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

Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#221

Post by csomar »

jasode wrote: post #191
TylerE wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's rather revisionist. At a point in time Chrome was way better than not just IE, but way better than Firefox. The performance was leaps and bounds ahead.

>Not because it was a superior product, not because of technology but because everyone was anti IE. >>>I think that's rather revisionist. I agree with the sibling comments that remembered the past differently: Back in 2008, Chrome was actually the superior product -- for both users and developers. - Chrome had a better partitioned process for each tab. IE and Firefox 3.x didn't so they often crashed on buggy web page…

> - Chrome had very good dev tools included. With Firefox, you had to install the Firebug plugin which was slower and buggier

I remember very well that after I made the switch to Chrome, I still used Firefox for all my debugging purposes and web-development. Firebug was way ahead of Chrome Dev tools.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#222

Post by qtplatypus »

techntoke wrote: post #181
bongobongo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely anti-competitive garbage, and you should be prepared to see more and more of it (and increasingly anti-consumer iterations if it) until people wake up and start demanding that their political leaders do something about it. “Companies will regulate themselves” is a cute libertarian bedtime story.

Google never said they were blocking ad-blockers. It was the hyperbole Firefox crowd who used some post by Raymond Hill from the creator of uBlock Origin as a reason to start another "Switch to Firefox" campaign. However, Hill admitted that adblockers aren't going away and it is just a proposed change in the WebRequest API to make things more akin to Safari to help adblockers operate in a standard in speedy way. Mozi…

Can you link to the site where he says this?

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#223

Post by feanaro »

jccalhoun wrote: post #103
feanaro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XUL was replaced quite some time ago.

>XBL stats update : >* 28 bindings (9.33% of original bindings) >* 10517 lines of code (21.02% of original LOCs) https://twitter.com/mozxbl

Yes, apparently I was wrong. Thanks for the additional data.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#224

Post by nxpnsv »

ben_jones wrote: post #87
el_programmador wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think its gotten to the point where power users go around to all their non-power-user friends and install ad blockers for them, at least I do in our office. The reason this is so successful is because it takes 5 seconds to go the the chrome store and add ublock origin. Convincing my non-power-user friends to move to firefox would be significantly harder. Google's goal is to remove the severity (and effectively the…

I may be poorly informed, but why is firefox difficult? I switched a year ago and haven’t really noticed anything different...

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#225

Post by Vinnl »

superkuh wrote: post #92
rndgermandude wrote: post #42

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…

The problem you described actually happened with Firefox and Firefox forks not too long ago. Mozilla kicked out all traditional Firefox add-ons from their repository to "replace" them (note: they didn't actually replace the vast majority) with chrome style webextensions. Firefox forks were forced to implement and run their own add-on hosting system and API, and navigate the complex legal waters of re-hosting the add-…

And how many add-ons are updated and maintained specifically for Pale Moon - especially compared to the number of add-ons for Firefox for which that is the case?

Because that is the danger for the Chromium forks too - that nobody will bother with their forked store.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#226

Post by cynicalreason »

gorhill wrote: post #115
user17843 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. 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 Adb…

> getting rid of ABP may be the primary reason for this move This makes no sense to me. ABP is already publishing a version using a declarativeNetRequest-like API, it's in the Mac App Store[1], so clearly it's not going to "get rid of ABP". Google benefits from ABP and AdBlock[2] being the most used content blockers, as they do not block Google ads by default, and do not block trackers/data miners out of the box. If…

Maybe it's just me, I use ABP and I'm fine with it. I don't mind adds in general .. I mind annoying and experience breaking adds.

If I land on some page where annoying adds still get past ABP I close and never visit the page again.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#227

Post by Vinnl »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #135
agumonkey wrote: post #123

I, for the first time ever, uninstalled chrome/chromium from my computers. It pains me because I liked it overall, and firefox isn't happy with my 2009 laptops. Maybe chrome devs mistake will be the air gap that creates a new leader from another group.

FF and Safari were the only browser that worked well on my 2009 MBP ... until FF went multi process, and then started using too much ram. Today I think its total ram usage is worse than Chrome.

You could try setting it up to use fewer than 8 different processes?

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/performance-settings

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#228

Post by jannes »

kbrosnan wrote: post #106
derefr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Firefox has now also moved to using WebExtensions, the Chromium forks could just rely on http://addons.mozilla.org as their “store.”

Firefox add-ons have a different namespace and some additional APIs that Blink does not support. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

And Firefox add-ons return promises instead of taking callbacks like Chrome.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#229

Post by feanaro »

nickserv wrote: post #73
feanaro wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood the appeal of Chrome over Firefox in the beginning.

It was faster, especially for JavaScript heavy sites... Which is the majority of sites these days it seems. It took a couple years at least for FF to catch up. I would say for most sites Firefox is now at least as fast while using less RAM. Now the problem is that Google web apps are tuned for Chrome, so users will complain their gmail is slow on FF.

> Now the problem is that Google web apps are tuned for Chrome, so users will complain their gmail is slow on FF.

I've heard this argument often, but it does not really resonate with me well. I've always used Gmail in Firefox and never noticed it being especially slow. I just tried it now and emails open seemingly instantly when I click on them. It feels quicker than ~100ms on average and certainly not slower than 200ms even for the occasional large email or hiccup. I just don't see how this can be used as a reasonable metric for choosing a browser.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#230

Post by ionised »

ben_jones wrote: post #87
el_programmador wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think its gotten to the point where power users go around to all their non-power-user friends and install ad blockers for them, at least I do in our office. The reason this is so successful is because it takes 5 seconds to go the the chrome store and add ublock origin. Convincing my non-power-user friends to move to firefox would be significantly harder. Google's goal is to remove the severity (and effectively the…

How is Firefox any different in that regard?

It's exactly the same, go to the Firefox add-on store and install uBLock Origin.

Post reply on HN