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

111–120 of 195 posts

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

#111

Post by kijin »

mevile wrote: post #80
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.

Extensions rarely cause slowness. Plugins (e.g. Flash) do.

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

#112

Post by propogandist »

brisance wrote: post #103
mushufasa wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Google/Mozilla just awarded a monthly prize to developers based on the popularity of an extension? Browser providers pay for ecosystem improvements -- a better product.

Ad blocking probably would be #1. What does it mean if Google pays an extension developer for ad blocking? Would it be racketeering? Bribery?

Google pays Adblock plus so they can get their ads through their "ad-blocking". The same org behind this is the one that bought the uBlock clone and the uBlock.org domain name.

The upcoming changes to the Chrome browser, will limit the performance and capabilities of actual ad-blocking extensions like uBlock Origin. Google claims these changes are being done to protect users privacy.

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

#113

Post by propogandist »

cameronbrown wrote: post #58
hanniabu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the market value of the extension is the value of "monetizing" it by stuffing ads, or worse, monitoring/tracking/exfiltration, into the extension Of even worse, inserting malicious code such as a keylogger.

Even worse! A key-logger masquerading as a product! /s cough Grammarly https://techbeacon.com/security/grammarly-leaks-everything-y...

This isn't a secret by any means.

Even Google Chrome's built in Spell Checker is constantly sending data back to Google and functions as a keylogger.

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

#114

Post by NeedMoreTea »

kevingadd wrote: post #77
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

That does show up one area that Chrome still eclipses Firefox - the Shift Esc task manager that will usually reveal which tab or extension is cratering things. Firefox is much more opaque about memory and especially CPU use, making it far harder to pin down.

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

#115

Post by techntoke »

SimeVidas wrote: post #70

Idea: 1. The browser introduces a flat monthly subscription, e.g., $5 per month. 2. If the user signs up, the browser would distribute the money between the extensions that the user has installed, by default. 3. The user would also have the option to direct the money to specific extensions and/or to exclude specific extensions from this payment. 4. This system would be completely optional, but the browser cold in ret…

A flat monthly subscription for what exactly? Advanced extensions with UI and extra privacy/security options? There is a reason why this doesn't exist, and people already pay extra money for Windows and Mac OS. If people are already paying for an OS, they shouldn't then be required to pay for a premier browsing experience.

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

#117

Post by im3w1l »

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 root cause of all this is autoupdating. I hope we will eventually move away from that paradigm. But currently its needed, since lack of updates is even less secure.

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

#118

Post by Thorrez »

propogandist wrote: post #113
cameronbrown wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse! A key-logger masquerading as a product! /s cough Grammarly https://techbeacon.com/security/grammarly-leaks-everything-y...

This isn't a secret by any means. Even Google Chrome's built in Spell Checker is constantly sending data back to Google and functions as a keylogger.

Do you mean the enhanced spell checker which is off by default? The regular spell checker is done locally.

https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/whitepaper.html

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

#119

Post by SquareWheel »

rifung wrote: post #74
eitland wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

I'm curious. What specifically would you like to see removed from Chrome?

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

#120

Post by ouid »

paulgb wrote: post #50
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 an extension developer who recently got one of these offers, your analysis is a good verbalization of my gut feeling on the matter. I turned it down, of course. While users may feel bad about extension developers not being compensated, I feel like the larger story here is that: - Companies are buying extensions for nefarious purposes, which presents a huge security risk. - Evidently, app stores are sufficiently ba…

This is a fundamental problem with all self-maintaining code.
Post reply on HN