To be fair, the first one you cited is for Chrome packaged apps, so I feel like it's a little different than special APIs exposed to normal web page javascript. It's the difference between saying "build apps for our browser, we give you powerful features" and "build web pages that only work in our browser."
Now, if you think it's bad that Chrome is trying to entice browser app developers with powerful feature sets, that seems like a related but different complaint.
It's possible I'm unclear on the scope of the Open Web movement. When it refers to web technologies, does it mean technologies employed in the service of presenting web pages (i.e. everything you can do with javascript, html, css, etc.), or any technologies that a browser serves as a platform for? Because the latter seems like a wider scope that encompasses more than just web pages.
It's not just this though, there are even more damaging cases of embrace extend extinguish going on right now like With PepperFlash for example.
There Chrome has broken video recording three times the past year by pushing untested code, it's not possible to permanently disable it and the last change actually requires users to click both the Flash allow box and the WebRTC allow box!
That's without even mentioning the bug that if a user doesn't notice the second allow and refreshes the page, like every user does, the Allow box is never shown again.
Now, if you think it's bad that Chrome is trying to entice browser app developers with powerful feature sets, that seems like a related but different complaint.
It's possible I'm unclear on the scope of the Open Web movement. When it refers to web technologies, does it mean technologies employed in the service of presenting web pages (i.e. everything you can do with javascript, html, css, etc.), or any technologies that a browser serves as a platform for? Because the latter seems like a wider scope that encompasses more than just web pages.