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

Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#121

Post by gnicholas »

exikyut wrote: post #112
gnicholas wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if we could email our customers that would be great. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to access the email addresses for our customers. Maybe I'm really dumb, but all I can find are anonymized transaction IDs. It would be a lot better if they would allow us to contact our users via email. Instead, we're going to have to use pop-up messages that annoy users and are likely to be reflexively closed by many of them…

Oh noooo. I see now. The documentation helpfully completely sidesteps this probably quite widespread scenario! Thinking about it, it's not really on point for Google™©® to connect you with your customers; your outreach could be considered unsolicited and G could be argued to be enabling spam. What a wonderful situation G has dug for itself here. The only thought I can come up with is to partially break or otherwise "…

> Besides all that, auto-renewing to some (non-low-end, because why not) percentage of the current list price

Yeah, but we can't even auto-renew. We have to set up every customer new in Stripe and get their permission to charge them. There's literally no way for me to make this automatic. If Google is going to get rid of this functionality they should at least make it super easy for us to transition customers. Otherwise they're going to have a bunch of angry customers and devs on their hands.

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#122

Post by codyogden »

jamil7 wrote: post #118
codyogden wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to PR and then maintain 200 html list item components by hand, you’re more than welcome to join as a co-maintainer. :)

Wouldn’t a static site generator take care of that? Not being snarky just asking.

Yes. It would. I was joking. I don’t feel the need to implement it. This project (outside of data) hasn’t really been updated since it launched. Someone tried to force TypeScript upon it, but I’m a big fan of “don’t overkill it.” At the time, SSG was (and is) overkill for my stupid, single page weekender.

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#123

Post by invalidusernam3 »

molticrystal wrote: post #63
Gehinnn wrote: post #2

This sucks. I paid $25 for my play console account to monetize my extension two days ago - just to find out they deprecate web store payments entirely.

Do a chargeback through the card/bank, they'll have a webform for you to submit it somewhere for contested charges. They'll ask for proof, just put you paid for a service that will no longer exist and include screenshots of the deprecation page.

Don't do this if you use any other google services on the same account (gmail, drive), there is a good chance your account will get banned

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#124

Post by codyogden »

galvin wrote: post #117
codyogden wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to PR and then maintain 200 html list item components by hand, you’re more than welcome to join as a co-maintainer. :)

I'm guessing it's using static hosting so server side rendering is out of the question, but if you wanted to make it work without JavaScript a static site generator could be used to avoid having to maintain 200 list items manually.

I was being facetious. I know what SSG is.

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#125

Post by josefx »

jfrunyon wrote: post #97
bawolff wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Forced" is a bit strong. They did the math and realized that being competitive in the browser market was not worth the $$$$ they would have to spend to get there. Given that web browsers aren't really going to make MS money, unless they manage to get full dominance (which isnt really their strategy anymore and would be difficult in modern context), it was probably a smart business decision. If the business calculus…

That's how a business gets forced to do something: money.

Google did actively slow and cripple its flagship sites on competing browsers without suffering any consequences. No amount of money will help against that kind of advantage.

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#127

Post by londons_explore »

Lammy wrote: post #45

Google should start announcing a month's worth of deprecations at a time to make it easier on us, like how Microsoft had to start doing Patch Tuesday during the Blaster/CodeRed era: https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-details-new-security-pla...

Google actually does this... They tend to announce deprecations in batches.

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#128

Post by nsgi »

single_source wrote: post #78
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that he had sympathy, but I think max he can do is refund $25. I think that that amount is the least of concern to the most developers.

yeah, I've made my money back so I'm not as concerned about the $25, but there goes any chance of growing the revenue in any meaningful way. I am getting a kick out of all the people here saying that "no one pays for extensions". I've consistently made $50-100 from mine with no marketing whatsoever.

Did you have to do much support?

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#129

Post by londons_explore »

zmmmmm wrote: post #48
stickfigure wrote: post #26

The interesting thing here is that a commercial marketplace for browser extensions failed. That seems surprising - surely a marketplace for extensions to the most popular browser on the planet could bring in some revenue?! Is it just that nobody paid for things? Presumably they're going to keep running the chrome web store, so isn't a cut of paymens "free money" to them? Is there some big cost to this I'm not seeing,…

I dunno ... Google shuts things down independent of revenue metrics as far as I can tell. They seem to set a bar somewhere around "is this the next Gmail" and if the answer is no they shut it down regardless of how profitable it may be. They want a few giant businesses, not a hundred small ones. I wish they would look at spinning these things out because many of them would make entirely viable independent entities ev…

It's basically impossible to spin something that has user data out of Google. To my knowledge, it's never happened.

It's because the user data is all protected under googles privacy policies, and you wouldn't be able to migrate that data to a third party without user consent. The process of asking for consent would harm Google's reputation more than the value of the spun out business. The PR damage is less by just shutting down.

Re: Chrome Web Store payments deprecation

#130

Post by can16358p »

toyg wrote: post #120
stickfigure wrote: post #26

The interesting thing here is that a commercial marketplace for browser extensions failed. That seems surprising - surely a marketplace for extensions to the most popular browser on the planet could bring in some revenue?! Is it just that nobody paid for things? Presumably they're going to keep running the chrome web store, so isn't a cut of paymens "free money" to them? Is there some big cost to this I'm not seeing,…

Average users just don’t “do” extensions. People typically don’t mod their software. I’ve learnt this over the years. Any sort of extension, “power toy” or customization is always going to be a niche, in the great scheme of things. > Is there some big cost to this I’m not seeing If I had to guess, I would imagine at some point someone had to revamp the payment backend for the store (because “software is never done” a…

Even many power users don't do extensions. I'm a developer, who is heavily into frontend stuff, and even though I tried many times, I could never get used to using any extension in my life.

I set up a DNS based blocker and that's more than enough. I don't try to hunt 100% of the ads, there's nothing wrong if some of them are displayed as long as the pages aren't fully bloated with them anyway.

Post reply on HN