered by some Ubuntu Phone OS and no longer by some scrooGled OS.

They just didn't write it down, and it confused the meaning. Instead of "Do No Evil", it was actually:

"Do Know Evil"

Which should have been a warning to everyone. A similar confusion was depicted in a movie with the phrase, "To Serve Mankind"

Google is afraid that people will see how bad a phone app looks on a 13.3" display compared to a Windows 8.1 app.

Hello,

Google cannot legally do anything. Android is free and open source.

What Asus cannot do is include Google's apps with the product. But they would put a link on their website to download and install it so...

Asus should give Google the finger and release it.

The problem with Googles apps is it isn't just an .apk the average consumer can just download and install, even then the average user won't have "unknown sources" unchecked. The Google apps package is a .zip file that needs to be flashed from the device recovery mode.

Seems like this is just a rumor based on speculation... There's no concrete source for this. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Google is just afraid that when Android users experience Win8.1, they wonder why they need Android OS for ...

I think google is doing everything to kill Windows 8/ Windows Phone. but obviously they cannot succeed because MS has all the time and money and eventually they get it right. that time android is a fragmented OS with no enterprise support.

Geezy said,
I think they both serve different purposes.

Before Windows 8, I would agree with you. With Windows 8 becoming highly optimized for low end hardware, it is hard to justify Android, which is a limited mobile OS that runs slower than Windows 8.1 on the same hardware.

(Windows 8.1 on identical ARM hardware is faster than both Android and iOS, which is why Google and Apple are not so happy about Microsoft making 'one OS' that can run on their hardware niche better than their limited OSes.)

If Android was even as fast as Windows 8.1 on the same hardware, Google wouldn't be as worried. But when Windows 8.1 can boot faster and still run Photoshop, people start to question why they would need Android.

Further confirmation that Windows-8 was originally targeted for Android and other tablet/smartphone devices. The superficial enhancements to make it useful for non touch-centric devices is just that...window dressing. So sad. But, there is hope--Windows-9?

I don't think this helps or hurts Microsoft or Google. Android emulation might lead to more Windows sales, but dual boot kicks you out of Windows into Android or vice-versa.

This isn't a great choice for either software company, the only winner here is Asus.

Assuming this story is real and not just a rumour, would Google oppose the release of those dual-boot devices if they were running ChromeOS instead of Android?

I mean, is it because of Windows of because of Android on notebooks?

on x86 I think most people want Windows even if its WIndows 8. Not many people want andriod on x86. On ARM it is the opposite.

Unnamed sources huh.

MS beging OEMs for dual boot... Google pressuring OEMs to not do it. Sounds like they both are worried about each other as well as any company should about the competition.

So, MS trying to get OEMS to dual boot to take away competition from Google and Google trying to stop it. Big deal folks. They are both doing what they cant to succeed.

Edited by techbeck, Mar 9 2014, 10:20pm :

MS is simply looking to piggy back on Android's succes. This is a bad idea for the consumer because:
1. It increases the price of the device, due to unnecessary license fees to Redmond for something they will never use
2. Opens up the computer to the millions of windows viruses
3. windows will eat up unnecessary space on the hard drive, which could otherwise be used for storing user media

For ms on the other hand, they would simply use these sales again to pad the windows 8 sales numbers, when in reality, no one who buys one of these will be booting into windows on them.

recursive said,
1. It increases the price of the device, due to unnecessary license fees to Redmond for something they will never use

If it's something they'll never use, then why not buy a "pure" Android device? That's just silly.
recursive said,
2. Opens up the computer to the millions of windows viruses

On the flip side, all the Android malware exposes the Windows installation as well. Works both ways.
recursive said,
3. windows will eat up unnecessary space on the hard drive, which could otherwise be used for storing user media

See #1... if you don't want a Windows device, don't buy a Windows device.

recursive said,
For ms on the other hand, they would simply use these sales again to pad the windows 8 sales numbers, when in reality, no one who buys one of these will be booting into windows on them.

And again, see #1, that's just a huge stretch there.

Note, I don't much care for the option myself, I see zero use, at best I'd use an emulator if I were writing Android software or really wanted access to an Android program versus a native program, but a dual boot? Meh, pass.. it's just funny seeing everyone who's usually all about openess and "giving users options" do a quick 180.

techbeck said,
Unnamed sources huh.

MS beging OEMs for dual boot... Google pressuring OEMs to not do it. Sounds like they both are worried about each other as well as any company should about the competition.

So, MS trying to get OEMS to dual boot to take away competition from Google and Google trying to stop it. Big deal folks. They are both doing what they cant to succeed.

Microsoft initial went head to head with Intel over dual booting Windows and Android devices. It wasn't their plan, as they didn't even want it.

Google was all for this (even encouraging mainboard OEMs to load android for 'fast boot' OS features.)

It wasn't until Asus and others started telling Google, there was a problem as Android was slower than Windows 8.1 on the same hardware.

Whoops...

(If Microsoft wanted Android on their systems, they could just supply an Android subsystem for Windows, native Android running along side Windows at the same time. They didn't want this. ok?)

Max Norris said,
If it's something they'll never use, then why not buy a "pure" Android device? That's just silly.
This, a million times over. Are Android addicts so stupid that they'll pay more for a dual boot machine on which they'll never use the other OS, then cry about the cost?

Mobius Enigma said,

You can already run Android on top of Windows. There are ways to do this. Android wasnt meant or intended to run on a normal PC. This is what ChromeOS is for.

Max Norris said,

On the flip side, all the Android malware exposes the Windows installation as well. Works both ways.

That is true for Windows Phone 8.0, but not so much for Windows Phone 8.1.

Windows Phone 8.1 brings full disk encryption. Combined with Windows Phone 8.0 UEFI Secure Boot support, the only thing another OS' malware would be able to do is destroy the Windows partition, it won't be able to inject data.

recursive said,
MS is simply looking to piggy back on Android's succes. This is a bad idea for the consumer because:
1. It increases the price of the device, due to unnecessary license fees to Redmond for something they will never use
2. Opens up the computer to the millions of windows viruses
3. windows will eat up unnecessary space on the hard drive, which could otherwise be used for storing user media

For ms on the other hand, they would simply use these sales again to pad the windows 8 sales numbers, when in reality, no one who buys one of these will be booting into windows on them.

Right, forgetting the fact that Android is much more susceptible to viruses when compared to Windows. Not to mention the fact that Android with Google's services included is a clear violation of the user privacy. If privacy is a concern one should stay well clear of anything Google.

Now the devices supposedly is running an I7, now I know android isn't know for speed, but such a powerful, processor deserves Windows and real applications, so that the power available can be properly used.

It is android that has no place on this hardware, it is made for phones and maybe a tablet (even though both ios and Windows 8 are wiping the floor when it comes to usefulness on tablets), it doesn't make any sense to run a crappy play os on real hardware.

Chrome Os makes even less sense on this hardware than Android. At least Android has a few apps that might come in handy, Chrome OS offers no advantages whatsoever, unless you want to let Google sell your data.

Kaedrin said,

That is true for Windows Phone 8.0, but not so much for Windows Phone 8.1.

Windows Phone 8.1 brings full disk encryption. Combined with Windows Phone 8.0 UEFI Secure Boot support, the only thing another OS' malware would be able to do is destroy the Windows partition, it won't be able to inject data.

WP7 had full disk encryption. The only change with WP8 was allowing SD cards to be used without encrypting them to be unusable on another device. This can still be 'enabled', but isn't important as user accessible WP8 SD Cards can't hold executable code like they could on WP7.

As for Windows 8/8.1, they also use volume encryption on most tablets and many light notebook configurations, protecting the Windows volumes from other OS access. Some even use just folder level NTFS encryption depending on the UEFI configuration.

In theory Android on the same device if properly setup by the OEM would not have any access to the Windows UEFI or critical areas of the volumes.


This kind of thing was bad practise back when MS pressured OEMs for similar reasons and paid the price, its bad practise now. Google along with all their fanboys need to accept that you cant keep digging up the bad MS past acting all high horsey AND then do the same ####, its one or the other.

Except that this isn't the same at all. Let's compare shall we.

1. Microsoft prevents OEM's from offering competing OS's.
2. Google prevents OEM's from offering Android, its own OS on laptop devices, for which it's not designed.

Could you imagine what Microsoft's response would be to OEM's offering ChromeOS as a dual boot with every Windows laptop? Yeah they wouldn't keep their Windows licence discount for long.

simplezz said,
1. Microsoft prevents OEM's from offering competing OS's.

Except that they don't.. OEM's sell Windows units alongside Linux units, and so far no Microsoft goons have kicked any doors in.

simplezz said,
2. Google prevents OEM's from offering Android, its own OS on laptop devices, for which it's not designed.

And yet they're ok with Bluestacks and other virtualization options alongside Android x86? Severe cherrypicking there.

simplezz said,
Could you imagine what Microsoft's response would be to OEM's offering ChromeOS as a dual boot with every Windows laptop? Yeah they wouldn't keep their Windows licence discount for long.

Why? They're already obviously ok with another OS on a Windows device... Google's the only one taking issue with it, hence this article in the first place.

simplezz said,
Except that this isn't the same at all. Let's compare shall we.

1. Microsoft prevents OEM's from offering competing OS's.
2. Google prevents OEM's from offering Android, its own OS on laptop devices, for which it's not designed.

Could you imagine what Microsoft's response would be to OEM's offering ChromeOS as a dual boot with every Windows laptop? Yeah they wouldn't keep their Windows licence discount for long.

Again you need to learn your history of Microsoft's licensing practices. They NEVER stopped other OS from being sold or used.


To sum it up, some companies signed exclusivity deals with Microsoft, which was common and still is. The deal stated that for each computer they sold, they would buy a Windows license to put on that computer.

This saved OEMs about $5-10 per copy for Windows. They didn't have to sign this agreement, as many OEMS DID NOT. They did it because they were greedy.

These companies when they got pressure from customers also blamed Microsoft, when it was their choice to sign into the deal and their choice to load Windows on machine that the user did not want it loaded onto.

They could have still loaded OS/2 or any other OS, the contract only stated they would have to pay Microsoft their $50 for the Windows license even if the machine didn't ship with Windows on it.

They could have shipped Linux or another free OS as well, and it would have been NO different to the OEMs.

However, other OSes like Linux were support nightmares, so they used the 'excuse' of Windows and 'we only support the installed OS' so they didn't have to deal with customers having issues with OS/2 or Linux.

Exclusivity agreements are common, and is why Wordperfect Office bundles were rampant for years, and is also why 'Norton' and 'McAfee' is included in the 'cost' of most systems you buy today from Dell/HP/etc. They still have the same type of exclusivity agreement. They still pay the license fee for McAfee or Norton even if you specifically tell HP or Dell not to load it.


Microsoft had no pressuring and had no involvement in keeping other OSes from running on the computers. They never interacted with OEMs at this level and could have gave a crap what the OEMs loaded beyond not messing up a Windows installation if Windows was actually installed.


What Google is doing is far more nefarious, and is outside of standard legal contracts.

Stop this false equivalency, it is reductive at best.

Geezy said,
You forgot about BeOS.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/633973/posts
http://www.computerweekly.com/...rosoft-settles-legal-action
Microsoft also prevents the installation of alternative OSes on Windows RT tablets.

If you want to hold Windows RT, ARM tablets in the same category then what about giving me the ability to install Windows on my iPad? Or what about Windows on a Android tablet?

Why in gods name should MS's Windows RT devices be the exception to the rule for tablets when the others don't allow it either?

That would be cool, it would be nice to be able to match the hardware with the software you want. I only buy hardware that lets me do what I want, including my TVs, routers, PCs, laptop, tablet, camera, portable music player. I might be somewhat more restricted in hardware choice (i.e. rockbox devices, cameras with custom firmware, TVs with custom firmware), but the advantages are there for my purposes and the benefits are worth it to me.

Of course I'll consider any platform, open or closed, that lets me do what I want though, as I do own some closed devices.

Edited by Geezy, Mar 10 2014, 9:56am :

BeOS isn't an OEM that makes hardware, you don't understand.

MS does not prevent OEM partners from installing any OS on THEIR hardware, OEM's can choose to enter an agreement so that windows licensing comes down a little and that agreement may say if you want this lower price you agreeing to pay this price for all devices you make (license is assumed and charged) - BUT this is a CHOICE the OEM can and does make.

MS does not FORCE and cant FORCE any OEM to do anything, nor does it pressure them, it may offer an incentive but that is entirely different.

And again, BeOS is an OS not an OEM.

Of course not, that's silly! Where did you ever get the idea that BeOS was an OEM? BeOS is an operating system, and OEMs that tried to sell PCs with BeOS were met with opposition by Microsoft.

"In its February 2002 lawsuit, Be alleged that Microsoft had entered into anticompetitive agreements with PC makers, effectively blocking Be's efforts to have its operating system sold alongside Windows on systems."

Geezy said,
Of course not, that's silly! Where did you ever get the idea that BeOS was an OEM? BeOS is an operating system, and OEMs that tried to sell PCs with BeOS were met with opposition by Microsoft.

"In its February 2002 lawsuit, Be alleged that Microsoft had entered into anticompetitive agreements with PC makers, effectively blocking Be's efforts to have its operating system sold alongside Windows on systems."

Again..

"..Be alleged that Microsoft had entered into anticompetitive agreements with PC makers.."

This goes back to piggybacking off of the exclusivity licensing deals that OEMs entered into, it wasn't Microsoft doing ANYTHING specific to BeOS.

These same exclusivity deals exist today and are still used, go buy a Dell without Anti-Virus, Dell is still paying for the license even if you tell them not to install it.

The difference is Dell is NO LONGER blaming Norton for the exclusivity agreement they signed and are just eating the costs.

A lot of OEMs in the 90s didn't do the exclusivity deals with Microsoft and it was only when OEMs got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that they pointed their finger at Microsoft.

None of it would have mattered if Microsoft didn't have a +95% marketshare which subjected them to monopoly rules and scrutiny. If they only had 80% of the OS marketshare, none of the 'exclusivity' contracts would have mattered.

This horse is really dead, for about 10 years now, let it go.

Remember that MS settled with them, they could have easily fought the claim if it was false but they needed it to go away amid antitrust concerns.

Lets see, Android OS=Free, WIndows8=expensive, why would anybody on the intend to use Android want to pay for Windows, it does not make sense.

Hybrids are not a good idea.

fastcat said,
Lets see, Android OS=Free, WIndows8=expensive, why would anybody on the intend to use Android want to pay for Windows, it does not make sense.

Hybrids are not a good idea.

You need to lookup 'free'... Android is far from free, even in just the extra support and development time, let alone you are selling your information and activity to Google for the right to use their 'free' OS.

Microsoft also makes a kick off the licensing for Android.

Clearly Asus saw some demand for it. Who's arm-twisting Android addicts into buying this sort of hybrid anyway? If they want only Android then let them buy just that and be happy, simple.

fastcat said,
Lets see, Android OS=Free, WIndows8=expensive, why would anybody on the intend to use Android want to pay for Windows, it does not make sense.

Hybrids are not a good idea.

except that android with play services is not free

Sounds like Microsoft is trying to piggy back on the success of Android and its ecosystem to boost their failing Windows 8 OS.

Android is designed for tablets and phones not really for laptops. ChromeOS is better suited to that task.

simplezz said,

Android is designed for tablets and phones not really for laptops. ChromeOS is better suited to that task.

thanks for giving me the laugh I needed for the day...
from here on out, I shall never take you seriously ever again.

simplezz said,
Sounds like Microsoft is trying to piggy back on the success of Android and its ecosystem to boost their failing Windows 8 OS.

Android is designed for tablets and phones not really for laptops. ChromeOS is better suited to that task.

Wow, is the sky pink in you reality too?

Android isn't as fast as the full version of freaking Windows running on ARM or x86. This is what Google doesn't want the world to start noticing, as WIndows 8.1 on the same hardware as Android is just faster, with a lot more featured and complex software and more stable.

Why buy an Android tablet that is the same hardware as the Windows 8.1 tablet, when the Windows 8.1 tablet can run Photoshop, Illustrator, WOW, and even the BlueStack Android emulator?

There is none, and on dual boot systems, people can see this for themselves.

Asus and others reached out to Google basically saying, " We need help, Android is slower than Windows." - And instead of offering a solution for the dated Android OS model, they instead started telling these OEMs to NOT put Android on the same hardware.

simplezz said,
Sounds like Microsoft is trying to piggy back on the success of Android and its ecosystem to boost their failing Windows 8 OS.

Android is designed for tablets and phones not really for laptops. ChromeOS is better suited to that task.

What does MS have to do with this? This is Samsung and the other OEMs not MS.

simplezz said,
Sounds like Microsoft is trying to piggy back on the success of Android and its ecosystem to boost their failing Windows 8 OS.

Android is designed for tablets and phones not really for laptops. ChromeOS is better suited to that task.

Dude I swear, you should keep trolling this site. Its a fact that you are doing so. Go to a Android specific fantasy site. You are a very gullible individual.

nickcruz said,

Dude I swear, you should keep away from trolling this site. Its a fact that you are doing so. Go to a Android specific fantasy site. You are a very gullible individual.

Do no evil ...

Funny, this sounds a LOT like the tactics MS was punished for back in the day that MS haters love to dredge up.

Google needs to butt out of their partners business

HawkMan said,
Do no evil ...

Funny, this sounds a LOT like the tactics MS was punished for back in the day that MS haters love to dredge up.

Google needs to butt out of their partners business


If the Android included has Google Play and such? It is Google's business. Android not quite as free as true OSS software.

HawkMan said,
Do no evil ...
Funny, this sounds a LOT like the tactics MS was punished for back in the day that MS haters love to dredge up.
Google needs to butt out of their partners business

Sigh.. You don't know your history very well do you. MS discourages OEM's from even putting out devices with other OS'. Google's only preventing its own OS from going on dual boot systems; which is understandable given that laptops are the domain of ChromeOS, not Android. I don't see what the fuss is about.

HawkMan said,

Google needs to butt out of their partners business

What about MS? They are trying to get a bunch of OEMs to dual boot. Both companies are trying to do what they can to profit. Nothing new here. In the end it is the OEMS decision and if any OEM bends to the will of one or the other, then that OEM needs to grow a pair.

HawkMan said,
Funny, this sounds a LOT like the tactics MS was punished for back in the day that MS haters love to dredge up.

It IS.
but theres a slight differences, now both MS & GOOGLE are being NSA's b*tches,
therefore if there any legal complication, both Google & Microsoft WILL get favorable ruling in courts.

ASUS being non-US entities doesn't help either.

Torolol said,

It IS.
but theres a slight differences, now both MS & GOOGLE are being NSA's b*tches,
therefore if there any legal complication, both Google & Microsoft WILL get favorable ruling in courts.

ASUS being non-US entities doesn't help either.

NSA really? The NSA was recording your radio stations and phone calls over 40 years ago, and you are just now worrying about them.

How cute.

(The reason the NSA activity made news again is that they are collecting information on US citizens. They ALWAYS have had permission and the ability to collect information from non-US citizens.)

Mobius Enigma said,

NSA really? The NSA was recording your radio stations and phone calls over 40 years ago, and you are just now worrying about them.

How cute.


so, your point is?

Torolol said,

so, your point is?

Again, so adorable, I just want to pinch your cheeks.

(The NSA 'making news' was a knee jerk reaction to the NSA warrantless wiretapping from the early 00s that made it all the way to the US Supreme court in 2006. It told the Bush administration to stop it and the NSA to stop it. However, the plans for the data collection facilities, like in Utah, were never halted and the massive dumping of internet data was still happening even after being told to stop it.)

The NSA aren't fluffy bunnies, but they have been doing what they do since the 1960s, which is why it is a little weird/late to mention the NSA in every response like it is something new. Which is why your posts are truly cute.

Geezy said,
But why not mention it? You don't want things to change and awareness to spread?

In an article about Google not wanting Asus to use their OS on dual boot hardware.


There are a lot or things that need awareness, but if we started screaming them out without any topical context, we would all look like the old crazy guy on the street corner.

Quite frankly I don't see those dual boot systems gain much traction. Way too cumbersome to manage and use two operating systems for the average Joe. You see how people reacted to having both Metro and Desktop within the same OS. Let alone a third app environment.

I have to agree. I think consumers should know exactly what they're getting when they buy instead of getting some bogus Android stuff shoehorned into their PC.

.Neo said,
Quite frankly I don't see those dual boot systems gain much traction. Way too cumbersome to manage and use two operating systems for the average Joe. You see how people reacted to having both Metro and Desktop within the same OS. Let alone a third app environment.

You are spot on... However, the untold portion of this story is that Google is pressuring Asus to drop Windows on these products, it isn't just about hybrid configurations.

They want Asus to stop offering Windows on the same hardware they are offering Android. Even Dell took a hit from Google with their Venue Pro 8 and had to modify the original Android hardware so that it wasn't the same as the Windows 8.1 version. (Ironically beefing up the Android version, and it is still slower than the Win 8.1 version.)

If consumers can run Windows, a non-mobile, full scale OS faster than they can run a limited mobile OS like Android, Google knows it will hurt the Android market.

What a shame this would of been awesome!

Question? Would you have to run x86 android complied apps or would arm android complied apps work fine?

Simon Fowkes said,
What a shame this would of been awesome!

Question? Would you have to run x86 android complied apps or would arm android complied apps work fine?

It'd probably work like the few x86 android phones do and have an emulator for running ARM apps.

Simon Fowkes said,
What a shame this would of been awesome!

Question? Would you have to run x86 android complied apps or would arm android complied apps work fine?


There's no such thing as "Android compiled" apps afaik, Android uses the dalvik runtime to run the code inside the APKs. There's little to no compiled code in android apps. Dalvik was ported to x86, therefore any app currently available should run on x86

To add to my previous comment: there are some apps that are architecture-specific (built with the NDK), but Android-x86 offers a basic form of ARM emulation, and a lot of NDK apps have already been recompiled to support both ARM and x86.

Max Norris said,
Taking a play of out 1990's Microsoft's playbook. Good job there.. shame to see that lesson still going unlearned.

That would be true if Google was stopping OEM's from using Windows and other OS's, which it isn't. Google's actually stopping its own OS from being deployed in a dual boot, which it has every right to do.

The only reason OEM's are having to do this in the first place is because the Windows app store is like a ghost town. The only person this benefits is Microsoft.

simplezz said,
That would be true if Google was stopping OEM's from using Windows and other OS's, which it isn't. Google's actually stopping its own OS from being deployed in a dual boot, which it has every right to do.

And like we talked about in the forum threads, if this were Microsoft clamping down on an OEM you'd be throwing fits about it. You use that example frequently in other anti-MS topics. Shoe on the other foot and now it's ok to do.. how about Microsoft makes it so OEM's must include some sort of anti-dual-boot capability in their machines so it would be impossible to dual boot Linux or they'd revoke their OEM license.. still ok with that? You suggested Google should do the exact same thing in the forums, so I guess you are ok with that.

Or, take it in another direction, cut Google out entirely and go the Amazon route. This is supposed to be open source yea? Anyone can use it however they see fit. Including Asus. Google is just trying to clamp down on competition using old anti-competitive tactics, nothing more.

simplezz said,
The only reason OEM's are having to do this in the first place is because the Windows app store is like a ghost town. The only person this benefits is Microsoft.

Yea, except 1) Google would still be making money in their app store so they're benefiting too, and 2) you're forgetting this is running a full blown Windows OS (with an absurd amount of software behind it) and not limited to the Windows Store, nor is it even limited to 8 at all since it's an i7 under the hood. I've no interest in it myself but I could see some users liking having the option available to them, choice and all that.

Max Norris said,

how about Microsoft makes it so OEM's must include some sort of anti-dual-boot capability in their machines so it would be impossible to dual boot Linux or they'd revoke their OEM license..

Microsoft tried to do exactly that with secure boot. OEM's had to comply or else they'd face the consequences. Windows RT can't be replaced due to secure boot as well.

Max Norris said,

still ok with that? You suggested Google should do the exact same thing in the forums, so I guess you are ok with that.

Except that Google has never done that unlike Microsoft's secureboot nonesense.

Max Norris said,

Or, take it in another direction, cut Google out entirely and go the Amazon route. This is supposed to be open source yea? Anyone can use it however they see fit. Including Asus. Google is just trying to clamp down on competition using old anti-competitive tactics, nothing more.

Amazon and Nokia both use AOSP, as does Cyanogen Mod. How is that anti-competitive? The only stipulation that Google has is, if an OEM produces devices with the official Android, it can't use forks as well. That's reasonable. Otherwise, Android will become so fragmented that it won't be usable.

Does Microsoft allow competitors to take its software, customise it, then eschew its own services? I didn't think so.

Max Norris said,

Yea, except 1) Google would still be making money in their app store so they're benefiting too

That has nothing to do with it. If OEM's started deploying Windows machines with ChomeOS in dual boot, Microsoft would take exception to it, and it would rightly request that the OEM doesn't use WIndows in such a way.

The only reason Microsoft has sanctioned this is because the Android ecosystem is larger than Windows, and it benefits from the extra applications and games.

Max Norris said,

and 2) you're forgetting this is running a full blown Windows OS (with an absurd amount of software behind it) and not limited to the Windows Store, nor is it even limited to 8 at all since it's an i7 under the hood. I've no interest in it myself but I could see some users liking having the option available to them, choice and all that.

Most consumers are used to the mobile App / Play store paradigm now. They don't want to go searching around the web for software any more. Hence why Microsoft's default front-end is Metro / Windows store. Unfortunately for Microsoft, their store is like a ghost town. That's the real reason for including Android. No one cares about legacy Windows apps any more except the enterprise.

simplezz said,
Microsoft tried to do exactly that with secure boot. OEM's had to comply or else they'd face the consequences. Windows RT can't be replaced due to secure boot as well.

You do know than you can not only disable secure boot if needed, there are other operating systems already able to be installed with it enabled? (Gasp, even Linux.) As far as RT goes, I'd like a Nexus with Windows RT. Or you know, if you don't want a Microsoft OS, don't buy a Microsoft device. Just as if I wanted Android I wouldn't buy an iPad. Or if I wanted PS4 games I wouldn't buy an X1. Common sense stuff there.

simplezz said,
Except that Google has never done that unlike Microsoft's secureboot nonesense.

Umm that's exactly what they're trying to do right now. Pressuring OEM's to do their will.

simplezz said,
Amazon and Nokia both use AOSP, as does Cyanogen Mod. How is that anti-competitive?

It is when Google says that an OEM is suddenly not allowed to do so. Especially if Asus was talking about AOSP in the first place.

simplezz said,
Does Microsoft allow competitors to take its software, customise it, then eschew its own services? I didn't think so.

Does Microsoft make an open source version of their OS so people can customize it and remove Microsoft services? Didn't think so. If Google has a problem with it then maybe they should start with Amazon, which you know, eschewed Googles services and all. Or do away with AOSP and stop trying to pretend to be the good guys when their actions show clearly the reverse.

simplezz said,
Unfortunately for Microsoft, their store is like a ghost town. That's the real reason for including Android. No one cares about legacy Windows apps any more except the enterprise.

Wow, just wow. First, again you're forgetting (or ignoring) that this is running Windows 8 and not RT, so it's not just store applications we're talking about here but more software than what's even conceivable to keep track of. But more importantly... "nobody cares about legacy apps anymore?" Are you f'ing serious?

Neowin news authors, take note, you heard it here first -- everybody loves Windows RT and everybody got rid of all their decades worth of software. Watching Windows 8's market share.. it should skyrocket.. any moment now.. any moment..

*facepalm*

simplezz said,

Google's actually stopping its own OS from being deployed in a dual boot, which it has every right to do.

Not really, unless that went against Android's licensing terms.

And if it did we would be talking about Google forbidding it, not rumours about OEMs putting those devices on hold under pressure.

Personally I don't think those dual-boot devices are such a good idea, but as long as licenses are honored OEMs should be allowed to release them.

The biggest player will always object and try to block such products because there's little to be gained and lots to be lost.

simplezz said,

That would be true if Google was stopping OEM's from using Windows and other OS's, which it isn't. Google's actually stopping its own OS from being deployed in a dual boot, which it has every right to do.

The only reason OEM's are having to do this in the first place is because the Windows app store is like a ghost town. The only person this benefits is Microsoft.

Microsoft NEVER stopped OEMs from using other OSes or other products.

This is a insane misconception from the licensing deals of the 90s and companies like Dell blaming Microsoft. Go do your homework on the monopoly and exclusivity licensing deals. It isn't that hard to comprehend, and I will state once again - Microsoft NEVER stopped or tried to stop OEMs from using or loading other OSes or Office products. PERIOD.

Google isn't happy about the dual boot, because in testing, Windows 8.1 boots faster and runs faster. Google doesn't want Android showcased in a direct competition. It is supposed to be the lighter, mobile, less functional OS - and if it is slower, heavy, and has less functionality on the same hardware, people will realize there is no need for it anymore.

simplezz said,
Microsoft tried to do exactly that with secure boot. OEM's had to comply or else they'd face the consequences.

Except that Google has never done that unlike Microsoft's secureboot nonesense.

Nice try at spreading FUD, nothing new. Secure Boot and UEFI aren't Microsoft creations and there was no restriction against any other OS vendor tying up with the OEMs to include their keys in the DB and KEK as well. Indeed, Ubuntu's second stage grub2 bootloader is now signed with Canonical's own key and they briefly toyed with the idea of doing the same as Microsoft with their own Ubuntu OEMs but backed off because they couldn't afford to run their own signing service without which their OEM PCs would have been even more locked down. End users BTW can also add their own keys to the key DB. Neither was any OEM mandated by Microsoft to disallow users from having the ability to disable Secure Boot on their x86 hardware.

simplezz said,
The only person this benefits is Microsoft.

Um... hello over there. Customer here!!!

Think it benefits me as well (shock... horror)

simplezz said,

That would be true if Google was stopping OEM's from using Windows and other OS's, which it isn't. Google's actually stopping its own OS from being deployed in a dual boot, which it has every right to do.

The only reason OEM's are having to do this in the first place is because the Windows app store is like a ghost town. The only person this benefits is Microsoft.

I just love to see the trolls speak they are so outspoken with fud. Which means they are likely paid Google zombies.

RommelS said,

These aren't the articles that we are looking for (time has change, and these are old and irrelevant). Move along.

They're an adequate reply to the claim made that MS never attempted to prevent OS competition. I sincerely hope that things have changed as you say.

Max Norris said,

You do know than you can not only disable secure boot if needed, there are other operating systems already able to be installed with it enabled? (Gasp, even Linux.) As far as RT goes, I'd like a Nexus with Windows RT. Or you know, if you don't want a Microsoft OS, don't buy a Microsoft device. Just as if I wanted Android I wouldn't buy an iPad. Or if I wanted PS4 games I wouldn't buy an X1. Common sense stuff there.

Since you were responding to a comment on not being able to replace Windows RT on a device that shipped with it, I will take your comment in that light.

And your statement is unfortunately false. As yet there is no Windows RT device that can be loaded with an alternate OS by the end user. I would love for you to be able to prove me wrong, and I mean that in the best possible way as I would love to be able to load Linux on my Surface RT.

domboy said,
Since you were responding to a comment on not being able to replace Windows RT on a device that shipped with it, I will take your comment in that light.

Ah, no. Read his post again.. "Windows RT as well." That is.. not just RT but all 8 devices, which I was talking about. As far as RT goes, like I also said, if you don't want RT, don't buy an RT device. A specialized device only having one OS isn't exactly new...

Edited by Max Norris, Mar 10 2014, 6:55pm :

Geezy said,
They're an adequate reply to the claim made that MS never attempted to prevent OS competition. I sincerely hope that things have changed as you say.

UEFI was implemented by MS to secure the system. It is not an attempt to block other OS out there. In fact, Apple is the first one that came out with that. The only reason why you didn't hear so much about it, it is because hardly anyone out are using an Apple machine with a different OS.

Now for RT, MS has every rights to block any OS out there since they built that one.

Geezy said,
That's fine, but you can't switch off the protection for your own uses.

You can, you just have to contact the OEM to get the key. I know someone that has done that, and he has been happy since.

That is very cool, I'm happy to hear it's possible! I'll consider that in the future when I decide to purchase a new tablet. Right now though I don't like the low resolution of the RT models I have seen. Any idea if MS will do it too with the ones they produce themselves?

Geezy said,
Any idea if MS will do it too with the ones they produce themselves?
Maybe, when hell freezes over or Apple allows us to install Linux on iPads, whichever comes first!

If you really want the freedom to install the OS of your choice on a tablet just buy an x86 device like the Surface Pro.

Geezy said,
Right now though I don't like the low resolution of the RT models I have seen.
1920x1080 on the Surface 2 not enough for you?

Geezy said,
That is very cool, I'm happy to hear it's possible! I'll consider that in the future when I decide to purchase a new tablet. Right now though I don't like the low resolution of the RT models I have seen. Any idea if MS will do it too with the ones they produce themselves?

Surface 2 has a full HD screen. However, you will not be able to put a full fledge OS in that device since it is running on an Arm based Nvidia CPU.

RommelS said,
However, you will not be able to put a full fledge OS in that device since it is running on an Arm based Nvidia CPU.
Technically that's not a big limitation though, is it? If at all Secure Boot could be turned off I'm sure you could get Linux compiled for ARM running on it.

Geezy said,
That is very cool, I'm happy to hear it's possible! I'll consider that in the future when I decide to purchase a new tablet. Right now though I don't like the low resolution of the RT models I have seen. Any idea if MS will do it too with the ones they produce themselves?

The Surface RT 2 has a 1080p screen. I think you are confusing last year's Surface RT.

Ah, if it's MS's then apparently it won't suit my needs as I can't install my preferred OS (or even software), I'd have to get a third party tablet.

Geezy said,
Ah, if it's MS's then apparently it won't suit my needs as I can't install my preferred OS (or even software), I'd have to get a third party tablet.
You can if it's not an RT tablet, or are you determined to stick to RT for some reason? Why if you want to wipe the OS and install something else (or even dual boot)?

Yes, but practically speaking you'd probably only be able to run Linux for ARM on an RT tablet with Secure Boot disabled, and that too only after all the device drivers are finally available, and you'd have to scrounge around for ARM-compatible apps since none of the normal x86 ones for Linux would work without an emulator (using which would of course make the entire exercise pointless). If you're concerned about the battery then just use the Power Cover with the Surface Pro 2 or any other x86 tablet with a good battery life, because buying an RT tablet just to replace Windows RT with Linux for ARM makes no real sense to me.

Edit: I missed RommelS' comment somehow. I'd love to know on which RT tablet the OEM allowed Secure Boot to be turned off. I didn't think this was possible.

Edited by Romero, Mar 12 2014, 2:35am :

RommelS said,
You can, you just have to contact the OEM to get the key. I know someone that has done that, and he has been happy since.
Are you sure? Which RT tablet was this? What did your friend do with it once he managed to turn Secure Boot off that made him so happy?

Geezy said,
Um... what? Are you for real? Linux and apps work just fine on ARM, and many other architectures.... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...nux_supported_architectures
Am I for real? I mentioned Linux for ARM explicitly multiple times above in multiple comments. The caveat was that x86 Linux apps won't run without an emulator, which should be obvious really. So can't you read or do you have a basic comprehension problem? Also just because Linux for ARM exists doesn't mean the RT tablet's hardware will automatically be supported right out of the box unless drivers for all the components already exist. There's also the matter of which ARM version the tablet has vs. the ones the distro supports. Do you see any of the RT tablets mentioned under ARM architecture anywhere in that article?

There's also no doubt that while Linux for ARM support is growing (though not as much as Android or Chrome OS), there aren't as many ARM-supporting distros as exist for the x86 architecture. The number of apps lags as well though it's growing similarly. For missing apps if they're open source it does mean porting is easier, but by no means is it just a simple case of recompilation without touching the code that will do the trick for every program.

All in all, firstly you'd need to figure out if Windows RT can even be replaced (same problem you'd face with iOS on the iPad with its Apple/ARM chips), then select from one of the few available Linux for ARM distros, then code (or get someone to code) missing drivers if any for the hardware, then finally see what ARM-compatible apps are available and port (or get someone to port) the ones that aren't that you want. All this for a few extra hours of battery life? Yeah right. Unless it's an experiment or you're a Linux developer or a masochist no normal user who's just looking to install and use Linux on a tablet is going to buy an RT or iOS one for this purpose. Far better off buying an x86 Windows tablet and having your favorite distro (including the obscure ones) up and running in less than half an hour, and of course you can always multi-boot too so the original OS remains available.

Edited by Romero, Mar 12 2014, 4:02am :

What x86-only Linux apps? That's like 0.5% of all Linux apps ever? I already run Linux on an ARM device with no problems whatsoever... If there's a device capable of running Linux, a community grows around it if it's worthwhile, if it's not worthwhile enough for that then it's probably not a device I'd consider.

Geezy said,
What x86-only Linux apps? That's like 0.5% of all Linux apps ever? I already run Linux on an ARM device with no problems whatsoever...
You're saying 99.5% of all Linux apps are already available compiled for ARM? Really? I'd love to see some proof of this.

And which Linux for ARM distro (don't even say Android or Chrome OS or other mobile OS) do you run on which device, and is it an RT or iOS device which are the ones we're discussing here?

Geezy said,
If there's a device capable of running Linux, a community grows around it if it's worthwhile
But of course, who's denying this? Point is, you'd first have to circumvent Apple and Microsoft's restrictions. Is that possible? Perhaps, but in all these years I haven't seen any proper permanent hacks. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile running Linux on these devices, just that they're locked down tight.

Edited by Romero, Mar 12 2014, 5:01am :

Great, Linux on a Chromebook. Thought we were talking about tablets (that too RT ones which you wanted because of the battery life), which is why I kept recommending x86 tablets over ARM ones all this while. And the Chromebook is a special case anyway because despite being nominally locked Google allows you to go into dev mode after which you can install Linux. (BTW ChrUbuntu still uses the ChromeOS kernel.) If it were as locked down as the RT or iOS tablets were you'd face the exact same issue. Realistically if you want Linux on a tablet my recommendation still stands - battery life be damned, x86 tablet makes more sense any day over a locked RT or iOS one.

Edited by Romero, Mar 12 2014, 5:46am :

Not a locked down ARM tablet so of course possible. Still don't see how it ever beats the advantages of an x86 tablet though, with the possibility of multi booting most any Linux distro, Windows and heck even OS X! It's a fully portable PC with all the advantages.

I'm not against considering x86 tablets, as long as they do what I want. On my nexus 7 I dual boot Android and Ubuntu, use Android for casual stuff and Ubuntu for admin tools and more hard core stuff on the road in a pinch. With a USB OTG it's very handy!

Romero said,
Not a locked down ARM tablet so of course possible
A bit ago you were saying you need x86 emulators, no apps/drivers, was just trying to show it's not true.

Geezy said,
A bit ago you were saying you need x86 emulators, no apps/drivers, was just trying to show it's not true.
Wow, is that what you managed to get from my comments? SMH. I talked about less apps (not no apps, don't try to deliberately twist my words) being available for Linux on ARM compared to Linux on x86, and no drivers possibly for the RT/iOS tablets since I specifically asked you and you said you wanted those for their battery life. You still haven't shown any proof that 99.5% of all Linux apps are available already on ARM.

Anyway, if you're convinced that the possibility of a few Linux for ARM distros on the Nexus 7 is a better deal than any Linux distro on an x86 tablet then just get the former, why the debate. IMO though Intel's CPUs will for all intents and purposes wipe out ARM's battery life advantage; Haswell is close (just see the battery life of the MBA2013 and also the Haswell Acer C720 Chromebook reportedly has better battery life than the ARM HP Chromebook 11), Broadwell ought to be equal or better. All in all between Linux for ARM and x86 I'd personally choose the latter any day.

There are barely any x86 depenant Linux packages at all! Linux has been on multiple architectures from the start and all apps are highly portable! It'd be shorter to show you the list of software that doesn't run on ARM, but I can't even think of any besides KVM!

Here, go nuts, try and find something without ARM support: https://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages

I tend to download many Linux utilities from developers' own websites, SourceForce, GitHub and the like and very, very rarely see Linux for ARM compiled binaries. Source isn't always so easy to get running either on a different architecture. My favorite distros aren't on ARM as well. Until there is distro and app parity I see no use for it, and in any case I won't be able to dual/multi-boot my OSes of choice so that rules out any architecture besides x86. For a hassle-free experience I'd not recommend Linux on ARM to anyone looking to just get Linux running on a tablet. If you want to limit your possibilities that's up to you, I have absolutely no problem with it.

You don't download software from sourceforge to install it in Linux, you install it through a package manager from a repository. If you're using Linux that way then you're probably finding it difficult to install software and dependencies, please use the package manager. Of course you wouldn't find binaries or packages on sourceforge for most distros/architectures. Distro parity? Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Slackware, and more, but those are the big ones right there.

Edited by Geezy, Mar 12 2014, 6:25pm :

Geezy said,
You don't download software from sourceforge to install it in Linux
Why not? Do you think every program and utility under the sun is available in a repository? Don't equate your use case with that of others. Like I said, use Linux for ARM on a Nexus 7 if it works for you, but most people including those who depend only on the repositories will prefer x86 Linux.

Pretty much, yeah. Which one wasn't that you were trying to install? There are ARM repositories too BTW

Edited by Geezy, Mar 12 2014, 6:33pm :

You're talking of the apps? It's been a while but there were a bunch of command-line utilities I needed, for data (image and audio/video) compression, metadata extraction and editing, DC++, torrenting, hashing and so on that had no pre-built ARM binaries and I wasn't able to get them to compile either due to the x86 specific code paths and some of the devs refused as well because they just couldn't be bothered. Don't care anyway because Linux on my Surface Pro works brilliantly and I still retain access to Windows 8.

Specifically, which ones? Transmission, qbittorrent, rtorrent, ktorrent, EiskaltDC, ncurses dc, dc-qt, LinuxDCPP, gstreamer, mencoder, ffmpeg, handbrake (CLI and GUI), imagemagick, exifutils, md5sum, etc are all there on ARM...

Edited by Geezy, Mar 12 2014, 7:35pm :

Nothing so mainstream. These must all be available in the repository anyway. Nope, lots of utils I needed. IIRC netpbm on ARM was crap. MNG tools. aria. I remember mkvtoolnix giving me real problems. Recompiling nzbget was a nightmare and kept failing. Tried a couple of xmp manipulation utils (forget the names) that kept crashing. Some things did work fine of course. Perhaps the ones I had issues with work fine or at least better now or there are decent alternatives. Like I said, it's been a while and I can no longer test or am interested in any case. Everything is super stable and works exactly as expected on all my x86 Linux machines now, be it PCs or tablets.

Don't know whether you tested them all and to what extent. Anyway doesn't matter in the least. There are others too, quite obscure or niche ones that aren't available even in the x86 Linux repos. Can't be arsed to list 'em all. Point is, when demand for full Linux distros on ARM increases the supply will follow. Currently I'd say almost no-one (including Linux devs) uses them compared to x86 Linux. Android is no doubt where all the Linux development is concentrated on ARM, followed by Chrome OS. Perhaps one day we'll see all the distros having ARM ports available.

Geezy said,
I tire of your games, you'll never be satisfied.
I didn't know we were playing, and is it your job to satisfy me? I never asked for help and my current Linux setup serves me just fine, no thanks to you. Feel free to buy and use whatever works best for you. I'm not trying to sell you anything, you don't have to feel the overwhelming need to convince me of anything either, 'mkay? Cheers, I'm done here.

I wasn't, of course it's not my job, you were just denying facts and no response is good enough. Whatever, I don't care if you choose to feign doubt and be ignorant.

Geezy said,
Whatever, I don't care if you choose to feign doubt and be ignorant.
Deny facts? Cool, I'll say the same to you and sign off. Not my job to educate people either.

What facts have you put forth? I only saw allegations and denial. You don't even know what you're doing, randomly downloading things from sourceforge and expecting them to work, probably without the right dependencies installed, or the proper source headers installed, or even using the right commands to compile, no wonder compiling failed. Go through the package manager next time, you'll have much better luck. They're in the repositories of the respective ARM distros. probably used to the Windows mentality of downloading random binaries and expecting everything to work like magic. That's what package managers are for. If you're downloading random things, they're not registered with the package manager and probably not installed correctly, a lot of the stuff you try and run probably isn't aware of the other software you downloaded and didn't register through the package manager. You're just creating the Linux version of DLL hell on your own system.

The only way binaries would be guaranteed to work if you download them randomly and put them on your system is if the person who compiled them chose to hard link every dependency to the binary (as is done with OS X binaries) which effectively ships all of the dependencies in the binary itself instead of relying on the proper stuff to already be installed on your system (which is why the Linux binaries for Firefox is so huge if you just download them from Mozilla instead of through your package manager).

It's fine if you don't know what you're doing, but don't claim that if it didn't work for you it's not possible.

Edited by Geezy, Mar 13 2014, 4:04am :

Anyone can tell who's in denial. I've been working with x86 Linux for ages so I expect things to work the same way on the ARM version too. You can go on arguing till the cows come come as if you know what I was or wasn't doing, what my expertise level is or isn't, doesn't matter in the least. Do yourself a favor and instead of making stupid assumptions how about you stick to what works for you and try not to dispense unsolicited advice?

No idea what you're doing wrong, could be any of the above. I don't know enough about your particular situation. You said yourself you're getting stuff off of sourceforge, who knows what distro you're using and if the file paths are the same and if the make file accounts for that, etc. Distros aren't required to follow any particular guidelines. Just go through the package manager. If it's not there for your ARM distro, you should take a look at something that is better supported. I recommend Debian, they have the largest library and it's all vetted for compatibility.

Geezy said,
No idea what you're doing wrong, could be any of the above. I don't know enough about your particular situation.
Precisely, and let me repeat, I did not ask for help from you. How about we end this here while things are still on a relatively even keel and move on? Agree?

Sure, just glad you found what works for you, it's a shame your ARM experience wasn't what you wanted, hope you didn't waste money on hardware you couldn't use.

Nope, got it from someone for testing, gave it back. Will revisit in future for sure (planning an RPi project) but no need right now. If it was possible on an iPad to run Linux natively without chroot I'd get started right now but sadly the existing projects still haven't managed to break Apple's stranglehold on the device.