Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome: the New Web Platform?
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.'"
It would be installing an operating system written by DoubleClick exactly. Look up who their parent company is.
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
People who worship Google as a paragon of virtue are no smarter than people who worship any other company, whether it's Apple of Microsoft or Red Hat or whoever. Every company's agenda is to compete and win, gaining power and making money. I have no problem with that. That's just the way the market works. The problem comes when gullible people believe a company's PR rhetoric about peace, love and freedom -- or whatever they're selling that day. Google isn't your friend. Google is a huge corporation that provides services in its effort to win more dollars in the long run. Those who think that Google is doing "open" things out of the goodness of their hearts in order to make the world a better place are either stupid or naive. They're a huge company that's competing to own as much as it can. If you like its services, use them. But understand this. When you are using "free" services, the company is making money some other way -- and it's almost always the case that YOU have become the product that they're selling to someone else. If that's OK with you, fine. But you need to understand reality instead of thinking you're getting something free. You pay in one way or another. With Google, you pay by giving up your information and privacy. But that's your choice.
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.
#DeleteChrome
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.
"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.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Mod parent up (even tough I disagree with his point of view)
They are both companies. Their natural goal is to make as much money as possible. This will mean that they will be wanting to expand their market share. At some point this will happen with force.
Also: Google's thing is not to provide free service. Their goal is to sell ad space. The free service is just to lure the product they sell (the people using it) so they can sell more of it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
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.
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.