time to bring out the anti-trust hammer and separate chrome and other google entities from the search and ad business. It really seems like they're asking for it.
A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
31–40 of 614 posts
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#32I really hope this is Chrome shooting their selves in the foot. Like a fool I am using Chrome as I type this, my excuse is Chrome has my banking numbers saved and haven't taken the 2 seconds to enter it into firefox so it is ready and convenient. But if I can't use an adblocker and if I don't have control over what runs on my hardware then kiss me goodbye. I will finish the switch today and uninstall Chrome.
They're openly planning the end of UBlock Origin with their upcoming add-on change (Manifest v3). Start moving now.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#33Chrome has always been best as a Google client. You can browse Maps in it, use Google Apps, they always work well. For regular browsing it had some nice security features but always lacked an equivalent to Tree Style Tabs. And will soon become useless without a decent ad blocker.
Unfortunately it has created an Internet Explorer effect, and weekly there is a site I need to load into Chromium because they never tested their JS on FF. Hopefully FF picks up user share and that begins to change again.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#34The single-purpose excuse is the same one they used to ban AdNauseam: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
It's not surprising they'd use that excuse as it allows them to reject extensions on entirely subjective criteria.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#35[deleted]
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#36This is the lamest excuse to block UBO. Do you need more reasons to ditch Chrome?
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#37Monopoly
For Windows there is Firefox, and IE Edge. For the Mac their are both of those plus Safari. Not to mention Chromium based browsers.
You need to think in terms of a de facto monopoly in this case:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/
https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regul...
I don't know if the 69% number from StatCounter would qualify as a de facto monopoly, but it's close to the 75% number quoted in the previous article:
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#38It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.
Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox. Phoronix's tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago: "As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google's web browser continues generally delivering better performance." https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox6...
Firefox scroll lags like 500ms behind my input, on my mbp. How does anyone live like that?
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#39An advertising company fielding a major distribution browser always was a really bad idea.
It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too. I think it's up to other browsers to offer better solutions.
The internet wasn't made for Google. And if you think it serves users very well too then I suggest you read TFA, it is clear that what is good for Google and what is good for users are not aligned.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#40An advertising company fielding a major distribution browser always was a really bad idea.
It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too. I think it's up to other browsers to offer better solutions.
When you develop a browser, one of the main concern of the users is to be able to import their passwords, bookmarks or tabs.
Guess what, Chrome for Android doesn't allow anyone to extract this data and bans apps who connects to their servers to fetch this information.
It's violating GDPR, but fuck the law when you have billions. Too big to jail.