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

531–540 of 811 posts

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

#531

Post by gumby »

ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #375
gumby wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just do forwarding. I’ve run my own mail service since the 80s, and when I need a google login to work with someone I just create it and forward my mail. When the project is over, just delete it. Easy-peasy. Unless a client wants to use google docs I‘ve never found an account to add any value anyway. I don’t use google search much any more but when I do it works fine without cookies. And I try chrome occasion…

Google Docs works fine in Firefox and Safari.

A bunch of features like context menu, many key shortcuts don’t work under safari but do under chrome. Dunno about ffx

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

#532

Post by Seb-C »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #299
sming wrote: post #10

the corporate gorilla beats its chest, demanding you comply! But with what, it does not say ¯\_(-_-)_/¯

The answer is to run a campaign to work with Firefox and Safari only, and convert all users to either platform. Seriously, fuck google. I'm just done with them.

There are no WebExtensions on Safari

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

#533

Post by sb8244 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #503
sb8244 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone from Apple got on the phone with me to explain a rejection. I was disappointed with the outcome but very surprised at how they were willing to talk about it and explain why.

I was able to get a couple of apps approved, but I have perfected my forelock-pulling and wheedling skills. I always deal with them very respectfully and deferentially. Basically, I support Apple’s “walled garden.” It’s a pain to deal with, but it makes their App Store a lot more valuable. There is a lot of loud, vocal, opposition to it, but the vast majority of regular (as in non-geek) people like it just fine.

I agree. While I wasn't happy with the outcome, I do respect it and would not do anything to actively work around it. Just pulled the feature and moved on with the app.

The fact that they took the time to explain and justify the rejection made all of the difference. I have been on the receiving end with Google and it's much more difficult to deal with.

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

#534

Post by crankylinuxuser »

Seb-C wrote: post #532
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is to run a campaign to work with Firefox and Safari only, and convert all users to either platform. Seriously, fuck google. I'm just done with them.

There are no WebExtensions on Safari

Whelp... That shows just how little I know about Mac.

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

#535

Post by hedora »

AlphaWeaver wrote: post #268
blihp wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not going to happen. This is an issue people have been raising for at least the better part of a decade... don't expect anything to change now. A more productive approach would be to focus on web browsers that allow you to do what you need to and let Google fix what they need to encourage you back. I know, most extension developers will say 'we can't do that because it's where the users/customers/whoever are'. But as…

Are you making a good faith suggestion that it's possible to build a business around a browser extension and not support Google Chrome? They have something like 70% market share dude...

Chrome’s market share would drop if extension authors moved to an alternative.

As it is, it sounds like Google’s doing this itself by breaking popular extensions.

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

#536

Post by arcticbull »

geofft wrote: post #403

Uh, yikes: > As I looked at the permissions and what our extension actually needs to operate, I noticed a great opportunity to reduce our permissions requests. We do not need to request access to data on https://*/* and http://*/* . Instead, we can simply request data access for https://*.pushbullet.com/* , http://*.pushbullet.com/* , and http://localhost/* . This is a huge reduction in the private data our extension…

> ... all of this is consistent with an extension that should be kicked off the app store within 14 days.

No, it absolutely isn't. You can't take someone's livelihood off the app store within 14 days when they have every interest in complying with your policy but you just don't feel the need to even tell them what all the policy is. The fact it was approved in the first place is Google's fault, not the app developer, so is totally irrelevant to this saga.

If you can hit the Reject button you can fill in a text box that says why. There's no excuse for that.

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

#537

Post by arcticbull »

geofft wrote: post #494
JaggedJax wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're completely ignoring the point that even without the all http(s) permission they will still be kicked off the store, so that has nothing do do with the issue at hand. If localhost is the issue, Google could literally respond exactly the way you did and the problem is gone, "why do you need http://localhost/?" This isn't about permissions at all. This is about communication and whether it's worth putting eff…

That's the thing I'm sympathetic to - having fixed the bug , it's frustrating that it's not clear what the next steps are. But given that they had the bug, Chrome was absolutely in the right to deny them the first time. And while I don't like Chrome's position that they're too busy to explain to everyone what they're doing wrong, if extensions that go "oh hey, we don't actually need access to literally every website,…

> That's the thing I'm sympathetic to - having fixed the bug, it's frustrating that it's not clear what the next steps are.

That may not have been the bug, your guess is as good as literally anyone's right now. That's the issue at hand.

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

#539

Post by xs83 »

meraku wrote: post #6

Another happy PushBullet user here. Extremely useful for receiving text messages from my phone while on my laptop, especially for web apps that insist on sending security codes that way instead of TOTP. This sort of behavior from Google really is infuriating. How they can just decide to boot an app from the Chrome Store that is installed by over a million users is mind-boggling. It's a pity that Chrome doesn't allow…

Makes me wonder how much of this is motivated by Googles Messages App now having a web interface...

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

#540

Post by SftwrSvior81 »

tomlagier wrote: post #525
kelnos wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only assume that this isn't the result of a human flagging Pushbullet like this; I expect it's an automated system. And if that automated system can make a decision to flag the extension, it could also include in the email specifically what caused that flagging to happen. At this point I'm really starting to become unsympathetic to the idea that they can't tell you what you're doing wrong because it'll enable p…

Sure, it's anti-social. But is it more or less anti-social than running a huge software platform that advertises the ways to exploit itself? I think it's a very interesting question. Who is more deserving of a good experience - uninformed users who might get taken advantage of by malicious extensions, or developers for the platform, who definitely do get taken advantage of by virtue of running afoul of rules they can…

> But is it more or less anti-social than running a huge software platform that advertises the ways to exploit itself?

Security through obscurity is no security at all. Google is not doing its user a favor by hiding the criteria it uses to determine whether an extension is malicious or not. Also, just because Google won't publish the criteria, it does not mean that it can't be discovered by someone with enough determination. I think that a malicious actor is more likely to spend the necessary time and effort to do so than a developer who is more interested in creating an extension that will serve its users well. If anything, these types of policies drive away developers who act in good faith and leave the marketplace with more developers who are looking to exploit the users.

Post reply on HN