Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome is Not the Standard

chriskrycho.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 465 posts

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#271

Post by milesvp »

fourthark wrote: post #226
Pharylon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Mr. Robot Malware?" You mean the extension that did literally nothing unless you turned it on in about:config? That's "malware?"

Sounds like it deliberately appeared to be malware, but wasn't. Which shows a strange and misguided sense of humor.

Which was consistent with Mr. Robot's tone and theme. I have to say, that like it or hate it, the show does hark back to days of programming yore, and I could totally see it seducing devs into doing foolish things like releasing an add on that looks like malware.

Mischievous easter eggs don't really belong in commercial software anymore (with very careful exception) but the allure still exists. I can't fault the dev team too harshly for this lapse of judgement, especially since it sounds from their blog post that they've taken the backlash to heart.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#272

Post by bhawks »

chriskrycho wrote: post #245
bhawks wrote: post #207

I wish the author discussed the fact that Apple doesn't allow any other browsers to target the iOS platform. Chrome / Firefox are forced to be thin wrappers against the webkit engine instead of bringing their own technology. No other platform has policies like this and it greatly impacts the web platform and changes the dynamic of web standards in a way no other browser developer could.

This is an important point, but it's ancillary to what I'm getting at here. (And, contrary to sibling comment, I'm well aware that "Chrome on iOS" is just a wrapper around the Webkit view.) There's an important role of competition, and I sometimes do wish that Apple allowed alternative implementations. On the other hand, alternative implementations are also alternative vectors for security holes, and one of Apple's p…

Two points:

1. Today we have 4 browser implementors. Only one of them doesn't also own an operating system (FF). We lost opera year or two ago. I would argue that a significant factor in this shrinking landscape is the fact that Apple has locked away ~10% of the market forever (and this 10% is not a random sampling - it includes many high value customers). Sure implementing a browser is technically challenging - my argument is that Apple's policy has altered the environment in such a way that there is no longer any reward for overcoming that challenge unless you have an operating system or some other large interest that requires you to make a browser. This will have effects on the web as a platform for years to come.

2. Security is a core principle for all browser implementors - due to the nature of a browser you won't get far without it. Privacy is a can of worms - all implementors will pay lip service to it. Whether or not they deliver on it is another topic entirely. A blanket ban on browser development in the name of security is heavy handed. Browser implementors love security and would gladly follow any procedures and policies the platform chooses to enforce. Apple's kill switches give them more than enough leverage to protect users from bad security actors. Now privacy, given that WKWebviews apis allow developers today to evaluate arbitrary JavaScript and monitor the users navigation Apple has already trusted developers to respect user privacy. A browser implementor wouldn't have much more ability to damage user expectation of privacy as a normal app developer already does.

Looking at the facts I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Apple's policies and actions are hurting the web in a way the no other browser implementor could.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#273

Post by pls2halp »

riquito wrote: post #253
threeseed wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) iOS is not a monopoly. 2) Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters.

> Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters. Oh please... source?

1) JavaScript allows for arbitrary code execution

2) Apple’s App Store policies disallow the user from executing arbitrary code

I think you can figure this out yourself.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#274

Post by tytso »

notyourday wrote: post #108
sgift wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is transparent. I know what they are doing. You do? Okay, I don't. Please, show me exactly how Google uses data they collect from their users. Every usage. Not just a few. And no "but they say they can use it for whatever they want!" - then we can talk about transparency.

Sure it is - it markets my information to advertisers via its own platform. It is my neighborhood drug dealer, and drug are pretty good - nicely packaged and no one fucks with me when i use its drug delivery service. Mozilla is pretending to be a health store. But we are starting to see that they are also peddling drugs. Not Google drugs - drugs with security and drugs with delivery system and drugs that we are prett…

It's a myth that Google literally sells your information to advertisers. It uses your information to show you advertisements which both it and its advertisers hopes are relevant and useful (so you will click on them). If you think about it, that business model essentially requires that the ads not be too annoying, because if they are, people will use ad blockers and the business model dies.

The really annoying ads which auto-play videos, block content, etc., tend to be served by companies who aren't taking the long view --- which is why Chrome is going to be adding adblocking for those ads that are ultra-annyoing early next year.

There's a pretty big difference between "using your information for marketing", and "marketing your information to advertisers". The second implies that your private information is getting divulged for a price, and that's simply not true.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#275

Post by icebraining »

notyourday wrote: post #258
icebraining wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you specify which "shady drugs" are these? Because I'm not seeing it. In this particular case, the addon was written by Mozilla employees, and was completely harmless. I don't think Mozilla did well - and I've said so in the original thread - but calling it shady compared to Google ads? That's laughable. DoubleClick is one of the largest malware distribution platforms in history.

Pocket. Mr. Robot. Google tells me - "Dude, for providing me your information you get gooodieeeees!" Mozilla tells me - "We respect your privacy. " In a micro-font : "except when we do things that you should not be concerned about"

Which of those violated your privacy?

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#276

Post by joshred »

connorelsea wrote: post #257
jen20 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? iOS has by most measures less than 50% of the market.

Even with a low market share Apple could still theoretically be engaging in practices that are anti-consumer, such as disallowing the use of other browser engines. Though, afaik, Apple does not stoop to the levels of Amazon, who removed the Twitch app from Roku platform for absolutely no reason other than to line their pockets with more cash.

Before they purchased it?

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#277

Post by cjhanks »

syshum wrote: post #61
TheCoreh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mr. Robot thing was not "malware". It was an easter egg, just like about:mozilla. You may say it was poor taste on Mozilla's part, since it was essentially a paid-for promotional tie-in with a TV show, and I would probably agree with you. But it did not damage anyone's computer, compromise any data or do anything that could put it on the "Malware" category. Something similar that noone has complained about are th…

>>Mozilla's biggest screw up IMO was failing to disclose properly what was going on. That was not the only issue 1. Failure to Disclose it before distribution 2. Failure to Properly name or provide any support context to the Add In. 3. Using the "Studies" System designed to improve the technology and advance the web browser for this Adware "Easter egg" not really an Easter egg addin 4. Failure to Publicly Comment abo…

The real problem imho is that Mozilla hired a wild fox to become its CEO. Before becoming responsible for guidance and stewardship of a free and open internet, the fox primarily spent its time chasing mice and sneaking into chicken coops.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#278

Post by toxican »

pls2halp wrote: post #273
riquito wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters. Oh please... source?

1) JavaScript allows for arbitrary code execution 2) Apple’s App Store policies disallow the user from executing arbitrary code I think you can figure this out yourself.

These are excuses, not valid technical reasons.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#279

Post by kuschku »

JohnBooty wrote: post #157
kuschku wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They blatantly ignore standards, the most obvious of which is their treatment of autocomplete=off in forms[1]. They broke the ability to disable autocomplete, and since then have been intentionally breaking workarounds people find to actually turn off autocomplete. This has been a major pain in the butt at work. My solution to that is simple. I have a microservice that tells my services how to get autocomplete=off…

That is filthy, and I absolutely love it.

Indeed it is, but sometimes it’s necessary. I absolutely only use it for search boxes where I provide custom history for previous entries, and custom suggestions. Without autocomplete=off, these are horrible to use.

And this was the only way I could figure out that would guarantee that it would be disabled, even after browser updates.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#280

Post by toxican »

milesvp wrote: post #271
fourthark wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it deliberately appeared to be malware, but wasn't. Which shows a strange and misguided sense of humor.

Which was consistent with Mr. Robot's tone and theme. I have to say, that like it or hate it, the show does hark back to days of programming yore, and I could totally see it seducing devs into doing foolish things like releasing an add on that looks like malware. Mischievous easter eggs don't really belong in commercial software anymore (with very careful exception) but the allure still exists. I can't fault the dev…

But if you've never seen the show all you saw was some sketchy extension appear in your extensions list with little to no explanation of why. Was my Mozilla account breached? Did some program installed on my computer auto-install an extension without me realizing? Am I sleep-installing extensions?

It was just weird and it freaked me out until I heard everyone else was losing their mind over it. I just really don't get what they were thinking.

Post reply on HN