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.

Thread beginning with comment 571497
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 5

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 18:38 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 Parent Score: 0

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

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

Reply Parent 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 Parent Score: 3

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 4

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 Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by Hiev on Fri 6th Sep 2013 19:16 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by p13. on Fri 6th Sep 2013 21:55 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 Parent Score: 13

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 Parent Score: 3

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

Yes, is called Malice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 3