Hacker News Reader

Comment by modeless | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, if Google were to continue to update this app, replacing each of the web versions of these apps with native ones, it could easily end up with a fully iOS-native version of Google Chrome, running on the iPad.

Um, what? I think this guy is confused. iOS-native Google Apps would be great to have, but they wouldn't be Chrome. Chrome is a browser and app platform, which Apple will certainly not allow on the App Store, ever.

View on HN

Given that they use the same renderers, and Apple is gradually copying Chrome's security / reliability features (sand-boxing using subprocess) in every part of their OS (it's arguably the biggest feature in Lion), I don't think it really matters.

If Safari (and the tech behind it) really starts lagging, Google might worry a little, but I can't see how it's a big deal.

Google is using the strategy Microsoft seems to have given up on - don't rely on your ability to monopolise everything, just keep a foot in every door, and keep pushing at every level.

It's the "app platform" parts of Chrome that are and will continue to be missing from Safari. Things like WebGL, NaCl, WebM/P, Dart VM, and various extension-only APIs that Chrome has introduced. WebGL may be enabled in Safari eventually, but the rest have basically no chance as far as I can see. Not that Safari necessarily should implement all Chrome features, but it would be nice if Chrome was actually available as competition.

I think that's the subtle beauty of what Google has done here. Sure, we care about WebGL and the like, but consumers? They just want easy access to the tools that they use.

Your point about extensions is a big one, though. That's part of what makes Chrome and the Chrome OS so infinitely useful, and it's something that has a snowball's chance of ever landing on iOS.

"Consumers" would care if they weren't able to access some killer app because they don't have WebGL. Some of us are working on making tools comsumers will want to use that are only possible with WebGL.

> Things like WebGL, NaCl, WebM/P, Dart VM, and various extension-only APIs that Chrome has introduced.

Can someone explain this to me: why such a move, when performed by microsoft is considered EEE (embrace, extend & extinguish) and when performed by google it suddenly becomes way to go?

WebGL started at Mozilla, then Opera. Apple/Google/Mozilla and Opera are part of the working group that are developing it.

WebM/P solved a problem that people have been asking for for years.

Nacl and Dart could be considered EEE, but really the web has always been about experimenting to push tech as google are doing, all these technologies are open to be implemented elsewhere. Microsoft actively broke existing technologies and attempted to replace them with closed ones

Yeah, my problem was with NaCl and DartVM, not WebGL/WebM.

When developers start using <script type="text/dart"> scripts, they will break web for a huge segment of users. And NaCl is only marginally better than ActiveX. That's why I think both these technologies will not gain much recognition outside google and some cool side projects.

> Both these technologies will not gain much recognition outside google and some cool side projects

...Which is probably why there was little mention of "EEE" when they were announced—how can Google extinguish when nobody uses their alternative?

wtf editor lets a writer get away with using honestly?

Google could get away with an app platform, I think, but if it doesn't beat the mediocre performance of a web-based app you can run in any browser, there is no point in it. But if they can make a native app that runs Chrome OS "native" apps with iOS native performance, then they will really have something, something companies will build on.

Honestly I am already planning to build for Chrome OS. It is little now, but it will take off just like Android has.

An honest question about the quote: Was it not the purpose of the Chrome OS to be rid of native applications in the first place, and replace them with well tailored (specific to the rendering engine in Chrome) web applications? Does making all the Google applications native to the iPad go against the entire purpose of Chrome/Chrome OS?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com