Chrome 124 Lets You Turn Any Website Into an App (androidpolice.com) 113
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Android Police: Seven years ago, Google announced that it would phase out all Chrome apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux by 2018 (it would actually take until 2023). In its place would be what the company called Progressive Web Apps (PWAs), web apps that can be installed on a user's desktop that act as if they are practically natural apps and programs. The idea grew quickly, with Chrome users having installed PWAs in record numbers by the beginning of 2022. Soon, every website will be installable on desktops through PWAs.
In Chrome Canary (the daily build version of Google Chrome and typically a couple of versions ahead of the stable build), websites can now be installed on desktops. As part of the latest daily build, Google has added an "Install page as app" option to the "Save and share" submenu on the desktop version (via @Leopeva64 on X). This makes clicking the app -- which is just the website made to look and feel like a native app -- always open in its own window. Sites that already have their own PWAs, like YouTube or Reddit, have been prompting users to install them for a while now and will have their "Install page as app" function actually showing the name of the site. For example, YouTube's entry will show as "Install YouTube." In February, it became possible to enable the flags necessary to make any website into a PWA, but it seems to have just now become fully implemented.
In Chrome Canary (the daily build version of Google Chrome and typically a couple of versions ahead of the stable build), websites can now be installed on desktops. As part of the latest daily build, Google has added an "Install page as app" option to the "Save and share" submenu on the desktop version (via @Leopeva64 on X). This makes clicking the app -- which is just the website made to look and feel like a native app -- always open in its own window. Sites that already have their own PWAs, like YouTube or Reddit, have been prompting users to install them for a while now and will have their "Install page as app" function actually showing the name of the site. For example, YouTube's entry will show as "Install YouTube." In February, it became possible to enable the flags necessary to make any website into a PWA, but it seems to have just now become fully implemented.
What does it even mean? (Score:1)
"turn every website into an 'app'"? No drivel like the marketing AI-generated drivel.
Re:What does it even mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
...and why do I need a website to look like an app?
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:3)
It means you can create a launcher that opens up as its own window with it's own icon but is rendered using the HTML/JavaScript downloaded from a website.
Generally it also implies some form of offline access, but not always.
I'm curious how they handle the last part. In the classic PWAs, the developer has to define which URLs to make available offline. Obviously there would need to be something analogous to bring the new tech to feature parity with PWA.
Re: (Score:2)
Its an old idea from the 00's but if they add in a memory manager and a way to deploy it would be interesting in small enterprise non-citrix environments for end user support. No idea who would give the money or time to do it but it's almost useful just lazy at the moment.
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:3)
No. They invented a standard for users to create their own apps by copying websites. Sure, those users could have learned a bit of C++ and some GUI toolkit. Then learn Swift and another toolkit to port to Apple. Then learn Kotlin and another toolkit to port to Android.
But for some reason not a lot of people were doing that.
So they made a way users can do that by clicking a button.
Don't be obtuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Because for some use-cases, html is good enough.
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:2)
And that is exactly why PWAs have additional APIs to handle things like local filesystem access, notifications, desktop integration, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:2)
https://developer.chrome.com/d... [chrome.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:2)
The P in PWA stands for progressive. In the web world, "progressive" means writing code that detects system capabilities and adds/remove features based on this. So you do have the same code.
Just like your browser might not support some authentication protocol so the app has to be written to remove that option of needed, PWAs are generally just the standard web apps that have additional features when used.
A good example is storage. A PWA might provide filesystem access when running as an app, but provide a c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Apps - even native ones - don't generally interact with Bluetooth outside of a few very specific use cases, like sharing files. As far as I know, no browser gives you an API manage Bluetooth settings directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What does it even mean? (Score:2)
No it definitely creates apps. Just like if you built a Swift app with a WebView and used JS/HTML to implement the behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it me or... (Score:5, Insightful)
did they just reinvent bookmarks?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is it me or... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know why the security consultant in me just got dollar signs into his eyes, yes?
Or do you need a security consultant? :)
Re:Is it me or... (Score:5, Insightful)
did they just reinvent bookmarks?
Or, something far worse? A mere bookmark doesn’t demand local rights to install code and run with local permissions.
We probably don’t even want to know how security wasn’t a priority with this. Not to mention websites being updated all the time, so the “app” version of a website will need constant updates to remain in sync? The hell is the point again?
Re: (Score:2)
Well they don't call it an "always on connection" for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! We in the security department call this kind of stuff "job security".
Let them find out by themselves, how else are they supposed to learn?
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! We in the security department call this kind of stuff "job security".
With that kind of mentality, I can’t imagine how “secure” cops must feel in their job working Chicago on a Saturday night. Just sayin’.
Let them find out by themselves, how else are they supposed to learn?
The last time Common F. Sense tried to step back and let Consequences lead, Professional Victim attacked back and called it “racist” for allowing stupid people to become victims. Then it cancelled Common Sense.
Those who never see their own faults, never learn. And we’re oddly rather supportive of that kind of ignorance right now,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a cop. I am not here to serve and protect. I'm a security consultant. I'm here to mock managers and charge them for it.
Re: (Score:3)
not really, these "apps" run inside the browser sandbox, just like any other regular web app.
(unless they have done something really, really silly, which would be really odd. i didn't check the source, though)
Let me try to explain (Score:5, Informative)
Similarly, Apple has been going to bat against the EU to disable a feature common with Android browsers, allowing you to create a 'desktop launcher' to an individual website. Clicking the resulting desktop icon launches the website in that same regular old browser such as Safari, or maybe Chrome, FireFox, Vivaldi, etc. Once clicked, the browser launches with the web page in the current tab, along with possibilities for many more tabs, because it is just a browser with a web page in a tab. I'm unsure as to the current status between Apple's Safari and the EU.
What TFA is about is about, is saving a web page to create a 'desktop launcher' using Chrome as a browser engine, launching the website, period. Once launched into its own window, it appears to be look and function just like any app installed in the OS, but it is a remote web page in its own self-contained browser engine. There are no browser controls, only the website. (like the YouTube app on Android, according to TFS)
Progressive Web Apps [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What Progress, has become. (Score:1)
Translation: The definition of Progress(ive), doesn’t mean what it used to mean.
Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he sort of has a point. "progressive" means nothing at all in this particular context, it's just a buzz term like "responsive" or so many others that were introduced solely to hype new paradigms ... or the revival of old fads like is the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, this is a cromulent choice of words.
Re: (Score:2)
it's still bullshit. it "moves on" with the website because it is the friggin website, launched via a shell script into a functionally restricted version of the browser. you could also say it is "domotic" because it exists as a first order entity in the home ecosystem of the user's desktop metaphor, as another example of something strictly cromulent but still a load of nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I semi-sorta see why 'Responsive' is called such.
Put yourself in the role of the web developer trying to code one of the first 'Responsive' websites. Imagine you are working with a 4k monitor. Imagine a web browser window that is *not* fullscreen, but otherwise is pretty much any pixel width x height variable as is possible. Of course realistic ratios are dictated by actual hardware devices the website is viewed on, plus desktop user preferences.
Of course you can try this out yourself now if you want.
Now gr
Re: (Score:2)
indeed, except that it was an already well known paradigm in ui development. incoming old man rant: at that point i had produced/worked on several hundreds of ui on different platforms, the vast majority of which had that property from the get go because it is just the sensible thing to do by default, unless specifications say otherwise. and it was called dynamic layout, fluid layout, flow layout, flowing layout, flexible layout, column layout, etc. all terms that nicely specify what they describe (a layout
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, Apple has been going to bat against the EU to disable a feature common with Android browsers, allowing you to create a 'desktop launcher' to an individual website. Clicking the resulting desktop icon launches the website in that same regular old browser such as Safari, or maybe Chrome, FireFox, Vivaldi, etc. Once clicked, the browser launches with the web page in the current tab, along with possibilities for many more tabs, because it is just a browser with a web page in a tab. I'm unsure as to the current status between Apple's Safari and the EU.
What TFA is about is about, is saving a web page to create a 'desktop launcher' using Chrome as a browser engine, launching the website, period. Once launched into its own window, it appears to be look and function just like any app installed in the OS, but it is a remote web page in its own self-contained browser engine. There are no browser controls, only the website. (like the YouTube app on Android, according to TFS)
Progressive Web Apps [wikipedia.org]
Apple revised its stance on PWAs in the EU iOS.
They now allow PWAs on the Home Screen again (they were always available as Bookmarks); but they must Run under WebKit. IMHO, this is no different than saying that Native iOS Apps have to Run under iOS, and, IMHO, represents a reasonable Compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, Apple has been going to bat against the EU to disable a feature common with Android browsers, allowing you to create a 'desktop launcher' to an individual website. Clicking the resulting desktop icon launches the website in that same regular old browser such as Safari, or maybe Chrome, FireFox, Vivaldi, etc. Once clicked, the browser launches with the web page in the current tab, along with possibilities for many more tabs, because it is just a browser with a web page in a tab. I'm unsure as to the current status between Apple's Safari and the EU.
Wow, I didn't realise that Iphone users didn't have this feature. I've a few web sites I launch this way because it's simpler and apps are shit (it costs money for a club to produce and maintain an app, which breaks frequently, money a club could better spend on equipment, using something like goteamup is cheaper).
If anything I'd rather go the other way, is there a way to use my standard web browser (Firefox or Chrome) to replace an app which realistically is only there to take me to a web site.
Re: (Score:2)
...is there a way to use my standard web browser (Firefox or Chrome) to replace an app which realistically is only there to take me to a web site.
A bookmark?
Re: (Score:2)
...is there a way to use my standard web browser (Firefox or Chrome) to replace an app which realistically is only there to take me to a web site.
A bookmark?
No, a bookmark is inside the browser, this is a shortcut on your home screen.
What I want is pretty much to be able to uninstall an app but still use the functionality via my web browser rather than using what is essentially a single use web browser with additional advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
What OS are we talking about?
But app... (Score:2)
Pulls back a quiet sob.
Re: (Score:2)
Quiet! If you say app too many times, the luddite guy will appear!
Re: (Score:2)
well, the templar of the sacred order of the undying fiery canids already got notice ...
Re: Is it me or... (Score:1)
PWA were introduced with the iPhone by Apple. Developers back then had a fit and wanted a real App Store. PWA still function on Apple devices but since have been relegated to mostly apps that are limited in scope because they donâ(TM)t need the tracking/ad functionality modern apps desire.
Re: (Score:2)
Also sites that Apple has deplatformed for political speech.
Re: Is it me or... (Score:2)
No.
Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Launching an website as a separate chrome process has its advantages - particularly with respect to secure local access, window management and general stability. You could do that in a separate "Chrome"window, but being able to pin a website/webapp etc. is also a convenience feature.
What has effectively happened - if you are using webapps for the most part, your Browser is essentially a VM between the app and the OS. This is just tighter integration with the OS.
So no, its not reinventing bookmakrs. It's
Re: (Score:2)
With some effort an OS could leverage hardware virtualization too for a segmented memory space.
I would feel a touch better about letting a website fix a USB device in this context.
Currently I spin up additional hardware if this need arises.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part where it is a convenience featrure, and separation of concerns. I don't want 10 Chrome Windows on three monitors. I want my email to show with its own icon in the task bar. That's not what happens with bookmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, its YOU (Score:2)
Slight correction (Score:5, Informative)
It lets you decorate any website as if it wasn't running in a browser.
"Progressive web apps" are neither apps nor progressive: they're a phenomenally inefficient of running an application with zero control over the application, that the lazy computer users of today like because they don't have to install them.
It's for portability (Score:2)
Nor do the alleged "lazy computer users of today" have to endure "Sorry, this application isn't available for your device's operating system yet" while waiting for the application to become popular enough for the application's publisher to make five different versions for five different operating systems.
In the alternative: How common is it for people to carry both an Android-powered phone to run native apps from Google Play Store and an iPhone to run native apps from Apple's App Store?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't demand the application's publisher to port everything for me. Just give me the source, I'll even do the work for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can just, you know, go to their website. This really does just sound like a reinvented bookmark the more I read about it.
Re: It's for portability (Score:3)
It's not though.
It's much more like a web developer ported their app to Electron to release cross-platform as a standalone app.
At the most basic, it provides UI isolation. Bookmarks open tabs in an already running app. This gives your app switcher a dedicated target, provides visual distinction like it's own to icons, they can be granted access to filesystem subtrees, have their own custom menus, ...
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh okay. I see what you mean. Interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
It lets you decorate any website as if it wasn't running in a browser.
"Progressive web apps" are neither apps nor progressive: they're a phenomenally inefficient of running an application with zero control over the application, that the lazy computer users of today like because they don't have to install them.
Gee, that sounds pretty bad, until you realize that it's the fallacy of the false alternative.
You think you have more control over some non-browser based "app" that you install?
Re:Slight correction (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you have more control over some non-browser based "app" that you install?
Yes: when I have a piece of software I like that's installed locally and not set to automatically pull updates, when the software vendor decides to disable a feature, they can go stuff themselves.
With web apps, the SaaS provider can disable anything, change the look-and-feel or the entire interface at will without you having any say in any of it. They decide what runs on your computer. Even if you pay for things, they can take those things away and there's nothing you can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: when I have a piece of software I like that's installed locally and not set to automatically pull updates
You're not describing modern software.
Re:Slight correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever paused to think modern software isn't necessarily better?
I'm totally onboard with updating OS and applications for security purposes. What I'm against - and the reason why I disable automatic updates in everything I own - is the software vendors using that mechanism to slip in unwanted anti-features, spyware, advertisement and forced OS upgrades.
It's sad, but most of the times, I'd rather take my chances with exploits and mitigate separately with outside means than with "improvements" from software vendors. Because quite frankly, I trust them even less than hackers. I've long since stopped viewing any software update from commercial software vendors and Big Data companies as anything other than untrustworthy malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever paused to think modern software isn't necessarily better?
Of course I have, I made no comment on whether something is good or bad. The GP just pointed out you are making a fallacy as the alternative is the same, you claimed it's not but demonstrated you're not actually comparing the correct alternative.
Yes more control of software for the users is a good thing, but that's not how virtually all modern software works, and as such PWAs aren't any worse than the alternative, they are only worse than your fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that. Bugs and other surprises. QA is really bad these days from all companies. :(
Re: Slight correction (Score:3)
You should learn what a PWA of is. There's nothing special about PWAs getting updates. Regular apps do the same thing and you actually have a proper security policy in the PWA to guarantee it can't connect to the network. No similar guarantees apply to the software you download over the Internet.
There's nothing happening locally on your computer (Score:2)
There is absolutely nothing happening locally on your computer. The PWA app, is akin to a web page in a browser and sand-boxed as such.
Also, a PWA app can be distributed, (and hopefully approved), just like any other app in the Google Play store or arguably Apple's store. I say arguably because Apple is a walled garden coming to terms with a certain degree of accountability lately due to The EU and I can't even hope to keep up with the details as the days pass.
The uninstall process on such an 'approved' app
Re: (Score:2)
You think you have more control over some non-browser based "app" that you install?
Yes: when I have a piece of software I like that's installed locally and not set to automatically pull updates, when the software vendor decides to disable a feature, they can go stuff themselves.
With web apps, the SaaS provider can disable anything, change the look-and-feel or the entire interface at will without you having any say in any of it. They decide what runs on your computer. Even if you pay for things, they can take those things away and there's nothing you can do about it.
And that is when they just disable access from that version at the back end, forcing you to upgrade.
Facebook did that with a few of their apps that used to be less hassle, like Messenger Lite, however they're forcing everyone to use the full bloat client now or at least trying to. I'm sure they aren't the only ones doing it but are the first example I could think of.
Re: (Score:2)
It lets you decorate any website as if it wasn't running in a browser.
"Progressive web apps" are neither apps nor progressive: they're a phenomenally inefficient of running an application with zero control over the application, that the lazy computer users of today like because they don't have to install them.
When users today want to argue that they’re NOT “lazy”, I’m reminded of the fact that the install wizards that drove setup.exe, was already the lazy and easy way of installing things. And we were forced to do better.
Re: Slight correction (Score:2)
MS install infrastructure is a fucking nightmare. Super pimp was the only one that seemed well designed, but it was niche.
Digital Decorating (Score:2)
It lets you decorate any website as if it wasn't running in a browser.
So, we’ve re-defined website defacement as Digital Decorating and Design 101.
And there are those that argue, this isn’t “progress”. Pfft. /s
Re: Digital Decorating (Score:2)
No. Ever since the web was invented there has been the concept of an "agent". Look it up. It's core the entire web.
This is a new agent. No different than a new browser connecting to your site.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed there's been a strong push to eliminate standard browser navigation controls, particularly so the "Back" button doesn't work and you can't open links in new windows. Hmm... I wonder why an advertising company would want to take navigation controls away?
SSBs by another name? (Score:2)
Shirley this is just site-specific browsers by another name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site-specific_browser [wikipedia.org]
Re: SSBs by another name? (Score:2)
It's more correct to characterize this as technology that allows users to create their own site specific browsers, along with various technologies to allow you to develop local web apps, like granting access to filesystem tree.
Re: (Score:2)
Antithetical but (Score:5, Informative)
I am not even sure I like the idea. Seems antithetical to what I would ever want with "the web" to have something try to be an app. Further, it reeks of non-real-standards and attempted platform lock-in. Especially when it involves Chrom*, I am immediately jaded.
But anyway:
* https://developer.mozilla.org/... [mozilla.org]
* https://pwasforfirefox.filips.... [filips.si]
* https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Re:Antithetical but (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not even sure I like the idea. Seems antithetical to what I would ever want with "the web" to have something try to be an app.
I'm definitely sure I don't like the idea. As users become more and more used to 'apps' being entirely resident in the cloud, more and more programs will be available ONLY if you've paid the latest installment of your extort... er, rental fee. Additionally, if your internet connection is down, ya got nuthin'.
This is yet another step in the already extremely advanced movement toward corporate control and gatekeeping of everything we have and do. It's very, very bad. And never mind the average Joe and Jane - there are even lots of otherwise tech-savvy people who don't take the threat seriously. A good number of them are Slashdotters.
Re: Antithetical but (Score:2)
Well these apps are usually used to provide offline access so they should help destroy the idea that you need to be connected to the cloud.
I'm not sure where the mental disconnect here is with people.
Do you think this is supposed to replace your file browser or something?
Much of its use case is built on bringing existing web apps to your desktop. That can only reduce our reliance on the cloud.
Re: Antithetical but (Score:2)
I haven't come across any tech on this space that isn't part of a standard. The filesystem, the install system, the security policies... All standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there are standards and there are "standards." Google, among others, are famous for creating and/or pushing "standards" which really don't stand up to critical analysis or are really not open to honest discussion or contribution. They do what benefits THEM, mostly, and they have the unbelievable amount of power to push it through with little or no implementation elsewhere. Just stick it in chrom* and done. That isn't the type of standards we need. And the major problem is the lack of competit
It's just better desktop integration, that's all (Score:4, Informative)
A PWA is simply a browser tab that integrates with your desktop as a standalone app. It appears as an app in the desktop menus, it has an icon, it has access to local files and local config, it can have features that are assigned to keyboard shortcuts, and it can be removed as if it were being "uninstalled" like a standard desktop app. Otherwise, it's fully a normal web app. There are a couple of configuration tweaks needed to make a web site into a PWA, the main ones being following the conventions of including a manifest file, using a standard folder naming scheme, and including an icon file.
Pretty handy in some scenarios such as editing, where a standalone context is what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's just better desktop integration, that's a (Score:3)
Wow. I had no idea Google was holding people at gunpoint and forcing them to click the new tiny icon you probably never even saw. Are you alright? Should we call for hel
And why exactly would I want to do that? (Score:3)
Looks like a solution very much in search of a problem. There is also this thing called "Bookmarks". Apparently these junior engineers at Google have never heard of it...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a mother do you. Bookmarks are a step way too far for some users. If there isn't a desktop icon with a shortcut directly to a website then she can't figure out how to use it.
These Googler's seemingly weren't born in a test tube and are just doing what their mothers tell them to.
Re: (Score:3)
My mother is quite capable of using bookmarks, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother is quite capable of using bookmarks, thank you.
So not a normal mother then. I think your problem is you are surrounded by clever people to the point that you really don't understand how dumb many average users are.
Re: And why exactly would I want to do that? (Score:2)
And when you learn what a web app is, you can rejoin the convo and actually add something to it
Re: (Score:2)
Well, aren't you the arrogant jester. Pathetic. And not even relevant. More pathetic.
Re: And why exactly would I want to do that? (Score:2)
Nope. Guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it seem that you do not know at all what a wep-app actually is. Stupid and proud of it.
Completely backwards. I hate apps. (Score:3)
What I'd like to see is a way to turn apps into websites. For some reason, companies keep wanting to push apps at me, and they're always horrible, limited, defective little things that I don't want. I may need to install them anyway, because you know their website is broken all over.
Re: Completely backwards. I hate apps. (Score:2)
There are some technologies to do that. I think Qt might have a way to generate HTML from their UI code, then run the app over the web.
The opposite (Score:1)
Isn't this already a thing? (Score:1)
Re:Isn't this already a thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically this is exactly all this is, just consolidating the UX into the single feature "install this". Nothing else is different. It recognizes that most people have checked off the "open in window" if they use the feature, so there was no reason to leave the "open in new tab" option anymore.
The thing for those going "its just bookmarks" is that there's an attitude shift between a "web page" (bookmark this to read later) and a "web app" (this is a place I regularly go to for what it does).
[Hell, Chrome's already added ANOTHER bookmark system with that "reading list" on the left side (at least for desktop), as an attempt to build in the features that Pocket (owned by Mozilla) was doing.]
So the browser is recognizing that we have 3 types of things we keep. The "oh, I just need to read/watch this when I have the time" reading list with easy "mark as read" and "delete" features right on the list. Then the bookmarks: the pages we regularly visit or the things we keep around because we need to reference them later (e.g., github pages for libraries we use all the time for the products we're making).
And finally web applications where the "chrome" of the browser is just in the way. Disney Plus. Youtube. Calendar. Music Players. Trello. Messenger apps. Yes a lot of these might have native versions, but sometimes (looking at YOU, Messenger) I don't want all the extra crap that comes with that. heck, some of the 'native' versions are just web apps wrapped in a deployable chrome like Electron or Cordova, so why have all that extra memory space when I can just piggy-back the web app in Chrome?
There are also quite a few app-launchers that can just take any web page/app and launch it in an electron-like shell...so again, this gets rid of the need for those kinds of hacks. You can still choose to do that if you're anti-Chrome, though you have to double-check if they're using V8/Chromium or something Mozilla-made, but most people just don't care about things the way many /. security-minded types do.
So this just moves web-apps that didn't go through the tedious PWA process (service worker, off-line cache (what's the point of offline cache for a streaming-only music player?), manifest, getting all your icons right, blah blah) a level playing field of sorts. Fewer hoops to go through to just go "hey, just open this without the rest of the browser crap all over it".
Too much crap on my desktop already (Score:2)
That's why I have bookmarks all in one place in a browser.
More accurately (Score:2)
More accurately, they just "invented" mini-browser windows. For people who are sick of having options like the back button and the ability to go to other websites, I guess. Although you could just turn off the toolbars and menu bar of the browser and get the same thing, but with the added ability to get the menus back.
This isn't a feature, it's a gimmick.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just using the right vocabulary that should have been used all along.
UX people have often "reinvented" something merely by taking an existing feature and changing the UX around it to match the vocabulary and the mental model of what the user's think or want to happen.
Even "Signals" in Javascript - nothing special. We've had generic events at the 'body' or 'window' level for years and years. Nobody called them "Signals" until somebody decided to call them "Signals", but nothing about the API ever changed
knuckle dragging in the 21th century (Score:2)
We had that in Linux for a while :
Called WebApps version 1.3.4 is current. Run websites as if they were apps
Really .. they need to stop bragging about stuff that we already have ..
But (Score:2)
But to use it, I'd have to be willing to install Chrome.