Talk:Google Chrome for Android

This article was nominated for merging with Google Chrome on 31 July 2020. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was merged.

Release history

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like the Release history is related to the desktop Chrome, and not Chrome for Android. 213.57.113.103 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Pulled directly in, it looks. While for much of the web platform features, releases starting from v25 things are fairly consistent across desktop and mobile, but not everything else is. For anyone that wants to start the real version history for Chrome on Android (starts at 18, then 25, then 26, 27....) I would recommend looking at http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Chrome%20Beta%20for%20Android --Paul.irish (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge to Google Chrome

CLOSED

Reject merging of article(s) as per wp:consensus. Old discussion. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently an editor proposed to merge this article to Google Chrome. As Android version is pretty distinct in UI, technical aspects, etc, I believe this merger to be a bad idea. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the original proposer, I obviously support this idea. In a merge, I propose that Chrome for Android have its own Infobox and section. That should provide all the benefits of this article, while reducing a myriad of redundant data & code bits and eliminating the problem of needing to update both articles every time a change is made to the Android version. Further, I think it's highly inappropriate to have a distinct page for a single Chrome platform. There doesn't need to be an iOS, OSX, or Linux platform page, for example, so there shouldn't be one for Android, either. The fact that multiple infoboxes are allowed in a single article would keep the streamlined updates of the recently added LSR templates and minimize any possible difficulties of a merge. In fact, I believe we can keep ALL of the information in this article and cleanly transfer it to the main Google Chrome article with just a few minutes worth of work.

And if it's all in one article, then all the information about Google Chrome is located in a single, well-organized location. And if a user wants to learn about the Android version, they can simply click the section on Android, and it'll all be there. Seems far more efficient to me.
- Smike (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of now these browsers have separate source code, so any update lands either here or there. That said, Google Chrome with its 110,231 bytes is too long and should be split per WP:SIZERULE anyway. Splitting out a separate (but similarly named) browser is a natural choice in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per size reason above, no merge. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, they should be merged, especially as the versions are now comparable. Only size prevents. Widefox; talk 10:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the unique content in this article is one section and all versions are released within one day of each other. There is a little difference between Chrome for Android and Chrome for desktop as there is between Linux Chrome and Windows Chrome. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

retired features

typing on mobile as that is all I have access now, pardon.

this article list several features that are in sundown mode (moved to the undocumented about:flag) not publicly implemented (same about:flag) or killed (eg. plug in click to play) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.37.224 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Logo

Can we get the Logo updated? It was changed a few months ago to conform with Android 5.0 guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is MIPS fully supported - seems so [and Chrome/ium a requirement in Android?] [Also ARMv8-A (64-bit ARM) support?]

"Starting with Chrome 31, Google has enabled the Portable Native Client (PNaCl, pronounced ‘pinnacle’) by default. [..] PNaCl offers HTML5 apps native-level performance across all three supported CPU architectures, including MIPS. [..] But the good news doesn’t stop there: Android 4.4 ‘KitKat’, including the new Chrome-based WebView and the new Android Run Time (ART), is already up and running on MIPS CPUs, thanks to full Google native support for MIPS in Android."[1]

[This doesn't say 64-bit or 32-bit, I assume 32-bit, "full" might not need 64-bit. What I do not know, might this only be WebViews - that are required for "full" Android support. There isn't a huge leap to full Chrome support (I'm not sure it is required in Android), but it has Flash also (still?).]

About V8 (Android is a "Linux system"..): "runs on Windows XP and Vista, Mac OS X 10.5+, and Linux systems that use IA-32, ARM or MIPS processors."[2]

MIPS has not always been supported in Chrome [but MIPS has been supported by Android (for how long?)]: "A version supporting MIPS-based processors (like the XBurst CPU in the very popular Ainol tablets) would be great. MIPS-based devices running ICS are being sold everyday by the thousands, and it's a growing user base that IMO Google shouldn't disregard. :) 1:55 PM, March 11, 2012"[3]

What I could find - hard to confirm Chrome for sure..: "This is a port of the Google V8 Javascript engine to the MIPS architecture. We have the support of the Google V8 team and our code has been accepted into the official V8 repository.

Google V8 release branches 3.7 and later fully support MIPS.

However, the MIPS development takes place here."[4]

Older discussion: "I work for MIPS, and we do have a MIPS port of v8. We have fully supported v8 in Android, and also run standalone on Linux. I do not know of anyone who has used v8 in a MIPS build of Chromium"[5]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Google Chrome icon (September 2014).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Google Chrome on Android.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge - I'm surprised this was a separate article. First, Google Chrome for Android is not unique from Google Chrome especially when its availability on mobile isn't just to Chrome. Google updates the app in a 6-week cycle and that goes with mobile versions as well. I know this merge proposal was before a lot of synchronicity was put to Chrome across all platforms. – The Grid (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Strongly Support CampWood (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk:Google Chrome § 2020 merge proposal

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.