Then, there’s the Steam model, where an “engine” (the Steam engine, in this case) is installed on your computer, and your app is on their website at first, then downloaded (after you pay) and stored in a certain location on your computer, and runs inside their engine, making calls to their engine to paint things on your screen, produce sound, etc. That way, you run the app locally, but if you ever lose it, you can easily download it again (since you already paid for it).

For Chrome, apps use the Chrome browser as their “engine” – and after you pay for them, they either get downloaded and stored (so you can use them offline), or in some cases not, and you need to access them online every time (though you usually don’t need to download the whole app every time, just some parts). I’m simplifying here — in some cases, the app actually runs in the Adobe Flash “engine” (which is itself running in Chrome).

Sooo … when you call them “only” a webpage, some of them ARE, technically, but embedded in that webpage they contain a lot of “code” (written in Javascript, to get geeky) that is run in the Chrome “engine” – and THAT’S the app you’re paying for. If you tilt your head and let your eyes lose focus a little bit, it’s really no different than a native application you pay for and install. EXCEPT in that it’s a lot easier for you to get to the app (just click), and – very significantly – it’s a lot easier for the guys who made the app to update it, roll out a new version for you, etc. (which translates into charging you less for the app, on average, because they have to spend less $$ in shipping, burning CDs, advertising, etc.).

At the end of the day, whether you pay for the app or not shouldn’t really be driven by whether it’s a web page or a Flash file or a Steam game or a huge file you install on your PC … nor the technical details of how it “runs” on your computer (whatever kind of device that is, laptop, desktop, smartphone, netbook, PSP, GPS navigator, etc.) — ultimately, a bunch of people poured their talent into making your computer do something for you, and if what it does is of value to you, pay for it … if not, don’t!

you didn’t get that with apple this is more about encryption which if bound to hardware components is way better resulting in more possibilities of increasing security…( less ways to cheat encryption )

Chrome OS is as hackable as any other system you just have to find a little faulty code or a way to crash a service… no system is ever perfect…

I really don’t appreciate the author bringing apple into this, the reason we don’t need virus scanners on our macs is because, no-one in the hacking world gives a crud about Apple. There is not enough market share, and there is no real apple presence in key “hackable” industries that gain fame and or fortune for the hacker.

Can we give google crome OS a shot without bringing apple into it? Maybe compare it to large market share OS’s.