Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Portables News Apple

Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously! 325

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the because-you-can dept.
Thinkcloud writes "A user named Hexxeh has posted a video online of the iPad running Google's upcoming Chrome OS. Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state, but it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook. Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously!

Comments Filter:
  • Music? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @08:45AM (#33806778)

    Why do the creators of these tech videos always add annoying music where silence or narration would be better?

    • I liked the music. You can silence it easy enough if you don't. Narration might have been useful, as would a better angle of the camera or an actual description on the video. I guess it's part of the mystery in revealing this. I'm wondering though -- is this an iPad running Chromium or an iPad running Chrome OS as TFA/TFS claims? It seems as if the former would be far easier to pull off (jailbreak it and get a chromium build running). And even if you buy into the whole the-browser-is-the-OS thing, surely it

  • by m1ndrape (971736) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @08:47AM (#33806798) Homepage
  • Now that's really pushing the envelope.
  • it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

    You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jschottm (317343)

      You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers

      The iPad is not a computer, it's a device. Apple has a much different attitude about their devices than their computers.

      There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it.

      You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?

      • The iPad is not a computer, it's a device.

        As I and apparently several other Slashdot users understand it, Apple's iPad is an appliance intended to replace a computer. Consider that Apple has chosen not make a MacBook smaller than 13"; instead of a netbook, it makes an appliance.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      ...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

      Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rjstanford (69735)

        ...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

        The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

        Now does that sound like a sustainable business process to you?

        • Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @10:03AM (#33807642) Homepage Journal

          The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

          No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

          There's a lot of room between that "try anything funny and we'll brick your phone".

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ceoyoyo (59147)

            Which is basically what Apple does. The ONE incident where jailbroken phones were bricked involved not just a jailbreak but some extra "weird-ass system level shit" (as the GP put it), and Apple said ahead of time that the update might brick some jailbroken phones. If you a) updated and b) didn't bother to restore your phone to factory settings before you did, you kind of deserved it.

            Oh, and by "brick" they meant "temporarily disable until you went into a store and we fixed it for you for free."

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lymond01 (314120)

            No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

            How is that not what they're saying? You buy the phone, jailbreak it, do whatever you want with it. It'll work like that for the foreseeable future. If you choose to "update" your phone with their OS again, of course it could stop your jailbreak from working since the jailbreak was written specifically for the previous OS. It's like writing an application for Ubuntu that works on a very spec

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Fnkmaster (89084)

          Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here [gizmodo.com]), AND they have refused to replace or service obviously broken hardware simply because the software was jailbroken or the phone unlocked and running on an unapproved carrier. Go to some of the iPhone forums, you'll read plenty of threads of users restoring their software to stock state so that they can bring a broken piece of hardware to the store to get serviced with

          • Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:5, Informative)

            by PipsqueakOnAP133 (761720) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @12:36PM (#33810800)

            Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),

            Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.

            Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices.
            Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.

            In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up.
            Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.

            http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick [google.com]

      • Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:4, Informative)

        by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:45AM (#33807398) Homepage Journal

        ...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

        Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

        You read it that way, I read it as "hey, if you're going to install new firmware and then also install our firmware updater, we aren't responsible if it screws something up. I mean, we haven't even seen your code... how can we possibly know ahead of time if our updater won't wipe some important part of the memory of your homebrew firmware? Look, if you're going to modify the guts of your phone, it's all your responsibility if it fails. Don't come crying to us."

        At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update? That'd be like installing OSX on a computer and then running a Win7 security update. It could do nothing, or it could wipe out the kernel.

        • At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update?

          To retain access to the iTunes Store. Consider the case of another appliance maker that also calls its appliances' operating system IOS: whenever Nintendo releases a Wii Menu update to close the hole that allows installation of the current version of Homebrew Channel, it also updates Wii Shop Channel and blocks access from older versions of Wii Shop Channel.

          • At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update?

            To retain access to the iTunes Store. Consider the case of another appliance maker that also calls its appliances' operating system IOS: whenever Nintendo releases a Wii Menu update to close the hole that allows installation of the current version of Homebrew Channel, it also updates Wii Shop Channel and blocks access from older versions of Wii Shop Channel.

            ... and? This is like saying you hackintoshed a Dell to put OSX on it, but still want access to Windows System Updates. I mean, sure, you can want that, but it's neither Apple, Microsoft, nor Dell's responsibility to make sure you can have it.

            • Dual boot (Score:3, Insightful)

              by tepples (727027)

              This is like saying you hackintoshed a Dell to put OSX on it, but still want access to Windows System Updates.

              Of course someone who installs a dual boot between Windows 7 and Mac OS X will want updates for Windows 7. That's all the Homebrew Channel on Wii is: a dual boot environment. If Microsoft denied updates to Windows 7 users who have multiple operating systems installed, several countries' competition regulators would step in.

      • As far as I remember Apple has always said installing other firmware may cause problems and may brick your phone. In the one incident I remember users that jail-broke the phone and then tried to install an iOS update made their phones unusable. But it wasn't really bricked as they could recover if they followed a series of steps which including installing an older version of iOS.
    • Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spottedkangaroo (451692) * on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:17AM (#33807094) Homepage

      On the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone. It took new rules to allow unlocking, for instance. You might argue that the locking had more to do with contracts with ATT than anything else... Maybe you have a point here.

      But ... How about Project Gutenberg? The Kama Sutra? I think Apple has rightfully earned their reputation as a nanny mothership. They may allow alternate OSes. We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

      If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Theaetetus (590071)

        We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

        See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps, and you can even distribute them using the ad hoc distribution method. The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of. Complaining about this is like complaining that you can't walk into Best Buy and put your own software on their shelves without their approval. They're under no obligation to provide you with shelf space and payment at their registers.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by plumby (179557)
          Refusing to provide storage and distribution is quite clearly [i]not[/i] the only thing that Apple do to try to limit this. As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone. Officially, this voids your licence agreement with Apple, and although to my knowledge they've never enforced this they regularly do as much as they can to the device to try to prevent j
          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by Theaetetus (590071)

            As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone.

            Go back to my earlier post. Notice how I used an odd phrase, "ad hoc distribution"? That was on purpose. You can most certainly run non-Apple approved apps that aren't web apps without jailbreaking your phone. It also doesn't void your license agreement with Apple.

            The rest of your post is moot in view of the above and therefore invalid.

            • Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @10:40AM (#33808140)

              I'm a registered iOS developer, but even I have to agree with the principle of your parent post. Ad Hoc is a way to get betas out to testers before submitting your app to Apple. It is not a way to get your app to a random and/or unlimited number of users.

        • by Rhaban (987410)

          See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps

          Being able to do something after jailbreaking your phone doesn't mean apple allows it.

          And a number of things are just allowed by Apple because there are laws against them not allowing it.

    • by Tom (822)

      You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that.

      On the contrary, it's providing Boot Camp and (at least for windows) hardware drivers exactly for that purpose.

      Nevertheless, the iPad and iPhone are locked-down devices, so in their particular cases, I think the submitter is still right.

  • Robust *is* cutting-edge.

  • by cob666 (656740) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:05AM (#33806964) Homepage
    I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.
    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      I don't know. Though my tone was definitely different several years ago, its come to a point now where I can't think of anything more useless than a computer with no internet connection. Yes, I know, you can do a lot of stuff without it. I been using computers for nearly 25 years, since long before networked connections were common. Still, today, even doing those tasks I find myself constantly needing to access something online.

      Everyone wont' share this opinion, but there is some merit to the fact that

      • by vlm (69642)

        The main downside I see to "web-apps" and such is the constant possibility that specific companies will go out of business. With offline apps you can keep using software long after the developer folds

        True, but almost infinitely more likely is the dev upgrades the app from version 4 to version 5. Ooops, you have version 5. I guess you need to pay, again.

        How many times has my wife bought "discus" the (otherwise excellent) dvd label editor? How many times has she had to buy "garage sale"? Thats the business model to avoid at all costs.

        • by tepples (727027)

          True, but almost infinitely more likely is the dev upgrades the app from version 4 to version 5. Ooops, you have version 5. I guess you need to pay, again.

          Why? Does the software expire? Or do the upgrades happen at the same time as major Windows upgrades (such as 98 to XP, or XP to 7)?

    • by vlm (69642)

      I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

      Humorously, you posted that in an article about the ipad, since its arrival mine has never been out of range of my wifi router. Apple also sells a 3G model that is always "in range" of the internet.

      • by NekSnappa (803141)
        But if you were to leave the range of your router. Or go out of the country where you really don't want to be using your 3g radio. You can still use the apps installed on the device.
    • by ProppaT (557551)

      I get ChromeOS. I don't get it on a tablet. It's obviously focused towards netbooks and pc's where you want an "instant on" option. It's designed to be used like a desktop browser...with a mouse or track pad. Tablets should have a mobile OS designed around touch screens.

      • by slim (1652)

        I get ChromeOS. I don't get it on a tablet. It's obviously focused towards netbooks and pc's where you want an "instant on" option. It's designed to be used like a desktop browser...with a mouse or track pad. Tablets should have a mobile OS designed around touch screens.

        I agree with this, and had kind of assumed that ChromeOS would have a tablet flavour with those kind of features -- multitouch zoom and drag, a good onscreen keyboard etc. The Wikipedia page on Chrome doesn't mention any of this -- but I would be very surprised if it was missing from the first official Google release of ChromeOS.

    • Can't think of anything more useless than a computer that doesn't have internet connection.

    • by cgenman (325138)

      You've clearly never owned a Tandy.

  • Wait? What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver (213637) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:06AM (#33806982)

    Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

    A dual booting iPad with Chrome OS would essentially give you ... a second browser.

    I'm not sure what there is to get excited about. The iPad one is pretty damn good, also uses WebKit and you get a bunch of other functionality thrown in for free - some of which is rather useful - without having to be permanently connected to the internet.

  • by koterica (981373) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:06AM (#33806984) Journal
    Didn't read TFA- but the summery is worth responding to in its own right.

    Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

    Apple isn't going for cutting edge as much as they are going for reliable. iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product, they want it to work, quickly and beautifully, out of the box.
    In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product

      Depends on what you mean by "configure". If you mean downloading apps, and re-arranging my icons? Lots of time spent so far. If you mean almost any other form of "configure", you're absolutely correct -- not something I want to do on that device.

      In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

      Not all of Slashdot, but the number of iPad users from Slashdot is also not zero.

      And, I have to say ... kudos to this guy for getting something else running on an iPad,

  • The article states that it "reacts flawlessly to user inputs", but it's still doing mouse emulation for the clicks and it looks like he has some trouble clicking on some buttons.

    It's also very sluggish looking (despite the hyper music) which isn't too promising for something that's suppose to be a light weight operating system. Looks more like he just made a Chrome app for the iPad.

  • not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

    Since when did Apple disallow other OSes from running on its hardware? Back in the day, I recall Windows NT 4 running natively, and I've since seen XP and Linux running on Apple hardware with no modifications to the machine.

    • by Amouth (879122)

      NT never ran native on Apple hardware.. there where 3 flavors

      x86
      Alpha
      PPC

      some people belived the PPC would work on Apple hardware but it wouldn't due to Apple using it's own implemntation.

      while MacOS supported PReP and later CHRP - the apple hardware didn't.. meaning that you could have in theory installed MacOS on the same IBM PPC box that NT would go on.. but you would not have been able to install NT or AIX on the Apple PPC box.

      are are reports of some apple hardware being CHRP compliant but you would be v

    • by puto (533470)
      You mean you recall NT. 4.0 running natively on Power PC architecture, not natively on macs, but on machines made by Motorola and IBM.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:10AM (#33807028) Homepage

    Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows." What's more, they encourage dual booting with their bootcamp.

    Now while it would be unexpected for Apple to endorse alternate OSes for iPad, it's not fair to say it's not in their playbook. This would be especially true if, for some reason, Win7 based tablets began to catch on. (I seriously doubt they will, but still!)

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:22AM (#33807162)
      But the iPad is not a true computer. Its not like their Macs but instead just a device like an iPod or Apple TV. You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad? There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume. Masquerading the iPad as a full computer helps them in their aims and that is to have people locked-in just like Microsoft does. There is a reason why you can't just hook an iPhone up to a computer and use it as a mass storage device like 99.999% of similarly capable phones, there is a reason why iP(o/a)ds can't play many standard, open codecs, there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking. Apple wants people to install iTunes, use iTunes, buy things from the iTunes/App stores, and Apple makes a boatload off of things that they normally couldn't get a cut off of.
      • You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad?

        Technically, what they said was "if you replace the firmware on your phone and then be an idiot and install our firmware updater which assumes certain files are in certain places, then don't come crying to us if it doesn't work."

        There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume.

        Or it could be that a "full operating system" doesn't really work well with a touch-based UI.

        there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking.

        Google "ad hoc distribution". What you meant was "there are reasons why Apple refuses to waste storage and bandwidth costs in their store for apps that they don't want to host."

    • Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows."

      Since when are poor performance and the lack of solid drivers signs of running "better?" The main high point of MacBooks, the very good battery life, is cut in half when running Windows, as Anandtech shows every few months.

    • Apple "allows" the iPad to run other OS's just as much as android device makers "allow" it on their devices. Meaning you can do it if you hack it on and people will laugh in your face if you bitch about bricking it and losing your warranty. No mainstream company actively encourages or makes it easy to install anything other than what the portable device came with. To single out Apple for scorn just shows an irrational pettiness.

  • Unless there is some "OMG I Absolutely Have To Have This" Application which is avilable only on Chrome OS, 99.999% of iPad users will see no reason to even think about it. Lets face if, MS Windows had some horrible usability problems and still most of the people never bother to look around for something better. And in case of iOS vs. Chrome - at best we have toss up.
    • by slim (1652)

      Let's get real -- this is a hacker demonstrating their own L33T SK1LLZ, and ChromiumOS's portability. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that a typical end user would want to replace iOS with ChromeOS on an iPad.

      What it does mean is that a hacker/developer who wants to try out ChromeOS on a touchscreen, and happens to own an iPad, can do so. If you want to develop for both platforms, well now you can test on both with less outlay on hardware.

  • Just wondering... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChaoticCoyote (195677) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:13AM (#33807056) Homepage
    Why is Chrome OS considered "cutting edge"?
    • Because most people aren't old enough to remember terminal clients, which is what ChromeOS essentially is. No native apps, etc.

      If anything, Chrome OS is a downgrade from iOS.
      • by slim (1652)

        Because most people aren't old enough to remember terminal clients, which is what ChromeOS essentially is.

        ... and if you were to show those "most people" an old terminal app alongside a rich web app, they'd have no idea why you consider them to be "essentially" the same. ... and if you were to show those "most people" a native app alongside a rich web app, they'd be hard pushed to know which was which.

        By "rich web app" I mean something like Google Docs.

        It's all very well to shout "IT'S NO DIFFERENT TO A MAINFRAME" every time cloud computing is mentioned -- but in terms of user experience it's a world of differe

    • by Americano (920576)

      Because it's incomplete & unreleased. Until it's released, we can dream of all the AWESOME features it's going to have, like free, on-demand hookers and a beer tap.

      Then we'll actually see it and realize that, functionally, it's just another web browser. But single-use devices are *awesome* when they're open source. Not like those locked-down one-trick ponies Apple sells at all.

    • Because you can cut yourself if you use it.

  • Why wouldn't users love that?

    Probably because adding Chrome OS to the iPad doesn't add anything.

    I'm all in favor of running something other than iOS on an iPad, but that's because I think it could be running a more robust OS (OS X, Linux, or Windows, to name a few). Running Chrome OS isn't much better than running iOS, and probably worse, because there aren't as many apps.

  • Emperor Jobs will surely smite you for such heresy!
  • what the fuck are you on about ?

  • by Tom (822)

    Why wouldn't users love that?

    Because (non-geek) users care mostly about being able to use the thing. Freedom, Free Software, "cutting edge" (aka "half of the stuff doesn't work yet) and other concerns like that take a distant second to turning it on and having whatever it is you need ready and waiting in front of you.

    Geek people simply don't get what users want, and that's why "Linx on the desktop" won't happen for another 10 years. And that's why the iPhod, not the Nomad, is the #1 MP3 player. Why iPhones catch the headlines, not Andr

  • Like Liberace, Apple will cry all the way to the bank.
  • cool hack though, especially if you don't partake in Apple's elitism.
  • Why wouldn't users love that? Depends on the class of user. Remember, nerds. Everybody else isn't like us. We should remember that when we have our rose-tinted specs on.
  • Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state

    I am unfamiliar with the term "Chromium state". If more open source code was available in a Chromium state, could we install it on ipads? Is there something about this state that makes it easier to compile the source code for ipads?

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...