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 571595
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: 50 comments so far
by Hiev on Sun 8th Sep 2013 01:30 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: 50 comments so far
by galvanash on Sun 8th Sep 2013 04:29 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 Parent Score: 3