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

Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 394 posts

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#291

Post by rejectfinite »

tim333 wrote: post #160
Barrin92 wrote: post #21

if you haven't already use Firefox and recognize that this is a fundamental question of freedom and whether you want the internet to be controlled by dystopian corporate advertisement monoliths or institutions that care about your rights. Every time this comes up and 80% of discussions is about whether the tab bar in firefox is flat or three pixels wide instead of five makes me more depressed

I don't really find Google to be that dystopian. Chrome, gmail and google photos and search are all quite nice. Sure I can change if they get annoying.

I sort of agree. I use Firefox because ublock origin works best on it.

I still use gmail and youtube.

Search I switched to duckduckgo, no profiled results and the ! bangs is great. The google search popup when using incognito gets real annoying fast too.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#292

Post by rejectfinite »

chii wrote: post #34
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just can't compete with Google and their massive marketing budget and shady bait & switch business practices.

i dont think it's merely marketing budget, thought that helps. People who got marketed to convert, and hence, the product is indeed good based on this metric. Firefox does seem to lag behind in terms of performance, esp. on mobile. Firefox also has poorer video rendering speed i think - i get more skipped frames than chrome. I tolerate it, but many users don't. Firefox has some difficulty being deployed in an enterpr…

>Firefox also has poorer video rendering speed i think - i get more skipped frames than chrome. I tolerate it, but many users don't.

I do not have this problem in Firefox anymore. I used to but i updates fixed it.

>Firefox has some difficulty being deployed in an enterprise environment (aka, an organizationally managed profile, which chrome has). This has led to enterprises adopting chrome as a primary browser (over firefox), and this may lead to familiarity which causes them to also use chrome at home.

GPO exists for Firefox now and works great, I have implemented it.

But what I actually see for enterprise customers is a move to MS Edge. The Windows account integration, control and the fact that on Windows 10 it has really good performance means there is no need for Chrome or FF unless Edge breaks (have had some issues with antivirus breaking it)

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#293

Post by commoner »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #169
commoner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The h264ify add-on will let your computer load YouTube videos more efficiently on Firefox, if it supports hardware acceleration for H.264 but not VP8/VP9. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/h264ify/

Use a plug-in from an AppStore where plugins are regularly bought and replaced with malware? No thanks.

h264ify is free and open source. You can inspect the source code and also compile/package it yourself, if you do not want to trust addons.mozilla.org:

https://github.com/erkserkserks/h264ify

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#294

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

5560675260 wrote: post #275
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of fighting browser engines monoculture, I'd recommend you NOT using Brave, even for all the goodies and niceties in the world.

This is an important concern, but I'm afraid that this ship has sailed with Firefox.

Then just use it everywhere. We don't have other ships, anyway.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#295

Post by josefx »

vadfa wrote: post #24
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just can't compete with Google and their massive marketing budget and shady bait & switch business practices.

Almost all wounds Mozilla has are self-inflicted.

On Android Chrome has to be installed as preferred browser or the phone manufacturers get blocked from Googles other services. As much as I like to bash Mozillas leadership, Google has taken every shady (and sometimes illegal) shit 90s era Microsoft pulled and turned it up to eleven.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#296

Post by abruzzi »

joelthelion wrote: post #114

I don't understand why this (and all the rest) is not driving people back to Firefox. Are we really going to wait for Mozilla to die, and then lament that Google has taken over the web?

I moved from Safari to Firefox a year ago (never used Chrome as my primary browser.) The reason I moved may sound really really dated, but I discovered that I can configure Firefox with separate search and URL fields. I //HATE// that UI and wanted my separate boxes back.

I wish I could find a extension that removes all motion on a page (video, js animated stuff) but I suspect that would be too difficult to do. I do use a extension that removes all color, but it doesn't work terribly well, and some UIs on websites are too dependant on color as differentiators.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#298

Post by rejectfinite »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #38
erklik wrote: post #2

It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.

What... Is the appeal of brave ? I hear it has crypto and shit but why not install Firefox with ubo and be done with it? I feel the "cool" factor of brave is silly as they are just fueling chromium. Why don't these chromium forks base on Firefox instead and do some leg work with the benefit of helping the internet as a whole ? I hear someone said on hn a long time ago, building on ff is a pita. Well guess what, Firef…

On mobile it is really good because of the builtin adblocker + chromium engine makes it very fast. It also has background play on Youtube.

On desktop it is less useful. But probably still better privacy vise than Edge or Chrome.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#299

Post by orangeoxidation »

michaelt wrote: post #287
NL807 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't know wtf is Pocket supposed to be doing.

Chrome syncs things like bookmarks and credit card numbers across browsers whenever a user logs into a Google property. Pocket is Firefox trying not to fall behind on features. And presumably from Mozilla's perspective, if it has some sponsored content giving them some non-Google income, so much the better.

Firefox has Bookmark, Settings, Extension sync and send-tab to device features independently of Pocket.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#300

Post by devrand »

Gareth321 wrote: post #250
joelthelion wrote: post #114

I don't understand why this (and all the rest) is not driving people back to Firefox. Are we really going to wait for Mozilla to die, and then lament that Google has taken over the web?

If this breaks or degrades uBlock Origin it's a day one move to Firefox for me. That's a non-negotiable. I'm waiting until it stops working because I like Chrome's translation functionality.

uBlock Origin is already degraded on Chrome as it cannot perform CNAME uncloaking like Firefox can.
Post reply on HN