[dangrover]

It doesn't make sense because the barrier to "apphood" in whatever Chrome defines to be an app is scarcely more than making a manifest. The distinction between a chrome app and a webpage is very minimal. What user problem is being solved by this? Why do I need a screenshot of the "app" (i.e. webpage) I am already using?

[dahwolf]

"The distinction between a chrome app and a webpage is very minimal"

It can be minimal, it can be significant difference, all depends on the PWA implementation.

Installed app has a shortcut/desktop icon, which is good for return engagement. A flash screen ratehr than the blunt loading of a web page. The UI can be instantly there as well as some content using offline tactics. A PWA isn't compromised by all kinds of browser real estate.

A proper PWA can definitely be better or approach a proper desktop app, but it's true that few implement them in that rich way.

[pjmlp]

Non technical users.

Secondly, not having Electron all over the place.

[cxr]

You're answering a question no one asked. Please re-read the comment you are responding to.

[pjmlp]

"What user problem is being solved by this?"

"Why do I need a screenshot of the "app" (i.e. webpage) I am already using?"

[cxr]

Yup. Those are words that the person you're responding to said. Quoting them here, though, doesn't make your off-base tangent about Electron any more appropriate as a response to a question about Chrome displaying a screenshot in a browser-controlled popup.

[pjmlp]

With installed Web apps there is zero reasons for Electron garbage.

Said pop-up is related to increasing Web apps adoption.

[cxr]

The installability of said Web apps was a thing prior to Chrome's announcement of the introduction of the "screenshots" property to the installation manifest. You are not answering the question that the person you responded to actually asked.

You're on a Web site. It has an "Install" button that you can click. Following the change announced in this post, the popup that overlays the page content can now contain a screenshot of the site operator's choosing when Chrome prompts you to confirm installation—a screenshot that could just as easily appear on the page—i.e. the one that you are already on and that contains the install button you just clicked. The question, then, is: ignoring all the puffery and filler the blog post, what _actual_ problem does this (the "screenshots" property—and not a PWA in general) actually solve?

(Alternatively, you can say something like how you were so excited when it seemed like there was an opportunity to post a vaguely cynical and nearly zero-effort quip related to installable Web apps vs Electron that you came in firing from the hip which resulted in what, as it turns out, was a response to a different question that nobody here was actually asking. It's as simple as saying, "Oops. I was mixed up, and I don't have such a big ego that I can't admit this nor one that requires me to pretend that this is what I meant by my original comment in this thread all along.")

[LuciusChen]

Every person's computer has many Electron applications, and each Electron application is a Chrome browser.

[pjmlp]

Which is why they only need one single copy of Chrome instead of Electron garbage.

[coldtea]

Well, Electron has all kinds of platform hooks that Chrome doesn't, so...

[dangrover]

Can Chrome just hurry up and add those so we can be done with Electron?

[modo_mario]

or firefox or the like. Let's not forget browsers without chromium exist just yet.

[GeneralMaximus]

Sadly, Firefox has abysmal support for PWAs on both mobile and desktop. I love Mozilla and Firefox -- and I still use it as my primary development browser -- but at this point Firefox is functionally worse than Chrome, Edge, and Safari on most axes.

[throwawa14223]

The lack of a bad feature is also a feature. Firefox is great precisely because it doesn't have this cruft.

[pjmlp]

To be real, only Safari actually matters as alternative to Chrome.

Firefox is also my main browser, but that doesn't change the fact that its 3% market share has made it optional for project delivery acceptance testing.

I hardly see it in any browser matrix nowadays.

[jmrm]

For me it's sad how I have to use Edge (because it's already included in Windows) due to many pages don't suporting Firefox. Google has made all they could to make both people and developers to use Chrome and Chrome-based browsers.

[JohnFen]

Well, not every person's computer.

[vbezhenar]

One of the biggest problems is that users often neglect to use bookmarks. Consequently, as soon as they close your web app, it disappears. By using the "Install" feature, a bookmark is kept in a visible location, significantly improving the chances that users will launch your app again.

This is one of the primary reasons why many developers still prefer to publish in App Stores, despite the various obstacles and risks involved.

Mobile Safari also treats websites differently if users add them to their home screen. It doesn't aggressively remove local storage in these cases. However, I am not certain about Chrome's behavior in this regard.

[cxr]

You have misunderstood the question. Chrome already allows you to "install" these things today. This post is about a change to Chrome's installation UI. Chrome's installation UI will support the "screenshots" property in the installation manifest now.

When the person you are responding to writes, "What user problem is being solved by this?" they are not being asked to have the value proposition of "installable" Web apps explained to them. They are asking about exactly what they say they are: "Why do I need a screenshot of the "app" (i.e. webpage) I am already using?"

[sparsely]

The screenshot of the "app" is useful because the actual webpage you're looking at probably has a newsletter signup modal, misleading cookie banner, and a couple of ads on it.