211–220 of 475 posts
I still love the rationale for this decision:
> Over the years, we’ve received feedback from users on shared devices that they were confused about Chrome’s sign-in state.
Their solution: Let's add another state - the "sync" state - I'm sure this won't be confusing to users at all /s
I have no doubt this is a direct result of the feedback in the hacker news thread. Googlers read our comments and take them seriously when there is true merit. Keep making noise folks, it matters.
for me, the latest issue was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I switched to FF + DDG + Protonmail because I don't like the idea of a Google web. - Search - Analytics - Email - Storage - Android tracking - Online video - Chrome which is now becoming a portal to the GoogleWeb I don't want any company to control this much of what I do online as a matter of principle. At this point they're a victim of their ow…
Unfortunately, Chrome 70 is also when `www` subdomain is slated to get re-hidden, and when web audio breaking changes are slated to get re-introduced. There's just too much to keep up with at this point. I'm happy about this change, it's a big move in the right direction. But it doesn't give me any confidence for the future. It's crazy that users have to do this every single release. It can't continue like this. I ha…
A Google representative has claimed on the domain hiding bug report that the change is shelved due to the feedback. Edit: Permalink to the relevant comment: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=883038...
One week it's the domain hiding, another week it's cookie clearing. Who knows what Google is planning to change next time? It's not sustainable for us to go reactive every month.
There's an awfully big disconnect if the makers of the world's most-used web browser are routinely trying to change it in ways that users force them to immediately revert. That's not what good stewards do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a huge number of free developers Why do you think the search engine is unable to build a model leveraging a huge number of free developers?
A web search engine requires a huge amount of computing resources to crawl the web, make sense of the connections, and to serve the resulting indexes. You'll need some people too probably.
I have already switched to Firefox and loving it (Facebook container, tracking protection enabled), but these changes are welcome and responsive. I hope this is a wake up call that privacy implications need to be seriously considered during product design (even if the intent was better UX), and hidden changes without any UI/notice is going to make issues blow up far more than if there was clear in-app communication.
I recommend the Google container as well https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steps to reproduce: 1) Pick a rMBP. Any one. 2) Set display options - "more space" under System Preferences. 3) Run Firefox. Load any website. No extensions; safe mode doesn't matter. 4) 100%+ CPU, fans kick up and run high, system gets hot and slows to a crawl. Chrome and Safari run totally fine under the same conditions. It's documented pretty thoroughly in the first Bugzilla link I posted; the second one is an off…
1) I'm running a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015) 2) My display options are set to "more space" 3) I loaded this hackernews thread. 4) Firefox and it's child processes are using If I aggressively scroll this page I can push the cpu usage up. We have a variety of fixes in the pipeline that will help with this ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1429522 , https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1…
I have no doubt this is a direct result of the feedback in the hacker news thread. Googlers read our comments and take them seriously when there is true merit. Keep making noise folks, it matters.
However I'm disappointed that their response is essentially lip service to the highlighted problem. If I read the article correctly, the auto-signin will continue to be the default and you'll get an option to turn it off. This does not address the breach of trust issues highlighted in the thread and linked posts .. unless they're going to ask you about signing in to the browser before doing it. Also, the consequences…
> We’re also going to change the way we handle the clearing of auth cookies. In the current version of Chrome, we keep the Google auth cookies to allow you to stay signed in after cookies are cleared. We will change this behavior that so all cookies are deleted and you will be signed out. I really want to know who the internal champion was for getting the cookies to be perma-stored in the first place. It has to be so…
Based on what I know of the Chrome team, it was probably the conclusion of some UX manager or the result of a user study they did around Google authentication. If I had to guess: their end goal is not explicitly to collect more advertising data for Google, but it's to minimize friction around the use of Google services. This leads to decisions like the cookie one.
How can you have one without the other? Google services exist to drive advertising. Anything to make a Google service better for the user has a corresponding impact on Google's ad business.