

Google Details Chrome's Background Feature - thankuz
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/23/chrome-background-apps/

======
WesleyJohnson
It saddens me that a large majority of the "Web Apps" in the Chrome Web Store
are just basically bookmarks to existing sites, or as Google calls them,
"hosted apps". I was hoping that more people would develop "packaged apps"
instead. I'm debating on whether this latest addition to the Chrome API with
have any impact in that regard.

I can imagine something like Gmail, where I can install it as a hosted app,
but not have to keep a tab open and pinned on mail.google.com. Instead of the
favicon trick to see new messages or an extension which adds a button to my
toolbar, I can close out of Chrome and the installed app's background window
would allow it to still send me desktop notifications of new email. I think
that would be a good use for this sort of thing.

On the flip side... for a packaged app like TweetDeck, it could pull down your
timelines, mentions, etc as soon as you boot up and they'd be ready to view
whenever you actually launched the app. Another good use, perhaps?

------
rbarooah
Am I wrong, or is Google basically making a progressively more tailored and
non-standard browser in the hope of enticing web app developers to make apps
that only run properly in chrome?

~~~
cgranade
I don't see a lot of barriers against others implementing the same. The vast
majority of the legwork seems to be carried by HTML5 (+CSS3 +ECMAScript +...),
after all.

~~~
rbarooah
Sure but it's the non-standard part that matters. If they keep going like this
and get mass adoption the web will end up defined as "whatever Google puts in
chrome", which will presumably be chosen to maximize their own interests.

The fact that other people could copy them (assuming what Google chooses is a
good design for others too) doesn't make it into an open process.

~~~
true_religion
I think its best we look at these two ideas seperately:

1\. What Google decides to put into their browser. 2\. What is the accepted
standard

The first does not, and should not be an 'open process' because creative work
doesn't do well when made my committees of people with disparate ideologies
and motives.

The second is currently adjudicated by the various standard bodies, and _is_
an open process.

You're arguing that Google might become a 'defacto standard' and implying that
it would be harmful for the web in general. However, historically the only
harm that has come from a defacto standard is if it is either (a) overlaps
with an official standard without using the same process or (b) fallen behind
an official standard. This is the case with Internet Explorer over the past
few years.

On the other hand, the things that IE did innovate on have been copied and
become part of official standards (in some way or the other) to the benefit of
us all (e.g. XMLHttpRequest Object).

~~~
rbarooah
Suggesting that the only harms that can occur in the future are ones that have
happened in the past doesn't seem very reasonable.

However your argument raises an interesting point. What if Microsoft hadn't
just let IE rot, but had actually continued to innovate it into an ever richer
environment of their own design? Might they not have ended up with control
over the web?

We have plenty of examples that when someone takes the design lead, it can be
very hard to keep up with them by just trying to copy what they do - for one
thing you're playing catch up by definition, and for another you may have made
different design decisions that make following them more work. Furthermore,
following at all further entrenches the design leader as the one for
developers to target - "We can safely target these Chrome custom features
because we know that firefox will be forced to adopt them too in order to stay
relevant."

It seems entirely possible that given enough market share - which they don't
have now, but might well be on track to acquire simply because they can
advertise Chrome all over their site - Google could render the standards
process irrelevant, and just develop the web to their own tastes.

~~~
true_religion
I view the standards process as an ending remark. Browsers should innovate in
as many directions as possible, while keeping the technology patent free so
others can copy them if need be.

Then a standards body can cement the innovation into a standard that everyone
has to implement.

That said, I don't see how this particular innovation is any different from
say a Firefox plugin. Yes, its proprietary to a single browser but can we
argue then that if Firefox took the majority share on the web, we'd have to
worry about people copying their plugin structure just to stay relevant?

~~~
rbarooah
Sure - I think the concern applies to any browser becoming seriously dominant
and being controlled by a single corporation. We've seen what an effect even a
neglected dominant browser can have. Clearly an actively developed one would
have an even greater effect.

Simply being able to copy it after the fact wouldn't change the fact that
Google would be in control - not forgetting that everyone gets upgraded
silently to the latest version whether they like it or not. Just copying
features later wouldn't enable anyone to displace it. We are already seeing
Google give preferential support for their own browser in their services.
Surely this trend will only continue. Moreover what's to stop Google from
having a head start taking advantage of browser features they haven't even
released yet?

Why would a standards body even be relevant at that point?

I think history shows us quite clearly that a dominant browser has a massive
effect on what other people can do with the web. For Microsoft it served their
interests in keeping their OS relevant for longer. Why wouldn't Google use
that position to serve their own interests?

------
joshsegall
Well this needs a better title. I almost didn't read it because I thought it
was about the background image feature on the google homepage.

