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

Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

blog.pushbullet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 811 posts

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#141

Post by dewey »

freehunter wrote: post #134
wlesieutre wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome is a trivially easy product to switch off of compared to other Google properties like Gmail and YouTube. Have you tried Firefox recently?

I've found the exact opposite to be true in my very specific experience. Five years ago I used every Google product under the sun, today the only Google product I use at all (even search) is Chrome because it's the only one I haven't been able to replace. I try Firefox with a fresh install on nearly every major release and I keep it installed as a secondary browser, but I can never manage to use it as my daily browse…

> No error, no warning, nothing in the console, just zero content. Blank page.

Have you tried disabling the tracking protection, maybe it's mistakenly blocking some JS?

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#142

Post by patwalls »

tomsmeding wrote: post #135
celticninja wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume GP is trying not to help those the automated system intends to catch

Or, of course, said poster would like the maintainers of the automated system not to realise the workarounds for their system. :)

Haha, my "workarounds" consisted of being persistent with a few different support emails I found, posting on the Chromium support forums, and a few other things. Pretty boring stuff, and I'm not really sure that it even worked.

Weeks or months from now, I'm sure someone will get their extension removed from the store, and may come across this post scrambling for a solution. If that's you, please reach out to me and I can send you the support emails and everything I tried.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#143

Post by xg15 »

throwawayext wrote: post #79

Different extension developer here. The Chrome Extension store ecosystem has become a nightmare for developers over the past year. Some items: - Extension review times have gone from 1 hour to a variable amount of time ranging from 1 minute to 3 weeks or longer (try to plan a release or spot fix an issue when you have no idea how long it will take for a deploy to reach users) - User reviews of extensions have been di…

> Chrome is exploring hiding extensions by default so they no longer will show up automatically by the omnibar when you install them (say hello to a huge amount of confused users who don't know where your extension went)

Haven't heard about this change (more info at [1] for anyone interested) - wow! I really wonder if those are the first steps of the roadmap to get rid of extensions altogether.

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/07/chrome_hiding_exten...

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#144

Post by colejohnson66 »

kadoban wrote: post #124
theshrike79 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a year-long project in the minimum: 1: Start up new email (for me it was Fastmail) and preferably get your own domain 2: Forward all mail from gmail to your new account 3: Create a rule that flags messages that are still delivered to gmail, go through them at your leisure and swap to the new address

I'd stress the "get your own domain" part. This is a _requirement_, or you're going to be going through the same pain again in a few years. Also, make sure you take backups of your old emails every once in a while. Google Checkout should be able to provide those.

What’s the risk of losing your domain from a forgotten renewal?

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#145

Post by Merem »

skinnymuch wrote: post #32
syshum wrote: post #25

Earlier 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…

Being in a country that was the last holdout for Firefox (majority usage) before it was also taken over by Chrome, I know that several others as well as I have issues with Mozilla. Personally, I've always used Firefox, without exception, and stayed with XUL, rather than switch to their new browser, as add-ons are the most important part of a browser for me. I don't care if one is half a second faster or not.

Not to mention that stuff like stupid redesigns of logos as well as the Pocket issue made me basically lose all trust in Mozilla. Privacy is a huge deal here after all. Those who switched regularly complain about design issues (apparently the desktop browser is becoming somewhat "mobile-like") and most recently the address bar problem which upset everyone except for one person who didn't care about that. (Meanwhile, I'm happy with my address bar being my address bar and my search bar (being just right of it) being my search bar.[1]) If you would ask the people still using Firefox here whether they would recommend it...they would most likely say "no" but then would go on that while it isn't good, the alternatives aren't either.

So the question of change in direction (which is obviously there) regarding Firefox begs the question which people they are actually targeting? It's certainly not your average Joe because Firefox will never be able to out-Google Google. They are also annoying the more advanced users who just want privacy as well as useful things (add-ons, proper baked-in features etc) with their shenanigans, so it can't be them either. The only people I see actually celebrating new releases all the time (regardless of negative changes) are the crowd on HN. So, to me, it seems like they are targeting some kind of tech bubble (no offense) while basically ignoring the users out there. This is, of course, also reflected in them continuously losing marketshare while all the back-patting is happening.

[1] https://abload.de/img/address-search3hjh4.png

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#146

Post by xg15 »

danpalmer wrote: post #53

As 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.…

I strongly disagree. If they were actually interested in this, they could simply tell the developers what to fix. This is beyond arrogant and counterproductive.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#147

Post by shadowgovt »

raegis wrote: post #117
thorum wrote: post #94

Does your browser extension really need to access localhost/* - as in, port 80 on my local machine? That would make me very uncomfortable about installing the extension. Would it be possible to restrict the extension to accessing a specific port or endpoint that is used by PushBullet?

Right, this suggests the app either (1) runs a web server on the client device, or (2) wants to access a third party webserver on the client device. I don't know if this is common. Or maybe I don't know/understand why this is needed. Also, isn't allowing access to the app's website the same as allowing access to any website? Can't you just redirect?

Redirects shouldn't compromise the CORS / XSRF security model, which is the key item of concern from a Chrome Extension standpoint. Like if pushbullet.com redirects to foo.com, the crex is now looking at the foo.com page and its permissions will apply accordingly.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#148

Post by derefr »

wayneftw wrote: post #129
derefr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. 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 Chromi…

I wanted to like Edge but... > The browser also sends unique hardware identifiers to Microsoft, which is a "strong and enduring identifier" that cannot be easily changed or deleted. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/research-fin...

Oh, ah; I thought the above meant "why not Chromium and/or Edge" rather than "why not the Chromium version of Edge."

Yes, I can see why you'd avoid Edge specifically, same as avoiding Chrome specifically.

But that's not an argument against using upstream Chromium (which is, in fact, a browser all on its own, stadnalone downloadable and shipping with several Linux distros); or against other Blink/Chromium-based browsers (e.g. Brave), no? Either choice would get you compatibility with anything Chrome itself is compatible with (in terms of websites; not necessarily in terms of extensions—though the difference is just in the legacy Chrome extension APIs; WebExtensions work fine everywhere.)

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#149

Post by freehunter »

bzb3 wrote: post #139
freehunter wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found the exact opposite to be true in my very specific experience. Five years ago I used every Google product under the sun, today the only Google product I use at all (even search) is Chrome because it's the only one I haven't been able to replace. I try Firefox with a fresh install on nearly every major release and I keep it installed as a secondary browser, but I can never manage to use it as my daily browse…

You can bypass the Chrome dialog by typing "thisisunsafe" in the error page.

That's a stupidly hidden way to go about it.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#150

Post by cpascal »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #130
bcrosby95 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching email isn't nearly as friction-free as switching your browser. Not only do you have to change your email in every service you've registered for, you also need to convince your friends and other contacts to use the new email.

The most important change you can make for your email is to own your own domain. Once you own your own domain, changing providers is much easier since it is transparent to the people that email you. Even if you decide to keep Gmail, you should switch your email to your own domain.

One worry about tying your identity to your own domain, is the security of your identity (aka your domain) hinges on the security of your registrar. If a bad actor can socially engineer their way into controlling your domain, your entire identity is compromised.

Here's a blog post about this nightmare happening to someone: https://medium.com/@N/how-i-lost-my-50-000-twitter-username-...

Post reply on HN