3 ms·

Good point. But the difference is that Google releasing a browser based platform where the only application is the browser forces them to use the same technolo

Good point. But the difference is that Google releasing a browser based platform where the only application is the browser forces them to use the same technology as everyone else to create applications, no one can create native applications for ChromeOS (or everyone can, since "native" means "web based") -- this is, in fact, good engineering because it means there are no secret APIs that give Google's apps an advantage so the Google employees writing apps are more likely to end up with a good API because they see exactly what non-google employees have to deal with. In fact, Google gives developers the same technology they use to develop apps, things like HTML5 and GoogleGears, etc. In contrast, Apple originally told people they couldn't develop native apps because only Apple could release native apps.

stcredzero 17y ago
Open = 3rd Party Parity with in-house Good point. I still remember a lot of Microsoft shenanigans along these lines.
- thwarted 17y ago
  I was going to mention Microsoft, but I couldn't remember the specifics and didn't have time to track them down. But yeah, there were things like improperly emulating DOS in windows so only MS-DOS would run, secret APIs that Office used (for drawing?) that gave Office increased performance. The moving target that is SMB and NT domain services that has kept samba from being on-par.
ubernostrum 17y ago
no one can create native applications for ChromeOS So it's deliberately even more crippled than iPhone/iPad ;) (which is what people would say if Apple released a web-apps-only system, which is kinda my point)
- thwarted 17y ago
  Is a blender deliberately crippled if it can't microwave food? It helps Google, I guess, to be a company that releases web-based software, because then web browsers run their software, even a web browser that they release. "Our web based OS only runs web based software" is a pretty goofy definition of "crippled". Would Apple release a web-apps-only system? I doubt it, it wouldn't provide the level of interactivity and UI/UX that Apple wants to give their customers, and Apple wants to be both the the provider of the best experience and apps, and giving that ability to their developers is only secondary (even the guy who reimplemented coverflow from scratch and didn't use any secret Apple APIs was denied app inclusion initially).
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    a pretty goofy definition of "crippled" Yes, which is why I wrote it that way. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike, I would bet money that the response, from all corners of the tech world, would be to denounce it as unnecessarily "crippled", invoking theories of Steve Jobs' pathological need to prevent anyone from ever learning how to write native applications ever again. And that response would be about as stupid and misinformed as the attitudes consistently displayed toward Apple for, e.g., the iPhone/iPad.
    - thwarted 17y ago
      Yeah, I got that. I disagree though. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike and Apple's provided Apps did not have a advantage, due to direct hardware access or via secret APIs, because Apple made them, then I don't think we'd see people crying "crippled". I don't think Apple could keep themselves from giving themselves and advantage, though, so this ends up just being a academic discussion. ;)

stcredzero 17y ago

Open = 3rd Party Parity with in-house Good point. I still remember a lot of Microsoft shenanigans along these lines.

thwarted 17y ago
I was going to mention Microsoft, but I couldn't remember the specifics and didn't have time to track them down. But yeah, there were things like improperly emulating DOS in windows so only MS-DOS would run, secret APIs that Office used (for drawing?) that gave Office increased performance. The moving target that is SMB and NT domain services that has kept samba from being on-par.

ubernostrum 17y ago

no one can create native applications for ChromeOS So it's deliberately even more crippled than iPhone/iPad ;) (which is what people would say if Apple released a web-apps-only system, which is kinda my point)

thwarted 17y ago
Is a blender deliberately crippled if it can't microwave food? It helps Google, I guess, to be a company that releases web-based software, because then web browsers run their software, even a web browser that they release. "Our web based OS only runs web based software" is a pretty goofy definition of "crippled". Would Apple release a web-apps-only system? I doubt it, it wouldn't provide the level of interactivity and UI/UX that Apple wants to give their customers, and Apple wants to be both the the provider of the best experience and apps, and giving that ability to their developers is only secondary (even the guy who reimplemented coverflow from scratch and didn't use any secret Apple APIs was denied app inclusion initially).
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  a pretty goofy definition of "crippled" Yes, which is why I wrote it that way. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike, I would bet money that the response, from all corners of the tech world, would be to denounce it as unnecessarily "crippled", invoking theories of Steve Jobs' pathological need to prevent anyone from ever learning how to write native applications ever again. And that response would be about as stupid and misinformed as the attitudes consistently displayed toward Apple for, e.g., the iPhone/iPad.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Yeah, I got that. I disagree though. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike and Apple's provided Apps did not have a advantage, due to direct hardware access or via secret APIs, because Apple made them, then I don't think we'd see people crying "crippled". I don't think Apple could keep themselves from giving themselves and advantage, though, so this ends up just being a academic discussion. ;)