61–70 of 256 posts
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
I feel like things would be easier if Firefox could be embeded in another browser just like chromium can. Let Google cripple their browser for themselves, and Mozilla provide the good and strong de facto browser engine.
I haven't seen this talked about here but... last I checked Mozilla was in majority funded by Google royalties. What's their plan of aligning their income with essentially directly attacking their funding source?
I would be more comfortable in Mozilla not being founded by Google though.
This one[1] and the likes will prevent vast majority of ads, regardless of which browser you have chosen to use this morning. [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/h...
Except mobile browsers, arguably the most critical place where you need blocking to get any kind of reasonably decent experience (load times, viewable area, battery life, etc.). Extensions like uBlock target people who don't want to bother with editing hosts files and keeping them updated.
By doing this you inherit the features of the replacement browser like ad-blocking and tracking protection.
[1] https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/android/customtabs
[2] https://github.com/arunkumar9t2/lynket-browser
[3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=arun.com.chrom...
[4] https://medium.com/@arunkumar9t2/introducing-chromer-2-0-a-b...
I tried opera a while back, and while it's fast and looks good, it has a new tab page with "recommended" sites that you can't turn off - I tried, but it's protected by DRM (opera will refuse to start if the file doesn't have a valid digital signature). So if I'm going to switch browsers because of privacy/advertising concerns, it's not going to be Opera.
I feel like things would be easier if Firefox could be embeded in another browser just like chromium can. Let Google cripple their browser for themselves, and Mozilla provide the good and strong de facto browser engine.
> Let Google cripple their browser for themselves Web developers can also help here by making the UX slightly worse for Chrome users, e.g. by showing more ads.
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to…
This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business.
If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them.
They may also want to get rid of paying Adblock Plus money for their highway robbery.
Now that I think about it, getting rid of ABP may be the primary reason for this move. They have to basically pay a third party to get access to their own users.
Either way, the battle is not over the power user minority, but over the average user.
The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to disappear. Most users would probably be content with this. They will probably make it so they won't lose all of their power users. I think what they really want is increasing the amount of works it takes to have full adblocking functionality to the point where the average user has no access to it.
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
Opera does not use chrome web store: https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/
It was easier to self-host the add-on for people who want it, so that they can download it from your website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let Google cripple their browser for themselves Web developers can also help here by making the UX slightly worse for Chrome users, e.g. by showing more ads.
"This site best viewed with..."
"Extra ads for Chrome users: ... Want less ads? Use ..."
Bonus for putting the extra ads in a pop-over div.
