6 ms·

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

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?

balac 13y ago
The main benefits as I see them are: * 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.
pkulak 13y ago
They are just apps that use the ChromeOS development library (JS, HTML, CSS and some custom APIs). Think of it like Cocoa on OS X. Except they can also run in the Chrome browser on other OSes. I don't understand why people get so riled up about this.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Is there someway to do standalone installs as well? It seems like that might be against Google's motives in getting everyone to use Chrome as a browser, but it would make it easier to distribute applications in a "traditional" manner. Plus, it would be nice to have dedicated icons, etc...
  - busterc 13y ago
    https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit
    - mbreese 13y ago
      Can you run Chrome Apps with that though? It looks like it might be just nodejs.
      - busterc 13y ago
        No, you cannot build Chrome Apps with Node-WebKit, but you can target Win/Lin/OSX. See my comments below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778882
- archagon 13y ago
  I think people get riled up because the humble browser is rapidly turning into this: http://i.imgur.com/XNRtCGh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XNRtCGh.jpg
  - tadfisher 13y ago
    So browser extensions are bad now? When can HN get off the hate train for everything new? This place is seriously starting to depress me.
    - archagon 13y ago
      Well, most browser extensions relate to browsing. Google, on the other hand, is trying to turn the browser into an OS. This is a really big shift that may very well determine the future of computing, so I think there's plenty here for people to get legitimately angry about. Not really the same kind of "hate train" that occasionally shows up on project posts, I think.
      - techzomby 13y ago
        What's wrong with the Chrome browser becoming an OS? What you get is a fast and secure OS. Most users spend most of the time on the browser anyways - why not leverage that to make user's lives easier?
        archagon 13y ago
        I don't know about others, but for me, it just doesn't make any conceptual sense. Would you use Excel as a word processor? Would you use Lightroom for mapping? The modern operating system offers so many amazing frameworks and features; why throw that all away and start anew on a shaky foundation of Javascript, HTML, and insanely complicated rendering code, all originally designed for a completely different purpose? 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.
        13y ago
- jorangreef 13y ago
  Chrome Apps as far as I know can only be installed via a proprietary web store. You can't actually package them up as an exe or dmg to distribute yourself. They also don't have access to the system tray - they're not really first-class standalone desktop apps.
  - bergie 13y ago
    There is a PhoneGap wrapper for Chrome Apps, which you can probably eventually use also for packaging for the desktop OSs (even though now the focus is understandably on iOS and Android as Chrome apps work on the other platforms): https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps
bmelton 13y ago
Define "installation"? My definition of installation is whether or not I can install it on a PC that is locked down by a system's administrator. While it may (or may not) be possible to lock down Chrome from being able to install apps, I've never been anywhere that did, despite those machines being otherwise locked down. 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.
magicalist 13y ago
In addition to all the siblings' points, it does look like we're going to be able to have Firefox and Chrome compatible apps someday (I can't find a link right now, but it's been a secondary goal for both teams, Mozilla especially as they define APIs for Firefox OS that will be compatible with the open (but with permissions) web). Hopefully the teams keep working on this.
haberman 13y ago
Just to add a few: - 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
- indubitably 13y ago
  That’s a funny definition of cross-platform. You mean, it’s cross-platform if you use Google’s browser. 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!
  - haberman 13y ago
    Yeah, and Java apps are cross-platform if you use the JDK. It's cross-platform from an app developer's perspective because the runtime exists on multiple platforms. Pretty standard definition of "cross-platform." I'm not telling you what you should do. I'm telling you why this model is attractive to me.
  - jljljl 13y ago
    Java is only cross platform if you use the JDK, Flash is only cross platform if you use Adobe's plugin, etc. So I don't think this is a completely funny definition of cross platform. >>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.
    - zobzu 13y ago
      TBH JDK has open, 3rd party implementations. I'm running one right now. 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.
wepple 13y ago
In addition to the other points made here - it's far simpler to adapt a web application you've already built to an off-line chrome app, than it is to start again in a native language.
mythz 13y ago
The productivity of web-based development, with access to richer API's and local storage, on the reach and cross-platform of Chrome, with the visibility of publishing it on the Chrome Web Store, and only 1 browser to test it on = Win, Win!
trentmb 13y ago
> What's the point? It's basically Java, but Google made it. Your Chrome Apps can run wherever Chrome does.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point? They are the "native" apps for ChromeOS that, incidentally, can also run anywhere else* that Chrome OS runs. * except iOS
- bergie 13y ago
  With the Chrome Apps PhoneGap wrapper you can package them for iOS too: https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps
ams6110 13y ago
When you put it that way, they sound a lot like.... ActiveX
- techzomby 13y ago
  Except that ActiveX works only on Windows IE and not built on web tech. Chrome Apps run on ChromeOS, Windows, OSX, Linux, Android and IOS. And they are built using HTML and JS.
  - scotth 13y ago
    I don't think Chrome Apps work on iOS or Android. If they do, mind linking to confirmation?
    - brickcap 13y ago
      Chrome apps do work on android http://gigaom.com/2013/10/03/newest-chrome-beta-integrates-web-apps-as-near-native-on-android/ http://gigaom.com/2013/10/03/newest-chrome-beta-integrates-w...
      - thegregjones 13y ago
        That's only talking about normal web-apps, with access to only the normal web APIs.
dgregd 13y ago
> They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point? Eat your own dog food. Google developers test new HTML5 APIs.
tluyben2 13y ago
Uglier? In general to me that doesn't seem to be the case, at least compared to Win/Lin applications.
taude 13y ago
I prefer using my email in the browser over any native email client. And as an added bonus, I get nearly the same user experience across my many disparate devices.

balac 13y ago

The main benefits as I see them are: * 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.

pkulak 13y ago

They are just apps that use the ChromeOS development library (JS, HTML, CSS and some custom APIs). Think of it like Cocoa on OS X. Except they can also run in the Chrome browser on other OSes. I don't understand why people get so riled up about this.

mbreese 13y ago
Is there someway to do standalone installs as well? It seems like that might be against Google's motives in getting everyone to use Chrome as a browser, but it would make it easier to distribute applications in a "traditional" manner. Plus, it would be nice to have dedicated icons, etc...
- busterc 13y ago
  https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Can you run Chrome Apps with that though? It looks like it might be just nodejs.
    - busterc 13y ago
      No, you cannot build Chrome Apps with Node-WebKit, but you can target Win/Lin/OSX. See my comments below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778882
archagon 13y ago
I think people get riled up because the humble browser is rapidly turning into this: http://i.imgur.com/XNRtCGh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XNRtCGh.jpg
- tadfisher 13y ago
  So browser extensions are bad now? When can HN get off the hate train for everything new? This place is seriously starting to depress me.
  - archagon 13y ago
    Well, most browser extensions relate to browsing. Google, on the other hand, is trying to turn the browser into an OS. This is a really big shift that may very well determine the future of computing, so I think there's plenty here for people to get legitimately angry about. Not really the same kind of "hate train" that occasionally shows up on project posts, I think.
    - techzomby 13y ago
      What's wrong with the Chrome browser becoming an OS? What you get is a fast and secure OS. Most users spend most of the time on the browser anyways - why not leverage that to make user's lives easier?
      - archagon 13y ago
        I don't know about others, but for me, it just doesn't make any conceptual sense. Would you use Excel as a word processor? Would you use Lightroom for mapping? The modern operating system offers so many amazing frameworks and features; why throw that all away and start anew on a shaky foundation of Javascript, HTML, and insanely complicated rendering code, all originally designed for a completely different purpose? 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.
      - 13y ago
jorangreef 13y ago
Chrome Apps as far as I know can only be installed via a proprietary web store. You can't actually package them up as an exe or dmg to distribute yourself. They also don't have access to the system tray - they're not really first-class standalone desktop apps.
- bergie 13y ago
  There is a PhoneGap wrapper for Chrome Apps, which you can probably eventually use also for packaging for the desktop OSs (even though now the focus is understandably on iOS and Android as Chrome apps work on the other platforms): https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps

bmelton 13y ago

Define "installation"? My definition of installation is whether or not I can install it on a PC that is locked down by a system's administrator. While it may (or may not) be possible to lock down Chrome from being able to install apps, I've never been anywhere that did, despite those machines being otherwise locked down. 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.

magicalist 13y ago

In addition to all the siblings' points, it does look like we're going to be able to have Firefox and Chrome compatible apps someday (I can't find a link right now, but it's been a secondary goal for both teams, Mozilla especially as they define APIs for Firefox OS that will be compatible with the open (but with permissions) web). Hopefully the teams keep working on this.

haberman 13y ago

Just to add a few: - 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

indubitably 13y ago
That’s a funny definition of cross-platform. You mean, it’s cross-platform if you use Google’s browser. 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!
- haberman 13y ago
  Yeah, and Java apps are cross-platform if you use the JDK. It's cross-platform from an app developer's perspective because the runtime exists on multiple platforms. Pretty standard definition of "cross-platform." I'm not telling you what you should do. I'm telling you why this model is attractive to me.
- jljljl 13y ago
  Java is only cross platform if you use the JDK, Flash is only cross platform if you use Adobe's plugin, etc. So I don't think this is a completely funny definition of cross platform. >>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.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    TBH JDK has open, 3rd party implementations. I'm running one right now. 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.

wepple 13y ago

In addition to the other points made here - it's far simpler to adapt a web application you've already built to an off-line chrome app, than it is to start again in a native language.

mythz 13y ago

The productivity of web-based development, with access to richer API's and local storage, on the reach and cross-platform of Chrome, with the visibility of publishing it on the Chrome Web Store, and only 1 browser to test it on = Win, Win!

trentmb 13y ago

> What's the point? It's basically Java, but Google made it. Your Chrome Apps can run wherever Chrome does.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point? They are the "native" apps for ChromeOS that, incidentally, can also run anywhere else* that Chrome OS runs. * except iOS

bergie 13y ago
With the Chrome Apps PhoneGap wrapper you can package them for iOS too: https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps

ams6110 13y ago

When you put it that way, they sound a lot like.... ActiveX

techzomby 13y ago
Except that ActiveX works only on Windows IE and not built on web tech. Chrome Apps run on ChromeOS, Windows, OSX, Linux, Android and IOS. And they are built using HTML and JS.
- scotth 13y ago
  I don't think Chrome Apps work on iOS or Android. If they do, mind linking to confirmation?
  - brickcap 13y ago
    Chrome apps do work on android http://gigaom.com/2013/10/03/newest-chrome-beta-integrates-web-apps-as-near-native-on-android/ http://gigaom.com/2013/10/03/newest-chrome-beta-integrates-w...
    - thegregjones 13y ago
      That's only talking about normal web-apps, with access to only the normal web APIs.

dgregd 13y ago

> They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point? Eat your own dog food. Google developers test new HTML5 APIs.

tluyben2 13y ago

Uglier? In general to me that doesn't seem to be the case, at least compared to Win/Lin applications.

taude 13y ago

I prefer using my email in the browser over any native email client. And as an added bonus, I get nearly the same user experience across my many disparate devices.