201–210 of 265 posts
Looks to me as an effort to make any user visiting google.com to not actually leave google.com FOREVER. Users will get portal-ed to a result page (with the browser's url bar showing foo.com, instead of google.com), but the user will be tracked the entire time from google, since they would be still on google.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had a similar experience as the GP, and I find it awful that autoplay videos will follow you around the page, pop-up modals will interrupt you in the middle of reading something, and ads will take up 40% or more of the page, loading between paragraphs while reading. It's hugely distracting to me. Why would you ever spend time on a site that did these things? Even if you have an adblocker, why would you use such…
You don't always know what a link is going to serve you before you go there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The recent extension-disabling problem made me realize how awful the unfiltered web is. Trying to use mobile Chrome for the first time ever was a dreadful experience. I legitimately had no idea that mobile Chrome doesn't have any extension capability whatsoever. I always assumed it was a Firefox-style unified experience where the same desktop extensions worked on mobile. I was horrified to discover otherwise. Ads ads…
I don’t use an Adblocker due to ethical concerns. (Not trying to convince you to do the same, just explaining.) It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. I suspect that after using Adblock for years, your brain has forgotten how to ignore them.
I guess you got used to it. I also had the chance to re-discover how many ads are everywhere on the web thanks to firefox addons outage, and I was very surprised. Honestly, smartphones screen are already quite small (even more when the keyboard pops out) and with all the ads the actual useful surface of the screen gets ridiculously tiny.
I couldn't imagine that chrome on mobile doesn't have an way to block ads, and still has such a huge user base.
“Google says portals allow users to navigate inside the content they are embedding --something that iframes do not allow for security reasons.” I love how they gloss over the security issue here. This is the equivalent of “we made a new Ajax that can call from different domains.” Reading through the article, I don’t see the security restriction addressed at all. I expect that this gets worked on when google submits t…
that's also my first impression of this article. but i (hope) believe google is aware of this security concern, otherwise they'll probably be the next Microsoft
Looks to me as an effort to make any user visiting google.com to not actually leave google.com FOREVER. Users will get portal-ed to a result page (with the browser's url bar showing foo.com, instead of google.com), but the user will be tracked the entire time from google, since they would be still on google.com.
I can see a lot of value in serving a mobile ad, and then having clicks open this overlay experience which was pre-loaded.
Looks to me as an effort to make any user visiting google.com to not actually leave google.com FOREVER. Users will get portal-ed to a result page (with the browser's url bar showing foo.com, instead of google.com), but the user will be tracked the entire time from google, since they would be still on google.com.
“Google says portals allow users to navigate inside the content they are embedding --something that iframes do not allow for security reasons.” I love how they gloss over the security issue here. This is the equivalent of “we made a new Ajax that can call from different domains.” Reading through the article, I don’t see the security restriction addressed at all. I expect that this gets worked on when google submits t…
BUT I'm concerned it doesn't mention similar sandbox and feature policies as iFrame. It also mentions that it will allow the 'child' to know if it's inside a portal with window.portalHost but at least this github mentions you can minimally declare no-referrer https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/portal...
Wouldn't the concern be ads ( I assume this is what this feature is intended for especially on mobile )? If there are no similar restrictions as a iframe safeFrame I can see a ton of ad scams that take advantage...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just switch to Firefox on Android and use uBlock Origin or similar.
Firefox on my phone crashes ALL the time. I can't load 3 web pages without it crashing. Is Android doing this on purpose? I just cannot get firefox mobile to work, sadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, given chrome's market share other browsers are forced to implement it or people will consider those browsers broken. Google are now where microsoft were when they launched IE6, adding features as they see pleased to support their own products and revenue. Back then the web population was savvy and not so reliant on microsoft that they could jump to firebird/firefox/opera when things got really bad. The modern web…
> The modern web users don't have that option because google are far more dominant now than microsoft ever was. At peak (in ~2003-2005) IE had over 90% of global browser market share. Chrome on desktop has between 60 and 70, and afaik less on mobile, and less in the US. So, no. > That doesn't happen now, OSes "just work" and people aren't changing their browser. Given that chrome doesn't come on any popular desktop O…
>At peak (in ~2003-2005) IE had over 90% of global browser market share. Chrome on desktop has between 60 and 70, and afaik less on mobile, and less in the US. So, no.
The parent post was comparing Google and Microsoft, not just Chrome and IE.
I don’t like how Google now gets to ‘launch new HTML elements’ as they see fit for their own purposes.