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

91–100 of 811 posts

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

#91

Post by filleduchaos »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #62

I am the proud recipient of many Apple rejection notices from the App Store (I have been releasing iOS apps since 2012). I have not had an app pulled, but I have had many rejections to submitted apps (the latest were received yesterday). In all of the notices, Apple is usually quite explicit in what the problem is, including attaching screengrabs, and they will respond, if I ask them for further clarification.

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

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

#92

Post by celticninja »

jonny_eh wrote: post #68
patwalls wrote: post #18

Chrome extension developer here. Google ripped my Chrome extension off the app store about a month ago. I got a similar cryptic message, and then I scrambled to fix it, like you're doing now. Somehow my extension reappeared the next day. Email me pat [at] trypigeon [dot] co and I can send you some of the things I did that maybe have helped. Tweeting my support as well: https://twitter.com/thepatwalls/status/126063896…

> Email me pat [at] trypigeon [dot] co and I can send you some of the things I did that maybe have helped. Please post here so everyone else can learn too.

I assume GP is trying not to help those the automated system intends to catch

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

#94

Post by thorum »

Does your browser extension really need to access localhost/* - as in, port 80 on my local machine? That would make me very uncomfortable about installing the extension.

Would it be possible to restrict the extension to accessing a specific port or endpoint that is used by PushBullet?

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

#95

Post by msla »

skinnymuch wrote: post #32
syshum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would be unthinkable for Mozilla do so something like this to an extension, today I am not so sure I would trust them either

Can you give a few examples of how Mozilla/Firefox have changed? We all know about FF Quantum. Yeah it sucks what happened. Maybe there was an alternative, but any one saying Firefox should’ve just stuck to not being compatible with Chromium extensions is kidding themselves on how badly that would’ve continued hurting Firefox’s market share. The XUL powered extension I’m sure were powerful so the outcry in certain pl…

First of all, they deliberately destroyed my bookmarks.

https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-...

> For a long time, it was just setting the default search provider to Google in exchange for a beefy stipend. Later, paid links in your new tab page were added. Then, a proprietary service, Pocket, was bundled into the browser - not as an addon, but a hardcoded feature. In the past few days, we’ve discovered an advertisement in the form of browser extension was sideloaded into user browsers. Whoever is leading these decisions at Mozilla needs to be stopped.

> Here’s a breakdown of what happened a few days ago. Mozilla and NBC Universal did a “collaboration” (read: promotion) for the TV show Mr. Robot. It involved sideloading a sketchy browser extension which will invert text that matches a list of Mr. Robot-related keywords like “fsociety”, “robot”, “undo”, and “fuck”, and does a number of other things like adding an HTTP header to certain sites you visit.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-spons...

> Mozilla’s motto is “internet for people, not profit,” however the realities of having to fund all of its ventures are forcing the company into adopting one of the web’s less human-friendly aspects: sponsored content. Having acquired read-it-later service Pocket last year, Mozilla has been populating new tabs in Firefox with Pocket reading suggestions — and those are now going to include links that an advertiser has paid for.

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

#96

Post by gowld »

patwalls wrote: post #27
MattGaiser wrote: post #26

Any reason that Google doesn't give reasons and ways to comply? I haven't ever had to deal with a Google person regarding Android development, but when I built stuff for Blackberry (miss that company), they always provided nice and detailed feedback. Blackberry famously let legal influence design, so I would be surprised if it was a cover your ass thing.

Because they are attempting to automate all of it. This message is generic and based on some analysis of the "manifest.json". They have also turned off all reviews in the Chrome Web Store: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22935092

Huh? They turned off reviews because a worldwide pandemic eliminated their ability to maintain staff to moderate reviews. That's the opposite of "automating it".

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

#97

Post by arkades »

wlesieutre wrote: post #36
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…

Chrome is a trivially easy product to switch off of compared to other Google properties like Gmail and YouTube. Have you tried Firefox recently?

I transitioned to FFox myself. I occasionally have to use Chrome for work, and it's nothing I find myself missing. If Chrome is messing up your day, it's really easy to cut it out.

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

#98

Post by TuringNYC »

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.…

>> 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.

OK fair enough, but why aren't the big violators held to this? (I realize this example isn't Chrome, but it is Google Calendar -- ever try to add a Zoom meeting invitation to your Google calendar? Zoom wants access to read and write all events ever on your entire calendar!

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

#99

Post by cirwin »

We went through the same problem at Superhuman (and as I write our latest extension update has been pending review for 2 weeks, so maybe we're about to hit it again).

Simeon on the mailing list was quite re-assuring, and I would recommend reaching out to him, though there are limits to what he can help with.

That said we found that the review process is quite arbitrary, resubmitting may work simply because you get a different reviewer. (We've seen identical copies of the extension with different version numbers where one was approved and one rejected).

We've also observed that they use some kind of automated code-analysis to tell whether or not you're making use of the permission; so you may want to check that it's obvious from the code included in the extension bundle that you need the permissions you're asking for.

We've also hypothesized that they apply different standards to extensions depending on the number of users – our staging extension (~50 users) usually gets approved quickly, but our production extension usually takes a while and is less likely to be approved. (This may just be luck of the draw coupled with arbitrariness though)

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

#100

Post by msla »

JTbane wrote: post #30
syshum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would be unthinkable for Mozilla do so something like this to an extension, today I am not so sure I would trust them either

Mozilla doesn't have the conflict of interest google does with ads... That alone makes me use Firefox over Chrome.

It does:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-spons...

Post reply on HN