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

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 909 posts

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#681

Post by Quiark »

jwr wrote: post #238
user17843 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, almost the entire ad-blocking market is controlled by the company behind Adblock Plus (eyeo GmbH), who has contracts with Google. It appears they also own AdBlock, and uBlock (not confused with uBO), so during the last years they basically tried to capture the entire market. The fact that Eyeo has >150 employees tells us something about the amount of money to be made from ad blocking. Although they have only…

> uBlock (not confused with uBO) This naming is a catastrophe. I just tried to find out which is which and it isn't easy, even if you know what you're looking for. I'd think that uBlock Origin should consider changing the name. Yes, "it means giving up", but it's a battle they can't win anyway, and at least users will be able to tell which one is owned by eyeo. EDIT: AdBlock and AdBlock Plus are similarly confusing.

If uBO changes name to for example "Ant Block", somebody will come and create "Ant Block Plus"

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#683

Post by discreditable »

Jaruzel wrote: post #543
junar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it this? https://cloud.google.com/chrome-enterprise/browser/download

Key point (for Windows) on that page is: ADM/ADMX templates with 300+ user and device policies ADM/ADMXs are a list of settable policies (rules) that Chrome will read from the Windows Registry on startup[1]. I'm going to make a huge assumption that the Chrome.exe for Enterprise users is no different to the Chrome.exe that everyone else uses, and it switches into 'Enterprise' mode if it sees certain key policy entries…

Chrome MSI and chrome EXE installers work a little differently. The MSI installer by default installs to the program files directory. I've seen the EXE installer often installed to the local user profile. to convert a regular install to Enterprise you would probably have to uninstall the local version and then install the MSI.

ADM templates are something Firefox is sorely lacking at the moment. I remember reading that it is on the road map but that does not help out much. Nevertheless, I installed both chrome and Firefox and my organization. I like Firefox and use it myself, but sadly it's just not as easy to administer as chrome.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#684

Post by kosma »

chimen wrote: post #682

Can't use ff on linux unfortunately. It has this weird bug where it clicks on the first item automatically if I right click on anything. It's a super annoying bug.

I'm having the same problem on macOS. Might be HiDPI related as I run on non-standard settings (1.5x scaling).

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#685

Post by hawski »

microcolonel wrote: post #140

I guess my Chromebook will not be running Chrome.

Yeah, it's time to unscrew the write protect screw.

I'm wondering how Firefox for Android manages on ChromeOS. For now it's too slow on Crostini. But my cheap Chromebook is not performing well with both Crostini and Android containers. So straight up Linux should be hopefully better.

It's certainly harder for my old Tegra K1 Chromebook.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#686

Post by otabdeveloper1 »

rando444 wrote: post #601
rohan1024 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we can ditch chrome. But what about general population? Now that websites may choose to give incompatiblity prompts to Firefox since it impacts there revenue through ads. They will ask users to switch to chrome. This might affect Firefox in long run. It's market share might drop.

General population will follow the tech crowd. The main reason Chrome is so popular is because tech people have been saying "just use chrome" for forever. Firefox is taking back that role. It'll take time, but with google becoming such a PII hoarder, it's a change that will likely continue.

> The main reason Chrome is so popular is because tech people have been saying "just use chrome" for forever.

Utter bullshit.

Chrome is dominant due to two factors:

a) Distribution deals by Google to bundle Chrome everywhere they can. (Including shady crap like 'warez' sites, illegal music, OEMs, etc.)

b) Google aggressively peddling Chrome on their properties and making them deliberately slow and buggy with other browsers.

It's not a coincidence that Gmail suddenly became slow and buggy under Firefox with their latest redesign.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#687

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

briandear wrote: post #392
amelius wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, then it could be played a little harder, for example by introducing a (small) performance penality for visitors that use chrome.

Then you simply lose users. How do they know Chrome is the reason your site is slow when others’ aren’t?

Well, if we're fighting fire with fire, they know because you put in a little dialogue on the page that says, "switch to Firefox for better performance".

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#688

Post by scarface74 »

userbinator wrote: post #414
scarface74 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because warning people has historically worked well with PCs not to mention Android. See Also Vista UAC. It’s kind of amazing for people to say that they care about their privacy and then they install extensions that can record their entire browsing history and install VPN software on their phones that intercept all of their internet communications.

There's a mountain of difference between "can" and "will", and it's called "trust". For decades, people have been using software on their PCs which can essentially delete all their data or worse, yet what are the chances of that actually happening? Of course malware would exist, but at the same time, the unrestricted nature lead to a seamless exchange of data and creativity unhindered by any bureaucratic permission-m…

And we have found better ways on a newer platforms not to implicitly trust apps with unfettered access to user data and surprisingly enough, no one has started rounding up people en masse for looking at cat videos....

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#689

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

eganist wrote: post #361
vageli wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok, then it could be played a little harder, for example by introducing a (small) performance penality for visitors that use chrome. Good luck convincing your product owner of the necessity of that change. Most large enterprises won't do something like this.

That's not the place to target such a change, if anyone's to do it. If there's the support of a major maintainer of a popular library, merging changes which incrementally incur larger performance penalties in Blink may be more effective. If there's no support from a major maintainer, then simply writing contributions which are largely tested in firefox for performance but are tested in Blink for mere functionality sh…

No need to blackhat; rather than intentionally degrading it for one browser, just optimize for the other. I'm reasonably confident that there are areas where FFx is more performant; use them.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#690

Post by deadbunny »

Klonoar wrote: post #189
ljm wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? IE was incumbent and Firefox unseated it. They had the legacy of Netscape, sure, but they didn’t throw the towel and reskin IE the same way other browsers of the time did. Besides that, at which point does the dominant search and advertising company of the internet get an antitrust case for this? People think google is trustworthy yet they do nothing to earn that trust.

This kinda erases history. IE was riddled with security flaws and stagnant beyond belief when Firefox usurped it. There was a compelling reason to use an IE alternative back then - they actually offered something IE couldn't give. Chrome doesn't have that problem.

If ad blockers can't block ads in Chrome but can in FF that'll get a large chunk of people to switch without a second thought.
Post reply on HN