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

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.

Thread beginning with comment 571495
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Fri 6th Sep 2013 15:53 UTC
Member since:

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

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

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 Parent Score: 7

jared_wilkes Member since:

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 Parent Score: 5

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

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 Parent Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3

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

Google is no different from other corporations.

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

Reply Parent Score: 9