Google Chrome: the New Web Platform? 290
snydeq writes "The Chrome dev team is working toward a vision of Web apps that offers a clean break from traditional websites, writes Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister, in response to Google's new Field Guide for Web Applications. 'When you add it up, it starts to look as though, for all the noise Google makes about Web standards, Chrome is moving further and further apart from competing browsers, just by virtue of its technological advantages. In that sense, maybe Chrome isn't just a Web browser; maybe Chrome itself is the platform — or is becoming one.'"
No meat to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, this was submitted by someone from Infoworld, and the article is on Infoworld, so nice spam.
Second, web platforms are dead, and native apps that call web services are the new rage. It's just a better experience. Web platforms have been tried before since the 90s--see Java applets and ActiveX--and the experience is always poor. Nobody wants ChromeOS over iOS, Android, etc. Google has offered Native Client and Dart to compete performance-wise, but those are non-standard, Google-specific technologies (Dart as a language has been criticized pretty heavily on its own), and there's just something weird about shoving the web browser into the stack as a middle-man for no reason.
Third, and this will sound flamebait-ey so take it as personal opinion, but forgive me if I'm a little uncomfortable with a multi-billion dollar web advertising company with a history of privacy violations tracking everything I do at an OS level. It'd be like installing an operating system written by DoubleClick. I'd rather limit my data exposure to the occasional web search or Gmail message, thanks.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:E3 (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think Google has the same kind of motivations that Microsoft did, though the final effects may be the same. Microsoft was about forcefully expanding their market presence to ensure success, while Google's is to provide free services in order to track more and more personal data and deliver more ads. For what it's worth, I doubt this initiative from Google to create their own web platform will be successful.
What is wrong with traditional webpages? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing that I can see. Lean and serves the purpose very well. Just as useful as paper and as easy to handle.
Of course there are always those that want to blink and animate and visually scream at you in order to capture your attention. That is something traditional webpages do not do or do not do well, and that is actually one of their advantages, as really the only purpose this serves is advertising. Personally, I have blocked any animated add for years now, and the web has a cleaner, calmer and far more pleasant look to me because of it. (Blocking is via Opera integrated content-blocker.) For me, the web is a library, and the clean look of wikipedia the ideal. I do not want another wannabe television surrogate. I have dropped TV more than 10 years ago, because it became intolerable.
This angle would also explain why Google wants to break away from it: Their main business is wasting peoples time, i.e. serving them ads. (Which is, in itself pretty evil, all things considered. But hey, nobody believes the "don't be evil" mantra anyways today.) This also includes getting as much statistical data as they can. Both the serving and the snooping works far better when you leave traditional webpages behind.
People are so short-sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello - WebKit? JavaScript? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, Google didn't really control the development of WebKit, and JavaScript is based on standards - so unless there's evidence Chrome intends to start down the old proprietay-extensions path Microsoft blazed 10-15 years ago with Internet Explorer, I'm not sure how "web apps" became synonymous with "Chrome as an exclusive platform".
Now - as the article points out - Google has proposed some ideas (e.g. Dart) that break from the past; but 1) as far as I can tell, they haven't tried to lock others out, and 2) there's currently no evidence these new ideas will ever gain any real-world traction (actually, #2 is probably the more important point by far). Many of us are old enough to remember the pain Microsoft's proprietary browser caused - and most of us will steer clear of anything that looks like an attempt to bring back that model.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that modders can't comment, don't you? There are many who prefer to mod over chirping in with a pointless comment.
But in that case at least wait until there are enough comments to mod.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
"Google has offered Native Client and Dart to compete performance-wise, but those are non-standard, Google-specific technologies..."
The conditions surrounding the use of these technologies are no different then SPDY, which is being adopted by Amazon and Mozilla, and is on its way to becoming standardized.
Comparing these to MS's contributions to the Internet (e.g. ActiveX and MSIE) is not appropriate - Google's technologies' are open for adoption by anyone and they have the habit of improving the Internet, not subverting it.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
One is enough to mod.
You are supposed to mod a comment based on its content, not score them on a curve like in grade school.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
LOOK MOM - I JUST WROTE AN AD FOR GOOGLE (Score:4, Insightful)
It was easy. I just took the 1995 hype about Netscape Navigator as an application platform, and changed the names.
I got the idea after watching the Java guys do this, in 1996.
Re:Apps are the past. (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason apps made a comeback is because you can charge for apps.
I don't think that's it. I think apps made a comeback because there were fancy new devices which were a different form factor which didn't match the paradigm used by most websites. Company's wanted a good experience and found it easier to provide that experience by creating an app, having access to OS api's, than by creating a version of the website that worked well with the hand held, touch, form factor. Plus, many consumers only look for a companies app, they don't consider there might be a decent handheld website experience.
Browser as Platform - again (Score:5, Insightful)
They said that 10 years ago. The browser was to break the MS monopoly, obsolete the OS, really soon now everything would be running in the browser, yada, yada, yada.
Every few years, someone digs up a dead horse and runs it through town again.
Re:Apps are the past. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:E3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Google's business is to organize, index and provide access to information. Selling ad-space is just how they profit off their core business, for now. This can change anytime in the future when a better business model appears.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this was submitted by someone from Infoworld, and the article is on Infoworld, so nice spam.
Infoworld is routinely fed "press hits" by public relations firms looking to advance the interests of paying clients. Like most trade rags, Infoworld is a tool for spreading marketing hype and PR bullshit. The engineers amongst us usually see through these "technical articles". However, the IT managers, whom trade rags target with flatery, sadly often do not. It's because of Infoworld and others like them that we engineers have to waste time defending mature, proven and well defined technologies against marketing bullshit and unicorn farts like "cloud computing". The PR firms and their hack writers, who actually know nothing about what they're writing, make our jobs as engineers harder and we hate them for it.
Re:People are so short-sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that depends. Google gives me Android, to use however I wish. They give me the fastest browser, interesting new languages, interesting applications of age-old technologies. And a first-rate video and audio codec family with no patent encumbrances. And of course when I look for stuff they are Johnny on the spot. And then there's this new web platform in TFA that I can use however I like. The only thing I can't do with this stuff is tell people I invented it.
Microsoft offers us freebies now and then - like freeware feature-limited applications and development environments. But there's always a catch, like it only works with their for-pay ware, has limited use, is nagware or whatever. Even the search engine just doesn't do it for me - and they sold out to China.
Of course Google's pouring money into lots of interesting stuff, like carbon-neutral energy research, space research, just bunches of stuff.
Overall I think I'm OK with giving Google more slack than a company that has the Halloween Memo collection and the Comes Collection history of horrors behind it. Google seems to be more about driving the pace of progress and keeping things open - and by the way, having great other stuff that they make money on. To me Microsoft seems committed to preventing all the progress they can't control utterly. I think Google has the better offer here, and I don't think anybody else even comes close to trying.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
The "privacy violations" stuff is mostly just Microsoft plant stories to smear Google. Microsoft's best buddy, Facebook, is 100 times worse when it comes to real privacy violations. Google may know that one thousand people left your website to go to Amazon; but google does not know who those people are. Huge difference between that Facebook. Facebook knows exactly who you are.
The story is grossly misleading. Anything that Google is doing with Chrome, can also be done with any other web browser. Dart is open source and compiles to javascript, HTML5, etc. can by used by any browser.
Since nothing that Google is doing is proprietary, what's the great panic?
Now compare that to Microsoft with Silverlight, and OOXML.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:4, Insightful)
Huge difference between google, and facebook: you do not have to log on to use Google.
Google may know that x number of people visited y wedsite, but google does not know who those people are. Facebook knows who you are.
Re:No meat to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
True moding is when you mod a post up you do not agree with, but is well written, gives an alternate view, or otherwise add to the discussion. That's moding integrity, I suppose very few slashdot moders do this, more should.