Shared publicly  - 
Running Android Apps on your Chromebook isn't a dream anymore. You'll get to do this later this fall.

The team has several apps working great today, like Vine, Flipboard, and Evernote, and plan to thoughtfully grow this list over time. The good news is that you can nominate your apps for consideration at so that the team knows where to concentrate their efforts.
남종우's profile photoAlaa Sharaf's profile photoJeremy “Diego SanNef” GELANOR's profile photoSumit Grover's profile photo
Very nice work ! I think a lot of people don't know the investment and the energy spent on this feature !
Do you think that one day, we could have a video player like for example VLC for Android on Chromebook ?
I'd like to see Google Play Newsstand running on my Chromebox. Exiting development, looking forward to this later in the year along with the implementation of material design into the Google Chrome apps.
I hope +VLC is seeing this :-P
Even skype or Office would be great. With this, Chrome OS can expend much faster. I hope the porting from Android to Chrome OS is dev friendly or they won't be very motivated. 
This is nice - and I commend the efforts. But my preference is for native apps for Chrome OS - not ports or emulations. How well are Android apps received that are merely ports from iOS?
Wait, I'm confused by the "nominate your app" thing. Are they manually porting the apps themselves? I kind of assumed that this feature was basically building ART into ChromeOS.
Hi +François Beaufort will this work on all existing Chromebooks? Or is my old Acer c710 out of luck? I would understand if it won't be supported, but i really wan't to know.
+Ricky Olivares Google published something some months back about how many months a Chromebook will get updates for. I think it was around two years or something similar.
This is great, but would be immensely easier if Android and Chrome were built on the same platform. 
+Dominick DeVito they are partially (Linux and language runtime and various C/C++ libraries) but the details serve different goals. Android's under the hood stuff seems to have already become like a universal OS kind of thing.

Android offers APIs to scale your apps design to laptop/desktop style devices fairly easily but lacks a desktop workflow and apps are not made with one in mind. Likewise many web apps are not exactly optimized for non PC like hardware and user experiences.
I want a Google Play Newsstand app for Chromebooks
I would like to vote for NO Android Apps running on Chrome OS.  I like Chrome OS the way it is.
+François Beaufort, I'm with +Kiril Vatev: I thought this meant basically any app installed on my phone I'd be able to access in my ChromeOS environment. Are you telling us the big announcement was merely that Android apps can be ported more easily to Chrome packaged apps??

+Trever Nightingale The ability for users with Android devices to access their apps in ChromeOS has absolutely zero impact on your ability to continue using ChromeOS as you like it. Take your poorly considered trolling elsewhere, please.
Wouldn't it then be possible to run chrome for android on chrome os? 
+Travis Sexton the ability of users to install software on the system has profound implications for the security of the device itself and the networks on which the device sits. The ability is a radical departure from what Chrome OS promises schools, libraries, corporate IT departments, home networks, etc. I'm quite sure my comment was very well considered.

Chrome OS was designed with a very specific vision in mind and installing Android Apps on the device drives a steak through the heart of that vision, depending on the implementation. Even just the heavier OS payload if the implementation requires the android java runtime be signed onboard impacts everyone, regardless of what they do or how they lock the machine down. 
+Trever Nightingale You're making assumptions that are very likely false. Android apps have to be ported to ChromeOS to work, which suggests that in practice they'll be negligibly different from existing ChromeOS apps. I'd understand your hesitation if your assumptions were correct; I just don't think they are.
If we could get this in regular desktop Chrome it would be a huge win. 
+Travis Sexton I hope you are right, but I don't share your total confidence that my fears (not assumptions) are likely incorrect. It was certainly a weird way to announce things if all this is is ports to HTML5 style packaged apps with access to the Chrome APIs, for example. One thing seems fair to say: Google's customer communication could certainly be better. No information yet on what are the technical underpinnings of what we saw demo'd. You say things have to be ported. Where do you get that from? In fact, Sundar was clear that porting should require very few changes. How one goes from Java to a packaged web app without a miraculous tool set or a massive set of changes I'll never guess. I don't see how the available information isn't cause for concern.
Bought an ultrabook half year ago.. now i want a ChromeBook. Is there a way where i can install ChromeOS on my Ultrabook?
Marcel: Chromium; Chrome Os is bound to Chromebooks only.
I'm guessing they have a JavaVM running as NativeClient in Chrome. That would probably be the simplest and most secure way of running Android apps in Chrome. 
+Tais Plougmann Hansen Why would it be JavaVM? It makes more sense to include a variant of ART, or even an embedded subset of ART for each app.

Keep in mind that ART and Dalvik runs on MIPS, x86, and ARM.
+Thanh Nguyen A JavaVM, not the JavaVM. :) I was of course thinking of ART as the obvious VM to run as NativeClient.
+Christopher Mason I think that bringing Skype to Chrome OS through this technique (whatever it is) is a terrific idea. It would bring a lot of value to chromebooks and chromeboxes, filling some gaps that still exist.

I didn't see the full keynote yet, so I'm wondering whether it is really independant chrome apps or if it needs your Android smartphone to be nearby.
+Tais Plougmann Hansen ART/Dalvik aren't JavaVMs ever. Sire, we code in Java, but that gets converted from Java bytecode to Dalvik bytecode before it lands in the apk. So it would still make no sense for a JavaVM when Android doesn't even use one. ;)
+Thanh Nguyen I was under the impression that Dalvik and ART was a class of Java VM. But no matter, we're thinking of the same implementation in Chrome. 
Whatsapp please!! I know hangouts lets me reply from any device, but if my friends still use whatsapp this saves me a lot of time in not unlocking my phone and typing in a small screen instead of with a full keyboard! 
Where do I download that Flipboard app please?
+Tais Plougmann Hansen It's a little confusing since the only Dalvik bytecode compiler takes it from Java, but it is possible to code your own Dalvik compiler that can take something else, like Dart or Go. There's no major exigence, of course.
Aside from the odd messaging app and phone mirroring (and perhaps one day games) is this really that useful? Most android apps are just substitutes for a good Web browser anyway. I'd rather just have a better browsing experience - let's make better, more responsive web apps that can be written once and run everywhere, instead of letting devs get lazy and just port an android app.
+Jack Gibson I'd rather have a Chrome App I can use offline than a web app. Web apps are hampered by having to be compatible with other browsers that don't keep up with progress- the polyfills alone drag down performance on Firefox, IE and Safari.

The one reason why you might port an Android app instead of writing a new one is to avoid learning NaCl, yet attemping to achieve higher performance or more resource intensive operations.
I don't get it. Why the nomination process and handpicking, and selective work? Wasn't this just supposed to work, with a window size equivalent to the phone or tablet layout the app dictates? Poor communication with this one at I/O, and far less interesting if it requires such efforts on a per-app basis.
We would be very keen to get JuiceSSH running on Chromebooks. It's something that is requested frequently by our users.
+David Metcalfe i guess implementing a full blown 100% android compatible runtime over nacl is too much to do so they want to push a first implementation with certified apps and improve this with chrome continuous uptade mechanism. ChromeOS is starting to get really confusing for developer thought : html5, NACL, dart (through dartium, but I'm not sure this is widely available yet) and now android framework's java.
+JuiceSSH That would be awesome. I still can't find an SSH client for ChromeOS that gets me into my EC2 box. JuiceSSH is a thing of beauty.
+Ritish Oemraw this doesnt work because whatsapp based on your mobile number. It can't be used by two devices because u've only one number. This is the thing why WhatsApp sucks
+Marcel Soika WhatsApp works off your mac adress, spoofing that allows it to work on multiple devices
Can't wait to try these.
What I don't like though is that this breaks the idea of simplicity and that everything is web based on Chrome OS.
Yesss! Finally I'll be able to operate all of these shitty chat apps with a real keyboard!
Why all the outcry for Skype? I use Hangouts from Australia to the UK, Ghana and Aus itself and I've always preferred it
+Alastair Taylor If you have friends, family, and associates that willingly started using Hangouts, that's great. It's not the same for most though.
to be honest, we shouldn't even want more "messaging" services like hangouts and whatsapp and skype.  we should really be pushing for a unified service that runs on everything, i.e., webrtc.
+J. Weeks WebRTC is a specification and bunch of APIs, not a messenger service…

Also, we can’t really have a unified messenger service, since every features needs a support on the client side. So you got two choices: have one set of messenger features set for the whole word, or make a core features working everywhere, then each client can support additional features.

Jabber is an experiment of the latter. It became a nightmare if you wanted to do something more than what was in the core specification: textual messaging. You can do video calls between Jabber users only if both clients use the same way for doing video calls. Same for encryption, draw, image share, multi‐user rooms…and it’s not even comprehensive.

So, in the end, you finish with a bunch of clients, each supporting only its set of features with its ways. Only core messaging was interoperable. Can we call that unified?
+Lunix Watt, yes, but using a webrtc service within a browser, like, is a hell of a lot simpler than asking people to create a google/msft/apple/whatsapp/facebook account just to video chat.
As a fan of Chrome OS, and Linux in general, I love this. I am a former Chromebook owner. When I decided to move on from my Samsung S 5 550 Chromebook, I told a friend that the day a Chromebook could run android apps, I would buy another one. I am looking forward to fulfilling that promise. I don't know this, but I think there are a ton of people like me.
SMS through hangouts is all I need
That's kind of a letdown. I figured all Android apps could be used in Chromebooks automatically, not that each of them would have to be converted.
wow! ChromeTab is coming...
That makes Chromebooks finally useful.
Skype a must. Love Hangouts and use it, but much of the world already on Skype. Even in the U.S. many businesses default to Skype for job interviews. 
I really hope they bring over games like Order and Chaos & Heroes of Order and Chaos
Add a comment...