3 ms·
Ther other path is to view browsers as viewers of sometimes dynamic documents. There is a certain power in limiting the amount of expressiveness in the web -
by tpmx 6y ago
Ther other path is to view browsers as viewers of sometimes
dynamic documents. There is a certain power in limiting the amount of expressiveness in the web - it allows for a lot more creative repackaging.
Unfortunately this path doesn't allow for much targetted advertising opportunities, so that's why Google et al wisely abandoned this path. ( /s )
- izacus 6y agoDynamic documents fundamentally can't achieve the usefulness of modern web applications though. The fact of the matter is that web still seems to be the last bastion of freedom where you have a decent chance of publishing your software without begging for approval from a Californian. It's also inherently portable and doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy. Which is why the rent seekers are trying so hard to dismantle it instead of empowering it.
- pjmlp 6y agoChromeOS is the end goal of Google, beware of the basket where you are putting your eggs on.
- tpmx 6y agoI wish there could be a clear distinction between applications (like gmail) and web pages (like nyt).
- userbinator 6y agoI'd say 99% of sites out there don't need the "usefulness of modern web applications" at all. They are strictly linked sets of documents, with some interactivity through forms and such. It's also inherently portable and doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy. ...as long as it's running Google's software.