Being hosted doesn't make them just links. Hosted apps still have access to many APIs not available in normal web pages. Such as cross-domain XHR, background pages (apps can run in the background even when the tab is closed), a licensing API that allows Google to handle the registration burden, etc.
Do many web apps use those features yet? (Besides payment, that is; see my reply to your other comment for my view on that.)
I don't know; how is that relevant? The article argues about the future, of which Chrome and IE have app ecosystems and Mozilla does not.
Chrome Web Store is not a link directory, that's as much FUD as you accuse them of spreading about Firefox release cycle (which I agree with).
The Chrome store could be more than a link directory, and if that happens it'll be for the same reason Apple's App Store took off: centralized payment. A sane payment system for web apps could be revolutionary, but before that happens we'll need to change the Web's culture. Right now people simply don't pay for web content. The ability for the Chrome store to deliver local apps, which I suspect you were referring to,…
Packaged apps is just one of the many (and growing) features of being a Chrome apps. But packaged apps don't have anything to do with offline storage. There could be a packaged app spec in HTML in the future, but there isn't today. Nor is there a spec for background pages, cross-domain XHR.
Do many web apps use those features yet? (Besides payment, that is; see my reply to your other comment for my view on that.)
I don't know; how is that relevant? The article argues about the future, of which Chrome and IE have app ecosystems and Mozilla does not.
I think I see the source of our disagreement. You seem to say that Chrome's impressive infrastructure for web apps gives it a potential advantage. I certainly agree with that, but the capabilities of Chrome apps aren't widely used right now, so the actual strength of the system is still unknown. The Chrome Web Store could still end up like WebOS: great platform, few developers.
Quite exciting this IE resurgence. It's a good reminder that you can't sit on your laurels - you have to keep innovating - and/or push yourself ahead of the pack.
To the average Joe - what makes the new Firefox any different to the last version?
Javascript and rendering performance tweaks are great - but the UI still sucks.
I simply beg to differ. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
These are just the browser stats for this site and I see your point. However, the article is implying that there is going to be a trend toward browser apps in the future and Firefox does not have a built-in browser app platform.
I don't know; how is that relevant? The article argues about the future, of which Chrome and IE have app ecosystems and Mozilla does not.
I think I see the source of our disagreement. You seem to say that Chrome's impressive infrastructure for web apps gives it a potential advantage. I certainly agree with that, but the capabilities of Chrome apps aren't widely used right now , so the actual strength of the system is still unknown. The Chrome Web Store could still end up like WebOS: great platform, few developers.
I don't agree with the article that Firefox is in trouble, but I'm a Chrome Store dev and I've grown tired of reading people online saying things like "they're just bookmarks", so I apologize if I came across as attacking. I think the advantages that Chrome (and to a lesser extent IE) has will eventually be rolled into the spec, and will be negated, however I don't think Mozilla is doing enough to push their alternative as viable. Their spec, to me, reads as web app best practices and the only original thing they're providing is an install button api.