[user24]

I don't like the way Google are, basically, lying about what Chrome is. "You need Google Chrome to install apps". No you don't. Most of them work just fine in any other browser. And for the functionality that isn't present, what's better, writing a fallback for other browsers or locking other browsers out?

[mcmc]

I think you may have missed the point of the Web Store, which, like Apple & the iPhone, is predicated on the idea of selling applications that are compatible with the platform -- in this case Chrome. There will obviously be some applications that are easy to port to other platforms, depending on the specific APIs used, and some that will be more difficult. (For instance, you can't actually use an application that depends on the WebSocket rev76 API in Firefox 3.5/4, Opera, or Safari 6.0 or less.)

If a developer has an application that works in other browsers, then hey, they should go distribute those apps in more places than just the Web Store. But it only really makes sense to position the Web Store as a Chrome-specific application repository b/c Google is only really guaranteeing that these apps work in Chrome.

Google isn't lying, much in the same way that Apple isn't "basically, lying" when they fail to point out that you can play Angry Bird on Android just as easily as you can play it on an iPhone.

[user24]

> the Web Store ... is predicated on the idea of selling applications that are compatible with the platform ... Chrome

My point is that for the last decade we've been trying to move towards a web where any browser can be used perfectly well, and Google are now trying to reverse this trend in order to lock users in to their platform and make it unnaturally difficult for developers to port their 'apps' to other 'platforms'.

When did a browser become a platform?! I thought the web was the platform? The damage that this does in the short term is that the web is divided into the Chrome-enabled web and the rest of the web. If the idea catches on then the medium term damage is that the web is divided into the Chrome-web and the Firefox-web and the Safari-web and so on and so on.

> For instance, you can't actually use an application that depends on the WebSocket rev76 API in Firefox 3.5/4, Opera, or Safari 6.0 or less.

There was a time when CSS3 wasn't supported in some browsers. We didn't make a 'Firefox app store' for people who wanted CSS support in their web apps, we made fallbacks for older browsers with the knowledge that the other browsers would catch up eventually. That's a good approach because over all it makes for a more open, platform-agnostic web. What Google are doing with the web store is destroying that openness in order to push their own proprietary platform.

> Apple isn't "basically, lying" when they fail to point out that you can play Angry Bird on Android just as easily as you can play it on an iPhone.

That's totally different - the Android version is a completely different piece of code to the iPhone one. Whereas http://nytimes.com/chrome works just fine on firefox.

[alexro]

This trend of creating proprietary app stores is a bit worrying, to say the least

[sid0]

For instance, you can't actually use an application that depends on the WebSocket rev76 API in Firefox 3.5/4, Opera, or Safari 6.0 or less.

Given all the issues with the rev76 WebSocket spec [1] and the reason it isn't present in either Firefox 4 [2] or Opera [3], maybe you shouldn't be using it in the first place.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg04744.h...

[2] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-fir...

[3] http://annevankesteren.nl/2010/12/websocket-protocol-vulnera...

[TomasSedovic]

For what's it worth, some of these apps are differently packed Chrome extensions. Write Space[1] for example.

Therefore, you do have to install it, it works only on Chrome and has all the "app properties". On the other hand, while it does use the web technologies, it's not a "web app". It doesn't live on a server and you can't link to it.

As such, I agree with your sentiment -- some of the apps in the web store are just bookmarks (where the whole installation process feels weird) and the rest are not really "web".

[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/aimodnlfiikjjnmdch...

[user24]

yes that's true, I should have been more specific that I wasn't talking about extensions and themes - those do rightfully belong in a Chrome-only marketplace, because they genuinely only work on Chrome.

But the 'apps' are literally just websites. Some of them use newer APIs which other browsers don't support yet.

The same situation happened with localStorage, CSS, cookies, Ajax, JSON. The correct approach now is the same approach we used with those technologies; use them where we can, fall back where we can't. The approach Google's pushing is: Use them on Chrome, lock out where you can't.

[WesleyJohnson]

Websites require servers to operate, 'apps' do not necessarily have this same requirement. You can certainly create a standalone app in Google Chrome that I wouldn't classify as an extension because it neither augments existing website(s) or the browsing experience.

For example, I was working on a finance management app in Chrome along the lines of Quicken or MsMoney. The 'app' used plain HTML, jQuery and local storage to function and save your transactions. No server is needed in this scenario and I surely wouldn't call this a website or an extension.

[user24]

> 'apps' do not necessarily have this same requirement

But a great many do. Many of the 'apps' on Google's web store are literally just normal web apps doing their normal thing, expect that Google is presenting them as though they don't work in anything but Chrome.

> No server is needed in this scenario

Where is the html/etc hosted?

[Deviatore]

Well but most (maybe all) of the apps that are listed in this post are not just bookmarks

[user24]

1) Tweetdeck. An actual app!

2) Hootsuite. A bookmark to hootsuite.com

3) Aviary. A bookmark to http://goo.gl/VOFHH which seems to work fine in Fx.

4) Box.net. A bookmark to http://goo.gl/Osbby which works fine in Fx.

5) nytimes. A bookmark to http://nytimes.com/chrome which works fine in Fx.

6) eBuddy. A bookmark to http://web.ebuddy.com/ which works fine in Fx. Although it does open in a popup window if you install it on Chrome, so Firefox users will miss out on that feature.

7) Flixster. A bookmark to http://flixster.rottentomatoes.com/ which works fine on Fx.

8) todo.ly A bookmark to http://todo.ly/chrome which works fine on Fx.

9) Read Later Fast. An actual app!

10) Springpad. A bookmark to http://springpadit.com/chromestore.action which works fine on Fx.

11) Fiabee. An actual app!

So that's 3 out of 11 apps which aren't just bookmarks.

edit: and of those which are actually apps, I think from a cursory glance that Read Later Fast is the only one which actually uses Chrome-specific features. The others seem initially at least to be 'apps' just because they can be.

What's massively damaging is that the other 9 websites (sorry, 'apps') now have an excuse to not bother testing in other browsers, to allow bugs in other browsers. When really with a very minimal amount of effort they'd be able to be nice open web apps like we know and love.