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

171–180 of 811 posts

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

#171

Post by input_sh »

the_af wrote: post #40
Baeocystin wrote: post #11

Another long-term PushBullet customer here. Anyone at Google who is listening- this kind of behavior kills my desire to continue using your products dead. I need functionality, of the type PushBullet has provided for years, to do my work. The recent nerfing of ublock origin has already had me feeling iffy on things. Behavior like this is simply unacceptable. If you want people to use your services, you need to have s…

> The recent nerfing of ublock origin has already had me feeling iffy on things. What did they do to ublock origin? The single best Chrome extension ever . If it stops working and I must suffer YouTube ads again, it's bye bye Chrome.

They're going down the Safari line of limiting the number of rules an extension can use, significantly reducing the efficiency of adblockers.

If it goes as planned, you won't see ads on YouTube for sure, but there likely won't be enough space to add rules for less mainstream ad networks and some of the specific sites you visit.

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

#172

Post by awinter-py »

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.…

Disagree that G's motivation here is to reduce permission footprint, because:

- if G has the ability to automatically audit necessary permissions, they'd do it when you upload to the plugin store

- if they're doing this manually for popular plugins, then (1) they'd publicly certify safe plugins and (2) the interaction would be way more high touch

Plugins are inherently unsafe + require trusting the developer.

Could be malicious, or G may not even have a reason for this (it may be some forgotten dinosaur instinct to knock over other people's stuff when it gets too big).

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

#173

Post by freehunter »

dylz wrote: post #161
freehunter wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IIRC, the intent is that no one should be doing this and anyone doing it should be at least technical enough to figure out what they're doing and be reminded that it's a bad idea.

And instead many people will just do a Google search for "Chrome [insert error here]" and run the first command they find, while people like me will say "okay I'll just Firefox where I can click past this warning".

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

#174

Post by t0mas88 »

xg15 wrote: post #143
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.thereg…

Chrome on Android already doesn't have extensions. That made me switch to Firefox on Android and within a week my laptop was also on Firefox because it's nice to have tab syncing etc between devices.

If enough users do this I think Google will review their policy on extensions and specifically adblockers. Can't browse without one anymore after having used it for a while.

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

#175

Post by Wowfunhappy »

dylz wrote: post #161
freehunter wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IIRC, the intent is that no one should be doing this and anyone doing it should be at least technical enough to figure out what they're doing and be reminded that it's a bad idea.

Yeah, I actually think these sorts of strategies are clever. They're a way to protect normal users without outright barring power users from doing as they wish.

macOS operates in a similar way. I really like how the difficulty increases depending on the task:

• Want to allow one app through Gatekeeper? Instead of double-clicking the app icon directly, right click it and select "open".

• Want to turn off Gatekeeper for all apps? You need to open the Terminal and execute a command.

• Want to turn off System Integrity Protection? You need to reboot your computer into recovery mode and execute a Terminal command there.

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

#176

Post by dylz »

freehunter wrote: post #173
dylz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the intent is that no one should be doing this and anyone doing it should be at least technical enough to figure out what they're doing and be reminded that it's a bad idea.

And instead many people will just do a Google search for "Chrome [insert error here]" and run the first command they find, while people like me will say "okay I'll just Firefox where I can click past this warning".

For what it's worth I've always been able to click straight through a self-signed cert on Chrome - in fact I just did it right now to log in to something internal. I am a nearly 50-50 split Firefox/Chrome user.

Are you sure you aren't sending HSTS headers that demand the site be TLS in some way?

Also, have you considered the slightly-saner way of doing it, which is making an internal self-signed CA, trusting that internal CA, and then having it sign the rest of your "self dev stuff" certs?

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

#177

Post by mrighele »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #144
kadoban wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some registrars let you enable automatic renewal, so in that case the only risk is to keep paying for a domain that you forgot of.

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

#178

Post by iagovar »

t0mas88 wrote: post #174
xg15 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.thereg…

Chrome on Android already doesn't have extensions. That made me switch to Firefox on Android and within a week my laptop was also on Firefox because it's nice to have tab syncing etc between devices. If enough users do this I think Google will review their policy on extensions and specifically adblockers. Can't browse without one anymore after having used it for a while.

Brave is also nice in Android, although I miss the FF extensions.

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

#179

Post by pgrote »

Is there a replacement for pushbullet?

Long time user of pushbullet since I like to be able to text from the desktop. Google has released messages.google.com, which is a nightmare to use among various desktops.

Microsoft released their Phone app, which disconnects so frequently it is unusable.

I have no confidence Google will allow pushbullet back.

Is there a replacement that allows notifications and texts from the desktop?

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

#180

Post by lostinroutine »

shadowgovt wrote: post #147
raegis wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe I'm naive but what if pushbullet.com was just running a server-side fetch and returning the result? That would bypass CORS, essentially acting as a proxy server.
Post reply on HN