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

Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

kodfabrik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 530 posts

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#301

Post by DDR0 »

leppr wrote: post #247
neya wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the links you've shared, I thought the author (Azer) was on the right to behave the way he did. I don't see it as a reason to discount his current experience because of that either.

"Integrity" is not a desirable trait in this day and age. A developer is of little use if they don't respond to short term individualistic incentives.

Au contraire. A developer with integrity will become a senior with integrity, and when you're dealing with people -- which you will be if you are not already -- you get a reputation for being fair and just. People will not deal anywhere near as favourably if you have a reputation for displaying a severe lack of integrity.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#303

Post by detaro »

victorhooi wrote: post #226
_bxg1 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand we've seen this kind of behavior from Google time and again, even on its flagship platforms like Android and YouTube. The Chrome Extensions store is likely the bottom of the barrel when it comes to priorities, so I have no trouble believing things would be even worse there.

If you're referring to the recent controversy around Pushbullet - I thought that was revealed to be them asking for all access to any HTTP/HTTPS websites you viewed...which is a major security breach. They removed that permission to limit it to only Pushbullet, and then were able to get back on. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more hand-holding - but it wasn't exactly like it wasn't for a fairly egregious sec…

FWIW, someone workin on things related to it felt like it was something that needed apologizing for: https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261047663669084161

Rejecting a fixed version is not lack of "hand-holding", and far-reaching permissions are not by default a "major security breach" (unless Google has a policy of shipping products with major security breaches built in?)

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#304

Post by [deleted] »

stevenjohns wrote: post #264
roadbeats wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With leftpad he told Kik, "fuck you" In response to a threat starting with "We don’t mean to be a dick about it" and ending with "our trademark lawyers are going to be banging on your door and taking down your accounts and stuff like that", I did say "fuck you" to Kik. If that makes me the character in your mind, enjoy your imagination.

It seems that lots of people are missing that part. The Kik guys were doing their corporate double-speak b/s about ‘let’s find a solution’ when the only solution is handing over the name. All while threatening with door-banging lawyers. And he did offer them a solution: $30,000 dollars, to which they promptly - albeit indirectly - replied with fuck you .

[deleted]

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#305

Post by jbverschoor »

otterley wrote: post #278
stevenjohns wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that lots of people are missing that part. The Kik guys were doing their corporate double-speak b/s about ‘let’s find a solution’ when the only solution is handing over the name. All while threatening with door-banging lawyers. And he did offer them a solution: $30,000 dollars, to which they promptly - albeit indirectly - replied with fuck you .

Because they didn't have to pay him $30k. They had a registered trademark and a right to use the name. And in the end, they didn’t have to spend nearly that amount. All they had to do was send a few emails to the npm maintainers. I’d say they made a logical decision.

The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#306

Post by rdgthree »

droitbutch wrote: post #277

Scrolling through the comments, many seem to think this was unintentional, mistake, or overzealous AI. However, the author said this has been ongoing for 2years: > "Google's Chrome Extension team has been giving me a complete nightmare since last two years." What if the extension violated some policy that he either overlooked or is not publicly stated?

Generally if you take the approach "what might I be doing wrong?" instead of aggressively asserting "I am doing nothing wrong!", you're able to uncover some solution on your side. I rarely ever try to deal with support because it often ends in no/poor resolutions.

I would guess there's something in this extension that looks very similar to suspicious activity (regardless of whether it is) and some light refactoring would resolve the issue of repeated flagging.

Not suggesting this is right or good, but it's probably less time consuming and more effective than emailing back and forth for two years.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#307

Post by singron »

panic wrote: post #269
geza wrote: post #157

I definitely feel for the author - the Chrome Extension team has been growing increasingly developer-hostile recently. My own open-source extension HabitLab ( https://habitlab.stanford.edu/ ) that I've been maintaining for the past 3 years is going to be removed in 2 days (got a 14-day removal notice for permissions even though all permissions it requests are used and needed, and every update I try to submit is rejec…

Dealing with Google these days seems a lot like dealing with an authoritarian government. To operate safely on Google's platforms, you need a friend who works at Google who can vouch for you as their over-eager police keep trying to put you in jail.

I'm not sure how this would work legally with employment contracts, but it would be worth it to get your employees hired at Google so they can professionally execute that role for you. We have joked before about not poaching friends from Google since they are more valuable working there than at your company.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#308

Post by Tehdasi »

bad_user wrote: post #210
nyreed wrote: post #24

Do you remember when browser extensions could be installed from a developer's own website and didn't require any kind of dysfunctional 'gatekeeping'? I know there are benefits to having someone vet browser extensions, but it seems a shame that they remove the self-distribution option completely when their moderation is so ineffectual.

Yes I do remember. Then extensions started being a spyware / malware delivery mechanism, with popular ones being bought and turned overnight. Coupled with browser plugins shoved down on the user's throat by various Windows software, this made Firefox unusable, at least on Windows. It's why back in 2010 I started recommending Chrome to family, because Chrome installations kept being clean. It's why we can't have nice…

From malwarebytes: "Spyware. Although it sounds like a James Bond gadget, it’s actually a type of malware that infects your PC or mobile device and gathers information about you, including the sites you visit, the things you download, your usernames and passwords, payment information, and the emails you send and receive."

Yep, Google is certainly protecting us from companies that do that.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#309

Post by otterley »

jbverschoor wrote: post #305
otterley wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they didn't have to pay him $30k. They had a registered trademark and a right to use the name. And in the end, they didn’t have to spend nearly that amount. All they had to do was send a few emails to the npm maintainers. I’d say they made a logical decision.

The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that

An initial consult is often free, and even a $500 consult would have been worth every penny because the lawyer would have (correctly) told him to back off and let them have the name.

In any event, escalating - even when you think the other party is being a dick - is never the right answer.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#310

Post by singron »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #290
babesh wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like 1994 all over again. In 1994 you had one dominant software monopoly in Microsoft. Today you have several: Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook with dominance in individual spheres of influence. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In 1994 Microsoft didn't arbitrarily ban applications on their OS.

They had different knobs available to them, and it's not clear given the opportunity that they wouldn't try it. E.g. it was less common for PCs to be connected to the internet and receive OS updates, so they wouldn't have an effective way of using a policy like that.

They certainly did their best to prevent any other OS from being on your hardware.

Post reply on HN