16 ms·

I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain th

by tedivm 8y ago

I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away as if the people upset about this are just not understanding what's going on. I really expect this change to push a lot of people away from Chrome, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if it started opening up more antitrust possibilities due to how they're using their browser to give their services special functionality others can't get.

caiob 8y ago
> their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away That's literally their jobs as Chrome evangelists. They're just doing what they're told.
Analemma_ 8y ago
> I don’t understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on Because they’re not “dying on a hill” at all, because nobody cares. Nobody outside Hacker News and Twitter infosec people only followed by other Twitter infosec people cares about this. > I really expect this change to push a lot of people away from chrome Care to bet on that? Because I would happily take the opposite side of that bet. I think the feature will stay and after a few months we will see absolutely no change in Chrome’s usage statistics.
- Nursie 8y ago
  Sad but true. People don't care about this stuff, in general.
  - baq 8y ago
    this means that the voice of those who care will be loud and clear, because those who don't care stay quiet. a top 30 post on HN makes a difference.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Why would they? Who outside our paranoid bubble is doing anything other than being signed into their accounts all the time?
- noja 8y ago
  > because nobody cares A lot of people do not understand, but we do, we're the techies. It's our job to understand. Don't mistake people not understanding for not caring. Once people understand, they care.
  - jonbronson 8y ago
    This can't be overstated. The update did not even mention this feature change, making it even more difficult for non-techies to know something has changed, and what it means.
  - amdelamar 8y ago
    Yeah, but my parents _understand_ Facebook collects/sells their data. But they don't _care_ enough to stop using Facebook.
    - JoshMnem 8y ago
      Most people incorrectly think along the lines of "they have all my data already, so there's nothing I can do." Most probably also believe that many of the things that are going on are illegal and that someone is watching out for their interests. If they really understood the consequences of the data collection on a deeper level, most people wouldn't agree to it.
      - inetknght 8y ago
        I can confirm: there are a lot of things that friends, coworkers, and family all think are illegal and yet when I tell them to call law enforcement, they then ask "but who do I call?" followed by "I can't afford to hire a lawyer" They know what's happening is wrong. They don't know how to stop it. But they do still need to browse the web.
    - reificator 8y ago
      They may understand it on a superficial level, but do they understand it on a practical one? Everyone "understands" that Facebook collects user data. It's the contextual understanding that makes techies uneasy.
- redm 8y ago
  Maybe not in a few months, but things like this are funny. People who were looking for a reason to leave Chrome may use this to justify it, and while it may be a small audience, small audiences can be trendsetters, especially if they are passionate. Much like the slide from IE and FireFox to Chrome, by the time Mozilla and Microsoft reacted, it was already too late. Time will tell if this is the start of such a momentum flip or if it's just another blip.
  - stefano 8y ago
    Part of Chrome rise to success was, on top of its (at the time) superior performance, the massive marketing from the biggest advertising company in the world.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    10+ years ago, techies were the trendsetters in computer technology, because computers were hard to use. Now computers are easy to use, and the massmarket does not need to rely on techies for guidance, and non -techies can be early adopters. The general public relies on mainstream popular culture / fashion influencers.
- drusepth 8y ago
  >Because they’re not “dying on a hill” at all, because nobody cares. Nobody outside Hacker News and Twitter infosec people only followed by other Twitter infosec people cares about this. Ever since I updated to 69 I've been absolutely loving it. The most noticeable improvement is it feeling incredibly faster, but as someone who's been using 4-5 profiles on Chrome for over a year the new user management stuff just feels so much more intuitive/integrated. I was super surprised to see people complaining about it on HN this morning, and I'm still not entirely sure what the problem is. FWIW, I also severely disagree with a lot of the implementations of GDPR, so maybe I'm just not the audience who cares here. To me, this update has been nothing but improvements so far.
  - user812 8y ago
    I wrote elsewhere that Chrome 69 marks a big change for the browser world. Chrome 69 is simply the best. Not for me, but for the average user. The reading and work flow is incredible for casual browsing. The negative reaction on HN is understandable, but it's not relevant for most people. The goal of Google is merging the user experience of Android, Chrome, Google search and personal Google accounts into one, and it will get increasingly difficult for users to get out of this ecosystem.
    - paavoova 8y ago
      I find this reality highly disturbing, but, as you mention, the average user is impartial if not completely ignorant. I think Google is very clearly exploiting both its monopoly and this end-user ignorance to centralize and control all aspects of the web and user devices. It's not far-fetched to consider that soon there will be no OS on the PC, but rather just Chrome as an interface to everything Google and the web. And so controversy like this is momentary and seen only in a vocal minority, quickly forgotten. Just a couple months ago, Chrome was found to be scanning user files for malware - this was quickly forgotten, probably even by the very same vocal people discussing Chrome on HN today. At this point, it's almost faux outrage.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  I'm typically out of touch with normal people so I'm probably proving your point, but this has pushed me off chrome and Google. Ive always loved google. Installed chrome when it was released. I'm writing this from a pixel 2 XL because I broke my pixel 1 XL. I've had a Gmail account almost since it's been possible (I have my firstnamelastname@gmail.com). I now use firefox. I don't know what mail I'll switch to, and I can't bring myself to an iPhone, but I'm leaving. Google's increasing anti-user posture is enough, personified by the removal of their slogan "don't be evil". Legal move though it surely was, it's all too fitting. Goodbye Google - you broke my heart.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    I respect your feelings, but with respect to one of the factual details you listed: the "don't be evil" slogan never got removed from Google's Code of Conduct. That document has been reworded and the slogan is now at the end, but it's been there continuously. While I agree it's more of a passing mention than in the old wording, the end is one of the most prominent placements possible for such a statement other than the beginning. The common Internet belief that they removed this came from the Code of Conduct of Google's new parent company Alphabet, which says "Do the right thing" instead, combined with the subsequent rewording. But Google's still applies to Google as well.
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      Oh thank you! I'm thoroughly embarrassed to have regurgitated internet gossip without reading the source material. However, as you mentioned, I stand by my sentiment. Google has clearly telegraphed their desire to put making money over users privacy and security (my definition of security being safe from Google, whereas Google's is safe from everyone BUT google) To attack this issue from Google's side, the targeted ads I receive are straight garbage. The ads I get on my Google YouTube account from my signed in chrome Google account on my signed in Google phone are not in the least bit relevant to me or my interests. I don't use ad blockers of any kind. If I have to watch the ad about Dr. Gunter zolof solving Carmichael's toshent conjecture one more time, my phone might suffer an "accident" and I will take that opportunity to switch to a different provider (ANGRY SIDE RANT: I haven't watched that ad to completion or clicked on it a _single_ time. Stop showing it to me. 50 times. Consecutively)
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I would take a small bet. We're the trend-setters in technology. We're the ones who got everyone on Chrome to begin with. Otherwise they'd still be on IE. If all the tech people abandon Chrome, they will start recommending FF or IE again and discourage Chrome use. The impact is slow, but it is significant.
  - richjdsmith 8y ago
    Yep. Technology evangelists tend also to be early adopters. If they all jump ship, the masses will follow. Slowly, but surely.
  - schizoidboy 8y ago
    See my other comment in response to the parent - I hope neither of you were being sarcastic and that a bet is worked out.
- allenz 8y ago
  But the tech-savvy community has influence. We set up computers for our friends and families. We write IT policies. We are web developers, tech reporters, and more. At least for me, Google's behavior means that I can no longer recommend Chrome.
  - adtac 8y ago
    I can't imagine the impact is significant even if we consider two degrees of acquaintances (you tell someone to not use Chrome and they tell someone else).
    - allenz 8y ago
      The world is very small, and privacy is a mainstream concern these days. The impact of one story or one action is limited, but in the end, users do get their say. Otherwise, we would still be using Internet Explorer.
    - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
      That would be very depressing if true. Fortunately it's not. On average people are only about 6 degrees apart, so in reality a relatively small number of people can get a surprisingly large amount of coverage in a frighteningly short amount of time, should they choose to apply themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Because they’re not “dying on a hill” at all, because nobody cares." You are conflating "don't understand" and "don't care." Those are not the same things at all. This conflation seems to be a stable of Big Tech now where matters of privacy are concerned. >"Nobody outside Hacker News and Twitter infosec people only followed by other Twitter infosec people cares about this." Awareness of issues and a dialogue concerning them generally starts with people have domain-specific knowledge. The idea that this somehow detracts from an issue's importance is absurd.
- p1necone 8y ago
  Once upon a time "nobody cared" that IE was trash either, now look what's happened - and that was preinstalled on the OS.
- schizoidboy 8y ago
  Just a small meta-point that betting is a great way for both sides of a debate to tone down rhetoric, engage in dialogue, and discuss objective terms or processes for evaluating a disagreement. It looks like another commenter is taking you up on the bet and I hope neither of you were being sarcastic, because I think betting isn't something to joke about but a wonderful tool that we don't use often enough.
- signal11 8y ago
  A lot more "lay users" will care when random sites they visit start picking up their Google identity and showing it in the web page, all because the user signed into the browser. This is what it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/nFvxI0U https://imgur.com/a/nFvxI0U Assuming this isn't fixed, the ick factor of being in-your-face followed across the web will be quite strong, I think.
krisgenre 8y ago
I personally know people who think they are signing into Chrome when they sign into google.com. Maybe the Chrome team is right about their larger user base?
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  I expect this is the case... I know I myself was thinking a few months ago why Chrome doesn't have the ability to keep the logins in sync. However, why in the world did they enable this by default for people who didn't want their browser to do anything with their Google accounts? It would make sense to keep them in sync when users request to connect their browsers to their accounts, but not when people don't want the two to be connected at all.
  - dantheman 8y ago
    Because almost every user in the world wants it connected.
    - sea6ear 8y ago
      I've been in at least 2 corporate positions where there were strong reasons to separate your personal environment and your professional environment. I do not want synced browsers between my two environments. This change makes it inordinately difficult to maintain that separation while utilizing other parts of the google ecosystem.
      - tokyodude 8y ago
        I use two profiles for that.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- stefano 8y ago
  The question is, what about other sites? Do they also think they're signing into Chrome when logging into amazon.com? Google services are getting preferential treatment over the rest of the web on a browser with a market share big enough to be subject to an anti trust case. Vestager must be licking her lips right now...
ljm 8y ago
Not that I want to advocate for Google, but I imagine you could create a Firefox extension that works something like that into Firefox's sync mechanism. It sounds like they're scanning a cookie and then using that to change some other aspect of the browser; unless they've also added some stuff that only Chrome could recognise and work with. Now I've done making an excuse for it, I think it's a shame that Microsoft fucked up so bad with IE that both Edge and Safari face an uphill struggle. They're both pretty decent browsers that are kind to your battery and aren't bloated with features you're unlikely to ever use. The extension support is fairly poor for both but at the same time, that's not exactly a bad thing. You browse the web with them and that's more or less it.
- frenchy 8y ago
  > I imagine you could create a Firefox extension that works something like that into Firefox's sync mechanism. Being able to make something with an extension have having a behavior turned on by default in the browser are very different things.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gruez 8y ago
>I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away as if the people upset about this are just not understanding what's going on. link to said threads?
- SmellyGhost 8y ago
  Here's one: https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210 https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210
  - ewjordan 8y ago
    Yeah...and that thread says that the change is basically nothing, just a UI indicator: > Q: I don’t get, though — if you’re signed in to the browser but sync is off, then what does it mean to be signed in to the browser? What does it do besides sync? > A: Not much, you can think of it like a Gmail login state indicator. If that's fully the case, then there's nothing to see here and people are freaking out over nothing. Am I missing an important element here, other than that people don't trust Google?
    - colordrops 8y ago
      It's almost a certainty that they will continue down the slippery slope and start syncing data automatically in a future update. That sort of change has happened several times, so there is precedent.
      - visarga 8y ago
        But can't you protect your synced data with a passphrase?
        ntp85 8y ago
        According to the Chrome privacy policy the synced data is inaccessible to Google if it is encrypted with a passphrase, even though this encryption seems to be weak: https://palant.de/2018/03/13/can-chrome-sync-or-firefox-sync-be-trusted-with-sensitive-data https://palant.de/2018/03/13/can-chrome-sync-or-firefox-sync...
microcolonel 8y ago
I think they hired a very, very incompetent person who has been screwing up a lot more than just this since M69. Anyone who has tried the new Chrome OS Beta channel is wishing they hadn't installed this heaping pile of hot garbage. They would be better off reverting all the merges they've taken since M68, just to cut their losses. I mean no deep offense to the people involved, but the last couple months of Chromium changes are about a hundred times worse than just twiddling their thumbs.
heywot 8y ago
I've been considering switching over to Firefox after being a day-one adopter of Chrome and this helped become a tipping point to get me to switch over. Though, full disclosure: I've been working to limit Google services in my day-to-day life (Maps, Gmail, and now Chrome) in the last couple of months over privacy concerns.
- irrational 8y ago
  I've been using Firefox for quite awhile as my primary browser. I'm now to the point that I only use Chrome for checking websites I'm working on. I've had no complaints about Firefox. For me it is fast and stable.
  - Lio 8y ago
    Does Firefox work with Gooogle Hangouts/Meet/“whatever it’s called now”? I know they were working on removing the need for plugins in other browsers. Ut last time I checked it was still a bit iffy. This is what’s keeping Chrom(e|ium) installed on my machines right now. (I have a customer that uses it extensively). If Hangouts works in Firefox I think I'll uninstall Chrome.
    - Lio 8y ago
      To answer my own question, yes Hangouts does work fine in Firefox. Not tried screen sharing yet but video calls work for me.
      - Lio 8y ago
        Nope. To expand my answer, only certain versions of Hangouts work with Firefox, sigh.
- opmac 8y ago
  Same, I just made the switch today because of this change. We'll see how it pans out.
- richjdsmith 8y ago
james_pm 8y ago
I had been using Chrome only for G Suite stuff (forced by my employer to maintain this account) and FF for everything else. This change resulted in the deletion of Chrome from my computer and a move to FF with Multi Account Containers set to segregate various services from each other. I'm half thankful for the Chrome team doing this because it was just the push I needed to finally rid myself of Chrome once and for all. I plan to do a clean re-install of the OS on my Mac as well to ensure that all vestiges of Google Chrome are indeed gone. I also took the opportunity to rid myself of Google Drive File Stream.
- adrianrocamora 8y ago
  FF with Multi Account Containers is heaven
  - ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
    FF itself since Quantum has been heaven for me personally. I've always used FF and Chrome, flipping back and forth as Chrome filled in where FF had issues and vice versa, but after a week or 2 on Quantum I just didn't need Chrome anymore and uninstalled it. Haven't regretted it once.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      If you have to deal withtheir web apps like me, please also report performance problems loud and clear when they affect non-Chrome browsers.
    - edoceo 8y ago
      I realise this is a low effort comment but...this username and this comment made me laugh and cry. (also, I'm 90% FF now too)
    - mathw 8y ago
      The only thing that doesn't work for me at work with Firefox is some parts of our Google-powered meeting rooms. I can do videoconferencing just fine in Firefox, but I can't do screen sharing, even though Firefox seems to think screen sharing is enabled and working, only a black screen goes to the meeting room's projector. Hopefully that'll be fixed soon...
3K7m7bUZyWA1KCD 8y ago
Reducing their userbase is exactly their aim. They are doing that the only way possible that won't bat an eye. Firefox has to grow so that chrome is no longer considered a monopoly.
- adtac 8y ago
  Well they could start by removing the nag box on their home page asking non-Chrome users to switch to Chrome.
rhizome 8y ago
Because they have business requirements that depend on people using this feature.
jenscow 8y ago
Because a lot of it is FUD. I've never signed into Chrome, but I am able to access 2 Google accounts... and Chrome still shows me the "Sign into Chrome" option. Version 69.0.3497.100 (Official Build) (64-bit) (I normally just use Chrome for development)
hysan 8y ago
I’d like to do more in-depth research into this first, but my theory is that this move is innately tied to Google’s foray back into China.
tyingq 8y ago
"I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on" Years of double digit percentage revenue growth sets lofty stockholder expectations. All the low lying fruit to sustain that trajectory is gone. So, anything (AMP, this, etc) that might boost their targeting ability or impressions is important for them.
- billions 8y ago
  This. Google's carrot stick is the privacy yard.
rifung 8y ago
I work at Google; opinions are my own. > I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away as if the people upset about this are just not understanding what's going on. My impression is that this is the new norm at Google. It happens with everything, internal or external. The sad reality is that most decisions will deeply upset at least some people, and those people likely don't have the context into the decisions but still complain loudly. From my perspective what happens is that it doesn't matter whether a decision was a good or bad one, there will be people who complain (ESPECIALLY internally as Googlers can be very entitled) and so at some point you're just completely immune to this. This is not helped by the fact that people externally often think Google is on some evil plan and speculate in wild ways which are completely wrong. To give you an idea of how these things usually happen.. it goes something like this.. Someone finds a UX problem, and makes a plan to fix it. In this case I guess it's confusion among signed on accounts. Someone on the team probably raises some concerns, likely similar if not the exact ones being raised now, and they debate it but eventually they say well, the proportion of people who seem to care about this is only 0.1% of users (Because we are objective!). Sadly, even though it's "only" 0.1% of users, those users are extremely negatively impacted in a way that's not really reflected by the small percentage, and 0.1% of a billion is still a considerable amount. On the other hand, there are many other decisions which were released just fine and we would not be able to do anything if we were always afraid of negatively impacting some small proportion of users. To me this is a weakness of the attempt to have everything be objective and "measurable". Let me state that I don't think this is good or even acceptable, but I'm definitely not smart enough to know how to solve this on a wider scale than my immediate team. However I hope this at least provides some insight into why these kinds of thing happen.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  '0.1% of a billion is still a considerable amount' is a very important observation, and one my colleagues at Google (before I left) rarely seemed to grasp. People think they can get away with a lot of cutting corners or lack of rigor in their engineering and design when mistakes can impact millions of people... our industry really isn't prepared for deploying products at this scale.
flukus 8y ago
> I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team Really? That one is easy to understand. Google is a malware company and anyone that cares about privacy wouldn't work there in the first place.
i2shar 8y ago
It's about privacy and also about taking away functionality that worked all these years for me. At work we use Google Apps and I sign in as with my work address for Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Drive, etc. and am used to one click access to all these apps. But I like to sync my bookmarks, extensions and settings to my personal account - and that's it - I don't want to sign in to my personal Gmail, Docs, Drive in the browser. The new Chrome not only forces me to, but it now makes my personal account the primary one (/u/0 for Gmail) and forces me to go through several clicks for other apps to change accounts. And they didn't even ask before pushing this - one fine day Chrome auto updated and forced this feature on me and it took several days and a lot of signing out/in deleting cookies, posting on groups, etc. to figure out the flags workaround. I know the following is not welcome on HN, but I have to vent somewhere folks that think this was a good idea are reading, so here it is: A big fuck you to Chrome for forcing this feature on us!
- daveheq 8y ago
  Not sure if this is a solution for you but you can have multiple Google account sessions in separate Chrome user sessions by clicking your user icon at the top then selecting to add people.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    It becomes a game of “guess what user I’ll be logged in the next new window ?” Chrome also doesn’t respect window order in the menu, so it’s just a pain to track when switching. My solution to that was to switch to Safari for personal use.
    - hoffs 8y ago
      I have like 3 accounts added and it always used default account
      - tjoff 8y ago
        What's a default account?
untog 8y ago
> I really expect this change to push a lot of people away from Chrome Agree with you up until this point. The vast, vast majority of people won't even notice this has happened, or really care much. Anecdotal of course, but I haven't heard a single complaint among my non-tech friends, and I'm usually the first person they talk to about this stuff (because I'm "in tech"). I also believe Google when they say this change results in a lot less confusion from users (and just so happens to be a strategic benefit for Google, too...)
joelx 8y ago
I believe there is a purposeful propaganda war being directed against Google and Facebook here on HN and elsewhere in the media. I am not sure who is behind it, but my best guess would be Russia or China as they would have interest in this. Most of these posts against them are very flimsy, but they get huge upvotes.

by tedivm 8y ago

caiob 8y ago

> their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away That's literally their jobs as Chrome evangelists. They're just doing what they're told.

Analemma_ 8y ago

> I don’t understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on Because they’re not “dying on a hill” at all, because nobody cares. Nobody outside Hacker News and Twitter infosec people only followed by other Twitter infosec people cares about this. > I really expect this change to push a lot of people away from chrome Care to bet on that? Because I would happily take the opposite side of that bet. I think the feature will stay and after a few months we will see absolutely no change in Chrome’s usage statistics.

Nursie 8y ago
Sad but true. People don't care about this stuff, in general.
- baq 8y ago
  this means that the voice of those who care will be loud and clear, because those who don't care stay quiet. a top 30 post on HN makes a difference.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Why would they? Who outside our paranoid bubble is doing anything other than being signed into their accounts all the time?
noja 8y ago
> because nobody cares A lot of people do not understand, but we do, we're the techies. It's our job to understand. Don't mistake people not understanding for not caring. Once people understand, they care.
- jonbronson 8y ago
  This can't be overstated. The update did not even mention this feature change, making it even more difficult for non-techies to know something has changed, and what it means.
- amdelamar 8y ago
  Yeah, but my parents _understand_ Facebook collects/sells their data. But they don't _care_ enough to stop using Facebook.
  - JoshMnem 8y ago
    Most people incorrectly think along the lines of "they have all my data already, so there's nothing I can do." Most probably also believe that many of the things that are going on are illegal and that someone is watching out for their interests. If they really understood the consequences of the data collection on a deeper level, most people wouldn't agree to it.
    - inetknght 8y ago
      I can confirm: there are a lot of things that friends, coworkers, and family all think are illegal and yet when I tell them to call law enforcement, they then ask "but who do I call?" followed by "I can't afford to hire a lawyer" They know what's happening is wrong. They don't know how to stop it. But they do still need to browse the web.
  - reificator 8y ago
    They may understand it on a superficial level, but do they understand it on a practical one? Everyone "understands" that Facebook collects user data. It's the contextual understanding that makes techies uneasy.
redm 8y ago
Maybe not in a few months, but things like this are funny. People who were looking for a reason to leave Chrome may use this to justify it, and while it may be a small audience, small audiences can be trendsetters, especially if they are passionate. Much like the slide from IE and FireFox to Chrome, by the time Mozilla and Microsoft reacted, it was already too late. Time will tell if this is the start of such a momentum flip or if it's just another blip.
- stefano 8y ago
  Part of Chrome rise to success was, on top of its (at the time) superior performance, the massive marketing from the biggest advertising company in the world.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  10+ years ago, techies were the trendsetters in computer technology, because computers were hard to use. Now computers are easy to use, and the massmarket does not need to rely on techies for guidance, and non -techies can be early adopters. The general public relies on mainstream popular culture / fashion influencers.
drusepth 8y ago
>Because they’re not “dying on a hill” at all, because nobody cares. Nobody outside Hacker News and Twitter infosec people only followed by other Twitter infosec people cares about this. Ever since I updated to 69 I've been absolutely loving it. The most noticeable improvement is it feeling incredibly faster, but as someone who's been using 4-5 profiles on Chrome for over a year the new user management stuff just feels so much more intuitive/integrated. I was super surprised to see people complaining about it on HN this morning, and I'm still not entirely sure what the problem is. FWIW, I also severely disagree with a lot of the implementations of GDPR, so maybe I'm just not the audience who cares here. To me, this update has been nothing but improvements so far.
- user812 8y ago
  I wrote elsewhere that Chrome 69 marks a big change for the browser world. Chrome 69 is simply the best. Not for me, but for the average user. The reading and work flow is incredible for casual browsing. The negative reaction on HN is understandable, but it's not relevant for most people. The goal of Google is merging the user experience of Android, Chrome, Google search and personal Google accounts into one, and it will get increasingly difficult for users to get out of this ecosystem.
  - paavoova 8y ago
    I find this reality highly disturbing, but, as you mention, the average user is impartial if not completely ignorant. I think Google is very clearly exploiting both its monopoly and this end-user ignorance to centralize and control all aspects of the web and user devices. It's not far-fetched to consider that soon there will be no OS on the PC, but rather just Chrome as an interface to everything Google and the web. And so controversy like this is momentary and seen only in a vocal minority, quickly forgotten. Just a couple months ago, Chrome was found to be scanning user files for malware - this was quickly forgotten, probably even by the very same vocal people discussing Chrome on HN today. At this point, it's almost faux outrage.
kryogen1c 8y ago
I'm typically out of touch with normal people so I'm probably proving your point, but this has pushed me off chrome and Google. Ive always loved google. Installed chrome when it was released. I'm writing this from a pixel 2 XL because I broke my pixel 1 XL. I've had a Gmail account almost since it's been possible (I have my firstnamelastname@gmail.com). I now use firefox. I don't know what mail I'll switch to, and I can't bring myself to an iPhone, but I'm leaving. Google's increasing anti-user posture is enough, personified by the removal of their slogan "don't be evil". Legal move though it surely was, it's all too fitting. Goodbye Google - you broke my heart.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  I respect your feelings, but with respect to one of the factual details you listed: the "don't be evil" slogan never got removed from Google's Code of Conduct. That document has been reworded and the slogan is now at the end, but it's been there continuously. While I agree it's more of a passing mention than in the old wording, the end is one of the most prominent placements possible for such a statement other than the beginning. The common Internet belief that they removed this came from the Code of Conduct of Google's new parent company Alphabet, which says "Do the right thing" instead, combined with the subsequent rewording. But Google's still applies to Google as well.
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    Oh thank you! I'm thoroughly embarrassed to have regurgitated internet gossip without reading the source material. However, as you mentioned, I stand by my sentiment. Google has clearly telegraphed their desire to put making money over users privacy and security (my definition of security being safe from Google, whereas Google's is safe from everyone BUT google) To attack this issue from Google's side, the targeted ads I receive are straight garbage. The ads I get on my Google YouTube account from my signed in chrome Google account on my signed in Google phone are not in the least bit relevant to me or my interests. I don't use ad blockers of any kind. If I have to watch the ad about Dr. Gunter zolof solving Carmichael's toshent conjecture one more time, my phone might suffer an "accident" and I will take that opportunity to switch to a different provider (ANGRY SIDE RANT: I haven't watched that ad to completion or clicked on it a _single_ time. Stop showing it to me. 50 times. Consecutively)
Consultant32452 8y ago
I would take a small bet. We're the trend-setters in technology. We're the ones who got everyone on Chrome to begin with. Otherwise they'd still be on IE. If all the tech people abandon Chrome, they will start recommending FF or IE again and discourage Chrome use. The impact is slow, but it is significant.
- richjdsmith 8y ago
  Yep. Technology evangelists tend also to be early adopters. If they all jump ship, the masses will follow. Slowly, but surely.
- schizoidboy 8y ago
  See my other comment in response to the parent - I hope neither of you were being sarcastic and that a bet is worked out.
allenz 8y ago
But the tech-savvy community has influence. We set up computers for our friends and families. We write IT policies. We are web developers, tech reporters, and more. At least for me, Google's behavior means that I can no longer recommend Chrome.
- adtac 8y ago
  I can't imagine the impact is significant even if we consider two degrees of acquaintances (you tell someone to not use Chrome and they tell someone else).
  - allenz 8y ago
    The world is very small, and privacy is a mainstream concern these days. The impact of one story or one action is limited, but in the end, users do get their say. Otherwise, we would still be using Internet Explorer.
  - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
    That would be very depressing if true. Fortunately it's not. On average people are only about 6 degrees apart, so in reality a relatively small number of people can get a surprisingly large amount of coverage in a frighteningly short amount of time, should they choose to apply themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
bogomipz 8y ago
>"Because they’re not “dying on a hill” at all, because nobody cares." You are conflating "don't understand" and "don't care." Those are not the same things at all. This conflation seems to be a stable of Big Tech now where matters of privacy are concerned. >"Nobody outside Hacker News and Twitter infosec people only followed by other Twitter infosec people cares about this." Awareness of issues and a dialogue concerning them generally starts with people have domain-specific knowledge. The idea that this somehow detracts from an issue's importance is absurd.
p1necone 8y ago
Once upon a time "nobody cared" that IE was trash either, now look what's happened - and that was preinstalled on the OS.
schizoidboy 8y ago
Just a small meta-point that betting is a great way for both sides of a debate to tone down rhetoric, engage in dialogue, and discuss objective terms or processes for evaluating a disagreement. It looks like another commenter is taking you up on the bet and I hope neither of you were being sarcastic, because I think betting isn't something to joke about but a wonderful tool that we don't use often enough.
signal11 8y ago
A lot more "lay users" will care when random sites they visit start picking up their Google identity and showing it in the web page, all because the user signed into the browser. This is what it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/nFvxI0U https://imgur.com/a/nFvxI0U Assuming this isn't fixed, the ick factor of being in-your-face followed across the web will be quite strong, I think.

krisgenre 8y ago

I personally know people who think they are signing into Chrome when they sign into google.com. Maybe the Chrome team is right about their larger user base?

mehrdadn 8y ago
I expect this is the case... I know I myself was thinking a few months ago why Chrome doesn't have the ability to keep the logins in sync. However, why in the world did they enable this by default for people who didn't want their browser to do anything with their Google accounts? It would make sense to keep them in sync when users request to connect their browsers to their accounts, but not when people don't want the two to be connected at all.
- dantheman 8y ago
  Because almost every user in the world wants it connected.
  - sea6ear 8y ago
    I've been in at least 2 corporate positions where there were strong reasons to separate your personal environment and your professional environment. I do not want synced browsers between my two environments. This change makes it inordinately difficult to maintain that separation while utilizing other parts of the google ecosystem.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      I use two profiles for that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
stefano 8y ago
The question is, what about other sites? Do they also think they're signing into Chrome when logging into amazon.com? Google services are getting preferential treatment over the rest of the web on a browser with a market share big enough to be subject to an anti trust case. Vestager must be licking her lips right now...

ljm 8y ago

Not that I want to advocate for Google, but I imagine you could create a Firefox extension that works something like that into Firefox's sync mechanism. It sounds like they're scanning a cookie and then using that to change some other aspect of the browser; unless they've also added some stuff that only Chrome could recognise and work with. Now I've done making an excuse for it, I think it's a shame that Microsoft fucked up so bad with IE that both Edge and Safari face an uphill struggle. They're both pretty decent browsers that are kind to your battery and aren't bloated with features you're unlikely to ever use. The extension support is fairly poor for both but at the same time, that's not exactly a bad thing. You browse the web with them and that's more or less it.

frenchy 8y ago
> I imagine you could create a Firefox extension that works something like that into Firefox's sync mechanism. Being able to make something with an extension have having a behavior turned on by default in the browser are very different things.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gruez 8y ago

>I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away as if the people upset about this are just not understanding what's going on. link to said threads?

SmellyGhost 8y ago
Here's one: https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210 https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210
- ewjordan 8y ago
  Yeah...and that thread says that the change is basically nothing, just a UI indicator: > Q: I don’t get, though — if you’re signed in to the browser but sync is off, then what does it mean to be signed in to the browser? What does it do besides sync? > A: Not much, you can think of it like a Gmail login state indicator. If that's fully the case, then there's nothing to see here and people are freaking out over nothing. Am I missing an important element here, other than that people don't trust Google?
  - colordrops 8y ago
    It's almost a certainty that they will continue down the slippery slope and start syncing data automatically in a future update. That sort of change has happened several times, so there is precedent.
    - visarga 8y ago
      But can't you protect your synced data with a passphrase?
      - ntp85 8y ago
        According to the Chrome privacy policy the synced data is inaccessible to Google if it is encrypted with a passphrase, even though this encryption seems to be weak: https://palant.de/2018/03/13/can-chrome-sync-or-firefox-sync-be-trusted-with-sensitive-data https://palant.de/2018/03/13/can-chrome-sync-or-firefox-sync...

microcolonel 8y ago

I think they hired a very, very incompetent person who has been screwing up a lot more than just this since M69. Anyone who has tried the new Chrome OS Beta channel is wishing they hadn't installed this heaping pile of hot garbage. They would be better off reverting all the merges they've taken since M68, just to cut their losses. I mean no deep offense to the people involved, but the last couple months of Chromium changes are about a hundred times worse than just twiddling their thumbs.

heywot 8y ago

I've been considering switching over to Firefox after being a day-one adopter of Chrome and this helped become a tipping point to get me to switch over. Though, full disclosure: I've been working to limit Google services in my day-to-day life (Maps, Gmail, and now Chrome) in the last couple of months over privacy concerns.

irrational 8y ago
I've been using Firefox for quite awhile as my primary browser. I'm now to the point that I only use Chrome for checking websites I'm working on. I've had no complaints about Firefox. For me it is fast and stable.
- Lio 8y ago
  Does Firefox work with Gooogle Hangouts/Meet/“whatever it’s called now”? I know they were working on removing the need for plugins in other browsers. Ut last time I checked it was still a bit iffy. This is what’s keeping Chrom(e|ium) installed on my machines right now. (I have a customer that uses it extensively). If Hangouts works in Firefox I think I'll uninstall Chrome.
  - Lio 8y ago
    To answer my own question, yes Hangouts does work fine in Firefox. Not tried screen sharing yet but video calls work for me.
    - Lio 8y ago
      Nope. To expand my answer, only certain versions of Hangouts work with Firefox, sigh.
opmac 8y ago
Same, I just made the switch today because of this change. We'll see how it pans out.
richjdsmith 8y ago

james_pm 8y ago

I had been using Chrome only for G Suite stuff (forced by my employer to maintain this account) and FF for everything else. This change resulted in the deletion of Chrome from my computer and a move to FF with Multi Account Containers set to segregate various services from each other. I'm half thankful for the Chrome team doing this because it was just the push I needed to finally rid myself of Chrome once and for all. I plan to do a clean re-install of the OS on my Mac as well to ensure that all vestiges of Google Chrome are indeed gone. I also took the opportunity to rid myself of Google Drive File Stream.

adrianrocamora 8y ago
FF with Multi Account Containers is heaven
- ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
  FF itself since Quantum has been heaven for me personally. I've always used FF and Chrome, flipping back and forth as Chrome filled in where FF had issues and vice versa, but after a week or 2 on Quantum I just didn't need Chrome anymore and uninstalled it. Haven't regretted it once.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    If you have to deal withtheir web apps like me, please also report performance problems loud and clear when they affect non-Chrome browsers.
  - edoceo 8y ago
    I realise this is a low effort comment but...this username and this comment made me laugh and cry. (also, I'm 90% FF now too)
  - mathw 8y ago
    The only thing that doesn't work for me at work with Firefox is some parts of our Google-powered meeting rooms. I can do videoconferencing just fine in Firefox, but I can't do screen sharing, even though Firefox seems to think screen sharing is enabled and working, only a black screen goes to the meeting room's projector. Hopefully that'll be fixed soon...

3K7m7bUZyWA1KCD 8y ago

Reducing their userbase is exactly their aim. They are doing that the only way possible that won't bat an eye. Firefox has to grow so that chrome is no longer considered a monopoly.

adtac 8y ago
Well they could start by removing the nag box on their home page asking non-Chrome users to switch to Chrome.

rhizome 8y ago

Because they have business requirements that depend on people using this feature.

jenscow 8y ago

Because a lot of it is FUD. I've never signed into Chrome, but I am able to access 2 Google accounts... and Chrome still shows me the "Sign into Chrome" option. Version 69.0.3497.100 (Official Build) (64-bit) (I normally just use Chrome for development)

hysan 8y ago

I’d like to do more in-depth research into this first, but my theory is that this move is innately tied to Google’s foray back into China.

tyingq 8y ago

"I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on" Years of double digit percentage revenue growth sets lofty stockholder expectations. All the low lying fruit to sustain that trajectory is gone. So, anything (AMP, this, etc) that might boost their targeting ability or impressions is important for them.

billions 8y ago
This. Google's carrot stick is the privacy yard.

rifung 8y ago

I work at Google; opinions are my own. > I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team (managers and developers) are all over twitter and reddit trying to explain the privacy violations away as if the people upset about this are just not understanding what's going on. My impression is that this is the new norm at Google. It happens with everything, internal or external. The sad reality is that most decisions will deeply upset at least some people, and those people likely don't have the context into the decisions but still complain loudly. From my perspective what happens is that it doesn't matter whether a decision was a good or bad one, there will be people who complain (ESPECIALLY internally as Googlers can be very entitled) and so at some point you're just completely immune to this. This is not helped by the fact that people externally often think Google is on some evil plan and speculate in wild ways which are completely wrong. To give you an idea of how these things usually happen.. it goes something like this.. Someone finds a UX problem, and makes a plan to fix it. In this case I guess it's confusion among signed on accounts. Someone on the team probably raises some concerns, likely similar if not the exact ones being raised now, and they debate it but eventually they say well, the proportion of people who seem to care about this is only 0.1% of users (Because we are objective!). Sadly, even though it's "only" 0.1% of users, those users are extremely negatively impacted in a way that's not really reflected by the small percentage, and 0.1% of a billion is still a considerable amount. On the other hand, there are many other decisions which were released just fine and we would not be able to do anything if we were always afraid of negatively impacting some small proportion of users. To me this is a weakness of the attempt to have everything be objective and "measurable". Let me state that I don't think this is good or even acceptable, but I'm definitely not smart enough to know how to solve this on a wider scale than my immediate team. However I hope this at least provides some insight into why these kinds of thing happen.

kevingadd 8y ago
'0.1% of a billion is still a considerable amount' is a very important observation, and one my colleagues at Google (before I left) rarely seemed to grasp. People think they can get away with a lot of cutting corners or lack of rigor in their engineering and design when mistakes can impact millions of people... our industry really isn't prepared for deploying products at this scale.

flukus 8y ago

> I don't understand why the Chrome team is picking this hill to die on- their team Really? That one is easy to understand. Google is a malware company and anyone that cares about privacy wouldn't work there in the first place.

i2shar 8y ago

It's about privacy and also about taking away functionality that worked all these years for me. At work we use Google Apps and I sign in as with my work address for Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Drive, etc. and am used to one click access to all these apps. But I like to sync my bookmarks, extensions and settings to my personal account - and that's it - I don't want to sign in to my personal Gmail, Docs, Drive in the browser. The new Chrome not only forces me to, but it now makes my personal account the primary one (/u/0 for Gmail) and forces me to go through several clicks for other apps to change accounts. And they didn't even ask before pushing this - one fine day Chrome auto updated and forced this feature on me and it took several days and a lot of signing out/in deleting cookies, posting on groups, etc. to figure out the flags workaround. I know the following is not welcome on HN, but I have to vent somewhere folks that think this was a good idea are reading, so here it is: A big fuck you to Chrome for forcing this feature on us!

daveheq 8y ago
Not sure if this is a solution for you but you can have multiple Google account sessions in separate Chrome user sessions by clicking your user icon at the top then selecting to add people.
- hrktb 8y ago
  It becomes a game of “guess what user I’ll be logged in the next new window ?” Chrome also doesn’t respect window order in the menu, so it’s just a pain to track when switching. My solution to that was to switch to Safari for personal use.
  - hoffs 8y ago
    I have like 3 accounts added and it always used default account
    - tjoff 8y ago
      What's a default account?

untog 8y ago

> I really expect this change to push a lot of people away from Chrome Agree with you up until this point. The vast, vast majority of people won't even notice this has happened, or really care much. Anecdotal of course, but I haven't heard a single complaint among my non-tech friends, and I'm usually the first person they talk to about this stuff (because I'm "in tech"). I also believe Google when they say this change results in a lot less confusion from users (and just so happens to be a strategic benefit for Google, too...)

joelx 8y ago

I believe there is a purposeful propaganda war being directed against Google and Facebook here on HN and elsewhere in the media. I am not sure who is behind it, but my best guess would be Russia or China as they would have interest in this. Most of these posts against them are very flimsy, but they get huge upvotes.