Is there a way to search the Chrome Web Store for all extensions and apps only made by "Google, Inc." as is possible to do on Google Play?
Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
71–80 of 84 posts
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure Apple and Microsoft fit that bill yet. They divide their empires into three separate concerns: walled garden consumer devices (phones, tablets), open enterprise/desktop and media. it's pretty easy to get into the internals of OSX and Windows still. In fact it's been made easier over the years. I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. Google on the other han…
> I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. That's true for now, but the trend is clear - OS X doesn't want to open apps downloaded from the Internet without the binary being signed by a registered developer. You can work around that, but I had to Google it (and I was trying to install YourKit Profiler - an otherwise very legit app from a well known and respected company…
That's just logical. Windows uses loose code signing. SmartScreen is the same sort of thing but you have to buy a more expensive code signing cert from VeriSign etc. You can self sign or run a CA on windows domains, even for metro apps on enterprise edition (and RT).
OSX is easy enough to control via spctl as well. You can use this or pay $99. Several things I downloaded, including Logic Pro from Apple didn't come with a certificate. It's not a big deal.
Most of what you say is paranoia. Signing is overall a damn good thing.
Android is. If you flick a switch. Same with OSX and Windows. WP even allows you to install unsigned apps if register it as a dev handset. Same with iOS.
This is mainly about protecting both the end user from malware and protecting the app sellers' revenue stream.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#73Yet again Google try to prevent users from gaining the same hacker mentality that created Google in the first place.
I doubt this is the reason. The reason is that less-educated users are being tricked into installing extensions they don't want and that make using their computer miserable for them. Meanwhile, anyone that wants to write their own extension need only click a checkbox.
Then why not just make it a hidden option behind a huge "THIS MAY CAUSE BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN" warning to frighten them like Firefox do?
...because Google hate user customisability.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure Apple and Microsoft fit that bill yet. They divide their empires into three separate concerns: walled garden consumer devices (phones, tablets), open enterprise/desktop and media. it's pretty easy to get into the internals of OSX and Windows still. In fact it's been made easier over the years. I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. Google on the other han…
ChromeOS is a browser based OS, so I would guess you could use JavaScript to do a lot of things you would do in C# or Pyhton on your old PCs. Also, ChromeOS has a developer mode and you can always install a chroot Linux along side ChromeOS. In essence you can do pretty much everything if you are a programmer and you spend a few minutes searching online. For the average user (read non programmer), less options is alwa…
A browser is not a universal programming environment.
Neither is a chroot on a ChromeOS device. How do you install openoffice on that chroot and start hacking on it?
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#75please correct me if i m wrong, but is the only way to work around this is to unpack the extension and use the developer mode? Or did i just miss something easy - like turning a flag on somewhere? There are a few critical extensions, like youtube center (and a couple i've written myself) that aren't on the store.
Use the beta channel, or use chromium.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#76I'm a little disappointed with Google. I understand the rationale behind this decision, however instead of improving their browser's permissions system, instead of doing a better job reviewing all those crappy extensions that turn to mallware over night (e.g. Window Resizer - and btw, Mozilla is doing a much better job), instead of all of that, they decide to drop the ability to install extensions from third-party so…
> I predict a similar change will also come for Android. Because grandmas need protection of course.
I'm not sure what this means. This is the way it has always worked in Android.
In order to install apps from third-party sources, you have to enable developer mode. It's easy to do (just check a box in the right place), and is a reasonable precaution, IMO. Most of the malware that is available for Android comes from third-party sources.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChromeOS is a browser based OS, so I would guess you could use JavaScript to do a lot of things you would do in C# or Pyhton on your old PCs. Also, ChromeOS has a developer mode and you can always install a chroot Linux along side ChromeOS. In essence you can do pretty much everything if you are a programmer and you spend a few minutes searching online. For the average user (read non programmer), less options is alwa…
A browser is not a universal programming environment. Neither is a chroot on a ChromeOS device. How do you install openoffice on that chroot and start hacking on it?
Well, most chromebooks are hackable to the point of installing a full Linux system on them to replace Chrome OS, at which point they just become a cheap laptop with a convoluted initial OS install process.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
W3C doesn't dictate what features browsers have or do not have, they're concerned with web standards. The MPAA joined to make sure DRM showed up in HTML5, not to tell Google to take out ad blockers. If Google removes ad blockers it will be because Google's revenue is based on ads, not because the MPAA or the W3C told them to.
I think that's a little naive. Google sells Hollywood movies and tv shows in their Play store.
And what does that have to do with an ad blocker in Chrome?
Lot's of companies sell content though the Play Store, maybe it's NBC that is forcing Google to remove the ad blocker /sarcasm.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
A browser is not a universal programming environment. Neither is a chroot on a ChromeOS device. How do you install openoffice on that chroot and start hacking on it?
Well, most chromebooks are hackable to the point of installing a full Linux system on them to replace Chrome OS, at which point they just become a cheap laptop with a convoluted initial OS install process.
But that's then not a ChromeOS machine.
Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a little naive. Google sells Hollywood movies and tv shows in their Play store.
And what does that have to do with an ad blocker in Chrome? Lot's of companies sell content though the Play Store, maybe it's NBC that is forcing Google to remove the ad blocker /sarcasm.
> And what does that have to do with an ad blocker in Chrome?
Google owns both Chrome and the Play Store...