|
|
|
|
|
|
by CaptArmchair
1886 days ago
|
|
|
The idea of "web applications" is almost as old as the Web itself. Java Web Applets, Flash, Silverlight,... were all attempts to bring application functionality to the browser. Billions have been invested in this strategy. Why? Because desktop computing used to be a battlegrounds for commercial vendors in the late 20th century, and the goal was establishing market dominance. Being able to control who can run what on a platform was / still is part and parcel towards establishing that goal. Web browsers changed the game. They are a threat and an opportunity at the same time. A threat because gave anyone a chance to escape from a native context and run whatever you want in a browser regardless of the platform your on. No more having to compile and distribute the same application for a dozen potential targets. Microsoft was so adamant on having Explorer bundled with their OS in order to establish control over the future evolution of web applications on the information highway. And they got famously burned for it in that 1999 anti-trust case. Application delivery as you know it today is convenient, but that came at a price. Vast amounts of resources have been poured into Chromium over the past two decades to bring that experience to billions. And it didn't happen out of sheer altruism on the part of Google. |
|
|
> Microsoft was so adamant on having Explorer bundled with their OS in order to establish control over the future evolution of web applications on the information highway. And they got famously burned for it in that 1999 anti-trust case.
Totally. Microsoft was using it to try control the web as a Microsoft platform. Hence their push for ActiveX over flash/applets/javascript.
> Vast amounts of resources have been poured into Chromium over the past two decades to bring that experience to billions. And it didn't happen out of sheer altruism on the part of Google.
At the time Chrome was started it was a more or less altruistic move from Google, from the user's perspective at least. Google was heavily reliant on the web for income and existing browser were slow, had widely varying standard support, and lots of security issues. Chrome forced their hands, by showing that a web browser can be fast and "secure."
Also at the time Google have a significant platform of their own. They would be at the mercy of the platform gatekeepers. So pushing an open platform that anyone can publish on was in their own interest.
Since then Android has taken off and Chrome has morphed into arguable spyware, but at its inception it was a good thing for users.
> Application delivery as you know it today is convenient, but that came at a price.
A price to whom though. To those who would try to lock down our platforms and seek rent over application delivery? I guess I don't really care about how much it costs them ;).