7 ms·

Mozilla Open Web App prototype

96 points by wbills 16y ago

rwhitman 16y ago
So is this basically Mozilla's answer to Chrome's installable web apps?
- ESchmidtSeesYou 16y ago
  Yes, but they're pushing this as an open browser standard for all web app stores. It'll be interesting to see Google's response to this, as well as how DRM potentially works in both implementations.
  - kijinbear 16y ago
    DRM isn't exactly compatible with open-source...
jbillingsley 16y ago
The idea of "one or more" stores distributing these apps seems likely to hurt profit margins for developers. I was intrigued until they mentioned that aspect.
- torme 16y ago
  Competition improves products. If anything, I'd think that it'd be better for developers.
  - jbillingsley 16y ago
    If I'm understanding this correctly the competition wouldn't be dev vs dev but store vs store. If that is the case then your app becomes a commodity and each store will try to compete on price, lowering the dev's profit margin in the process.
    - boucher 16y ago
      That's like saying that having more than one grocery store hurts farmers. The farmers choose what price they sell their produce at, and the stores have to choose their own price based on how much profit they need to make on each sale. In other words, nobody will be forcing these developers to be on a particular store -- unlike Apple's App Store, where you have to play on their terms.
      - torme 16y ago
        Precisely. Stores aren't just competing to get users, they're competing to get developers. If one store offers a higher profit margin for developers then that store will have the best apps. If someone could launch a competitor to the Apple App store, and say "I'm going to take half the margin that apple takes from app developers", I think developers would flock to that store, and then so would customers.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  I'm sure you'll have Mozilla pushing their web app store, officially sanctioned. However, you'll be able to setup your own store as well, and sell directly from your web site if you want.
eddanger 16y ago
Interesting. I just need some type of car analogy for this to make complete sense.
DjDarkman 16y ago
I don't really know how is this better than launching a site and using a Paypal gateway integrated into the site. I don't really know how will this solve XSS and other security problems the web has. What problems are these app stores supposed to fix?
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > What problems are these app stores supposed to fix? You've completely missed the point. The feature isn't an app store. It's browser based applications you can download and install on your computer, and run locally. The browser is merely the engine the runs the application. They'll probably remove the chrome, and instead of acting like a browser and a web page, it will merely be the application.
  - wesley 16y ago
    So, removal of a toolbar and a quick launch icon is all this is? Woweee if so.. (web apps can already run locally if programmed to do so)
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      No. You aren't even trying to read, or understand.
  - asnyder 16y ago
    It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps, we were moving away from that and making lots of progress and now all of a sudden many are eager to return back to local desktop, but this time running inside a browser, doesn't make any sense at all. We should be moving forward, rather than going backwards.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      > It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps Yes, there is. Being able to install a web app locally means several things immediately: 1. Local and remote storage of data beyond what traditional web apps can accomplish. 2. Snappier applications, since everything is stored locally. 3. You'll still be capable of being connected remotely. 4. Ability to use the app even if you aren't connected, or cannot connect remotely. Also, you assert that we were moving away from desktop apps, when the opposite is true. Native apps are still insanely popular thanks to mobile devices. Even on an iOS device, you can run web apps as if they are local applications. It's incredibly useful here as well. Being able to install an application on your phone outside the App Store.
roschdal 16y ago
Mozilla's proposed Open Web App ecosystem is competing with Google's Chrome Web Store. Both seem to provide basically the same functionality: a dashboard of web applications for your web browser, and a store to discover new web applications. I think perhaps it would be better Google Chrome and Mozilla had a compatible app dashboard for the browser, a standard interface to add applications to these browser dashboards, and competing, but compatible, web stores for web applications.
toddmorey 16y ago
As Mozailla defines it, an open web app works in all modern browsers across the desktop and mobile. That idea thrills me as a user but gives me a sick feeling as a developer. Unless your app is fairly simple, that's a lot of platforms to target. What happens as the apps get more complex? I wonder how many companies will start with one or two platforms and then add support for more, once their code is tested and refined to enable "each browser to compete on app presentation, organization and management user interfaces." I can't help but dream about an alternate universe where browser vendors standardized on one common, open source rendering engine and one javascript engine.
jlgosse 16y ago
I don't know why I wouldn't just choose app engine, gwt, and chrome's web store.
- theBobMcCormick 16y ago
  Because not everyone uses Chrome? Because Mozilla is proposing their standard as an open standard for any browser?
gurraman 16y ago
I love Mozilla for their efforts. I hate to be pessimistic, but I'm just not sure this is what the world needs.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Dunno. Everybody seems to have a different opinion on what the world needs
bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
I'm a big fan of the "defer commitment" principle. It seems speculative and dangerous to try to create new standards in a field that is evolving so rapidly. We've had a lot of form factor innovation like smartphones and tablets. Other relevant areas like online payments are ripe for innovation as well. How will these new standards respond to the need for matching innovation? Who will maintain them? Will there be versioning? What about backwards compatibility?
- adambyrtek 16y ago
  It's not really a standard at this point, it's just an experiment run by Mozilla to get traction and catch up with Chrome. In other words they're doing exactly what you said they should, embracing evolution and innovation in web applications on both desktop and mobile fronts.
- DjDarkman 16y ago
  I personally feel that they are just wasting time. They should working on providing: - a cross domain JSON request function(they may have already implemented this) - a way to limit the scope of a script tag, prevent a script from accessing the global object and other security features that people really care about.
ShabbyDoo 16y ago
From the feature list: "Can request access to one or more advanced and/or privacy-sensitive capabilities" and "Can receive notifications from the cloud." GMail, etc. has already proven that the browser provides a rich enough UI experience to replace desktop apps, but the general lack of integration with the services of an operating system still forces me to either (1) use desktop apps for some things or (2) go through convoluted processes. An example: I used to work on a large photo sharing site, and making it easy for non-technical users to upload photos was important but difficult. A desktop app has the advantage of being able to recognize connected hardware, interrogate obscure file structures (DSIM blah, etc.), and show the user a pretty grid of photos from the camera -- all triggered on the hardware connection event. Recently, I told my dad to use Picasa as an uploading front-end. His eyes glaze over when I have to tell him how to navigate a directory structure, so a site which requires HTTP Upload is DOA for him. HTML5 will provide multi-file select, but the degree of available automation is terrible when compared to the desktop. Here's what I'd like to see: A set of standard, OS-agnostic profiles for services provided by an operating system and common peripherals which would allow web-based apps to do things like slurp photos from a camera, print a pixel-perfect document, or capture a scanned image. Operating system vendors (or 3rd parties) could wrap OS-specific driver profiles with these Javascript/Browser-accessible APIs, and users could grant certain domains the rights to use them. Imagine a TWAIN driver wrapper for Windows which would allow a webapp to initiate a scanning request and capture the image without the user saving the file to disk and then uploading it. The proposed notifications service is kind of like this except that it is designed to receive notifications from a bunch of sites even if no webapp is currently running. I think the search service design should be inverted. There should be a standard search service interface which sites could implement, but the local operating system should implement this same interface and should be queried in parallel. A user could search for photos on his photo sharing site, a Dropbox-esque site, AND his local filesystem. But, the search service itself could be SaaS. Why make the desktop heavier? What about a dialer/voice profile for mobile devices (and desktop as well)? What about a "screen management" profile which would allow a web-based Powerpoint competitor to automatically show the presentation on the projector but the slide notes on the laptop monitor? What other profiles would be interesting which could reduce the need for applications to target specific operating systems? What about a "headless" profile and a "system tray" profile so that Pandora could be implemented using a combination of HTML5 audio, an icon on the system tray, and the notification service for song titles?
railsjedi 16y ago
Sweet, they included http://scrabb.ly http://scrabb.ly as one of the icons in the demo :-)
aymeric 16y ago
This is big news for web developers.
adambyrtek 16y ago
Looks like the discussion here is focused on the desktop, but I'm more interested in what does this mean for the mobile world. Since the original iPhone announcements we were told that web applications are going to be treated as first class citizens, but it didn't really happen on any of the leading mobile platforms. I really hope that the work Mozilla is doing will help move the state of web applications on mobile forward in a way that is portable across all platforms.
alexyoung 16y ago
"Support paid apps by means of an authorization model that uses existing identity systems like OpenID." I like the idea of this. I wish it was easier to sell the web apps I build, in a way that's as easy as plugging in OpenID. I've looked at a few services that promise this but they either need US a merchant account or something else I don't have/can't get.

96 points by wbills 16y ago

rwhitman 16y ago

So is this basically Mozilla's answer to Chrome's installable web apps?

ESchmidtSeesYou 16y ago
Yes, but they're pushing this as an open browser standard for all web app stores. It'll be interesting to see Google's response to this, as well as how DRM potentially works in both implementations.
- kijinbear 16y ago
  DRM isn't exactly compatible with open-source...

jbillingsley 16y ago

The idea of "one or more" stores distributing these apps seems likely to hurt profit margins for developers. I was intrigued until they mentioned that aspect.

torme 16y ago
Competition improves products. If anything, I'd think that it'd be better for developers.
- jbillingsley 16y ago
  If I'm understanding this correctly the competition wouldn't be dev vs dev but store vs store. If that is the case then your app becomes a commodity and each store will try to compete on price, lowering the dev's profit margin in the process.
  - boucher 16y ago
    That's like saying that having more than one grocery store hurts farmers. The farmers choose what price they sell their produce at, and the stores have to choose their own price based on how much profit they need to make on each sale. In other words, nobody will be forcing these developers to be on a particular store -- unlike Apple's App Store, where you have to play on their terms.
    - torme 16y ago
      Precisely. Stores aren't just competing to get users, they're competing to get developers. If one store offers a higher profit margin for developers then that store will have the best apps. If someone could launch a competitor to the Apple App store, and say "I'm going to take half the margin that apple takes from app developers", I think developers would flock to that store, and then so would customers.
jasonlotito 16y ago
I'm sure you'll have Mozilla pushing their web app store, officially sanctioned. However, you'll be able to setup your own store as well, and sell directly from your web site if you want.

eddanger 16y ago

Interesting. I just need some type of car analogy for this to make complete sense.

DjDarkman 16y ago

I don't really know how is this better than launching a site and using a Paypal gateway integrated into the site. I don't really know how will this solve XSS and other security problems the web has. What problems are these app stores supposed to fix?

jasonlotito 16y ago
> What problems are these app stores supposed to fix? You've completely missed the point. The feature isn't an app store. It's browser based applications you can download and install on your computer, and run locally. The browser is merely the engine the runs the application. They'll probably remove the chrome, and instead of acting like a browser and a web page, it will merely be the application.
- wesley 16y ago
  So, removal of a toolbar and a quick launch icon is all this is? Woweee if so.. (web apps can already run locally if programmed to do so)
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    No. You aren't even trying to read, or understand.
- asnyder 16y ago
  It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps, we were moving away from that and making lots of progress and now all of a sudden many are eager to return back to local desktop, but this time running inside a browser, doesn't make any sense at all. We should be moving forward, rather than going backwards.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps Yes, there is. Being able to install a web app locally means several things immediately: 1. Local and remote storage of data beyond what traditional web apps can accomplish. 2. Snappier applications, since everything is stored locally. 3. You'll still be capable of being connected remotely. 4. Ability to use the app even if you aren't connected, or cannot connect remotely. Also, you assert that we were moving away from desktop apps, when the opposite is true. Native apps are still insanely popular thanks to mobile devices. Even on an iOS device, you can run web apps as if they are local applications. It's incredibly useful here as well. Being able to install an application on your phone outside the App Store.

roschdal 16y ago

Mozilla's proposed Open Web App ecosystem is competing with Google's Chrome Web Store. Both seem to provide basically the same functionality: a dashboard of web applications for your web browser, and a store to discover new web applications. I think perhaps it would be better Google Chrome and Mozilla had a compatible app dashboard for the browser, a standard interface to add applications to these browser dashboards, and competing, but compatible, web stores for web applications.

toddmorey 16y ago

As Mozailla defines it, an open web app works in all modern browsers across the desktop and mobile. That idea thrills me as a user but gives me a sick feeling as a developer. Unless your app is fairly simple, that's a lot of platforms to target. What happens as the apps get more complex? I wonder how many companies will start with one or two platforms and then add support for more, once their code is tested and refined to enable "each browser to compete on app presentation, organization and management user interfaces." I can't help but dream about an alternate universe where browser vendors standardized on one common, open source rendering engine and one javascript engine.

jlgosse 16y ago

I don't know why I wouldn't just choose app engine, gwt, and chrome's web store.

theBobMcCormick 16y ago
Because not everyone uses Chrome? Because Mozilla is proposing their standard as an open standard for any browser?

gurraman 16y ago

I love Mozilla for their efforts. I hate to be pessimistic, but I'm just not sure this is what the world needs.

shadowfox 16y ago
Dunno. Everybody seems to have a different opinion on what the world needs

bluesnowmonkey 16y ago

I'm a big fan of the "defer commitment" principle. It seems speculative and dangerous to try to create new standards in a field that is evolving so rapidly. We've had a lot of form factor innovation like smartphones and tablets. Other relevant areas like online payments are ripe for innovation as well. How will these new standards respond to the need for matching innovation? Who will maintain them? Will there be versioning? What about backwards compatibility?

adambyrtek 16y ago
It's not really a standard at this point, it's just an experiment run by Mozilla to get traction and catch up with Chrome. In other words they're doing exactly what you said they should, embracing evolution and innovation in web applications on both desktop and mobile fronts.
DjDarkman 16y ago
I personally feel that they are just wasting time. They should working on providing: - a cross domain JSON request function(they may have already implemented this) - a way to limit the scope of a script tag, prevent a script from accessing the global object and other security features that people really care about.

ShabbyDoo 16y ago

From the feature list: "Can request access to one or more advanced and/or privacy-sensitive capabilities" and "Can receive notifications from the cloud." GMail, etc. has already proven that the browser provides a rich enough UI experience to replace desktop apps, but the general lack of integration with the services of an operating system still forces me to either (1) use desktop apps for some things or (2) go through convoluted processes. An example: I used to work on a large photo sharing site, and making it easy for non-technical users to upload photos was important but difficult. A desktop app has the advantage of being able to recognize connected hardware, interrogate obscure file structures (DSIM blah, etc.), and show the user a pretty grid of photos from the camera -- all triggered on the hardware connection event. Recently, I told my dad to use Picasa as an uploading front-end. His eyes glaze over when I have to tell him how to navigate a directory structure, so a site which requires HTTP Upload is DOA for him. HTML5 will provide multi-file select, but the degree of available automation is terrible when compared to the desktop. Here's what I'd like to see: A set of standard, OS-agnostic profiles for services provided by an operating system and common peripherals which would allow web-based apps to do things like slurp photos from a camera, print a pixel-perfect document, or capture a scanned image. Operating system vendors (or 3rd parties) could wrap OS-specific driver profiles with these Javascript/Browser-accessible APIs, and users could grant certain domains the rights to use them. Imagine a TWAIN driver wrapper for Windows which would allow a webapp to initiate a scanning request and capture the image without the user saving the file to disk and then uploading it. The proposed notifications service is kind of like this except that it is designed to receive notifications from a bunch of sites even if no webapp is currently running. I think the search service design should be inverted. There should be a standard search service interface which sites could implement, but the local operating system should implement this same interface and should be queried in parallel. A user could search for photos on his photo sharing site, a Dropbox-esque site, AND his local filesystem. But, the search service itself could be SaaS. Why make the desktop heavier? What about a dialer/voice profile for mobile devices (and desktop as well)? What about a "screen management" profile which would allow a web-based Powerpoint competitor to automatically show the presentation on the projector but the slide notes on the laptop monitor? What other profiles would be interesting which could reduce the need for applications to target specific operating systems? What about a "headless" profile and a "system tray" profile so that Pandora could be implemented using a combination of HTML5 audio, an icon on the system tray, and the notification service for song titles?

railsjedi 16y ago

Sweet, they included http://scrabb.ly http://scrabb.ly as one of the icons in the demo :-)

aymeric 16y ago

This is big news for web developers.

adambyrtek 16y ago

Looks like the discussion here is focused on the desktop, but I'm more interested in what does this mean for the mobile world. Since the original iPhone announcements we were told that web applications are going to be treated as first class citizens, but it didn't really happen on any of the leading mobile platforms. I really hope that the work Mozilla is doing will help move the state of web applications on mobile forward in a way that is portable across all platforms.

alexyoung 16y ago

"Support paid apps by means of an authorization model that uses existing identity systems like OpenID." I like the idea of this. I wish it was easier to sell the web apps I build, in a way that's as easy as plugging in OpenID. I've looked at a few services that promise this but they either need US a merchant account or something else I don't have/can't get.