Google Starts Live Testing Instant Apps on Android (zdnet.com)

Last year, Google previewed a new feature that would allow a user to try out an app without having to download and install it first. China's WeChat recently made the service live on its platform, but Google too hasn't forgotten about it. From a report: Google said it has started live testing of its Instant App initiative in a move that could make it easier for developers and companies to manage their mobile footprints. Developers will have to make their apps more modular to work with Instant Apps, but if you're an enterprise you have to watch this project closely. Here's why: With modular apps that are tied to the Web support, maintenance and updating could become easier. Instant Apps, which blend the app and mobile Web, could curb the need to support Android apps as heavily. Integration with the Web could provide a native experience yet lead to more up sell, subscription and data activity for companies.

Comments

How about fixing security first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really. How many times do Android phones en masse need to be 'pwned' before Google starts taking this shit seriously?

Re: How about fixing security first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to do more research but it sounds like it's meant to be closer to operating as a Chrome tab internally, while appearing to act like an app as far as load behavior and appearance in the recent apps. Kinda like when you open the mobile Twitter website and don't have the app installed.

Deja Vu

[Waffle Iron]

What makes this kind of thing any more desirable than it was back when it was called "ActiveX" or "Applet"?

Re:Deja Vu

[Penguinisto]

...or "iFrame"?

(/me ducks and runs like hell, laughing maniacally...)

Re:Deja Vu

[tlhIngan]

What makes this kind of thing any more desirable than it was back when it was called "ActiveX" or "Applet"?

Or even... Apps?

Something present since iOS was called iPhoneOS... hell, this was a feature present since the original iPhone release back in 2007!

In fact, Steve Jobs insisted this was the only way to get apps on the iPhone, and pushed for HTML5 to include ways to get access to the camera, location (GPS), sensor data, etc. And it's still a way for apps to be written that bypass the Apple App Store even on iOS today.

Somewhat different, no permission to access system

[raymorris]

It does seem to be a similar concept, but the implementation differences are significant.

ActiveX "applets" are/were full Windows programs, which could do anything any other application could do. I wrote one which manipulated hardware buffers in the video card.

Android Instant Apps don't have access to storage, to other applications, etc. Like Javascript, they are much more restricted than ActiveX was.

We've gone full circle

[Zibodiz]

First there was the web, then everything had to be moved to apps. Now that everyone is finally comfortable with apps, they're admitting that web-based interaction is superior, and starting the gradual migration back that direction.
Apps have a time and place (projects that rely on phone-specific hardware, such as tilt sensors, touch screens, or GPS), but there is absolutely no reason I should have to load an app to shop on Amazon or Ebay, order more paperclips from Office Depot, or download coupons from Burger King. These are apps simply for the sake of having apps, and they do nothing to enhance the user experience over a website's capabilities.

Re:We've gone full circle

[ctilsie242]

Didn't Jobs assume that websites would have this functionality with the first rev of the iPhone, thus it didn't have any additional apps at first?

I can see this functionality useful for limited time events, such as an app used during a music festival which runs for a few days and then is gone, but other than that, a website can do most of the ephemeral functionality, and an app can do more permanent, stateful stuff.

Re:We've gone full circle

[snookiex]

How come "there is absolutely no reason"? What about tracking you more easily? or accessing not-related personal information? There are plenty of reasons. They're just not your reasons.

Re:We've gone full circle

[Zibodiz]

My point exactly; there's nothing there that benefits me, the one who has to use his time, data, and limited storage for an app. It's a pretty rotten arrangement.

Re:We've gone full circle

[coofercat]

Well... we might be half-circle here ;-)

This is sort of like Java applets, but instead of an "anyone can just fire one up on their webpage", there's a curated list of them. To be accepted onto the list they must behave vaguely correctly, and in return are allowed access to things your browser can't reach. In that regard, they're in-browser functionality, but they're running in a super-browser that has access to hardware and data that normal browsers don't.

For what it's worth, this looks like it might just be a good implementation of the 'applet' concept. Java applets failed because they were big, slow, not terribly reliable, and didn't give an integrated experience with the rest of the web. These aren't part of the 'web' in the obvious sense, by todays standards they're not terribly big (and can be cached aggressively). They ought to be able to offer a 'rich' experience, be somewhat familiar, but don't require the user to make (much) commitment to use them. There's a chance this might actually work... Or maybe it won't and we'll be back to 'thick' apps and web pages like we are now.

That's not really the case...

[SuperKendall]

ActiveX "applets" are/were full Windows programs, which could do anything any other application could do.

Which is why for a time they were widely used.

Android Instant Apps don't have access to storage, to other applications, etc.

If that were wholly true they would not be very useful...

Instant apps have some access to the system, with restrictions. In addition to the standard Android permissions apps have to obey, they have some other limitations - a subset:

* Can't access external storage - but they can access private local storage. That to me is a potential hole, especially if the full app can get at that later.

* No access to long term ID's like SSAID, or IMEI - but can access AdvertisingID.

* Foreground services are available while instant app is running.

* Cannot use explicit intents to access other apps.

So while there are many restrictions, there are also areas where security issues may allow an instant app to break from the sandbox. Being pretty new there are bound to be some gaps.

I personally have reservations about something like Instant Apps really being any more useful than applets were. We'll see though.

Re:Somewhat different, no permission to access sys

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the whole web integration nonsense and updating?

Surely that can be abused so hard?
Push app update to store, google does their anti-malware checks, nuffin, update granted, it goes public.
But I'm an evil dirty hacker and allowed my app to download and execute code from a webserver, outside of Google influence.
HA HA, take that phone!

I seriously hope this isn't the model being pushed in this. That's fucking retarded.
It's bad enough when shitty developers push updates on people and break compatibility (PC included!), this would allow for malware on scales not seen.

That's no different than the app store

[raymorris]

> But I'm an evil dirty hacker and allowed my app to download and execute code from a webserver, outside of Google influence.

How is that different from an installed app-store app doing the same thing?

XKCD...

[Anonymous Coward]

Randall Munroe seems positively prescient. If only he'd patented it: https://xkcd.com/1367/

Re:Somewhat different, no permission to access sys

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, "Instant Apps" are literally just Java Applets that require Android-specific something-or-other because "reasons."

Re:Somewhat different, no permission to access sys

[Anonymous Coward]

because "reasons."

And those reasons are because mommy and daddy are fighting about who gets to control Java.
See: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc..

Android OS permissions / security, faster loading

[raymorris]

Yeah, with a couple of major differences. The Android operating system is of course built with a robust system of permissions, a security model, baked in. That's different from the Java sandbox running as a program on Windows.

Secondly, Android is of course designed for Java(ish) and the virtual machine is already running - no waiting for Java to load.

We've had this for a while

[IGnatius T Foobar]

We've had this for a while. It's called "mobile web sites"

Obligatory

[b783719]

https://xkcd.com/1367/

Stop trying to push WebOS/MozillaOS web app crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, web apps suck. Everyone knows this.

Stop trying to find new ways to push it.

I remember seeing something like this years and ye

[BlytheBowman]

except it was for J2ME/Java dumbphone apps. Basicly, it ran the apps in the browser (with a bit of conversion or emulation done first) and provided a virtual keypad you could click on with your mouse to try apps before you bought them for your phone. A neat idea, but I imagine many people scooped the .jar/.jad files from the browser cache and installed them to their phone with a usb cable and Bitpim, so they dropped this service. Android "apps" are just enhanced Java apps, not to different from the old style J2ME progs, and I can see the same thing happening here, no matter what security they impliment.