Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
Wow, you've got a lot of imagination here. First of all iOS and OSX is built on POSIX too, you can built every open source POSIX programs on those platform ever since they're birth. ChromeOS is meant to be an interpreted apps platform running thru a web browser, it will never beat a native app with the same level of optimization no matter what.
The future is mobility, and most people wants the power in their hands, not on a cloud. Look at the onlive debacle, I don't want to be tied on a service to use my things, I don't want to depend on a connection to make my work. I do want a connection for live things, updates and share data, but you know the internet itself is not flawless and any services can be put offline any time, better keep my valuable data out of it. Imagine now if someone could stop every chromebook from working by disrupting google authentication service.
But have a hard time to discern whats Google try to achieve with this poor man apps platform and no desktop likes tablets. ChromeOS is maybe cool idea as a bare minimum secondary OS, but a pretty non-sense at this point to built a premium device for this braindead OS with no killer apps.
Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome (chrome://apps/), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
The Chrome book is a $200 toy. Comparing it to an iPad or a Macbook is a big joke. Mentioning that businesses are adopting it is an even bigger joke. I find this to be more FUD. And since Apple hasn't announced its earnings or sales I find it hard to believe the Chrome book has any chance of beating the iPad Air sales which probably sold more in one week than Chrome book did in a whole quarter.
Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough. My friend wanted to send a local file to an always on networked drive so that her TV could access the movies. But there is no way to use a NAS on a Chromebook. So no movies.
Doesn't the NAS have a built-in web server? If it's a drive on a Windows machine, then a local Apache web server would be quick to set up. Not ideal, but it would enable writing files to the shared folder.
Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome (chrome://apps/), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
So if it's HTML 5, these things should work in any browser, right?
It looks like Google is bastardising open web standards just like Microsoft did in the nineties.
Chrome???
Why should everyone be coerced into using Google's browser if they don't want to?
Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome ([URL=]chrome://apps/[/URL]), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
I was curious about your desktop apps and what I've found are only themes or remote desktop apps, nothing near the Mac or Windows finder-files explorer, so yes this is an issue for a computer meant to replace a Mac or Windows machine.
The iPad killer apps was the same as the iPhone: the App Store with many years of customer relationship before coming out with apps on the iPhone and the iPad. The biggest problems Google is facing right now with both of their platform is they don't got the same level of fidelity from their users. While I know more peoples using Android phones than iPhones, no one I know have buy anything yet on the Google Store or even want to give their credit card to Google. In another hand this Christmas I've seen many iTunes gift cards exchange, this is where the ecosystem is the killer apps for iOS.
You know I've seen so many overhyped runtime environment over time, they said exactly the same things about JAVA when it first comes out like 20 years ago, It was supposed to end all incompatibility with the write once runs everywhere concept. We all know now how it went, JAVA apps are crappy and inefficient on every platform when compared to native apps. Those runtimes environment are nothing more than shortcuts for lazy developers.
I use many apps on my iPad, but I found your choice interesting. I do use a lot the Youtube apps on my iPad, even more than on my laptop where i am most of the time, because I like the native iPad apps better than the web site, the same apply to many other apps like, Google Maps, Netflix, Facebook. They all are proof of native apps performing better than their web site counterpart.
Firstly, interpreted apps will never be native, pure and simple. Secondly, the APIs will never be remotely as rich.
Using the adjective "interpreted" makes your first statement a tauntology. I'm guessing you probably meant "apps delivered as source code will never be as [fast, efficient, compact, proprietary, something else - pick one or more] as apps delivered as binaries".
Quite counter-intuitively, you're wrong, based on 30+ years of professional computer engineering experience, which explains all that grey hair ;-) . If you'll indulge me, I'd like to explain why I believe this to be so, and thus why I believe web apps are likely the future of mainstream computing.
1. Fast - In the dark ages, we used to believe that assembly programs would always be faster than compiled programs. Then, most compiled programs became faster than hand-crafted assembly in practice because compilers were just far better at optimizing the instructions than humans could realistically be. Similarly, by deferring creation of the binary until load time, a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler can take optimal advantage of exactly what is installed on the local machine - even down to the version of the instruction set and libraries available. Very heavy investment by the major OS vendors have made (especially) JavaScript extremely fast at load/run time compilation as well as execution speed, though some classes of apps (such as 3D immersive gaming) still work better with pre-compilation. That's likely to change for most use cases over time, though. Progress is just so darned inexorable.
2. Efficient - This one is easier to grasp. Given load time compilation, it becomes reasonable to handle API changes and optional libraries on the fly, resulting in less resource utilization. And I see no reason at all that different APIs must be used with pre-compiled and load time compiled programs, especially given that some niche Linux systems install ALL apps by simply compiling them. Can you elaborate on why you seem (based on other parts of your post) to believe that must be so?
3. Compact - Text is remarkably compressible, so in practice the size difference between binaries and source code tends to balance out to the negligible. In my experience, compressed binaries actually lose the size battle with compressed source more often than not, since no static boilerplate code need be included with source.
4. Proprietary - Yes, it's a bit harder to do DRM when you deliver source code over the web. However, if run within a proprietary browser, a signed and encrypted source tarball could in fact be delivered, decrypted, compiled, and run without exposing the source. (I don't support DRM on principle, you understand, just pointing out what's probably obvious in retrospect.)
5. Something else - Can you clarify?
It's always dangerous to say "never" and "pure and simple", because absolutes and simple answers rarely are. :-)
Hope this is received in the spirit of gentle debate in which it's offered. Thanks for reading such a long post. Maybe I'm missing work more than I expected. :-D
I was curious about your desktop apps and what I've found are only themes or remote desktop apps, nothing near the Mac or Windows finder-files explorer, so yes this is an issue for a computer meant to replace a Mac or Windows machine.
The iPad killer apps was the same as the iPhone: the App Store with many years of customer relationship before coming out with apps on the iPhone and the iPad. The biggest problems Google is facing right now with both of their platform is they don't got the same level of fidelity from their users. While I know more peoples using Android phones than iPhones, no one I know have buy anything yet on the Google Store or even want to give their credit card to Google. In another hand this Christmas I've seen many iTunes gift cards exchange, this is where the ecosystem is the killer apps for iOS.
You know I've seen so many overhyped runtime environment over time, they said exactly the same things about JAVA when it first comes out like 20 years ago, It was supposed to end all incompatibility with the write once runs everywhere concept. We all know now how it went, JAVA apps are crappy and inefficient on every platform when compared to native apps. Those runtimes environment are nothing more than shortcuts for lazy developers.
I use many apps on my iPad, but I found your choice interesting. I do use a lot the Youtube apps on my iPad, even more than on my laptop where i am most of the time, because I like the native iPad apps better than the web site, the same apply to many other apps like, Google Maps, Netflix, Facebook. They all are proof of native apps performing better than their web site counterpart.
It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.
Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars.
Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.
Preferring a Youtube app to a web version is more of a statement about the interface than the performance of a native app. Youtube performance has a bottleneck on the input stream, not a native vs. interpreted implementation. You prefer tapping with your fingers to clicking with a mouse or pad. No harm there, but it's nothing to do with the performance of a platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So if it's HTML 5, these things should work in any browser, right?
It looks like Google is bastardising open web standards just like Microsoft did in the nineties.
Chrome???
Why should everyone be coerced into using Google's browser if they don't want to?
What happened to freedom of the Internet?
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.
Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.
But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.
It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.
Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars.
Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.
Preferring a Youtube app to a web version is more of a statement about the interface than the performance of a native app. Youtube performance has a bottleneck on the input stream, not a native vs. interpreted implementation. You prefer tapping with your fingers to clicking with a mouse or pad. No harm there, but it's nothing to do with the performance of a platform.
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.
Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.
But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.
To add to this sensible commentary, you can actually avoid much of the relevant advertising through the magic of AdBlock (pro or otherwise), available on Chrome or Safari.
I guess I should also disclose that I made exactly two technology purchases in the last six months: A MacBook Air for my middle-schooler and a Chromecast for the family. A Chromebook is not far behind for the younger kids though...
My main machine is a quad-core Win7 HP laptop that I bought for $500. Threw an SSD in there and use it for image processing (99% Lightroom).
Using the adjective "interpreted" makes your first statement a tauntology. I'm guessing you probably meant "apps delivered as source code will never be as [fast, efficient, compact, proprietary, something else - pick one or more] as apps delivered as binaries".
Quite counter-intuitively, you're wrong, based on 30+ years of professional computer engineering experience, which explains all that grey hair ;-) . If you'll indulge me, I'd like to explain why I believe this to be so, and thus why I believe web apps are likely the future of mainstream computing.
1. Fast - In the dark ages, we used to believe that assembly programs would always be faster than compiled programs. Then, most compiled programs became faster than hand-crafted assembly in practice because compilers were just far better at optimizing the instructions than humans could realistically be. Similarly, by deferring creation of the binary until load time, a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler can take optimal advantage of exactly what is installed on the local machine - even down to the version of the instruction set and libraries available. Very heavy investment by the major OS vendors have made (especially) JavaScript extremely fast at load/run time compilation as well as execution speed, though some classes of apps (such as 3D immersive gaming) still work better with pre-compilation. That's likely to change for most use cases over time, though. Progress is just so darned inexorable.
2. Efficient - This one is easier to grasp. Given load time compilation, it becomes reasonable to handle API changes and optional libraries on the fly, resulting in less resource utilization. And I see no reason at all that different APIs must be used with pre-compiled and load time compiled programs, especially given that some niche Linux systems install ALL apps by simply compiling them. Can you elaborate on why you seem (based on other parts of your post) to believe that must be so?
3. Compact - Text is remarkably compressible, so in practice the size difference between binaries and source code tends to balance out to the negligible. In my experience, compressed binaries actually lose the size battle with compressed source more often than not, since no static boilerplate code need be included with source.
4. Proprietary - Yes, it's a bit harder to do DRM when you deliver source code over the web. However, if run within a proprietary browser, a signed and encrypted source tarball could in fact be delivered, decrypted, compiled, and run without exposing the source. (I don't support DRM on principle, you understand, just pointing out what's probably obvious in retrospect.)
5. Something else - Can you clarify?
It's always dangerous to say "never" and "pure and simple", because absolutes and simple answers rarely are. :-)
Hope this is received in the spirit of gentle debate in which it's offered. Thanks for reading such a long post. Maybe I'm missing work more than I expected. :-D
Despite all this the code still needs processor cycles to interpret code. And the interpreted code will not have access to all the native API has. The main reason why HTML 5 is a pipe dream is that the combination of a markup language and a scripting language requires a lot more effort to make it work as well as native. If this were not true why did the App Store only take off after the release of a native API.
So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?
btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.
This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".
I agree that Google is hypocritical when it comes to being "open" but I don't agree with particular instance. They have created an OS that uses webcode for the UI (which is really no different from WebOS) so for it to be good one would expect Google to create APIs and frameworks that work better with their code and to do things not otherwise wouldn't be possible with the open web standards.
So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?
btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.
This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".
First, this is no different than any other current major platform, aside from Linux. Apple has APIs, and guess how much iOS or OSX software runs on other platforms? Open software is great and everything, but it's a bit more challenging to make money off of it. How much of Microsoft's and Apple's current core code is available for download? Here's a start at some of Google's.
Google proclaimed themselves the "champions of 'open?'" Citation please. At one point, they said they wanted to "don't be evil," but wasn't that in the last millennium? Companies often change mission statements according to changing goals.
I swear, certain tech fanbois sound just like Fox-News-watching conservatives ripping on "liberals" or "progressives" when it comes to competing technologies. The irony is how liberal this crowd believes itself to be. I say this as someone with more Apple devices in his home than any other brand -- that doesn't mean they're better at everything.
If you don't like Google's pervasiveness, well, hang on, because you're going to have some issues in the coming years.
Despite all this the code still needs processor cycles to interpret code.... And the interpreted code will not have access to all the native API has. ... If this were not true why did the App Store only take off after the release of a native API?
OK, I think I understand your argument now. Since the iPhone 1, which was introduced before JIT compilers and when the ink on the HTML 5 spec was barely loaded into the printer (it's still not final), had to use native apps to succeed, you're arguing that technology is frozen and all of the advances of the past 6 years never happened and web apps will never become mainstream. Is that a fair if somewhat pointed summary of your argument?
My only response is that the past 6 years did happen, JavaScript does not require an interpreter any longer on any modern system, and insisting that JavaScript APIs must necessarily be less complete than for other languages is not a limitation just because you believe it to be.
I would appreciate it if you would read the history of SpiderMonkey (the first JIT JS compiler) and the history of the HTML 5 spec (currently a candidate recommendation) on Wikipedia if you decide to respond, otherwise we'll be stuck in "it's interpreted" "it's compiled" "HTML 5 was final for iPhone 1" "HTML 5 is still not final" limbo forever.
This might be the funniest thing I've read all day.
Ah, nope, it was this headline from fark.com: Billionaire upset with the Pope's comments about capitalism says he may withhold donation, will instead spend the money on an attempt to get a camel through the eye of a needle
OK, I think I understand your argument now. Since the iPhone 1, which was introduced before JIT compilers and when the ink on the HTML 5 spec was barely loaded into the printer (it's still not final), had to use native apps to succeed, you're arguing that technology is frozen and all of the advances of the past 6 years never happened and web apps will never become mainstream. Is that a fair if somewhat pointed summary of your argument?
My only response is that the past 6 years did happen, JavaScript does not require an interpreter any longer on any modern system, and insisting that JavaScript APIs must necessarily be less complete than for other languages is not a limitation just because you believe it to be.
I would appreciate it if you would read the history of SpiderMonkey (the first JIT JS compiler) and the history of the HTML 5 spec (currently a candidate recommendation) on Wikipedia if you decide to respond, otherwise we'll be stuck in "it's interpreted" "it's compiled" "HTML 5 was final for iPhone 1" "HTML 5 is still not final" limbo forever.
I've been hearing this nonsense for decades. If you think there is a 1-1 correspondence between the API set of iOS - from posix C, to core foundation, to foundation, to the app kit - and a scripting language well there is a bridge in Broklyn for sale - yours for a dollar.
Indeed the iPhone 5S is way ahead of the first iPhone - so where are the web apps which work at the same level as native apps.
This might be the funniest thing I've read all day.
Ah, nope, it was this headline from fark.com: Billionaire upset with the Pope's comments about capitalism says he may withhold donation, will instead spend the money on an attempt to get a camel through the eye of a needle
Close 2nd though.
Not being brought up in America I don't respond to Argument De Sneer. Feel free to quote me again and make an argument.
Comments
Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
Wow, you've got a lot of imagination here. First of all iOS and OSX is built on POSIX too, you can built every open source POSIX programs on those platform ever since they're birth. ChromeOS is meant to be an interpreted apps platform running thru a web browser, it will never beat a native app with the same level of optimization no matter what.
The future is mobility, and most people wants the power in their hands, not on a cloud. Look at the onlive debacle, I don't want to be tied on a service to use my things, I don't want to depend on a connection to make my work. I do want a connection for live things, updates and share data, but you know the internet itself is not flawless and any services can be put offline any time, better keep my valuable data out of it. Imagine now if someone could stop every chromebook from working by disrupting google authentication service.
But have a hard time to discern whats Google try to achieve with this poor man apps platform and no desktop likes tablets. ChromeOS is maybe cool idea as a bare minimum secondary OS, but a pretty non-sense at this point to built a premium device for this braindead OS with no killer apps.
Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome (chrome://apps/), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
Nope.
Mentioning that businesses are adopting it is an even bigger joke. I find this to be more FUD.
And since Apple hasn't announced its earnings or sales I find it hard to believe the Chrome book has any chance of beating the iPad Air sales which probably sold more in one week than Chrome book did in a whole quarter.
Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough. My friend wanted to send a local file to an always on networked drive so that her TV could access the movies. But there is no way to use a NAS on a Chromebook. So no movies.
Doesn't the NAS have a built-in web server? If it's a drive on a Windows machine, then a local Apache web server would be quick to set up. Not ideal, but it would enable writing files to the shared folder.
Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome (chrome://apps/), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
So if it's HTML 5, these things should work in any browser, right?
It looks like Google is bastardising open web standards just like Microsoft did in the nineties.
Chrome???
Why should everyone be coerced into using Google's browser if they don't want to?
What happened to freedom of the Internet?
Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome ([URL=]chrome://apps/[/URL]), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
Using the adjective "interpreted" makes your first statement a tauntology. I'm guessing you probably meant "apps delivered as source code will never be as [fast, efficient, compact, proprietary, something else - pick one or more] as apps delivered as binaries".
Quite counter-intuitively, you're wrong, based on 30+ years of professional computer engineering experience, which explains all that grey hair ;-) . If you'll indulge me, I'd like to explain why I believe this to be so, and thus why I believe web apps are likely the future of mainstream computing.
1. Fast - In the dark ages, we used to believe that assembly programs would always be faster than compiled programs. Then, most compiled programs became faster than hand-crafted assembly in practice because compilers were just far better at optimizing the instructions than humans could realistically be. Similarly, by deferring creation of the binary until load time, a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler can take optimal advantage of exactly what is installed on the local machine - even down to the version of the instruction set and libraries available. Very heavy investment by the major OS vendors have made (especially) JavaScript extremely fast at load/run time compilation as well as execution speed, though some classes of apps (such as 3D immersive gaming) still work better with pre-compilation. That's likely to change for most use cases over time, though. Progress is just so darned inexorable.
2. Efficient - This one is easier to grasp. Given load time compilation, it becomes reasonable to handle API changes and optional libraries on the fly, resulting in less resource utilization. And I see no reason at all that different APIs must be used with pre-compiled and load time compiled programs, especially given that some niche Linux systems install ALL apps by simply compiling them. Can you elaborate on why you seem (based on other parts of your post) to believe that must be so?
3. Compact - Text is remarkably compressible, so in practice the size difference between binaries and source code tends to balance out to the negligible. In my experience, compressed binaries actually lose the size battle with compressed source more often than not, since no static boilerplate code need be included with source.
4. Proprietary - Yes, it's a bit harder to do DRM when you deliver source code over the web. However, if run within a proprietary browser, a signed and encrypted source tarball could in fact be delivered, decrypted, compiled, and run without exposing the source. (I don't support DRM on principle, you understand, just pointing out what's probably obvious in retrospect.)
5. Something else - Can you clarify?
It's always dangerous to say "never" and "pure and simple", because absolutes and simple answers rarely are. :-)
Hope this is received in the spirit of gentle debate in which it's offered. Thanks for reading such a long post. Maybe I'm missing work more than I expected. :-D
It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.
Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars.
Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.
Preferring a Youtube app to a web version is more of a statement about the interface than the performance of a native app. Youtube performance has a bottleneck on the input stream, not a native vs. interpreted implementation. You prefer tapping with your fingers to clicking with a mouse or pad. No harm there, but it's nothing to do with the performance of a platform.
So if it's HTML 5, these things should work in any browser, right?
It looks like Google is bastardising open web standards just like Microsoft did in the nineties.
Chrome???
Why should everyone be coerced into using Google's browser if they don't want to?
What happened to freedom of the Internet?
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.
Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.
But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.
It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.
Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars.
Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.
Preferring a Youtube app to a web version is more of a statement about the interface than the performance of a native app. Youtube performance has a bottleneck on the input stream, not a native vs. interpreted implementation. You prefer tapping with your fingers to clicking with a mouse or pad. No harm there, but it's nothing to do with the performance of a platform.
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.
Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.
But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.
To add to this sensible commentary, you can actually avoid much of the relevant advertising through the magic of AdBlock (pro or otherwise), available on Chrome or Safari.
I guess I should also disclose that I made exactly two technology purchases in the last six months: A MacBook Air for my middle-schooler and a Chromecast for the family. A Chromebook is not far behind for the younger kids though...
My main machine is a quad-core Win7 HP laptop that I bought for $500. Threw an SSD in there and use it for image processing (99% Lightroom).
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there.
So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?
btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.
This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".
Despite all this the code still needs processor cycles to interpret code. And the interpreted code will not have access to all the native API has. The main reason why HTML 5 is a pipe dream is that the combination of a markup language and a scripting language requires a lot more effort to make it work as well as native. If this were not true why did the App Store only take off after the release of a native API.
I agree that Google is hypocritical when it comes to being "open" but I don't agree with particular instance. They have created an OS that uses webcode for the UI (which is really no different from WebOS) so for it to be good one would expect Google to create APIs and frameworks that work better with their code and to do things not otherwise wouldn't be possible with the open web standards.
So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?
btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.
This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".
First, this is no different than any other current major platform, aside from Linux. Apple has APIs, and guess how much iOS or OSX software runs on other platforms? Open software is great and everything, but it's a bit more challenging to make money off of it. How much of Microsoft's and Apple's current core code is available for download? Here's a start at some of Google's.
Google proclaimed themselves the "champions of 'open?'" Citation please. At one point, they said they wanted to "don't be evil," but wasn't that in the last millennium? Companies often change mission statements according to changing goals.
I swear, certain tech fanbois sound just like Fox-News-watching conservatives ripping on "liberals" or "progressives" when it comes to competing technologies. The irony is how liberal this crowd believes itself to be. I say this as someone with more Apple devices in his home than any other brand -- that doesn't mean they're better at everything.
If you don't like Google's pervasiveness, well, hang on, because you're going to have some issues in the coming years.
OK, I think I understand your argument now. Since the iPhone 1, which was introduced before JIT compilers and when the ink on the HTML 5 spec was barely loaded into the printer (it's still not final), had to use native apps to succeed, you're arguing that technology is frozen and all of the advances of the past 6 years never happened and web apps will never become mainstream. Is that a fair if somewhat pointed summary of your argument?
My only response is that the past 6 years did happen, JavaScript does not require an interpreter any longer on any modern system, and insisting that JavaScript APIs must necessarily be less complete than for other languages is not a limitation just because you believe it to be.
I would appreciate it if you would read the history of SpiderMonkey (the first JIT JS compiler) and the history of the HTML 5 spec (currently a candidate recommendation) on Wikipedia if you decide to respond, otherwise we'll be stuck in "it's interpreted" "it's compiled" "HTML 5 was final for iPhone 1" "HTML 5 is still not final" limbo forever.
HTML 5 is a pipe dream
This might be the funniest thing I've read all day.
Ah, nope, it was this headline from fark.com: Billionaire upset with the Pope's comments about capitalism says he may withhold donation, will instead spend the money on an attempt to get a camel through the eye of a needle
Close 2nd though.
I've been hearing this nonsense for decades. If you think there is a 1-1 correspondence between the API set of iOS - from posix C, to core foundation, to foundation, to the app kit - and a scripting language well there is a bridge in Broklyn for sale - yours for a dollar.
Indeed the iPhone 5S is way ahead of the first iPhone - so where are the web apps which work at the same level as native apps.
Not being brought up in America I don't respond to Argument De Sneer. Feel free to quote me again and make an argument.
Not being brought up in America I don't respond to Argument De Sneer. Feel free to quote me again and make an argument.
Go do a web search for jobs related to HTML 5 technologies and tell me it's a pipe dream.