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

Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

armin.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 195 posts

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#71

Post by londons_explore »

NewsAware wrote: post #68
kibwen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how one would automatically detect such a thing as a browser extension changing hands. If you require signing extensions to make a release, there's nothing stopping a developer from selling their keys. And even without changing hands, the threat to users remains the same if the company just goes from "we'll give you $10k for your extension" to "we'll give you $10k to link this library into your extension…

It would not be about detecting the change of hands but about detecting the (malicious) monetization. Depending on the type of extension this might still be hard to do, but I could well imagine heuristics triggering a manual check from the extension store providers.

With many extensions having hundreds of thousands of lines of minified code, a manual check is unlikely to find anything nefarious if it's been well hidden.

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#72

Post by bradknowles »

stctw wrote: post #52
Causality1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been trending that way for years now. Making a browser that does what you want it to do is way easier than making a browser that does what your users want it to do. Sometimes I wonder if the "iterate version integers every six weeks so our e-peen looks bigger" approach is to blame.

That's an interesting thought. It's almost like Chrome and Firefox have been in a "browser cold war" for years now, trying to outdo each other's version numbers, trying to entice users with greener grass rather than the stronger "attacks" of the IE-Firefox "browser wars" of the past, and one side trying to imitate the other. Chrome realized that if it jumped ahead in version number, it could gain a huge PR advantage,…

Who wouldn't want Firefox 2000?

Or Chrome 30001?

/s

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#73

Post by michaelmrose »

kibwen wrote: post #62
geofft wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, agree - detecting extensions that have changed hands into someone who wants to "monetize" it and preventing those updates from getting to users definitely seems like a thing that the browser manufacturers should be doing (even if - and perhaps especially if - it lowers the apparent market value of extensions) and that the onus is on browser manufacturers / extension store operators to do so.

I'm not sure how one would automatically detect such a thing as a browser extension changing hands. If you require signing extensions to make a release, there's nothing stopping a developer from selling their keys. And even without changing hands, the threat to users remains the same if the company just goes from "we'll give you $10k for your extension" to "we'll give you $10k to link this library into your extension…

Just never allow such a transfer force a new user to create a new name. Ensure this is part of the terms of service. Prosecute violators that is to say buyer and dev under cfaa and ensure a hefty fine is levied with prison time. Nefarious parties will find few sellers thereafter.

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#74

Post by rifung »

eitland wrote: post #5
iamnotacrook wrote: post #2

That's not their core business. It's redolent of the complaints when Twitter etc limit their API/number of tokens per app etc. They're doing it because it no longer serves a purpose. Perhaps Mozilla is slightly different but Google would only benefit from ad/tracker blockers going away.

> Google would only benefit from ad/tracker blockers going away. In the long run, this might sadly be true, but I disagree for now. No way Google is doing this because of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they haven't completely squeezed out all competitors yet. Removing or utterly crippling addons now would force users to realize what Chrome is while there still are options, meaning a huge chunk of th…

I work for Google, opinions are my own.

> Sorry to all Googlers here for being so blunt, and feel free to point out one or more examples from the last few years where Google has prioritized their users above quarterly / yearly profits.

No need to apologize =]

An example that comes to mind is the current focus on accessibility. I think from an objective financial/engineering perspective, it's much preferable to just ignore accessibility because it adds complexity and isn't used by the vast majority of users. However, providing access to everyone is the right thing to do.

Another example is crisis tools (https://crisisresponse.google/). I don't think we make money from these apps.

Of course, I'm sure people will say this is just for marketing or something but in the end, how can one get around that?

I don't think Google is flawless. Far from it! But it's a huge company with way too many products so it's only natural there will be bad decisions and good ones, just as there are bad people as well as good people.

> Look to Chrome mobile, the one that they can force ram down the throat of > 50% of mobile users. Chrome mobile doesn't have addons because it doesn't compete.

I'm not sure I understand.. are you saying that Chrome mobile takes up a lot of RAM? Because if so I would agree with that, but isn't that precisely why extensions shouldn't be allowed? Implementing extensions would add an even greater burden and poorly written extensions would provide a bad user experience.

If anything I really wish we could strip Chrome down. I think people adopted Chrome early on because it was really light and personally I really feel like we let everyone down by letting it get so bloated.

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#75

Post by throwaway2048 »

geofft wrote: post #44

> It is a regular occurrence to hear about open source developers selling their browser extensions, only for their users to be exploited later on by the new owners. ... We are witnessing the failure of browser vendors to recognize the value of our labor and the important role it plays in a healthy browser ecosystem. So this is an interesting philosophical question - the market value of the extension is the value of "…

As always value is a separate thing from "money some hypothetical somebody will pay".

Oxygenated air has next to zero price you could sell it for, but it has basically infinite value to somebody deprived of it.

Browser extensions create a ton of value, but its likely very little of that can be turned into a paycheck for somebody without destroying the value they create.

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#76

Post by zzzcpan »

michaelmrose wrote: post #73
kibwen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how one would automatically detect such a thing as a browser extension changing hands. If you require signing extensions to make a release, there's nothing stopping a developer from selling their keys. And even without changing hands, the threat to users remains the same if the company just goes from "we'll give you $10k for your extension" to "we'll give you $10k to link this library into your extension…

Just never allow such a transfer force a new user to create a new name. Ensure this is part of the terms of service. Prosecute violators that is to say buyer and dev under cfaa and ensure a hefty fine is levied with prison time. Nefarious parties will find few sellers thereafter.

You forgot to mention a small detail: force every other country in the world to enforce your ridiculous laws.

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#77

Post by kevingadd »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33
jhasse wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BUT - extensions are also often the cause of a slow and frustrating Firefox experience I doubt that this is true. Some extensions like Adblockers even make browsing faster.

For a demonstration install Dark Reader on an ageing or budget machine. It can render Chrome sluggish and frustrating and Firefox almost unusable. There's a fair few others that can upset Firefox but never seem to be the same extent of annoyance for Chrome.

I had a similar problem with Owl, it's because they typically use CSS filters to achieve dark mode. It's frustrating because it's a very bad solution but it's easy to not realize that the extension is causing the problem (especially because browsers work hard to hide it)

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#78

Post by kevingadd »

bduerst wrote: post #20

>The Chrome Web Store and the Microsoft Store do not offer features for supporting extension developers. That doesn't seem right - doesn't Google let developers monetize extensions in the chrome web store? You can publish Hosted Apps, Chrome Apps, Chrome Extensions, and Themes in the Chrome Web Store. Collectively these are called simply "Items". You have many choices when it comes to making money from items that you…

The web store ecosystem is atrocious. You cannot rely on Google's browser services to make money. They will randomly take down your extension for a ~month in response to malformed (i.e. invalid and illegal) DMCA notices, and they barely maintain the developer tools - I've watched key parts of the developer dashboard break and go unfixed for months even after reporting them.

If you want to do this stuff you have to do it all from scratch and hope Google doesn't decide to get mad at you.

They also make it very hard to push updates promptly which means if a major bug or security issue is found it can take multiple days for users to get a fix, so you end up having to find your own way to push updates (despite the fact that store policy sort of prohibits doing so).

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#79

Post by mevile »

geofft wrote: post #44

> It is a regular occurrence to hear about open source developers selling their browser extensions, only for their users to be exploited later on by the new owners. ... We are witnessing the failure of browser vendors to recognize the value of our labor and the important role it plays in a healthy browser ecosystem. So this is an interesting philosophical question - the market value of the extension is the value of "…

The value of an extension is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. The value of someone's ethics also has a price. It is a different price for everyone. It's silly to go into details about ethics, because maybe I donate half of the unethical income to buy mosquito nets and now I've traded saving lives with inconveniencing users or some other such very personal calculation/rationalization.

You can browbeat developers with your ethics and ideals, but your approval doesn't feed anyone's children.

Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers

#80

Post by mevile »

asr wrote: post #13

On the one hand, this seems like a real missed opportunity by Mozilla. As Chrome reigns in extensions that conflict with Google's business model, this is a reason to use Firefox. BUT - extensions are also often the cause of a slow and frustrating Firefox experience, which then leads folks to talk about how Chrome is better-performing/faster (I've been guilty of this myself in the past). Mozilla needs to make sure Fir…

> extensions are also often the cause of a slow and frustrating Firefox experience

You have any recent data on this? I am not convinced this is true anymore.

Post reply on HN