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

391–400 of 811 posts

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

#391

Post by thayne »

kadoban wrote: post #124
theshrike79 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a year-long project in the minimum: 1: Start up new email (for me it was Fastmail) and preferably get your own domain 2: Forward all mail from gmail to your new account 3: Create a rule that flags messages that are still delivered to gmail, go through them at your leisure and swap to the new address

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.

getting your own domain might be fine for tech-savvy people, but for the general population it isn't really an option.

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

#392

Post by danShumway »

jonas21 wrote: post #291
jaywalk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, this change is meant to give developers a way to create safer and more performant ad blockers. Imagine anyone actually believing Google is trying to help ad blockers. What a dumb thing for them to even say.

Why? When Apple made the exact same change in Safari, they also gave these reasons, and everyone believed them.

uBlock Origin is not available for Safari in its original form. It only exists as a (somewhat neutered) fork that's basically dead[0].

There's a disconnect in the sense that a lot of people think that adblocking in Safari is fine, even though it is pretty objectively less capable than Firefox/Chrome in this area right now. There's no disconnect in saying that Manifest v3 is going to hurt adblockers, because the same changes in Safari also hurt adblockers, and (as of last time I checked) Chrome's proposed changes go even farther than Safari's did.

But in general, yes, you should already be avoiding Safari today if you want to use the best adblockers on the market. Safari suffers from the exact same problems, that's why I use Firefox even when I'm on a Mac -- because the adblockers and security extensions for Firefox are just a lot better.

https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

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

#393

Post by trav4225 »

mrighele wrote: post #177
colejohnson66 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is credit card expiration handled? Or do you suggest another payment method?

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

#394

Post by propogandist »

gowld wrote: post #372
propogandist wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

owning your domain and having control of a domain through a trusted registrar is better than relying on the worlds largest advertising company to manage your digital identity (email), which is offered as a free service, that's subject to a catch-all ToS.

The article is literally about a user who was attacked because Twitter, Facebook ad GoDaddy have bad security, while his Google account was safe.

An isolated fail in 2014 by one vendor, primarily due to poor support processes, is not a convincing argument to keep all digital identities in Google's possession.

There's also the risk of Google shutting down your account because you do something they don't like. This will lead to a similiar outcome and you won't have any recourse.

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

#395

Post by nicolasbistolfi »

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…

I've been using PushBullet for years. Great product! It's not fair what big companies are doing to what it seems to be, prioritizing their own features over third party well-built products. It's abusive.

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

#396

Post by dylz »

maest wrote: post #337
dylz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused - Firefox and Chrome act completely identically to a self signed cert for me. Both let me click through after looking at the cert or expanding a section. I have never been "blocked" by some hidden modal unless the site chooses to be HSTS-enforcing, and in that case Firefox does not allow a clickthrough either. Both examples on latest current, taken right now: Firefox: https://i.imgur.com/4VMjDZ4.png Chro…

Youre confused because you're not using Chrome on OSX: on osx there's no "Proceed to " option.

I'm now even more confused: https://i.imgur.com/jl9agwG.png

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

#397

Post by sushid »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #190
filleduchaos wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm often amused when people gripe about the $99/year membership fee for the Apple Developer Program.

As someone who gripes about it: I think $99/year is a perfectly reasonable fee in order to submit to the App Store. I just don't think it should be the only way to run my own code on my own phone (without jumping through the rediculous hoop of reinstalling an app every single week).

You just answered yourself. It's not a the only way to run your own code on your own phone. AFAIK that restriction is to prevent jailbreakers from easily sideloading paid apps as "their" apps on their phones.

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

#398

Post by duncan_bayne »

From a comment by Baeocystin:

"If you use our tools, we can kill your livelihood at any time for any reason and tough shit if you want a why"

It has always been thus with proprietary tools and platforms.

Back in 2011 I switched careers from developing software on proprietary stacks - at the time C# 4.0, Silverlight, and MS Windows - to developing on open source stacks, starting with Ruby on Rails and JavaScript.

A short time after I switched away from Silverlight, I found a bug in the open source XML library my team was using. I then submitted a PR to fix it, which was merged (with some revision :)) after a few days. The experience was a revelation after the combination of magic 8 ball and years-long wait times for non-critical bug fixes on Visual Studio.

It looks like the younger generation is busy rediscovering the vulnerability and helplessness of proprietary systems themselves.

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

#399

Post by ashtonkem »

hutzlibu wrote: post #278
victorvation wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen cases where Apple will actually decompile/debug your app and point you the exact feature / method / line that they find unacceptable. Despite all of my other complaints about iOS ecosystem, they _do_ keep their App Store walled garden fairly well tended.

Out of curiosity, where those big name apps, or small ones? I assume that level of service is reserved or more important apps?

I had Apple point out that I hadn’t yet added a TOS for a trivia app I was making; they’re very thorough.

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

#400

Post by rrss »

danpalmer wrote: post #388
laughinghan wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very, very least, they could identify which of the permissions are in violation and need to be made more restrictive, and which aren't. Someone at some point at Google clearly had that information when they decided to flag the extension, but Google's processes failed to ensure they communicated it. For the record, I actually agree with you that this is a good policy and will be a positive outcome for users. Bu…

Most of the discussion on this link is about how Google is being developer hostile. I think that's getting plenty of attention. > At the very, very least, they could identify which of the permissions are in violation If they've flagged this through user reports of the permissions being too wide then they may not actually know which permissions need to be changed. This is purely speculation though.

> they may not actually know which permissions need to be changed

How can they not know? They decide whether the update is accepted or rejected, and there's somebody or something at google that makes that decision, so google has to know.

If they didn't know what permissions need to be changed, how is the accept/reject decision made? Something like "accept the fourth try if the developer makes it that far because it is probably an improvement?"

Post reply on HN