I'm a Chrome OS user so I've had some time with this launcher. I'm not sure why, but for me having a launcher versus a bookmarks bar is a huge psychological difference. I really do feel like these are "apps" not websites, even when I could just as easily navigate to them in the URL bar. It makes Chrome OS feel like any other operating system when my brain SHOULD say "hey, this is just a browser".
I really, really <i>want</i> to write my application as a Chrome packaged app--I love all the advantages that come from developing for the web, and I love appearing like a native app to my users--but most of my users <i>don't use Chrome</i>, and I can't really force them to switch. They want to keep using what they're using. What should I do about this?<p>I think this feature might be a good start, but it would be great if you could install the App Launcher <i>without installing Chrome</i>. That is to say: Chrome team, have you ever considered converting Chrome into a platform runtime ala the JVM, and then making your browser just one of the "packaged apps" that runs atop it? :)
I am kind of sure that Google will ditch Java and go for native web apps for it's operation systems. They will unify ChromeOS and Android experience by getting rid of Java on Android and making web apps running natively on the OS.<p>I see a lot of signs from Google that they want to do this. The "X-Phone" project, this effort for pushing packaged Chrome web apps and even that new Android status in Google campus are all signs of it.<p>I am very happy that this is happening!
Why the need to package apps like this? Going to a web app with HTML5 caching will automatically make your app work offline. The installation IS going to the URL. With the added benefit that you can easily update the app by invalidating the cache. Just give web apps more localStorage, more caching space and indexedDb and viola!
A somewhat unrelated conceptual question: if Chrome is putting web apps alongside desktop apps, what does that do for usability of apps on a platform in general? If a web app was created to emulate a native OS UI, wouldn't that be taking a bit of a step backwards (in terms of recreating all the widgets) compared to just coding in the native toolkit in the first place?<p>I guess what I'm really asking is, what's Google's plan for unifying the Web Store apps visually the way Android and iOS do with their UI kits?
Until Google encrypts there .crx file that holds the source code I don't think anyone can use this to sell apps. Right now the only protection Google offers is a signed .crx file and that can easily be by passed. <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/a/4493712/1231" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/a/4493712/1231</a><p>Google needs to encrypt all .crx that come from the Web Store.
I find it interesting to see the differential in response to posts like this vs posts on the firefox phone OS threads.<p>Here they seem to be: "Why would I want a website as an app???"<p>In the firefox phone OS threads they seem to be: "This is how all apps should be build, pure web apps!!!"