

Chrome app launcher developer preview - mikeevans
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/02/chrome-app-launcher-developer-preview.html

======
habosa
I'm a Chrome OS user so I've had some time with this launcher. I'm not sure
why, but for me having a launcher versus a bookmarks bar is a huge
psychological difference. I really do feel like these are "apps" not websites,
even when I could just as easily navigate to them in the URL bar. It makes
Chrome OS feel like any other operating system when my brain SHOULD say "hey,
this is just a browser".

~~~
city41
Mind if I ask what you are running Chrome OS on? I have been interested in
picking up a Chromebook, but the reviews for them are very bad. It seems that
locking up, crashing and even flat out dying after a couple of months is
surprisingly common.

~~~
yefim323
I had Chrome OS running pretty smoothly on a Sylvania G Meso (a cheap
netbook). I got a bootable disk image here: <http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/>

------
derefr
I really, really _want_ to write my application as a Chrome packaged app--I
love all the advantages that come from developing for the web, and I love
appearing like a native app to my users--but most of my users _don't use
Chrome_ , and I can't really force them to switch. They want to keep using
what they're using. What should I do about this?

I think this feature might be a good start, but it would be great if you could
install the App Launcher _without installing Chrome_. That is to say: Chrome
team, have you ever considered converting Chrome into a platform runtime ala
the JVM, and then making your browser just one of the "packaged apps" that
runs atop it? :)

~~~
RaphiePS
This is remarkably similar to what you described:
<https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit>

~~~
derefr
Ah! I had heard of several similar things (Chromium Embedded, etc.) but this
one is new to me. So _that's_ what Light Table is written in!

------
msoad
I am kind of sure that Google will ditch Java and go for native web apps for
it's operation systems. They will unify ChromeOS and Android experience by
getting rid of Java on Android and making web apps running natively on the OS.

I see a lot of signs from Google that they want to do this. The "X-Phone"
project, this effort for pushing packaged Chrome web apps and even that new
Android status in Google campus are all signs of it.

I am very happy that this is happening!

~~~
nicpottier
One point, much to Oracle's dismay, Android is not Java. Java is used to do
dev, but the phones themselves run a completely different VM (Dalvik).

------
obilgic
This is the problem: Omnibox is so powerful that I don't even use app launcher
on my chromebook.

~~~
ok_craig
I'm the same way. But I've also really wanted to be able to run web pages as
their own Windows app. Like have them occupy a space in the windows task bar,
which it looks like this may provide for. I don't really know why I want this,
my brain just has a strong urge to have certain app-like pages have app-like
prominence, and have their own focus outside of being another tab in Chrome.

------
purplelobster
Why the need to package apps like this? Going to a web app with HTML5 caching
will automatically make your app work offline. The installation IS going to
the URL. With the added benefit that you can easily update the app by
invalidating the cache. Just give web apps more localStorage, more caching
space and indexedDb and viola!

~~~
zobzu
The real reason is that the packaged apps have access to a privileged API.
That let you make things that you can't do in webpages.

As a web dev, that's what you get.

As Google, you get a non-standard API that, if it picks up, will ensure you
get 100% platform control (and marketshare too, but really, its about platform
control)

~~~
kinlan
I would do some research before spouting this claptrap about 100% platform
control. There is huge effort going on in the W3C and Sysapps groups to get
this whole priviledged access and installable apps standardised.

The biggest thing about Chrome Apps is not the new API's, it is that we are
getting developers to think about building good offline installable apps.

------
hayksaakian
Annoyingly windows only.

Windows already was able to turn apps into desktop shortcuts, osx/linux still
has none of that.

~~~
lucian1900
It works on Linux. It's only Mac that lacks that feature.

~~~
kinlan
We are working on it. Mac has some interesting things that we need to do to
get it working.

------
imissmyjuno
A somewhat unrelated conceptual question: if Chrome is putting web apps
alongside desktop apps, what does that do for usability of apps on a platform
in general? If a web app was created to emulate a native OS UI, wouldn't that
be taking a bit of a step backwards (in terms of recreating all the widgets)
compared to just coding in the native toolkit in the first place?

I guess what I'm really asking is, what's Google's plan for unifying the Web
Store apps visually the way Android and iOS do with their UI kits?

------
zobzu
I'd rather have a standard API than "chrome.*" to be honest.

~~~
kinlan
everyone would, but standards take a long time, and lead with experience based
of existing implementations.

------
DonnyV
Until Google encrypts there .crx file that holds the source code I don't think
anyone can use this to sell apps. Right now the only protection Google offers
is a signed .crx file and that can easily be by passed.
<http://stackoverflow.com/a/4493712/1231>

Google needs to encrypt all .crx that come from the Web Store.

------
mbell
I find it interesting to see the differential in response to posts like this
vs posts on the firefox phone OS threads.

Here they seem to be: "Why would I want a website as an app???"

In the firefox phone OS threads they seem to be: "This is how all apps should
be build, pure web apps!!!"

