Skip to main content

I Miss The Old Google Chrome

I miss the days when Chrome felt like a window onto the Web.

Google Chrome was my favorite browser for a long time, almost since it first was released.

I wasn’t just buying into the Google fanclub, or at least I want to believe it was more than that. What I saw in Chrome was something that I felt was exactly right in the world where I saw the web growing more powerful and able every day.

At one point I recall saying that Firefox was about how much the browser can be for you, while Chrome was about how it can get out of your way and expose the web itself as directly and cleanly as possible.

I was behind this idea of a window into the web full heartedly because I thought it was the best way to promote everything the web could be.

How much has this changed?

Today, I’m not sure if the situation has reversed, but I am certain that my old view of Chrome is no longer something I can stand behind. Chrome has changed a lot and shifts further from its roots as a neutral arbiter of a clean web. Sadly, I don’t suspect this is going to change.

At one point Chrome represented a pure web, which is important because we need a voice that affirms the web is a worthy goal on its own.

This is no longer the feeling you get when looking at Chrome with the host of “Chrome Apps” ready to be installed, built from a platform that was born of the web, but walks its own line. Chrome has different classes of app-citizens, web apps and Chrome apps, and this is a drastic departure from its earlier days when it took those pure web applications and thrust them into the desktop kicking and screaming. I remembered how excited and happy I was to click that “Open as Window” option among the applications that were really nothing more than a bookmark. Suddenly, thousands of amazing web apps became near-first-class citizens that sat right beside my native applications.

I was sure that I was given a peek into the future.

Screenshot+2013-04-16+at+12.25.14+PM.png

Maybe it was inevitable. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is the mantra that seems to drive Google product decisions. They play the game well.

I’m not saying Chrome apps aren’t a nice thing. I’m not saying they aren’t without merit. But Google made a very calculated and deliberate decision to sunset their support for pure web apps to push their own platform. Browsers always have new APIs that are experimental or that they’ve implemented from a standard first, but Chrome apps don’t represent even that illusion of playing nice. Even Microsoft is doing better with this for the last several releases of Internet Explorer.

It was a nice ride, Chrome, but I don’t think you can be my browser anymore.

Comments

garylinux said…
Does Chromium do what you want? It has not made all the changes that chrome has. Rekonq Is also a decent webkit browser.

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…