5 ms·

This is why I hate the concept of App stores. It's just a link that uses open technologies that works well on any modern browser, yet you need to open Chrome a

This is why I hate the concept of App stores. It's just a link that uses open technologies that works well on any modern browser, yet you need to open Chrome and "install" it. Why can't I just type in a URL into any browser I want!? (Yes, I know that this specific app happens to have a link. However, it's not clickable, it's not obvious and most apps won't.) If I made a site that you could only use if you opened it in IE and bookmarked it? Everyone would be crying foul. Yet somehow, browser specific app stores are considered moving the web forward. Let's take it a step further. Let's say they charged for this app, which many apps will. If I pay for it in the (currently in development) Mozilla app store, that means I can't use it in Chrome. Is this really what we want for the web? Why can't browsers just beef up their bookmarking systems? Right now, we're hiding regular links behind "installations." I hate app stores, and I hate what they have the potential to do to the web. I hate that someday soon, someone will say to me "You should use ____! But it's (Firefox|Chrome|IE) only." I thought we left that mentality with IE6. (Disclosure: I work for Mozilla, but have nothing to do with our web apps store. Naturally, my opinions are my own.)

yanw 16y ago
You don't have to install it to use it: http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ http://chrome.angrybirds.com/
- udp 16y ago
  That one doesn't require Chrome, but it does require Flash! I'm pretty sure FF4 supports everything that's needed to run a game like this, out of the box.
  - lftl 16y ago
    In Chrome it requires flash to play the sound (same as the plugin version). Everything else works fine without flash.
    - udp 16y ago
      Why doesn't it just not play any sounds, then, instead of refusing to start the game? (FF4, no flash)
    - msy 16y ago
      Given HTML5 Audio it makes you wonder whether a Flash requirement isn't partially a FU to Apple.
      - Andrex 16y ago
        HTML5 audio sucks right now. It's a known problem (that might even be fixed in Chrome 13), but yeah, it's not ideal at all for the moment. Further reading: http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/03/the-state-of-html5-audio http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/03/the-state-of-html5-audi...
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        That's a rather absurd theory, considering that making the free online version work well on iOS would reduce Apple's income from a very, very popular iOS game.
      - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
        <audio> isn't meant for short, repetitive clips (which is what games do). There's a new API being built for this need, can't remember the name of it right now.
        Andrex 16y ago
        Firefox has the Audio Data API, Chrome has the Web Audio API.
wccrawford 16y ago
People are reporting that it works fine in other browsers, too. The Chrome store is just a front. Almost everything in it is actually a website, with the thing in the 'store' just being a pretty icon to it. And everything in the store will work just fine on other browsers, to my knowledge. So while your point is valid, we actually aren't at a time when it's a problem... And I'm not convinced we'll get there. Tech has been changing quickly lately, and multiple browsers are now standards-compliant... That's pretty solid.
- twodayslate 16y ago
  It works in FF4.
arkitaip 16y ago
Because the ecosystem of web standards is very weak. Because each browser decides which standards to implement and, sometimes, how to do it. Because cross-platform testing web applications is very resource intensive even if you are using automation tools such as Selenium.
portman 16y ago
Here's what excites me about Angry Birds in the Chrome app store. None of this exists yet, but it could: - If I install it on one computer, it installs on all my computers - Purchase the Screaming Eagle in-app, using Google Checkout - If I beat Level X on one computer, I can resume on level X+1 on another computer (using the same infrastructure as Chrome bookmark sync). Currently, your game progress is in LocalStorage, but it would be great to have the game database sync'd to my other browsers. Yes, you could "sign-in" to Angry Birds to sync your data, and that option would still exist, but for people who installed through the App Store (where you have to be auth'd to Google anyways) it would be one less step.
- Andrex 16y ago
  Basically, cloud game saves then? It's entirely possible at this point, I'm implementing it in my game.
- gkoberger 16y ago
  Uh, you realize that's how the web already works... right?
  - portman 16y ago
    Zing! Fair point. But "video game" != "the web". I tend to view HTML5 applications as closer to a traditional desktop application than a web site. Local storage has some advantages over server-based storage (latency, privacy, etc), while the major disadvantage of local storage is the lack of persistence across multiple devices. I like the idea of HTML5 app developers being able to use LocalStorage and then seamlessly piggyback on Chrome's existing JSON sync framework. That's a lot less work than managing state on the server, and lets game developers focus more on their core competencies, effectively outsourcing the "webiness" of their app to Google. By no means do I think this kind of "Chrome App" will replace web apps, but I do believe that in certain genres like video games there are advantages.
- justinhj 16y ago
  Games on Steam do this
Andrex 16y ago
Benefits to web app stores and installing apps: - Automatic permissions granting. With a normal site, a bunch of prompts could appear; "Allow this website to track your location?" "Allow this website to use notifications?" "Allow this website to use unlimited storage?" "Allow this website to use the file system?" et cetera. With an app, the browser knows when the user installs it that they want those things. - Discovery and monetization. Both suck for web apps right now. Discovery comes down to reading a tweet about an app, or Googling. Monetization is basically 99% advertising at this point, which isn't tenable for many industries. - Knowledge that the browser installing the app supports a common set of standards. When I make an app for the Web Store, I know 99% of people are using the latest stable version of Chrome, and the remaining 1% is using a future version. I don't have to do IE6/7/8 hacks, or even worry about it. Since you're a representative of Mozilla, I would also like to say I hope you guys don't give up on your "open" web store and app dashboard efforts. Eventually in an ideal world, the web app store model will be standardized and future browsers will be able to cross-install apps from each. Although there's nothing stopping Mozilla at this point from supporting .crx apps, Chromium is open source after all.
- bad_user 16y ago
  Automatic permissions granting That's an UI problem easily fixable by browsers. Discovery and monetization. Both suck for web apps right now Somehow products like Smugmug, GitHub, Basecamp haven't had this problem. There are easy ways for discovery, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and plain word-of-mouth. There's also an easy way for monetization -- it's called Paypal Websites Standard. I myself discovered this link by coming here, to HN. That's the beauty of an open web. Knowledge that the browser installing the app supports a common set of standards Easily checkable by other means. You're basically trying to redefine the problem to fit the solution. It doesn't work like that - App Stores are only useful for the platform provider, keeping that provider as an intermediary between the developer and his customers, getting a share of the revenue. The Internet changed that and now platform providers (e.g. older like Apple, Microsoft and newer, like Amazon, Google) are now fighting back. And the situation is exactly as in the old days of IExplorer - when devs developed for IE because they had consistency and it was the most popular browser anyway.
anant 16y ago
If I pay for it in the (currently in development) Mozilla app store, that means I can't use it in Chrome. Is this really what we want for the web? FWIW, this is not the model that the Mozilla "app store" proposes. You will be able to buy apps from any store, and then use them from any browser irrespective of which browser you originally bought it on. Part of Mozilla's OpenWebApps work is to define the auth flows in order to make this possible.
extension 16y ago
I have no problem with app stores existing. I am yet unsure whether app stores piggybacking on the web is bad for the web or just benign tunneling. There is a key difference between this and IE's play for control of the web a decade ago. MS was trying to deliver native Windows code over the web and keep people locked in to their OS. Chrome apps are implicitly encouraged to use web standards and couple to Chrome only when necessary. I don't think Google is trying to hijack the web, I think they are just trying to expand its scope.
foob 16y ago
Do you think that apps using NaCl will be more deserving of being treated as something different than a website? As browser technologies get more advanced it becomes increasingly possible to make things that seem more like a traditional desktop application than a webapp. That said, I don't think that we're there yet and most of the offerings (even from Google) in the store seem like nothing more than a link to a page.

yanw 16y ago

You don't have to install it to use it: http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ http://chrome.angrybirds.com/

udp 16y ago
That one doesn't require Chrome, but it does require Flash! I'm pretty sure FF4 supports everything that's needed to run a game like this, out of the box.
- lftl 16y ago
  In Chrome it requires flash to play the sound (same as the plugin version). Everything else works fine without flash.
  - udp 16y ago
    Why doesn't it just not play any sounds, then, instead of refusing to start the game? (FF4, no flash)
  - msy 16y ago
    Given HTML5 Audio it makes you wonder whether a Flash requirement isn't partially a FU to Apple.
    - Andrex 16y ago
      HTML5 audio sucks right now. It's a known problem (that might even be fixed in Chrome 13), but yeah, it's not ideal at all for the moment. Further reading: http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/03/the-state-of-html5-audio http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/03/the-state-of-html5-audi...
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      That's a rather absurd theory, considering that making the free online version work well on iOS would reduce Apple's income from a very, very popular iOS game.
    - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
      <audio> isn't meant for short, repetitive clips (which is what games do). There's a new API being built for this need, can't remember the name of it right now.
      - Andrex 16y ago
        Firefox has the Audio Data API, Chrome has the Web Audio API.

wccrawford 16y ago

People are reporting that it works fine in other browsers, too. The Chrome store is just a front. Almost everything in it is actually a website, with the thing in the 'store' just being a pretty icon to it. And everything in the store will work just fine on other browsers, to my knowledge. So while your point is valid, we actually aren't at a time when it's a problem... And I'm not convinced we'll get there. Tech has been changing quickly lately, and multiple browsers are now standards-compliant... That's pretty solid.

twodayslate 16y ago
It works in FF4.

arkitaip 16y ago

Because the ecosystem of web standards is very weak. Because each browser decides which standards to implement and, sometimes, how to do it. Because cross-platform testing web applications is very resource intensive even if you are using automation tools such as Selenium.

portman 16y ago

Here's what excites me about Angry Birds in the Chrome app store. None of this exists yet, but it could: - If I install it on one computer, it installs on all my computers - Purchase the Screaming Eagle in-app, using Google Checkout - If I beat Level X on one computer, I can resume on level X+1 on another computer (using the same infrastructure as Chrome bookmark sync). Currently, your game progress is in LocalStorage, but it would be great to have the game database sync'd to my other browsers. Yes, you could "sign-in" to Angry Birds to sync your data, and that option would still exist, but for people who installed through the App Store (where you have to be auth'd to Google anyways) it would be one less step.

Andrex 16y ago
Basically, cloud game saves then? It's entirely possible at this point, I'm implementing it in my game.
gkoberger 16y ago
Uh, you realize that's how the web already works... right?
- portman 16y ago
  Zing! Fair point. But "video game" != "the web". I tend to view HTML5 applications as closer to a traditional desktop application than a web site. Local storage has some advantages over server-based storage (latency, privacy, etc), while the major disadvantage of local storage is the lack of persistence across multiple devices. I like the idea of HTML5 app developers being able to use LocalStorage and then seamlessly piggyback on Chrome's existing JSON sync framework. That's a lot less work than managing state on the server, and lets game developers focus more on their core competencies, effectively outsourcing the "webiness" of their app to Google. By no means do I think this kind of "Chrome App" will replace web apps, but I do believe that in certain genres like video games there are advantages.
justinhj 16y ago
Games on Steam do this

Andrex 16y ago

Benefits to web app stores and installing apps: - Automatic permissions granting. With a normal site, a bunch of prompts could appear; "Allow this website to track your location?" "Allow this website to use notifications?" "Allow this website to use unlimited storage?" "Allow this website to use the file system?" et cetera. With an app, the browser knows when the user installs it that they want those things. - Discovery and monetization. Both suck for web apps right now. Discovery comes down to reading a tweet about an app, or Googling. Monetization is basically 99% advertising at this point, which isn't tenable for many industries. - Knowledge that the browser installing the app supports a common set of standards. When I make an app for the Web Store, I know 99% of people are using the latest stable version of Chrome, and the remaining 1% is using a future version. I don't have to do IE6/7/8 hacks, or even worry about it. Since you're a representative of Mozilla, I would also like to say I hope you guys don't give up on your "open" web store and app dashboard efforts. Eventually in an ideal world, the web app store model will be standardized and future browsers will be able to cross-install apps from each. Although there's nothing stopping Mozilla at this point from supporting .crx apps, Chromium is open source after all.

bad_user 16y ago
Automatic permissions granting That's an UI problem easily fixable by browsers. Discovery and monetization. Both suck for web apps right now Somehow products like Smugmug, GitHub, Basecamp haven't had this problem. There are easy ways for discovery, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and plain word-of-mouth. There's also an easy way for monetization -- it's called Paypal Websites Standard. I myself discovered this link by coming here, to HN. That's the beauty of an open web. Knowledge that the browser installing the app supports a common set of standards Easily checkable by other means. You're basically trying to redefine the problem to fit the solution. It doesn't work like that - App Stores are only useful for the platform provider, keeping that provider as an intermediary between the developer and his customers, getting a share of the revenue. The Internet changed that and now platform providers (e.g. older like Apple, Microsoft and newer, like Amazon, Google) are now fighting back. And the situation is exactly as in the old days of IExplorer - when devs developed for IE because they had consistency and it was the most popular browser anyway.

anant 16y ago

If I pay for it in the (currently in development) Mozilla app store, that means I can't use it in Chrome. Is this really what we want for the web? FWIW, this is not the model that the Mozilla "app store" proposes. You will be able to buy apps from any store, and then use them from any browser irrespective of which browser you originally bought it on. Part of Mozilla's OpenWebApps work is to define the auth flows in order to make this possible.

extension 16y ago

I have no problem with app stores existing. I am yet unsure whether app stores piggybacking on the web is bad for the web or just benign tunneling. There is a key difference between this and IE's play for control of the web a decade ago. MS was trying to deliver native Windows code over the web and keep people locked in to their OS. Chrome apps are implicitly encouraged to use web standards and couple to Chrome only when necessary. I don't think Google is trying to hijack the web, I think they are just trying to expand its scope.

foob 16y ago

Do you think that apps using NaCl will be more deserving of being treated as something different than a website? As browser technologies get more advanced it becomes increasingly possible to make things that seem more like a traditional desktop application than a webapp. That said, I don't think that we're there yet and most of the offerings (even from Google) in the store seem like nothing more than a link to a page.