Slashdot Mirror


WeChat Beats Google in Releasing Apps That Don't Need Downloading or Installing (mashable.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Mashable report: Click on a link in China's top messaging app, WeChat, and you'll be taken to a rich app-like experience, but without needing to download or install anything. Tencent, WeChat's maker, on Monday released "mini programs." The new mini programs work within the messaging app, and the early crop at launch include a Prisma-like photo editing app, a Pomodoro Timer productivity app, a flight search engine, and one for recipe searches. With the mini programs, the already-dominant WeChat continues its march to become practically ubiquitous on Chinese handsets, where people already use the messenger for real-life tasks like paying at restaurants, to hailing a Didi Chuxing ride. Last year, Google too announced that it would soon allow users to check out apps without downloading or installing them. The feature is yet to go live.

73 comments

  1. Congratulations - you invented the WWW by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    >> app...without needing to install anything

    Congratulations - you invented the World Wide Web

    1. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And you still have to download it. At least once. If not every time you use it.

    2. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by jawtheshark · · Score: 2
      ... but you download stuff all the time on the world wide web.

      Unless downloading means something else to marketing people than it means to me...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked you had to install a browser.

    4. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Congratulations - you invented the World Wide Web

      There is probably a tiny bit more to it than that; nothing new in running against an application server, of course, but I suppose the real story might be that networking on mobiles is now considered mature and cheap enough for this architecture to be viable. And, I don't think you can equate www with "application servers".

    5. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, you still need to download and install the Wechat app.
      Their "invention" seems to be that the app basically includes a webbrowser (or something very much like it).
      So when they say you don't need to download and install anything, they mean that you have to download a new update for their app, which has extra code it installs, then it can download things that aren't technically apps and execute them using the preinstalled interpreter.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably means additional download, like a plugin etc.

    7. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Junta · · Score: 2

      Eh, we know what he meant, a modern web browser with javascript effectively being a runtime environment to produce applications that act pretty much exactly like a desktop application if desired. It's of course erroneous to say 'apps you don't download', since the apps are downloaded and cached, it just doesn't make a production out of it. Which is of course going to be the case for WeChat or Google or *anything* for that matter (after all a processor cannot run code that it can't read).

      I know that if you described something like this to the original www team at the time they'd wonder at how their original vision of 'gopher++' turned into *this*.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      Congratulations - you invented the World Wide Web

      There is probably a tiny bit more to it than that; nothing new in running against an application server, of course, but I suppose the real story might be that networking on mobiles is now considered mature and cheap enough for this architecture to be viable. And, I don't think you can equate www with "application servers".

      My thought is that this is closer to how Citrix works. WeChat is basically the Citrix client...

    9. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Junta · · Score: 2

      If I had to bet, I'd bet on browser embedded in the client rather than a remote video. You can do almost anything you could need in a mobile device using a web browser with javascript.

      A remote video solution would be utterly terrible (it's not even seemless on local high speed networks, over mobile networks it's atrocious no matter who the vendor is).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    10. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by thebes · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least credit the source for your punchline:

      https://xkcd.com/1367/

    11. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Someone has to install a browser, but not the end user on any machine since the early 2000s.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Nah - I'm older than that. I'd have used the punchline of "...and then I invented ISPF!" but most of you wouldn't get it. Thanks anyway for the comic reference - I never saw that one but I suppose that guy's illustrated just about all the good IT jokes by now.

      Now GTFO my lawn.

    13. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      >> app...without needing to install anything

      Congratulations - you invented the World Wide Web

      JavaScript was so cool that one of the creators of the company has had a hard-on for years with this dream - come up with a way to chat that uses lots of scripting and inclusions of scripts to make it behave in weird ways..... you know.... like the old IRC script days... but new!

      Sorry.. Just had to.

    14. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      >> app...without needing to install anything Congratulations - you invented the World Wide Web

      Yes. And when ALL applications are web-based, and all of our computing devices require an Internet connection to do anything at all because all of the software we use lives on somebody else's computer, then we will be well and truly pwned by our corporate overlords. It absolutely blows me away that Joe and Jane Public don't see where this is all going, even when it's explained to them in very basic terms. As a result of software-as-a-service and a burgeoning IoT that includes automobiles, lights, and refrigerators(!), average people are gradually, (or not so gradually), losing control over every single device in their lives that uses electricity. So even battery backup and local power sources won't be able to prevent the powers-that-be from remotely 'pulling the plug' on a large percentage of the developed world.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    15. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Unless downloading means something else to marketing people than it means to me...

      EVERYTHING means something else to marketing people than it does to ...differently-educated folks like Slashdotters.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    16. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say that:

        They didn't invent shit just like Apple iPhone didn't invent shit with the iPhone. And everything else you see today isn't invented by any of the companies you buy it on and it's all just marketing.

      Sincerely,
      Just Your Regular Arrogant Self Important Know-it-all Asshole who posted this before you.

    17. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Chinese so it's shit LOL

      Trumps gonna revert them to Stone Age ;)

    18. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      The world would be a kinder, greener place if all we used was gopher on ispf.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    19. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convenience trumps everything... Until it doesn't. But then it's too late.

    20. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Wow: a dicksize /. fight!

    21. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      So even battery backup and local power sources won't be able to prevent the powers-that-be from remotely 'pulling the plug' on a large percentage of the developed world.

      No: the millennium bug all over again!

    22. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true and google already did it in chrome apps.

    23. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by erapert · · Score: 1

      EVERYTHING means something else to marketing people than it does to educated folks.

      FTFY

    24. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      It's Chinese so it's shit LOL

      Trumps gonna revert them to Stone Age ;)

      Slashdot needs a "So inane you feel stupider for having read it" mod.

    25. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      or dlopen()

    26. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is shorter.

    27. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by linuxgeek64 · · Score: 1

      Downloading implies keeping data more than temporarily, whereas retrieving doesn't.

    28. Re:Congratulations - you invented the WWW by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Glad to hear all my surfing won't be counted towards my cellphone download limits then...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    29. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... You mean except end users who have any preference beyond the bundled looad of crap? Because I build systems all the time, and I'm always installing browsers...

    30. Re: Congratulations - you invented the WWW by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Exactly - you only install a browser if you want to.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Float your bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google is using Angular or some similar "best practices" approach, they're probably still working on their framework framework framework.

  3. AC Releases Large Deuce, Needs Wiping/Flushing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eom

  4. Deep recursion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, folks. I lived through punchcards & Fortran, semi-intelligent terminals which you could put in some "mask mode" controlled by COBOL, every user having (at least) one computer (remember Pournelle's Law?) to the OS (under the user's control) being obliterated by the browser (controlled by the advertisement company), which is, if you squint a bit, just a semi-intelligent terminal with entry masks.

    It's not a loop, it's a recursion, since we are accumulating crap on the "stack" (ironically it's called like this. C.G. Jung would be delighted by this synchronicity), and this at an alarming rate. OS, browser, angular.js (or however the Browser Abstraction Layer du jour is called, I lost count). No tail call optimization.

    I'm still waiting for the whole contraption to explode in some unexpected way, spreading its unsightly guts all over the place. It won't be pretty, but it'll be definitely... interesting.

    1. Re: Deep recursion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you had a point in there somewhere. Damned if I can find it. Remember when we did everything by hand? Remember where we had to fart in binary to get shit done? Yes. And I'm glad we don't have to do that.
        The world is built on compromise and pragmatism. You define perfection. There is no place for perfection in computing. It's the unattainable goal
      Just be thankful anything works at all

    2. Re: Deep recursion by Junta · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time, 'powerful' computers were a precious resource that could not be dedicated to a single person, and so these impossibly dumb terminals were all people were allowed.

      Then as things advanced, that model became obsolete, as devices much more powerful than the old powerful computers were so cheap, it just made sense to have everyone use dedicated computing devices, empowering the users and enabling a thriving home computer market of self-empowered users.

      On the networking front, things started with BBSes and more relevant to most, walled garden environments like AOL and Prodigy. The scope of what they could provide was limited by network limitations, but to the extent communications and information flowed, it was controlled by your service provider with an iron fist. You *had* to pay AOL money if you wanted anyone to be able to find your data by keywords online, as an example.

      Then as networking advanced, federated technologies like WWW and IRC prevailed, and suddenly the barriers of competition were reduced again and people could communicate and change who got their money and attention on a whim without repercussions. The late 90s were defined by standards and federated approaches displacing proprietary and isolated technologies. It represented a time where companies that had locked down their corners of the market had their customer base opened up to competition. Without this, Google, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and so forth never would have been able to start, it would have just been all-AOL.

      In this century, we've seen a select few corporate interests get back much of the control. Google has become the de facto gatekeeper to the web, software vendors now don't need to let users download or can require their software to checkin and implement a 'rental-only' model for software, and applications that were once federated or at least could be instantiated by many are dominated instead by locked-in solutions (e.g. Slack is so much better than IRC, but is controlled by a single corporate interest, though MatterMost is pretty good at least...). Every little voice recognition clip is uploaded to remote servers for processing despite the fact the edge devices are orders of magnitude more powerful than systems that were doing voice dictation 20 years ago. We have been trained to treat multiprocessor multi-gigahertz devices with gigabytes of ram as dumb terminals not appropriate for any remotely serious task.

      No, the old ways aren't better from a UI perspective or an experience perspective, but make no mistake that the power dynamic change that has come with it has downsides, and that's not so much the fault of the technology, just the usual power dynamic of human nature reasserting itself after a brief period where things were taken by surprise.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re: Deep recursion by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      I remember! That time, my dick was huge! :P

    4. Re: Deep recursion by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Overall, I agree, but I do disagree with a few of your statements.

      1. UIs today are far less productive than they used to be. They mirror the reduced functionality of the software that implements them. The focus is on aesthetics rather than sane layouts. The 'experience' you speak of is fraught with frustration of 'feature-hunt', coupled with a passive aggressive struggle with the developers who pretend they don't understand why you wanted that feature they removed from the latest forced update.

      2. Slack is not better than IRC. Slack IS IRC, with the negatives of 'mobile style' UI grafted on top of it. There's nothing about it that's really better than IRC. It's just someone's money grab. Discord is of similar ilk vs IRC/teamspeak/ventrilo/mumble.

    5. Re: Deep recursion by Junta · · Score: 1

      On the UI front, at least I'll agree that some GNOME software has done that. MS fell into that big time with Windows 8, though they have walked back some of it. However I can't think of too many examples outside of those two where an existing software did big steps backwards.

      On Slack v. IRC, it's not that *hard* what they added, but having the history available on reconnect, being able to paste text and images and such into chat rather than resorting to pastebins. Sure some things like emoji support may be a bit silly, but otherwise it's something that makes a lot of functionality a lot more accessible. We would be better off recognizing that IRC is *not* in fact perfect as is and think about actually competing instead of being in denial.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re: Deep recursion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows' interface has been a senseless load of garbage since at least the 95 days. Not that OS X is all that much better. For the most part, the major OSes lack internally unified approaches to UI. Good UI design, when fulfilling a roll that sees deep and varied everyday use, requires a certain amount of learning curve, and in particular that the user modify their habits and routines of use in reasonable ways to accommodate the best functioning of the system, simultaneous to its accommodation of you and your needs.

      The major OS markets exert continuous pressure against these design goals as vendors are A) typically trying to attract back a wide breadth of prior users who will buck and haw and rile at even beneficial changes to the interface, B] trying to attract new customers via new features which to act as hook have to be instantly superficially usable far more than robust or rewarding or powerful, and C) they are by and large targeting a community of users who do not have a detailed, in depth, or functional knowledge of the device/software they are using.

      As it is I've restricted most of my daily computing to local webpages I can interface however I want, but I find myself needing to tab over to it far less often in Gnome 3 then something like Windows (7/8/10 what have you) or OS X.

  5. But will they beat them in withdrawing support? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    But will they beat them in withdrawing support? Google are still the fastest at this.

  6. Google already does it... by Junta · · Score: 1

    It's called 'Chrome' (as others have pointed out).

    What Google *specifically* promised was run an application without installing under android. I presume we are talking about a read chunks of the application on demand rather than requiring the whole thing to download in advance, so the application would think the device just has *really* slow storage for accessing the application payload.

    However it could be as simple as changing the UI to make the download be invisible to the user (which is how web apps work, they get downloaded and cached when possible on load rather than have a distinct 'install' phase) and the 'feature' only working with small apps where that's reasonably possible.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. No need to download or install? by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

    But do I still have to load it into RAM before I can run it?

    1. Re:No need to download or install? by unixisc · · Score: 2

      No, it runs from the cloud

    2. Re:No need to download or install? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      partly true: only the UI is needed...

  8. Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't this be open to abuse?

    You have app A which downloads and executes resource A from some server.
    Googles anti-malware checks go, 'hey, no nasty stuff here!', grants the publish request.
    Now resource A is switched out for some sneaky rootkit malware.

    I always thought this was against their rules.
    Maybe it is some other method. Maybe the non-apps need to be hosted via their servers.
    Will need to check. If either way is allowed, it'll make an app I'm about to start insanely easier.

  9. A point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I'm sure you had a point in there somewhere.

    Yes, but you didn't "get" it :-)

    > There is no place for perfection in computing.

    I'm just waiting for the explosion. That'll be Perfect. A bit as depicted by Monty Python's Mr. Creosote.

    Man, that'll be fun.

  10. Only apps can app apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apps!

  11. What?? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "WeChat Beats Google in Releasing Apps That Don't Need Downloading or Installing"

    A chatroom that doesn't require downloading anything? Whoop de fuckin' doo....1998 called and wants their chatroom back.

    This is the most retarded "news" in months. In other words they "invented" something that's been around for almost 20 years.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:What?? by lgw · · Score: 1

      WeChat isn't IRC - it's a platform on which basically everything runs that's your typical user in China regularly uses. There's a reason TenCent is as big as Alibaba.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:What?? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      WeChat isn't IRC - it's a platform on which basically everything runs that's your typical user in China regularly uses. There's a reason TenCent is as big as Alibaba.

      Whatever WeChat may be, I was using chatrooms that didn't require downloading or installing any app almost 20 years ago. An HTML page with a couple of frames and some javascript was all it took.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:What?? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but WeChat is effectively FaceBook. It's a platform on which lots of apps run, not just chat.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:What?? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but WeChat is effectively FaceBook.

      Sounds like another reason to avoid it like the plague.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    5. Re:What?? by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's China. If you're worried about some large organization knowing everything you do on and off line, you're already screwed. But it gets worse. Way worse than Facebook knowing you even though you don't have an account.

      People use WeChat for everything. An ontopic example is buying train tickets: today clicking the icon actually launches the web browser, but soon it will be an app inside the WeChat app. The "apps guy" would be proud.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Different how? by fullphaser · · Score: 1

    How is this different from Discord or any other web application that has existed for the last 15 years? I feel like there's some key piece I'm missing to make sense of how this isn't a totally bullshit article.

    --
    Did someone say cake?
  13. That's unpossible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No download?

    That would mean your device gets no new data and therefore no new nothing, app or otherwise.

    Marketing department speak is weird.

    1. Re:That's unpossible. by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Think of mind power, man!

  14. Is this news or advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This appears to be a press release from Tencent, filtered through Mashable and then resubmitted to Slashdot. Was anyone excitedly waiting to see which large company released no-install-internal-to-an-application programs first? Is anyone paying attention to what gets posted?

  15. ActiveX by Luthair · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong.

  16. X Windows by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    X already did this like what, 30, 40 years ago?

  17. The Americans will steal this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wait and see. Microsoft and Google will present the same thing in 2017 for sure.

  18. Bloatware by zakzor · · Score: 1

    There's a name for the only apps that don't need to be installed and downloaded. It's called bloatware.

  19. Surprise! Web standards support writing apps! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    I think it was about two years ago that W3C and Smartphone manufacturers standardized (mostly) and implemented the facilities necessary for web pages to work as apps. I programmed one that long ago and somehow never thought to claim credit for the invention on Slashdot :-)

    As far as I can tell, there is little need for pre-installed apps any longer, or mobile sites.

    I am not a tremendous fan of the graft of Javascript and a programmable DOM to static web pages as an afterthought. But given the way it grew, and the advent of websockets and the two dozen other new web APIs, it's implemented well enough now to do pretty much whatever you want.

    1. Re:Surprise! Web standards support writing apps! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering how they do it without downloads. Maybe the apps are preloaded on a SD card that is sold to them?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re: Surprise! Web standards support writing apps! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      There really are downloads but you don't do them. The main page, opened normally from the browser, links to a cache manifest file. Everything listed in that file is downloaded and long term cached by the browser. From then on you have the app in local storage. If you save the front page to the desktop, it gets an app icon and opens full screen in an undecorated browser (no URL bar, etc.) and looks just like any other app.

  20. Seriously retarded article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Newspeak techno babble. But I gess the free ad worked ok.

  21. Full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woohoo, we've come full circle. When the iPhone first came out, all we had were those shitty "web apps", then things evolved, the App Store grew out of it, and things got better.

    Why would we want to go back to that? We would not, that's why.

    1. Re: Full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, the vast majority of mobile apps are entirely pointless repackagings of websites as local applications that half the time display you everything in a watered down browser window that opens internally. Sure, I don't want to be materially restricted from running local apps, but I would LOVE if the money and resources started flowing towards mobile web pages I can open in a browser of my choice with my security and privacy settings/features enabled, for most sites. All separating every app off does is complicate security management, increase the feasibility of walled gardens, and make it easier to steal the end users metadata to relentlessly track them.

      More to the point, this article is largely marketing speak and signals no changes of the sort, in either direction.

  22. Part of the popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comes from getting 10% discount almost everywhere when using WePay.

  23. Homeopathic Software by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I think they either invented the Homeopathic download-- the less you download the more capable the software is or they invented Douglas Adams computer desk. The software just watches what you do, infers what app you need, and writes it on the spot.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  24. flight search engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On first glance, I thought it said "flight engine", as in a flight simulator, which I thought, wow, a whole flight simulator within html5.

    1. Re:flight search engine by tepples · · Score: 1

      wow, a whole flight simulator within html5

      JavaScript NES emulators exist. The only thing keeping you from running Top Gun for NES in such an emulator is Konami's legal department.

  25. IRC can do history and pasting by tepples · · Score: 1

    having the history available on reconnect

    HexChat and other popular IRC clients keep client-side history by default, and some IRC servers support "bouncers" that provide server-side history. I guess the reason they're not used more often is that there's a culture against keeping a permanent record of things said in a channel (IRC's term for a group chat).

    being able to paste text and images and such into chat rather than resorting to pastebins

    Unless the IRC client automatically authenticates to a pastebin service on the user's behalf and sends any pasted image or pasted text longer than 4 lines there.

    Sure some things like emoji support may be a bit silly

    Silly, yet supported in any IRC client that processes UTF-8 encoded Unicode text.