I don't understand Chrome apps. They require installation and only work on Chrome, so they come with none of the benefits of the web. They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point?
Plus, it would be nice to have dedicated icons, etc...
When can HN get off the hate train for everything new? This place is seriously starting to depress me.
I prefer my software to adhere to the single responsibility principle as much as possible.
EDIT: Why are you downvoting me? If you disagree, that's what the reply button is for. I'd like to think that HN is better than Reddit.
Citation very much needed.
Fast? It's slower than native, and --for some tasks, like any kind involving multimedia editing-- useless.
Secure? When did OS+browser became more secure than just OS?
You can't get a virus from visiting a web page.
You don't give a web page access to all your files just by visiting it.
Running a native app requires significantly more trust than running a web app. Web apps are significantly more sandboxed.
You very much can.
In fact, that was one of the most common attack vector for viruses: web browser exploits, from applet bugs to native web browser code buffer overflows and other issues.
Are you really going to argue that native apps and web apps are equally secure because web browsers can occasionally be compromised to give you the permissions that native apps give you by default?
Are you really going to argue against the security of today's web browsers because security of browsers used to be comparatively atrocious?
If I give you the choice of either running my malicious native app or visiting my malicious website, are you really going to say that they are equally risky?
By default in which system? Because sandboxing for native apps has been a default on OS X for the last 2 OSes at least.
Plus, there's another differentiator at play.
People don't only stick to a few large websites (like Google and NYT). People visit THOUSANDS of sites every month, and each can be an attack entry point if there's a browser/applet/etc exploit.
OTOH, with apps the situation is different. People use far fewer third party apps (say, less than 20 for the average user), and have the option to get them from legit (and verified/encrypted) sources, like several App Stores, the services of official vendors like Adobe etc, official software sites and such.
I never had a virus from a legit app purchase/download. How many cases are there were the upstream sources is poisoned?
1) Web apps in this case are downloaded from an app store (and people complained about it too)
2) Average people also use fewer sites: I wouldn't be surprised if regular use comprehends just gmail/outlook, facebook, wikipedia, youtube/netflix
3) You need a browser running in the OS anyway
4) App -> sandbox -> OS vs. App -> Javascript sandbox/Nacl sandbox -> browser -> sandbox -> OS... The latter looks more secure to me
This isn't new, not since Marc Andreessen said "[Netscape will soon reduce Windows to] a poorly debugged set of device drivers" - in 1995. Which I take to mean he fully intended to make everything above device drivers the domain of the browser.
http://gigaom.com/2013/10/03/newest-chrome-beta-integrates-w...
- They work offline, like native apps, but are cross-platform, like web apps.
- You can develop and distribute them without running your own server infrastructure (the Chrome store will distribute them and the run locally).
- They work on ChromeOS
And as far as offline goes, that’s an active area of development within the HTML5 spec. It doesn’t strike me as a particular draw given that it’s at least possible, if still somewhat painful, to build truly cross-platform apps with offline capabilities.
Why should I support ChromeOS? ChromeOS is not the web!
I'm not telling you what you should do. I'm telling you why this model is attractive to me.
>>It doesn’t strike me as a particular draw given that it’s at least possible, if still somewhat painful, to build truly cross-platform apps with offline capabilities.
If you can achieve a cross platform experience using something that's installed on most PC's, and if it offers features or simplicity that is not available in the truly cross-platform spec, then that seems like a strong draw.
Chrome's API don't have this. Chrome == Chromium, and there's nothing else under the sun that either have it or want it.
HOWEVER - Chrome has the largest marketshare by far, thus enforcing whatever it wants. Knowing competitors will not pick up the functionality because "its really made just for Chrome, not for the open web", that's called "extinguishing" competitors. But I'm sure everyone is all too familiar with that concept.
I do not think that Chromium represents the best possible implementation of the Web stack. Having multiple implementations of HTML and the various related specs is what has pushed them forward so rapidly.
Cross platform just means they run in different platforms. Nothing in the notion depends on if they do so with native code or with some supporting layer (like the JVM, WxWidgets or Chrome).
>Why should I support ChromeOS? ChromeOS is not the web!
Why should you support ANYTHING for that matter? Including the web. If you want to do so, do it. If not, don't. You don't "have to".
* Its an easy way to build simple(ish) cross-platform apps using HTML/CSS/Javascript. * A native app platform for Chromebooks * Promotion of your app the Chrome store. * For users their apps are available anywhere Chrome is.
They are the "native" apps for ChromeOS that, incidentally, can also run anywhere else* that Chrome OS runs.
* except iOS
Eat your own dog food. Google developers test new HTML5 APIs.
Otherwise, the benefits are
- being able to develop in just HTML/CSS/JS
- being able to deploy to Windows, Linux, OSX, anywhere Chrome runs
- No infrastructure costs to host / distribute (unless your app has server-side functionality)
etc., etc.
It's basically Java, but Google made it. Your Chrome Apps can run wherever Chrome does.