3 ms·

How does this differ from any other file hosted on the web? I could make an address that just serves a .exe file, but people wouldn't say that Microsoft is knee

by BigJono 10y ago

How does this differ from any other file hosted on the web? I could make an address that just serves a .exe file, but people wouldn't say that Microsoft is kneecapping the web because of it.

underwater 10y ago
A browser doesn't download, install and execute that file though. Check out the GIFs on their announcement[1]. They show a Google search result page linking to a URL that seemlessly takes the user to a platform specific binary. I expect that they'll give Instant Apps higher ranking. It's what they did with Google+ profiles and AMP pages. If Google gives people better SEO by converting their pages to native apps then that's a huge carrot for businesses to move their development to this platform. And the web is going to be made a second class citizen, even in the browser. Google wins because they have companies and consumers locked into their ecosystem. Apple and Microsoft lose because they can't run Instant Apps like they can with web apps. Consumers lose because they're locked into Android. If Microsoft were doing this it would be viewed with skepticism and labeled "Embrace, extend, extinguish". I think that eventually we're going to realize that having a single company control the world's most popular OS, most popular browser and most popular entry point to the web is a not a good place to be in. 1. http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2016/05/android-instant-apps-evolving-apps.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2016/05/android-insta...
- ams6110 10y ago
  Microsoft had this since .NET Framework 2. It was called ClickOnce. It went nowhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    It is a common deployment solution in most enterprise shops that deploy internal software. At least the ones I worked on.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Click once sucked and was anything but. I use Papercut as a little SMTP server for local dev on windows which uses ClickOnce, the install + update processes are painful, even worse than Adobe Flash Builder. I just ran it, it updated needing 2 clicks and over 4 different popups shown. It's an invasive, noisy, ugly, tech that was put to shame by Chrome's update tech. So it's not worth comparing.
    - johnmw 10y ago
      I think you are been a little uncharitable to poor Clickonce. Clickonce came out a number of years before Chrome and at the time its simple publish model, automatic update detection, and incremental updates were light years ahead of the other clunky Window installers of the time.
- cageface 10y ago
  Apple could fix this any time they wanted to by charging less ridiculous prices for their phones. This is what you get when your market share is so low you can no longer dictate platform trends.

by BigJono 10y ago

How does this differ from any other file hosted on the web? I could make an address that just serves a .exe file, but people wouldn't say that Microsoft is kneecapping the web because of it.

underwater 10y ago

A browser doesn't download, install and execute that file though. Check out the GIFs on their announcement[1]. They show a Google search result page linking to a URL that seemlessly takes the user to a platform specific binary. I expect that they'll give Instant Apps higher ranking. It's what they did with Google+ profiles and AMP pages. If Google gives people better SEO by converting their pages to native apps then that's a huge carrot for businesses to move their development to this platform. And the web is going to be made a second class citizen, even in the browser. Google wins because they have companies and consumers locked into their ecosystem. Apple and Microsoft lose because they can't run Instant Apps like they can with web apps. Consumers lose because they're locked into Android. If Microsoft were doing this it would be viewed with skepticism and labeled "Embrace, extend, extinguish". I think that eventually we're going to realize that having a single company control the world's most popular OS, most popular browser and most popular entry point to the web is a not a good place to be in. 1. http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2016/05/android-instant-apps-evolving-apps.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2016/05/android-insta...

ams6110 10y ago
Microsoft had this since .NET Framework 2. It was called ClickOnce. It went nowhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce
- pjmlp 10y ago
  It is a common deployment solution in most enterprise shops that deploy internal software. At least the ones I worked on.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Click once sucked and was anything but. I use Papercut as a little SMTP server for local dev on windows which uses ClickOnce, the install + update processes are painful, even worse than Adobe Flash Builder. I just ran it, it updated needing 2 clicks and over 4 different popups shown. It's an invasive, noisy, ugly, tech that was put to shame by Chrome's update tech. So it's not worth comparing.
  - johnmw 10y ago
    I think you are been a little uncharitable to poor Clickonce. Clickonce came out a number of years before Chrome and at the time its simple publish model, automatic update detection, and incremental updates were light years ahead of the other clunky Window installers of the time.
cageface 10y ago
Apple could fix this any time they wanted to by charging less ridiculous prices for their phones. This is what you get when your market share is so low you can no longer dictate platform trends.