> Everything I've been reading refers to Chrome as a "browser." As in "web > browser."
You must be an interaction designer or whatever they call it these days, you're stuck on nomenclature. :-) Google cares only about dataflow between end-users and its servers. For them, that's where the money is. They don't give a hoot what the user-agent is, it could be a browser, app platform, heck, even a mobile-device OS. If they could wire up your walking shoes, they would. Now, in 2008, which one is *easier* to introduce, a "browser" or a new application platform? Especially, if you can hide the latter in the former. If quotes are needed: Google co-founder Sergey Brin said Chrome was designed to address the shift to using software from within a Web browser rather than as locally installed computer applications running inside Microsoft Windows or some other operating system. "We (Web users) want a very lightweight, fast engine for running applications," Brin said. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080902/google_chrome.html?.v=6 Yesterday was the first day of the first public beta of the first version of this attempt, "fast engine for running applications." Don't get hung up on nomenclature, Chrome will evolve. I don't think the browser can evolve into the next rich interaction platform > without breaking it out of the browser paradigm itself. This ignores the *enormous* evolution of the "browser" from what it was half a decade ago. We run a huge range of *applications* through a web browser all over the world in every imaginable domain. It's not perfect, but what is? Just a few years ago, nobody would even believe the kind of expressive, fluid stuff modern browser can do without using plug-ins like Flash. Yes, I'd like to spec my own app platform from scratch too, but good luck with that. Example: Palettes. Well, think different. Go with the flow. Apple didn't scratch its collective head and moronically translate the WIMP paradigm onto its mobile device, just because WIMP is the expected paradigm. Aperture could have been a nightmare of palette hell, but Apple utterly minimized its reliance on them. Heck, even Adobe has been trying to clean up its palette craze in each successive version of Photoshop. > Then they'll have to stomach not adding those features back in any time > soon. Which is what the article clearly suggests they are likely to do. > But what I see with Chrome, based on how they've now shipped, is a browser > with a potential web app platform as an extension. I still see a browser, > and all the limitations that implies. Perhaps, you'll just have to look farther and deeper. I think AIR is more like what you are claiming Chrome is from a product > definition point of view. Which is why I wrote it's in trouble: Google Chrome: Bad news for Adobe http://counternotions.com/2008/09/03/badnews/ -- Kontra http://counternotions.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
