Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#101

Post by Cyberdog »

PuffinBlue wrote: post #25

Great. Anyone have any suggestions for a replacement for Authy? It's a 2FA Chrome App that syncs your 2FA tokens across devices. They have a 'desktop app' now available for Mac and Windows, but of course nothing for Linux (surprise surprise). So any equivalent that will work cross platform and sync too?

Do you have a smartphone? I have the Authy app for iOS, and while the interface for switching between sites to get tokens for is odd, it works fine otherwise. (I didn't even know there was a "desktop" version of Authy, but now that I do, I'm not going to bother installing it.)

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

oneweekwonder wrote: post #85
tonetheman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with PWAs is they do not provide the same access as a Chrome App (file system, sockets...) so it is not a replacement for those Apps using that functionality. Just another case of Chrome running in like a bull and doing one thing then breaking it later. :( Anyone who needs the low level functionality will end up with a native app that use native messaging to talk to Chrome. Or just stands alone.

> who needs the low level functionality will end up with a native app All please note. Electron is not a native app. It is a horrible hack that everybody use because it is easy. Hybrid apps will always suck! ~ <3 hobbyist hybrid gamedev with client side js crypto mining on his mind }:‑)

> All please note. Electron is not a native app.

Electron is an extremely heavyweight native app frsmework, not a native app, but Electron apps are (bloated, sure) native apps.

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

coldtea wrote: post #21

Hopefully this convinced the last person still gullible enough to believe on Google's interest to maintain long term (let's say, more than a decade) any service that's not Search, Ads, YouTube, Gmail or Android. I wouldn't build much on GAE either...

> Hopefully this convinced the last person still gullible enough to believe on Google's interest to maintain long term (let's say, more than a decade) any service that's not Search, Ads, YouTube, Gmail or Android.

Presumably, anyone who was going to be convinced of that by this move was convinced when it was announced 16 months ago.

https://blog.chromium.org/2016/08/from-chrome-apps-to-web.ht...

> I wouldn't build much on GAE either...

AppEngine has just about hit 10 years, and it's still growing and deeply integrated with the rest of the (even more actively developed) Google Cloud Platform, so it's probably nearly as secure as the other core itemss you mention.

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#104

Post by MBCook »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #100
coldtea wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean that they finally started to pay attention to the ludicrous crap they were giving money to that advertisers wanted nothing to do with? No, it means they've started promoting crap for monetizing and penalizing things that people actually want to see. > Advertisers don’t want to sponsor “anything” because it reflects poorly on them. Given the human scum that are advertisers, I doubt anything could reflect po…

The real issue is that advertisers still think that the video an ad plays on reflects their viewpoints. Coke playing an ad on a video with vulgar language does not mean that Coke condones vulgar language in our society. They still think it's TV advertising when it's not.

Why is it different? What makes YouTube different from TV or radio or newspapers?

Someone always says ‘but the internet is different’ but I’ve never seen a good explanation for why. Just things along the lines of ‘that’s how it’s been’ or ‘TV and radio are wrong’.

How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#105

Post by MBCook »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #82
MBCook wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that they finally started to pay attention to the ludicrous crap they were giving money to that advertisers wanted nothing to do with? What a surprise. It was deserved and a long time coming. People need to learn that whatever horrible thing you put online doesn’t automatically get you paid. Advertisers don’t want to sponsor “anything” because it reflects poorly on them.

No, the problem is that a lot of good content got flagged while a lot of garbage is still monetized.

It will all be sorted out (to some degree).

I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to.

And yes, good people are getting dragged down by association because there are other things on YT that are toxic to advertisers like the weird copyright infringing kids content or the seemingly abusive kids content.

But if YT is going to host that stuff (they are), and you’re going to use their site too, then you’re going to get lumped in.

It’s the same problem as the dark web. Yes, there are a handful of legal sites that may be useful. But when a huge chunk of what it’s actualky used for is horribly illegal things you’re going to to get lumped in.

I’m kind of surprised YTers weren’t pushing YT to clean up a lot of this stuff earlier so this wouldn’t have happened.

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#106

Post by MBCook »

coldtea wrote: post #94
MBCook wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that they finally started to pay attention to the ludicrous crap they were giving money to that advertisers wanted nothing to do with? What a surprise. It was deserved and a long time coming. People need to learn that whatever horrible thing you put online doesn’t automatically get you paid. Advertisers don’t want to sponsor “anything” because it reflects poorly on them.

> You mean that they finally started to pay attention to the ludicrous crap they were giving money to that advertisers wanted nothing to do with? No, it means they've started promoting crap for monetizing and penalizing things that people actually want to see. > Advertisers don’t want to sponsor “anything” because it reflects poorly on them. Given the human scum that are advertisers, I doubt anything could reflect po…

> No, it means they've started promoting crap for monetizing and penalizing things that people actually want to see.

Could you explain this part? I thought the whole issue was YT was being more selective about the videos they monetized with ads.

> Given the human scum that are advertisers, I doubt anything could reflect poorly on them.

If that was true boycotting brands wouldn’t be effective. But it is VERY effective. Ask Sean Hamburg or Dr. Laura (among many others).

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

bane wrote: post #59

What's the future for Chrome Remote Desktop?

Just to suggest a possibility: Chrome Remote Desktop is also an Android app and the technology to run Android apps in Chrome on Desktop has been available for some time; it shouldn't take much, if Google wanted, to let desktop Chrome use the Play Store and use APKs directly rather than repackaging them (as via the developer preview ARC Welder tool) into CRXs.

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#109

Post by Klathmon »

JepZ wrote: post #96
Klathmon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually "negative" support in iOS. You can add a website to your homescreen in safari, but when you do it uses a different rendering engine, with different levels of support. Take WebRTC which was recently (partially) added to iOS. It will work great in safari, but if you add the site to your homescreen, it is no longer supported. The job of telling users to remove homescreen shortcuts to use a new feature…

Wow, thats a bummer. Didn't know about that. Anybody knows why Apple is doing that?

I've heard a few different things.

The cynical part of me wants to think that it's because by hurting it in WebViews and in a desktop-shortcut they can "support" these technologies without fear of them cutting into their app store sales/numbers.

But I have heard that there are some shitty technical problems with it.

Safari is not the same as a WebView when it comes to the code, and apparently a desktop-shortcut app runs in a WkWebView. So while they were able to add these features to Safari, the process of adding them to a WebView is much harder since it's intertwined with the OS so heavily.

According to someone I talked to a while back, WebViews and Safari in iOS are different enough that sharing code isn't exactly easy or straightforward.

But then the cynical part of me kicks back in and thinks that they shouldn't be following into the footsteps of Internet Explorer which hit the same traps and potholes (the integration with the OS meant new feature were extremely difficult to add, and the browser lagged behind because of it).

Re: Chrome Apps are dead, as Google shuts down the Chrome Web Store section

#110

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

MBCook wrote: post #104
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue is that advertisers still think that the video an ad plays on reflects their viewpoints. Coke playing an ad on a video with vulgar language does not mean that Coke condones vulgar language in our society. They still think it's TV advertising when it's not.

Why is it different? What makes YouTube different from TV or radio or newspapers? Someone always says ‘but the internet is different’ but I’ve never seen a good explanation for why. Just things along the lines of ‘that’s how it’s been’ or ‘TV and radio are wrong’. How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?

> What makes YouTube different from TV or radio or newspapers?

This is a good question. TV, radio, and newspapers all need to cater to the lowest common denominator(LCD) in order to obtain the greatest amount of viewership as possible, because distribution is expensive. A focus on the LCD combined with data analytics is why channels like The Learning Channel(TLC) and History Channel only show reality TV nowadays: They don't want to offend, they just want to maximize revenue on their single channel.

YouTube uses a different model. Every individual can subscribe to specific media niches that wouldn't otherwise be able to survive on TV, because the cost of distribution is brought to zero. The only costs that need to be considered are the costs of media development.

In real life, most people use vulgar language. Most people don't care about diversity or gender stereotypes. They don't care about the focus on the LCD. All they want is media that they can relate to and enjoy, and almost everyone enjoys stuff a bit different from the LCD. The fact that advertisers are trying to shift focus from individualized content to LCD content just so they can control the platform leaves many people bitter, and removes the competitive edge that YouTube has over typical media.

> How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?

Companies nowadays are trying to make it an endorsement, but it doesn't have to be. All YouTube needs to do is to make it widely known that while companies can push for certain demographics, they have no control over the advertising. Companies want more control over the platform than they really need.

Post reply on HN