Google Gears grinds to a halt
By Stuart Turton
Posted on 2 Dec 2009 at 11:06
Google is abandoning development of Gears as it looks to spur greater adoption of HTML 5 technologies by browser makers.
Gears was launched back in 2007 and allowed web applications such as Gmail to cache files locally, giving them the ability to work offline.
The HTML 5 specification replicates Gears' offline abilities, and adds native support for video and audio without needing to install separate plug-ins. It also features a geolocation API that's already been built into Google Maps.
In order to push browser makers into adopting HTML 5, Google says it will cease development of Gears, though it will continue to support the utility.
We're very focused on moving HTML 5 forward, and that's where we're putting all of our energy
"We're very focused on moving HTML 5 forward, and that's where we're putting all of our energy," Linus Upson, engineering director at Google, told PC Magazine.
"When we started the Gears project, we did it because we couldn't get the browser vendors interested in building offline applications. And so, so we said, okay, we'll build a plugin that could do it. And lo and behold, once we shipped Gears, suddenly the browser vendors got very interested in adding capabilities to build offline applications.
"You can almost think of what's in HTML 5, with app cache, and database, and those things, as essentially Gears 2, and that's how we view it," Upson concludes.
Is your business a social business? For helpful info and tips visit our hub.
How does HTML5's support for video work?
Before FLV came along, putting video online was a nightmare, choosing which format to encode it in etc...
Is this a move back to the bad old days of having multiplae versions to run on Mac and PC etc.?
By Grunthos on 2 Dec 2009
If everything works out, browser builders will settle on a standard video and audio codec for web content.
So far it hasn't worked out, with some browser builders attributing more importance to the codec being open source (because of licensing costs), while to others the quality per bit of the supposed standard is most important (most notably Google, which wants to minimize the bandwidth YouTube needs).
Recently Google acquired a company that builds high quality codecs, so rumor has it Google might be working on a solution that satisfies both camps.
By Woudenberg on 2 Dec 2009
- How Google Glass ruined my lunch hour
- Smartphone battery packs: can a USB power pack beat the festival battery blues?
- Windows Easy Transfer – not so "easy" in Windows 8.1
- Formula 1: what a difference virtualisation makes
- Office of the future: comfy chairs and tablets everywhere
- I went to Glastonbury and the only thing that got high was my smartphone
- Meet the robots helping teach children
- PaperLater: would you pay to print the internet?
- Amazon vs Kobo: how much to make the ebook switch?
- Phishing emails: how I nearly got caught out
- How to add in-app purchasing to an iPhone, Android or Windows app
- Remote-control ransomware: TeamViewer and software hardball
- Why laptops with serial ports matter to the Internet of Things
- Make your mobile battery last longer
- Small steps into handling Big Data
- Nexus 5: does it really run stock Android?
- How to get broadband to a garden office
- How to write your company's IT security policy
- Raspberry Pi and Wolfram: a must-have for every child
- Could you get by with Office Web Apps?