I am the proud recipient of many Apple rejection notices from the App Store (I have been releasing iOS apps since 2012). I have not had an app pulled, but I have had many rejections to submitted apps (the latest were received yesterday). In all of the notices, Apple is usually quite explicit in what the problem is, including attaching screengrabs, and they will respond, if I ask them for further clarification.
Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
81–90 of 811 posts
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#82Another long-term PushBullet customer here. Anyone at Google who is listening- this kind of behavior kills my desire to continue using your products dead. I need functionality, of the type PushBullet has provided for years, to do my work. The recent nerfing of ublock origin has already had me feeling iffy on things. Behavior like this is simply unacceptable. If you want people to use your services, you need to have s…
Switch to Firefox. It has gotten much better.
I have temporary containers extension plus an extension to manage google and Facebook containers and the whole thing has become such a pleasurable experience. Combined with pihole it feels like I’m reclaiming the web back again. Such a blissful experience.
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#83I can't wait till Google starts running contract tracing.
EDIT: /me wonders what "contract tracing" is going to be
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#84https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/chrom...
It's a systematic issue that isn't specific to anything Pushbullet is doing and it's been like this before the pandemic:
- Reviews can take up to 3 weeks. This in alone would be crazy enough if you have an urgent bug to fix.
- Rejection emails are vague and don't tell you what to fix.
- After you guess at what to fix, you've then got to join the up to 3 weeks review queue again.
- If you try too many times, your extension gets pulled.
- On top of this, they've recently disabled new Chrome Web Store paid items, and user reviews.
Can anyone from Google escalate this and help extension developers? I can't speak for everyone but there's lots of complaints in the forum and little action beyond "we hear you and are looking to improve things".
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would be unthinkable for Mozilla do so something like this to an extension, today I am not so sure I would trust them either
Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. That leaves "only browse the internet on a Mac with Safari" or browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you. My company doesn't do any non-Chrome compatibility testing, so all our intranet sites require Chrome.
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would be unthinkable for Mozilla do so something like this to an extension, today I am not so sure I would trust them either
Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. That leaves "only browse the internet on a Mac with Safari" or browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you. My company doesn't do any non-Chrome compatibility testing, so all our intranet sites require Chrome.
Why not? Chromium (= Blink, plus some other stuff like a network request stack) development happens in the open, just like WebKit development. It might be steered by Google to such an extent that there's always the possibility of it going in a bad direction; but it's not like you're not going to hear about it if something privacy-violating is introduced into the Chromium codebase (rather than the downstream Chrome codebase.) And you can switch away from the browsers that use it if/when that happens.
For that matter, if upstream Chromium ever did start "going bad", those browsers that rely upon it would also likely switch away from it, either cooperatively forking it into a new community-maintained project, or switching over to WebKit (with which it is still mostly ABI-compatible.)
> browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you
Even if you don't want to use anything based on Blink, WebKit is also a large ecosytem, and minor WebKit-based browsers can "inherit compatibility" from developers targeting (mostly Mobile) Safari. Several Linux browsers (GNOME Web, Falkon, Midori) use WebKit, for example. They render everything just fine (i.e. just like Safari does.)
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would be unthinkable for Mozilla do so something like this to an extension, today I am not so sure I would trust them either
Can you give a few examples of how Mozilla/Firefox have changed? We all know about FF Quantum. Yeah it sucks what happened. Maybe there was an alternative, but any one saying Firefox should’ve just stuck to not being compatible with Chromium extensions is kidding themselves on how badly that would’ve continued hurting Firefox’s market share. The XUL powered extension I’m sure were powerful so the outcry in certain pl…
The analogy I've used is the Amiga operating system design versus Unix when it comes to multi-core / multi-processor versus multiprocessing. Amiga welds everything to the hardware, the Unix design has a "system call" mechanism cleanly separating your programs from the OS and vice versa.
Because Unix has this relatively thick layer between the OS kernel and the rest of the world, you can just pick up your entire kernel, wrap it in a lock (in Linux this was called the Big Kernel Lock in some BSDs it was Giant Lock and other Unix systems gave it different names) and you've got a multi-processor capable system. Linux did this in about a year IIRC. For purely CPU bound software this minimal work gets you 99.9% of the performance of a custom built OS designed from the outset for multiple processors. Subsequent work to get rid of the BKL further improves performance on more sophisticated workloads, but you're off to a great start.
Amiga couldn't do that, every part of their system could interact with every other part as it liked, so if you tried to just add one lock to protect things the resulting system might randomly deadlock, maybe only on systems with specific hardware or software combinations, and you basically needed to reconsider everything from the ground up.
You need a degree of abstraction like this, the Chromium-style web extensions have it, the XUL extensions didn't, adding it to the latter would have been years of work only to deliberately be incompatible with both existing software on Firefox AND everybody else, madness.
There are definitely things we want in extensions. For example Firefox has a copy of the Public Suffix List baked inside it (all browsers should have this, in its absence you'll get weird security behaviour around how domains and sub-domains work) and I'd like to access their copy from inside an extension to make it behave how users expect. But obviously the extension can just ship its own copy of the PSL, and then keep that up-to-date it's just a waste of resources.
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#88As much as we can criticise Google's handling of this situation, the fact that the developer was able to reduce permissions from accessing data on _all websites_ down to _their website_, as well as tighten up a few other permissions, shows that Google is correct that the extension is asking for more than it needs. I hope the developer finds another load of permissions they can tighten up, resubmits, and is approved.…
Is banning someone's entire Google account across all services a proportionate response to a developmer having trouble with Google's confusing permissions API?
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#89Another long-term PushBullet customer here. Anyone at Google who is listening- this kind of behavior kills my desire to continue using your products dead. I need functionality, of the type PushBullet has provided for years, to do my work. The recent nerfing of ublock origin has already had me feeling iffy on things. Behavior like this is simply unacceptable. If you want people to use your services, you need to have s…
Chrome is a trivially easy product to switch off of compared to other Google properties like Gmail and YouTube. Have you tried Firefox recently?
Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one looks particularly relevant: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom... It seems like all extension developers play the same game of guess-and-check to find out which permissions they should remove, and the unlucky ones get banned for trying too often.
When I read something like this I have to assume Google is just trying to kill off extensions, it's such a glaringly obvious problem there's no way any human has seen and okay'd it with good intentions.
These extensions don't make any money at all for Google, in fact some of them lose money for Google (privacy oriented extensions, ironically.)
They are a security nightmare for Google, capable of side channel browser attacks or direct abuse via a permission (all_urls permission can read your emails to grandma.)
Google doesn't want extensions to exist, and they also can't outright kill them without creating a new foothold for their competitors in the browser wars. So we get this intentionally masochistic process change. Jump this high or we'll ban you. Now jump higher but with your eyes closed. Okay, now backflip or you're banned. The extension developers have absolutely no power to fight back.