Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Sep 2013 15:22 UTC
Google

The new apps look and behave much like the native apps you find on Windows and OS X. They're built using web technologies, but also with Chrome-specific code that means they won't be able to run on other web browsers - they're truly Chrome apps. They can exist outside of your browser window as distinct apps, work offline, and sync across devices and operating systems. They can also access your computer's GPU, storage, camera, ports, and Bluetooth connection. Chrome Apps are, for now, only available through Chrome on Windows or Chrome OS on a Chromebook. Mac users will have to wait another six weeks before their version of Chrome will be updated.

This is very important for Chrome OS - since this means it can now have applications outside of the browser. Google's plans for Chrome OS suddenly became a whole lot clearer.

Order by: Score:
Clever or hypocritical evil?
by jared_wilkes on Fri 6th Sep 2013 15:28 UTC
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Yes, they want to break, fork, and dominate the web. I thought that was bad?

Edited 2013-09-06 15:29 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Clever or hypocritical evil?
by bnolsen on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:19 UTC in reply to "Clever or hypocritical evil?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

It seems to me like google is just using this platform to break MS's domination of office possibly even on the corporate desktop. Unless I am wrong google is just using the salt and pepper interface in chrome to provide the platform for these applications. No word on the cost of these suites, nor on file compatibility. But they will have to be compatible with existing applictaions to get any traction.

Has anyone seen how inexpensive some of these chromeos devices are?

I'm just not seeing how a new competitor to MS office and other MS locked in applications is a bad thing. People can still run libreoffice if they like, or go spend the many $$$'s to buy a copy of ms office.

Edited 2013-09-06 19:22 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Clever or hypocritical evil?
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Clever or hypocritical evil?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

It is always extrange that when Google is getting beat up for its unethical behavior some one always bring MS to the topic, this is not about MS, it is about Google trying to lock in the web.

Reply Score: 1

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

lock in the web? it's about using chrome as a platform for delivery of applications that may run independent from an internet connection if desired. Any developer can target chrome in addition to windows, macos, etc, so the api is apparently not closed.

In the context offered, really how different is this from what java promised to do? the chrome browser just becomes the virtual machine.

Edited 2013-09-06 19:27 UTC

Reply Score: 7

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

how different is this from what java promised to do?

I don't remember java forcing me to have a G+ account to install an application, just like Google forces you to get one in order to install one.

Reply Score: 8

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

is it possible to side load chrome apps? that i honestly don't know.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

YOu can distribute your CRX files in any way you wish.

Reply Score: 3

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Really? Are they holding a gun to your head to use their tools?

Reply Score: 2

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Lol no, but don't try to sell the idea that this is with good intentions, because, guess what, you need to be logged in after you install the applications, is not enough to have an account to install them, you need to be logged in to use the applications, if you are not logged in it doesn't matter, you can't use it, the app launcher won't let you, it is pure tracking, what would they need you to be logged in to use a downloaded app? to track every thing you do in your own pc and lock you in, that is pure evil.

Edited 2013-09-07 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Why should I care if Google tracks me? I get a lot of value from them for the data I give them.

Reply Score: 0

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

lock in the web? it's about using chrome as a platform for delivery of applications that may run independent from an internet connection if desired. Any developer can target chrome in addition to windows, macos, etc, so the api is apparently not closed.

In the context offered, really how different is this from what java promised to do? the chrome browser just becomes the virtual machine


Actually, it's more like Flash in this regard. You offer up a browser plugin/extension API to give the dev capabilities that they can't normally achieve with HTML. 'It's a nice alternative to web apps', they say. 'It's not tied to just one platform', they say.

Then what happens when this new technology catches on? Devs start coding to this new 'standard', and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves. Instead of creating web apps, they're now creating 'native' apps that require Chrome to work.

Do you remember just a few years ago how you really couldn't get the full web experience without Flash? Do you REALLY want to go back to that, where half the websites you visit say 'this website requires Chrome for optimum' viewing? And when a new platform/OS is released, you hope and pray that Google ports Chrome over to it? And then you start getting shoddy support in platforms with a minority of users, like Linux. This looks to already be happening.

Personally, I don't really like Chrome all that much, so I hope this doesn't happen. If this had been MS or Apple's doing, people would be crying foul, and for good reason. So don't be fooled just becuase it's Google; they're a publically traded corporation, and thus will fuck you just as fast as MS or Apple will, although they might be a little more cunning about it, and sneak in the back door when you're least expecting it ;)

Reply Score: 7

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

I can actually buy this argument.

When it all comes down to it I think it depends on how much control google tries to maintain over chrome and the chrome api, and how rich/complex that api is internally.

If the chrome api is mostly a thin layer that abstracts away mostly OS calls and doesn't promise to provide the kitchen sink then that would make it less evil than something like flash that no one seems to have been able to properly reimplement (or mono/silverlight for that matter).

I know that at one point fltk was ported over to run on chrome NaCl which implied that NaCl itself was fairly low level (I would assume google chrome apps would be NaCl).

Edited 2013-09-06 21:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

all they are doing is providing an API for people to develop applications against Chrome which BTW will work on their Chrome OS Platform too so not like flash, more like if MS offered their APIs on OS X and Linux and built their tooling to allow software to be compiled against the API and run on all those platforms.

Reply Score: 3

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

They are not as innocent as that, under the hood they are trying to track you and lock you in to their products.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I like their products. I use their products. I choose to use their services as much as possible.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And when a new platform/OS is released, you hope and pray that Google ports Chrome over to it?

Or grab source for Chromium and port it over.

Reply Score: 3

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Don't remember ActiveX and how it locked in businesses for half a decade? Remember Google does NOT gets its money from you, YOU are the PRODUCT that Google harvests for the advertisers that are its customers.

So yeah,giving Google a way to lock users into Chrome, which will let them be as nasty as they wanna be with datamining because hey, you lose your apps if you don't agree ya know...yeah this is bad, VERY bad.

I'm just amazed how many here after having a half a decade of MSFT rule is will to hand rule over to yeat another Megacorp. Villain with god PR indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Clever or hypocritical evil?
by reduz on Sat 7th Sep 2013 15:36 UTC in reply to "Clever or hypocritical evil?"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

Put tinfoil hat down, what Google is doing is truly, truly amazing technically. Consider the following:

1) This is only meant for Web apps, but soon PNACL will be considered production ready.

2) This means that we will have truly cross platform apps, that run in a safe environment, that can be written in any language, run anywhere, that use standard APIs, and the implementation is open source.

3) This is way beyond what technologies like Java, Javascript, C#, etc. could do or were supposed to do. Imagine the big apps like Photoshop ported to this. Google's aim is to leave Operating Systems like Windows or OSX in the dust and make everything depend on the cloud, this is the missing piece of the puzzle. Yet, everything they make is opensource, so competitors can implement it if they wish.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Clever or hypocritical evil?
by kristoph on Sun 8th Sep 2013 18:50 UTC in reply to "Clever or hypocritical evil?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

All companies are generally sociopathic by the nature of their obligations to their shareholders. ( Calling them 'good' and 'evil' is an over simplification IMO ).

That said, there is nothing particularly negative about this action by Google. Google is simply using Chrome as a base platform to build apps upon. You install the apps from the internet and they use internet technologies but they won't realistically replace websites any more then Apple iOS or Android apps do.

Personally I think it would be awesome if we could build Android apps using the platform so hopefully google will make that possible in the future.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 15:31 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Vendor lock in at is finest.

Reply Score: 7

Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Fri 6th Sep 2013 15:53 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

I love how they are just pushing this out with no regard for the users wishes, I certainly don't want another application framework on my computer, I just wanted a browser.

Do no evil, indeed.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 6th Sep 2013 15:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by BluenoseJake"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

My personal definition of evil, doesn't include another application framework delivered at no cost, but YMMV.

I'm sure some may have had the same opinion when netscape introduced javascript.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by jared_wilkes on Fri 6th Sep 2013 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by BluenoseJake"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

My personal definition of evil, doesn't include another application framework delivered at no cost, but YMMV.


You can attempt to make it sound as innocuous as you want, but there's no decoupling the above with the fact that Google wants web developers to build apps that are non-standard, not supported by anyone other than Google.

Would you describe encouraging web developers to build apps that only work with Google products and based on absolutely no open standard whatsoever as not evil?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by rafaelluik on Fri 6th Sep 2013 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
rafaelluik Member since:
2010-10-06

Finally somebody who understood the situation!! I'm happy there's still some smart people around. Thank you!

BTW I'm running a blog to unmask the horrible intents of companies like Google regarding web standards if you're interested. http://theredvoice.tumblr.com

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Vanders on Fri 6th Sep 2013 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Would you describe encouraging web developers to build apps that only work with Google products and based on absolutely no open standard whatsoever as not evil?

It isn't evil. You know, murdering a person for you own amusement, that's evil. Ethnic cleansing, that's evil. Torturing a defenceless animal: evil.

Writing software...no, no I can't see how that compares to the above scenarios.

Companies may sometimes do things that are technically, ethnically or morally wrong, but evil? Not really.

I'm also a one man campaign for The Reclamation of the Words "Love" and "Hate".

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

By that logic Apple, Oracle and MS are as saint as Google, we know what evil is, and Google is evil.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Drumhellar on Fri 6th Sep 2013 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

By that logic Apple, Oracle and MS are as saint as Google, we know what evil is, and Google is evil.


Only if your requirements for sainthood are not murdering, torturing, or committing genocide.

Those seem like some pretty low requirements.

Reply Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, you're not the only one. I'll join in on that campaign.

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Ignoring a persons rights is evil. They are not just writing software, they are installing it silently, without asking permission.

controlling what runs on a computer I have bought is my right, and Google would be ignoring that, if I used chrome.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by bassbeast on Sat 7th Sep 2013 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

And if its just another Google spam install,like how they tie Chrome to unrelated tools like CCleaner?

I knew Google was evil the second they started using the same scummy tactics toolbar pushers use to get their numbers up.

Reply Score: 3

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

hyperbole.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by JAlexoid on Sat 7th Sep 2013 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And how are they controlling that, pray tell?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by bassbeast on Sun 8th Sep 2013 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Well there is using the spammer's trick of having a third party completely unrelated to Google to have a Chrome install as well as taking the default browser spot for one.

As for the second how about the fact you buy a "ChromeBook" and you have what WAS a bog standard X86 laptop that has been so locked down they you can ONLY install an alternative OS by going into "dev mode" and even after all that can you install any OS you want on YOUR laptop? Nope only one of a handful of Linux distros that have a HACKED BOOTLOADER (all run by single volunteers in their free time, good luck on getting any long term upgrades or support) will install and that is it. Now how long you think those handful of guys making those hacked bootloaders are gonna bother?

Say what you will about MSFT but I can buy any brand new X86 laptop running Windows 8 and within 10 minutes be installing ANY OS that I choose, be it Linux,BSD, earlier versions of Windows, heck i could even go OS/2 Warp if eComstation has drivers for the hardware.


Simple way to prove this is bad too...if MSFT had just announced this, would you cheer? What about if it was Apple, would you trust it? If simply changing the word Google for MSFT or Apple makes you turn against it then its probably a very bad idea, but you have fanboy blinders on.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by japh on Mon 9th Sep 2013 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
japh Member since:
2005-11-11


Say what you will about MSFT but I can buy any brand new X86 laptop running Windows 8 and within 10 minutes be installing ANY OS that I choose, be it Linux,BSD, earlier versions of Windows, heck i could even go OS/2 Warp if eComstation has drivers for the hardware.


Because they haven't traditionally had any options. Look what they did when ARM came into the picture. What other OS:es can I install on a Surface RT?
At least the Chromebook gives the option to install something else.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by JAlexoid on Tue 10th Sep 2013 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well there is using the spammer's trick of having a third party completely unrelated to Google to have a Chrome install as well as taking the default browser spot for one.

Chrome does not make itself automatically default, don't spread lies.

As for the second how about the fact you buy a "ChromeBook" and you have what WAS a bog standard X86 laptop that has been so locked down they you can ONLY install an alternative OS by going into "dev mode" and even after all that can you install any OS you want on YOUR laptop?

A ChromeBook is a specialised device - they are free to do all kinds of crap. Apple does something similar with a specialized firmware. Microsoft does the same thing with Surface RT.
The issue with Microsoft's policy is not that they do it, it's the fact that their actions result negative results for everyone. Like only Microsoft's keys are installed in UEFI. However, considering that there is a healthy competition between browsers, Microsoft is free to announce extensions like this all hey want.
(Your whole complaint on the topic of ChromeBook is off-topic.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by M.Onty on Sun 8th Sep 2013 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Ignoring a persons rights is evil.


Ignoring a person's rights is not inherently evil.

Ignoring a man's right to life as he's dying right in front of you because of a poison you administered, that's evil in almost all cases. Ignoring someone's property rights by breaking into their house & nicking their TV, that's not evil, just pretty bad.

Google isn't evil because it simply doesn't get up to enough uncompromisingly malicious activities.

In fact, almost no mundane crime or dubious practice is actually evil, because otherwise evil becomes just another word for "things that aren't done by thoroughly decent people".

We have to use this same English vocabulary to describe things on far more extreme moral scales the IT industry ever is, so lets try & keep some of the more useful words left over, eh?

TL;DR: Perspective!

Edited 2013-09-08 22:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by zima on Sat 7th Sep 2013 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well Google themselves uses "evil" in their motto...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Vanders on Sat 7th Sep 2013 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess when Google start their genocidal rampage they'll have breached that particular promise then.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by zima on Mon 9th Sep 2013 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Point is, Google uses the wording ...so they themselves probably mean something that companies generally do, not genocide.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by M.Onty on Mon 9th Sep 2013 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

True, but a shit grasp on the language doesn't change the nature of morality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by tkeith on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

They aren't encouraging web developers, they are encouraging native app developers. Chrome is already a capable web browser and supports all the web standards. They are making this for Chrome OS, which is an OS and needs more capable native code than HTML can deliver.

They tried this first with NaCL(making it an open web standard) but no one else wanted on board.

Did you guys even read the article at all?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

A browser for native applications?

I don't think so, more like a lock in trojan.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by JAlexoid on Sat 7th Sep 2013 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Lock into Chrome browser on Windows - more like it ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Sat 7th Sep 2013 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

No, lock you into their services, Chrome is just the trojan horse, it doesn't matter the OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by JAlexoid on Tue 10th Sep 2013 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yes... You can't use Chrome without using Google.... Oh wait!

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It is also for Chrome for Windows and Chrome for Mac. If this was just an extension of Chrome on ChromeOS so that ChromeOS didn't suck so bad, then fine. But it's not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by p13. on Fri 6th Sep 2013 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

html/js <----> native

Seriously, i don't understand the obsession with html "applications" these days.

It's like trying to hammer a nail with a diesel pile driver.

It never was, never will be, and never can be native. It's parsed, interpreted and rendered in a browser. Even java is more "native" than this.
html just doesn't have anything that could make it native. Memory management, pointers, hardware access, etc. NOR SHOULD IT.

It's a f*cking markup language. Why won't people stop raping this over and over?

Most web apps are SHIT!

They are either very limited, or very crappy. Don't work with browser x, require plugin y, need flash, java, whatever. Why? Because they are all hacks, built on hacked up libraries, exploiting some loopholes in something that was hacked up on top of something that was never meant to do what it's doing now (yes, i'm talking about javascript).

The only reason that web "apps" are so successful now is that it's (relatively) easy to write something that looks pretty and scale it out with ease.

The junctions between web "apps" and the web itself is that the web started out as a distribution platform. It's all about content, and so are these so called applications.

Here are some cases where web apps (i'll drop the pedantic quotes) work, because it's all mainly about content anyway, and so the app can be seen as a way of formatting/editing/presenting the content:
- Email
- Social media (ugh)
- Instant messaging
- Youtube
- Porn
- Magazines

Wake me up when we can do computational fluid dynamics at a comparable performance to C code, maybe then i'll start paying attention to these ... apps.

I know, i rant. Not everyone agrees. It's nothing personal, i'm not mad at you, or any of your friends. I still love you, it's cool.

Edited 2013-09-06 21:57 UTC

Reply Score: 13

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by leos on Sat 7th Sep 2013 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

*Slow clap*

Web apps are terrible. Yes they're a ok way to create cross platform apps for minimum cost, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are anywhere close to native apps. They aren't now and they never will be.
But every developer is doomed to make the same mistake. Get excited about things like phonegap and make some apps. Then realize that anything beyond the trivial is clunky, slow, and error prone. Facebook made that mistake and had to trash their whole mobile strategy in favour of native apps. Now their apps are miles better.

Reply Score: 4

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

*Slow clap*

Web apps are terrible. Yes they're a ok way to create cross platform apps for minimum cost, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are anywhere close to native apps. They aren't now and they never will be.
But every developer is doomed to make the same mistake. Get excited about things like phonegap and make some apps. Then realize that anything beyond the trivial is clunky, slow, and error prone. Facebook made that mistake and had to trash their whole mobile strategy in favour of native apps. Now their apps are miles better.

Why not just write apps in a cross-platform language, like fpc/lazarus or if you want C/C++? You can just create one code based and target any supported platform as you like.

regards,
_Allan

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by p13. on Sat 7th Sep 2013 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

I dig QT for this, i really do. Ubuntu is getting it with their new unity/touch platform. Easy to write portable code.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Maybe, just *maybe* there is a different word for something some one does that isn't innocent or evil.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Yes, is called Malice.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

you mean like Microsoft, Apple, KDE, Gnome...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by JAlexoid on Sat 7th Sep 2013 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You can attempt to make it sound as innocuous as you want, but there's no decoupling the above with the fact that Google wants web developers to build apps that are non-standard, not supported by anyone other than Google.


OMG! Wanting to have more developers for your platform is evil!!!

Would you describe encouraging web developers to build apps that only work with Google products and based on absolutely no open standard whatsoever as not evil?

As long as they are not encouraging developers to replace open standards with proprietary tech...
In any case, all of the APIs that Google is offering(not demanding) are implemented in an open manner.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

delivered at no cost

Oh, but there is a cost, the lock in, nothing is free my friend and I can bet that they will require the developer to have a G+ account.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by JAlexoid on Sat 7th Sep 2013 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

To distribute via Chrome Web store. You are free to distribute the apps in any other manner.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Fri 6th Sep 2013 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by BluenoseJake"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I own my machines, not Google. Thinking they can do whatever they want is certainly not the definition of good.

Even MS doesn't just force new versions of .net on it's users, they are offered as optional from Windows Update, or installed with an app that uses them.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't get it at all. How are they making the machines any less than yours?

How are they "Thinking they can do whatever they want"? I only see them thinking they can turn their browser into an application platform. You can use other browsers and/ or not use any applications based on their browser platform.

For what its worth, I've never understood why Microsoft didn't just make .net an api built into windows instead of being a separate run time. Anti Trust Issues, maybe? In any case, that was a big factor in my old company abandoning the desktop and moving to web based applications.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Nelson on Fri 6th Sep 2013 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows shipped with versions of .NET bundled. Every version of .NET installed after that runs side by side.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by moondevil on Sat 7th Sep 2013 08:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Every version of .NET installed after that runs side by side.


Go tell that to everyone that needs to target 4.0 and 4.5,thanks to the stupid idea of an in-place replacement.

Edited 2013-09-07 08:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Nelson on Sat 7th Sep 2013 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You have to target 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 as well. Microsoft has tested that the .NET4.5 CLR (sans the new libraries) is behaviorally equivalent to the .NET4 CLR.

There's a lot of work done around the tooling to help with the corner cases (.NET 4.5 projects being referenced from .NET4 code) and VS is smart enough to create a manifest that will automatically prompt you at runtime that you require .NET4.5

The thing that's been different now (with 4.5) from previous (2.0 -> 3.0 -> 3.5) is that the CLR2 was completely unchanged across those releases. Only work on top of them (WPF, WCF, WF, etc.)

With .NET 4.5 the actual CLR has changed (perf improvements and deep architectural changes for WinRT iirc).

Honestly, I'm glad they're moving towards out of band NuGet releases rather than throwing everything in .NET, the versioning issues aside.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by moondevil on Sat 7th Sep 2013 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

There are a few war stories already about compatibility issues about using .NET 4.5 to target .NET 4.0 deployments, despite what Microsoft MSDN bloggers state.

Even PluralSight has a training about some of thoses issues.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I said new versions. Not versions that existed when that particular versions of Windows came out. Windows 7 does not automatically get .net version 4, for example, it is an optional download in Windows Update.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Not until windows Vista in 2006. We were following the development of Windows XP and .Net, hoping that both would end up getting shipped together. It didn't happen with the initial release or any of the service packs.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

if people can do things to your stuff with out your permission, how can you own it? You can't own what you don't control. It's the very definition of ownership.

It is mine. I decide what happens to it. In the case of a computer, I decide what runs on it, because it is mine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by BluenoseJake
by moondevil on Fri 6th Sep 2013 17:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by BluenoseJake"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Google is no different from other corporations.

Truth is they are all alike, if given enough market share.

Reply Score: 9

Meanwhile, back in code-land..
by fadingdust on Fri 6th Sep 2013 17:30 UTC
fadingdust
Member since:
2009-11-05

There's at least 2 very important things:
1) Stability
2) Efficiency

I'd love a run-down of how iOS, Android, WinPhone & now ChromeOS compare - both in terms of kernel, platform & APIs.

My general experience has Android being pretty sluggish relative to iOS -- never used ChromeOS on comparable hardware.

Reply Score: 3

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

There's at least 2 very important things:
1) Stability
2) Efficiency

I'd love a run-down of how iOS, Android, WinPhone & now ChromeOS compare - both in terms of kernel, platform & APIs.

My general experience has Android being pretty sluggish relative to iOS -- never used ChromeOS on comparable hardware.


How about Windows Phone? I might be thinking of buying my first smartphone and the reviews of Android for being sluggish made me nervous of buying one.

Reply Score: 2

Hey Google, Microsoft called ...
by WorknMan on Fri 6th Sep 2013 17:46 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Microsoft called, and they want their ActiveX back ;)

Reply Score: 14

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The issue with ActiveX was that it was sh*t, not that it was proprietary and widespread.

Reply Score: 3

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I was unsecure, but sh*t? never, it did his job pretty well, inform your self first.

Edited 2013-09-07 18:27 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Time to switch back to FireFox
by andrewclunn on Fri 6th Sep 2013 18:39 UTC
andrewclunn
Member since:
2012-11-05

I'm sorry Mozilla. I made a mistake! Please take me back!

Reply Score: 12

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Just don't ask them about the gecko based apps ;/

Reply Score: 4

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Just don't ask them about the gecko based apps ;/

You mean extensions?

Reply Score: 3

This is still HTML/JS/CSS right?
by dindin on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:35 UTC
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

I don't think this in anyway violates the web standards.

The Chrome specific APIs are there for the things that cannot be done with browser/Internet centric stuff. For example, your application needs a UDP multicast socket - you can with a custom plug-in or other wrapper, but now you can write it in JS and run in inside a browser like any other web page/app.

Mozilla is trying to do the same thing with their WebAPI initiative - for the FirefoxOS. If W3C/IETF will standardize on one (or something), then we can run the same apps in other browsers too.

Edited 2013-09-06 19:37 UTC

Reply Score: 7

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:58 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I honestly can't find fault with this, besides my own general distaste for the absolute mockery of a developer environment that is HTML5/JS.

What Google is doing is creating a platform that runs in parallel to the "web" and using familiar technologies.

Microsoft has done the same with HTML5 apps on Windows 8, they call into Windows only WinRT APIs.

So while HTML, CSS, and JS is reused, there is still vendor stuff down below.

I don't think either approach is bad, only that it underscores the slow pace of innovation at the W3C. Obviously the web standards are moving at a glacial pace, so Google needs to fill in the cracks.

It seems to be, to me, an implicit acknowledgment that web technologies as they stand are still a poor fit for the scenarios that native applications require.

I find it hard to join in the chorus of vendor lock in when this isn't being pushed as a web technology. Google isn't advocating for people to write websites with Chrome only behavior, they're advertising a platform you develop with familiar technologies.

To me, the only person being 100% faultless here is Mozilla. They seem to have contributed everything they've had to invent on top of web standards back to the standards bodies as open specifications -- and that's an extremely good thing.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by Nelson
by WorknMan on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

What Google is doing is creating a platform that runs in parallel to the "web" and using familiar technologies.


Yeah, didn't Flash start out this same way? It was this thing you could use when regular HTML just wouldn't do.

And then people started writing entire web sites with it, so instead of being this parallel thing, it ended up being a rather grotesque form of lock-in.

If HTML/JS isn't up to the task of doing real app dev work, then let people write REAL native apps that don't require a fucking web browser to be present. How much sense does that make? If you're just going to write apps that work the same on every OS, then you might as well have only one OS.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Yeah, didn't Flash start out this same way? It was this thing you could use when regular HTML just wouldn't do.


Yes, but Flash became an independent app runtime after the fact. Not before. Flash always was a way to enhance existing website deployments and was from the start marketed as such. Rich Internet Applications as they were called.


And then people started writing entire web sites with it, so instead of being this parallel thing, it ended up being a rather grotesque form of lock-in.


I think the results speak for themselves, in that HTML back then was entirely too limiting. For example, I remember when Silverlight 2.0 launched it had a JIT compiler that was ~1000x faster than Javascript. Obviously things have come a long way, but they weren't always so palatable.

I don't see that happening again, especially because Google isn't aiming this at the same market that Macromedia/Adobe was with Flash.


If HTML/JS isn't up to the task of doing real app dev work, then let people write REAL native apps that don't require a fucking web browser to be present. How much sense does that make?


You're talking about sense when there's a browser sitting in between the app and the OS. There's never, ever going to be sense in that. Ever.


If you're just going to write apps that work the same on every OS, then you might as well have only one OS.


Cross platform applications are the biggest lie of the century. Maybe they were true when the computing platforms were Windows, Linux, and OSX but with the advent of the mobile OSes, that's no longer an achievable goal.

HTML is a lowest common denominator (write once, suck everywhere) that we've been able to shoehorn into something, but I'm not convinced any platform can do it now. Not Flash, not Silverlight, and not Chrome Apps.

I think Google's ambitions (particularly on the cross platform side) are kind of silly, but that's completely aside from whether or not this is a nefarious act. I'm not convinced it is.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by moondevil on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

write once, suck everywhere


Great statement!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by leos on Sat 7th Sep 2013 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Cross platform applications are the biggest lie of the century. Maybe they were true when the computing platforms were Windows, Linux, and OSX but with the advent of the mobile OSes, that's no longer an achievable goal.


Qt Is changing that as we speak. Native speeds cross platform between desktop and mobile. Sure if you want a good UI you're going to want to make separate UIs for the different form factors, but it does work, and will work a lot better come Qt 5.2 with full support for Android and iOS (and Blackberry and Jolla and Ubuntu etc etc)

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by allanregistos on Sat 7th Sep 2013 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

"Cross platform applications are the biggest lie of the century. Maybe they were true when the computing platforms were Windows, Linux, and OSX but with the advent of the mobile OSes, that's no longer an achievable goal.


Qt Is changing that as we speak. Native speeds cross platform between desktop and mobile. Sure if you want a good UI you're going to want to make separate UIs for the different form factors, but it does work, and will work a lot better come Qt 5.2 with full support for Android and iOS (and Blackberry and Jolla and Ubuntu etc etc)
"
+ fpc/lazarus would be great.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by moondevil on Sat 7th Sep 2013 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

+ fpc/lazarus would be great.


Sadly we have to thank Borland => Imprise => Borland => Embarcadero for having killed Object Pascal in the industry.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

I find it hard to join in the chorus of vendor lock in when this isn't being pushed as a web technology. Google isn't advocating for people to write websites with Chrome only behavior, they're advertising a platform you develop with familiar technologies.


I agree with your whole post and would like to add the following: how can it be "vendor lock-in" if it is multi-platform and Google is not even close to be a dominant player? It is very different from IE6 case, for example, in that you were obligated to run that freaking insecure browser under MS Windows to access some sites facilities.

It seems more "java-like" API and being the whole Chrome the "interpreter". Yet, I would not like to use any "application" build this way as I disliked 99%+ of java apps I tried: they were slow and foreign at that time though things may be a bit different this time around, as we have way better computers now and things would not be as terrible as they used to be.

However, unless Google keeps true to its motto "Don't be evil" and properly document the expected behavior of the components involved so that, for example, Mozilla or Microsoft would be able to reproduce and run the apps, I would not touch or write any code for it. Perhaps, it is just me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by zima on Sat 7th Sep 2013 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Google is not even close to be a dominant player

I'm not sure about that, the amount of green on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_most_used_web_browse...).svg is getting a bit scary... ;)

edit: OSNews breaks more complex links ...I mean the map in the top right of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

Edited 2013-09-07 12:33 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Nelson
by mistersoft on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

very well said. I don't think sane folk could argue much with most of those points.

If google were feeling 'very open' for some reason perhaps they could allow users an 'alternative browser' choice on Chrome OS alongside Chrome. Might be a nice unexpected PR move for them in the future

But it's not lock in if the Chrome Apps aren't being marketed as wider web apps

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I don't think sane folk could argue much with most of those points.

So, anyone who disagree is insane? zombie some more please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Fri 6th Sep 2013 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I like to think so ;)

Reply Score: 3

Guard Your Privacy
by tidux on Fri 6th Sep 2013 21:17 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

If these apps require a Google account to install or run, that immediately removes them from consideration. I don't need to register with a PRISM participating corporation to install a Firefox extension.

Reply Score: 4

Euh... no
by Lennie on Fri 6th Sep 2013 23:44 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

"So our hope is that, if you want to be on every platform, you'll build a Chrome App because eventually, you'll be able to run Chrome Apps everywhere."

Euh.. no.

Webapps is actually the only platform that already delivers that.

Reply Score: 2

50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sat 7th Sep 2013 08:31 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

And it looks like 75% of them didn't get past the press release...

Quick hit list:

1. This is vendor lock-in - Google has already submitted this entire framework to the W3C for standards tracking. That doesn't mean that other browsers will necessarily support it, and it doesn't mean that it will become a standard, but it does mean that it is not an attempt at lock-in... They want other browsers to implement it - there is nothing about it that is Google specific. There is some overlap with existing standards (http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/), but it's close enough that it can be viewed more or less as an extension to the widget api.

2. You need a Google Account - You only need an account to get apps in the web app store, because... well that is how you get to the app store. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from publishing an application anywhere they choose to, and you certainly don't need a google account to run one. Its just a zip file with a special extension.

3. This is forking the web - The web is not HTML and the web is not JavaScript... The web is HTTP. A web app, but definition, cannot be built without HTTP - it is simply required. This (chrome apps) don't need HTTP to function at all. It lets you build things you cannot build as pure web apps. The point is to use web technologies without relying on the web itself (other than as a bootstrapping mechanism - and even that isn't strictly required).

4. This is ActiveX all over again - Ummm no. That simple - its not even close. Please read about it a bit before jumping to conclusions.

I simply don't get all the Debbie Downer posts about this. Google has an OS, they want to gives developers a tool to build richer and more capable applications - things that can interact with hardware and can run without a network connection - you know, conventional applications. They don't design a framework for only Chrome OS though - they design a framework for any OS. It doesn't rely on any proprietary technologies, they share it with the rest of the industry so that if they want to they can implement the same thing in a compatible fashion, and they give it away for free...

Yeah, sounds like a total dick move to me...

Reply Score: 10

v RE: 50 comments so far
by Hiev on Sat 7th Sep 2013 14:54 UTC in reply to "50 comments so far"
RE[2]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sat 7th Sep 2013 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE: 50 comments so far"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Is not the same, chrome apps are a totally different story not even compatible with the standard, they use chrome specific functions like this one:

chrome.app.runtime.onLaunched.addListener(function() {
// Tell your app what to launch and how.
})


Even the manifest is different, you are ignorant or misinformed.


Did you even read what I said? I said there was overlap with some standards (i.e. widget api and packaging) - not that this was compliant with those standards. It obviously isn't since about 90% of it is completely new functionality that doesn't exist in any standard.

What I specifically said was that they submitted this for standards tracking - Google announced that at I/O when they demonstrated it.

And the web is not just Google.


... and chrome apps are not the web...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: 50 comments so far
by Hiev on Sun 8th Sep 2013 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 50 comments so far"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

It obviously isn't since about 90% of it is completely new functionality that doesn't exist in any standard.

Then they haven't commited any standar, stop spreading lies.

... and chrome apps are not the web...

Yet, they require you to have a web login to use them, oh the irony.

And how can they try to commit a standar w/o concensus, "Hey this is what I'm doing, I'm ignoring you and making my own standars, you can try to implement them, btw, I used just chrome sprcific API, so goof luck trying to emulate them, wnat more details? get a G+ account."

Edited 2013-09-08 01:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sun 8th Sep 2013 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 50 comments so far"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Then they haven't commited any standar, stop spreading lies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8oFAr1YR-0

Timestamp 36:20 or so... Im really posting this for the benefit of others, I can tell from your tone you are a lost cause.

Yet, they require you to have a web login to use them, oh the irony.


No they do not. They have unfortunately made it more difficult, but it is not impossible. If you launch chrome with the "--enable-easy-off-store-extension-install" switch, you can install them from anywhere, no login required. And you never needed a login to run them - that is straight up bullshit.

I will agree that I think they should change this policy, or at least come up with a different mechanism to protect users from malicious extentions - but again, they have not removed this ability - they more or less hid it behind a runtime flag.

And how can they try to commit a standar w/o concensus, "Hey this is what I'm doing, I'm ignoring you and making my own standars, you can try to implement them, btw, I used just chrome sprcific API, so goof luck trying to emulate them, wnat more details? get a G+ account."


Im sorry but it is you who have no idea how this works... The way the W3C process works is you initiate a working group in order to achieve consensus - but you do that after you have a working implementation. Its not the f*cking mob - no one has to go ask the godfather if it is ok to do something. Every single standard in the W3C started off this way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: 50 comments so far
by Hiev on Sun 8th Sep 2013 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 50 comments so far"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

It is really weird, cause I looked for information and all there is is just that fragment of the video, nothing else, do you have any other link?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sun 8th Sep 2013 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 50 comments so far"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

It is really weird, cause I looked for information and all there is is just that fragment of the video, nothing else, do you have any other link?


I have not seen any specific RFCs or anything at this point, things like this move pretty slowly... But they did publicly announce intentions to put this on a standards track - Im NOT spreading lies...

UPDATE:

Here we go - it took a lot of digging to find it though:

http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/

Looks like it is still very early in the process, but this is definitely what Google was talking about.

You want to take back the "spreading lies" comment now???

Edited 2013-09-08 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sun 8th Sep 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 50 comments so far"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

And here is Samsung's presentation of their version of this:

http://download.tizen.org/misc/media/conference2012/tuesday/ballroo...

So obviously this is not intended to be a Google only thing...

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sun 8th Sep 2013 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 50 comments so far"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

...and as far as I can tell ALOT of this stuff is based on Boot2Gecko. Everyone is doing there own thing at this point obviously - it is still very early. But there is a parallel effort to have it all land in the same place through standards tracking in the W3C.

Again, its NOT a google thing...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: 50 comments so far
by Hiev on Sun 8th Sep 2013 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 50 comments so far"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I know how the w3c standard works, some one needs something, it implement it then submitted as a standard, I wouldn't call the best way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sun 8th Sep 2013 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 50 comments so far"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I know how the w3c standard works, some one needs something, it implement it then submitted as a standard, I wouldn't call the best way.


Whats the alternative? Sit around talking about all the cool stuff they could do and waiting until everyone agrees before actually doing anything? Yeah, that would work, if your goal is to never get anything done...

Reply Score: 5

RE: 50 comments so far
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 7th Sep 2013 18:53 UTC in reply to "50 comments so far"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

That's been a trend for a while on OSNews comments, stretching the definition of any negative term so that it can be applied to Google. It's hilarious to see people casting about for any spin they can use to pretend that users are, say, "locked in" to GMail or youTube - the only way they can do it is to redefine "lock in" to mean "providing a service that's good enough that most users have no incentive to switch to the competition." That's practically a textbook example of the fallacy of false equivalence - sorry, but being too lazy & complacent to switch is not the same as being locked-in.

Then, to top it all off, we have folks like Tony Swash acting as if that's some kind of enlightened position - while pretending that everyone who disagrees is a naive hippy viewing Google through rose-colored glasses.

Not that it's any surprise - look through the comments on this story, and the most shrill, knee-jerk "waaaahhh Google is evil waaaaah" sentiments come from the exact sources you would expect: the local Apple Defense Brigrade-slash-Google anti-fanboys.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 50 comments so far
by Hiev on Sat 7th Sep 2013 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE: 50 comments so far"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Actually, is quite the contrary, when Google takes an unethical action from MS's manual, are the Google fan boys who twist the term of evil to not apply it to Google, but cleverly still apply it to MS, it is really pathetic.

Edited 2013-09-07 18:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: 50 comments so far
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 8th Sep 2013 04:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 50 comments so far"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Actually, is quite the contrary, when Google takes an unethical action from MS's manual, are the Google fan boys who twist the term of evil to not apply it to Google, but cleverly still apply it to MS, it is really pathetic.


I believe the words you're looking for are "I know you are, but what am I?"

Reply Score: 2

Business apps!
by aqd- on Sat 7th Sep 2013 15:02 UTC
aqd-
Member since:
2009-02-16

It could be great for business apps published/distributed on web, a replacement for silverlight, xbap, and java web start (none of these have future anyway).

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

Soon we will see Google's Office apps and Google+ Photos and Play Music as stand alone desktop apps using this.... I'm excited to see the possibilities.

Reply Score: 3

ThomasFuhringer Member since:
2007-01-25

That is the big question, if HTML+JS will ever be capable enough to build a professional desktop app with. If it will, Microsoft will be screwed.

Reply Score: 2

Google's business strategy
by Tony Swash on Sat 7th Sep 2013 17:03 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Everything that Google does, or least everything of import, has to be understood in the light of it's core business strategy. Thus is doubly so in the GoogleV2 post Schmidt phase of the company.

Google's strategic aim is to:

a) Insert it's services in everything that is happening on the internet, that is a horizontally across all platforms and activities.

b) Do everything possible to ensure that all users of it services and products must be signed into their Google+ accounts. Like many others I initially misunderstood Google+ and saw it as an attempt to compete with Facebook. That was a mistake, Google+ is much more than that because it it is central to the reason that Google seeks to be universally present across all platforms and activities which is to collect data on user activity so that it can increase the value of it's advertising business.

Android was a defensive play against initially Microsoft Mobile and then against the far more threatening iOS, and as such it has been a success from Google's point of view, it has done it's job. Android has prevented iOS from taking over the mobile device market and dominating it to such an extent that Apple could have at some point destroyed Google's business model by shutting out it's services. There was no sign that Apple was planning to do that but Google could not take the chance, it could not allow Apple to hold a kill switch on it's business. Does anyone doubt that without Android no non-Apple handset OEM could have come up with anything to compete with iOS in time to prevent domination by Apple? But now Android has done it's job, development of the core OS has slowed because Google doesn't need to develop the OS as it's not trying to build a phone OS business (the mistake Rubin's made and paid for), and Play Services means Google can roll out it's services across all the fragments of Android across the globe.

Google is far more focussed at the moment on Chrome as infrastructural layer to ensure the ubiquity of it's services. This extension of Chrome into off-line apps is just another step in that process as the key feature from Google's point of view is another lever to push people into always being signed into their Google+ account.

Google is always going to feel most threatened by other horizontal business models such as Microsoft and Facebook, any significant area of user activity it cannot collect data on devalues it's core advertising business, but vertical business models such as Apple's, and increasingly Samsung's, also hold their own threat but as long as Google can get it's services into those horizontal stacks it's business model can work.

Reply Score: 2

After using Opera for years...
by jbauer on Sun 8th Sep 2013 10:57 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm now more glad than ever than I went to Firefox and not to Chrome once it was clear that the old Opera was dead.

Reply Score: 4