11 ms·

The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterpri

The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers mostly rely on the Chrome Extension store. If Google really decides to pull the plug here they could start rejecting extensions using the old, removed-from-Chrome APIs. And then what? Each browser such as Vivaldi, Brave, Opera has to implement their own app store just to host the old-API ad-blockers. And implementing such a store is a major feat. And the walled garden strikes again. Vivaldi already indicated they might create a "limited" store, meaning not a real store open to the public, but one where they list hand-picked old-API extensions such as ublock origin. Of course, innovation is still stiffed as you in such a "chrome-store + limited vendor store" scenario cannot just develop new extensions using the old-API because you'd have no chance of getting listed in the chrome store, and essentially no chance in the hand-picked limited vendor ones.

mantap 7y ago
You can install extensions manually. You have to be able to because otherwise you wouldn't be able to develop new ones.
zzzcpan 7y ago
Walled gardens for extensions is also a big problem. Maybe web browsers will finally be forced to give up that control because of all this. Personally I would like at least user freedom to choose extension stores for themselves.
Proven 7y ago
I can't imagine Microsoft will follow Google and they already have a store that has a ton of ad blockers. If some sort of standardization emerges among the non-Google Chromium versions, Vivaldi users could load ad blockers from Microsoft's store.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
yeah this commitment inspires little long term confidence since the ecosystem is heavily chrome-centric I've already moved everything to Firefox to test out waters before moving all my relatives.
el_programmador 7y ago
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to another browser like firefox/brave. And the PR repercussions will ensure that a lot of newbies will leave too (because they usually follow the power users on youtube) which will essentially kill the advertising income that they wanted in the first place?
- user17843 7y ago
  Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business. If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them. They may also want to get rid of paying Adblock Plus money for their highway robbery. Now that I think about it, getting rid of ABP may be the primary reason for this move. They have to basically pay a third party to get access to their own users. Either way, the battle is not over the power user minority, but over the average user. The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to disappear. Most users would probably be content with this. They will probably make it so they won't lose all of their power users. I think what they really want is increasing the amount of works it takes to have full adblocking functionality to the point where the average user has no access to it.
  - chongli 7y ago
    The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to disappear. In other words, to block ads on third party networks but leave Google ads alone. That's a bold move these days, when antitrust regulators are putting big tech under the microscope.
    - user17843 7y ago
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
Opera does not use chrome web store: https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/ https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/
- rhamzeh 7y ago
  They do have their own store. However, Opera's add-on store is not a great experience. I'm not sure what's going on there, but I know of at least one company where they submitted a new extension to that store it took them around 6 months(!!!) to approve it. It was easier to self-host the add-on for people who want it, so that they can download it from your website.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
fouc 7y ago
We need a third party extensions store.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  We need companies to stop promoting the Blink monoculture and helping Google pull stuns like this as a result. These companies helping Mozilla getting Servo into shape would be a really good idea, which is why they won't do it.
- U8dcN7vx 7y ago
  I know of at least one, F-droid.
derefr 7y ago
Given that Firefox has now also moved to using WebExtensions, the Chromium forks could just rely on http://addons.mozilla.org http://addons.mozilla.org as their “store.”
- kbrosnan 7y ago
  Firefox add-ons have a different namespace and some additional APIs that Blink does not support. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Chrome_incompatibilities https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Differences_between_API_implementations https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
  - jannes 7y ago
    And Firefox add-ons return promises instead of taking callbacks like Chrome.
_bxg1 7y ago
Why wouldn't the other vendors band together and make a single, non-Google chromium extensions repository? If anyone from Microsoft is reading, this would be an excellent opportunity to give Edge a leg up on Chrome.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  I suppose an extension is easier but as browsers can be told to go through proxies, an extension isn't necessary for adblocking. A 2nd process on the machine, a change to the browser (set localhost and a port) and you're done. Someone did something similar and called it Dan's Guardian IIRC, but that's all it was. That's how I run mine, a local (and very ancient) version of squid blocks everything. It won't be as flexible but it works.
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    That doesn't work as well for https connections where you can only block on domain name, for which any DNS/VPN-based blocking works just as well.
    - dgoldstein0 7y ago
      Usually proxying can work for https connections - by letting the proxy terminate ssl. But then you really need to trust the proxy's ssl implementation, and it probably also breaks standard security ui like viewing the cert. Definitely it has its problems.
      - Xylakant 7y ago
        The SSL implementation is the least of your problems. You’d need to have a private CA on your system that creates certificates on the fly. How do you secure that proper. You’d also have problems when reporting SSL errors between the site and the proxy to the browser because from the browsers PoV, the connection looks good.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
superkuh 7y ago
The problem you described actually happened with Firefox and Firefox forks not too long ago. Mozilla kicked out all traditional Firefox add-ons from their repository to "replace" them (note: they didn't actually replace the vast majority) with chrome style webextensions. Firefox forks were forced to implement and run their own add-on hosting system and API, and navigate the complex legal waters of re-hosting the add-ons if they wished to continue having access. One notable example of this is the Pale Moon browser. But it all turned out all right. The PM add-on "store" works great and is reliable. It's not beyond the capabilities of efforts like Vivaldi or Brave to do the same as the Pale Moon team.
- guelo 7y ago
  Ironically Firefox killed their extension API to be compatible with Chrome's extensions. Now they probably don't want to be compatible with the new Chrome API.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > Ironically Firefox killed their extension API to be compatible with Chrome's extensions. This is misleading. They deprecated the old API primarily to be able to do multi-process and get rid of XUL.
    - kibwen 7y ago
      As well as to expose a stable extension API (no more XUL extensions breaking randomly on every browser update) and to enforce any sort of security boundary/permissions system.
      - metildaa 7y ago
        Note that this was done after two prior failed attempts to rewrite the CSS engine for multithread in C++: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/02/rewriting-a-browser-component-in-rust/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/02/rewriting-a-browser-compon... Its sad to lose DownThemAll and the plethora of othwr XUL extensions, but having performant multicore support is critical given the shift to having many cores (as single thread performance improvements become uncommon).
MiroF 7y ago
opera already had its own app store
pier25 7y ago
Opera blocks ads wihout the need of an extension. It's just a setting.
- xaduha 7y ago
  Well internally it shows as an extension, you can check yourself. Didn't use to, but does now.
  - pier25 7y ago
    You are right, but my point was that the feature doesn't depend on the Chrome extensions store.
neilv 7y ago
Business-wise, I would love to own an app store, and exercise control, and (eventually) cut myself in as the middleperson on for-pay software sold through it, as well as paid placements and ads.
millisecond 7y ago
All of the other browsers shouldn’t worry about store nonsense, just ship u-block by default and enabled. Fight fire with fire.
- kibwen 7y ago
  The reason that no browser does this is because that's the easiest way to go from "some sites are broken in this browser because no webdevs care to test with it" to "many sites are broken in this browser because webdevs deliberately go out of their way to break it". It's the nuclear option that a browser like Firefox would only go for (in the climate of the current web) if things got truly desperate for them. It's why, for example, Firefox didn't start blocking third-party cookies until Safari did it first: it gave them political cover to do so (and Safari can do whatever it wants because it's the only game in town on iOS).
Swizec 7y ago
Isn’t one of Brave’s main selling points that it itself is an ad blocker and doesn’t require a third party extension? Something about removing ads from pages before they even make http requests.
cpeterso 7y ago
I hadn't considered the ramifications to extension distribution. If Google's Chrome extension store chooses to not host extensions that use the webRequest API, other Chromium-based browsers will need to maintain their own extension stores or users will start installing unvetted extensions from shady third-party websites.
owaislone 7y ago
Since Firefox support WebExtensions now (or will soon get it) which are very close to Chrome extensions, it wouldn't be unthinkable for all non-Chrome browsers to use Firefox store instead of the Chrome one. I think Mozilla could even be convinced to open it up as an "open web extensions" store or collaborate with others to build a new one. They certainly have the infrastructure and experience to run one.
- techntoke 7y ago
  Uh, Firefox already supports WebExtensions and it is like common knowledge. Mozilla barely has the experience to run a sync service, and even that is a disaster.
  - nedp 7y ago
    I don't think Firefox Sync is a disaster. In fact, it's the opposite. They managed to handle the service pretty well.
    - l30n4da5 7y ago
      not originally. when sync first came out, and for a while after, it was a dumpster fire. that being said, it is load better now.
- nedp 7y ago
  Mozilla supports WebExtensions since 57+ afaik. Not sure about this if there are some differences in implementation and API's between Firefox's WebExt and Chrome's.
  - skymt 7y ago
    MDN has a page documenting differences in API support between major WebExtension browsers: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
stcredzero 7y ago
Each browser such as Vivaldi, Brave, Opera has to implement their own app store just to host the old-API ad-blockers. And implementing such a store is a major feat. And the walled garden strikes again. How about "app store as a service?"
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  They should team up for the good of all, and create a communally owned fork of Chromium that they all contribute to, and a marketplace. That way the ensure their ecosystem can thrive outside of Google's kingdom.
Element_ 7y ago
Brave has it's own ad blocking builtin.
directional 7y ago
This is an excellent opportunity for Microsoft to distinguish their Chromium-based Edge from Chrome. Leave the webRequest API intact, ensure that these adblocking extensions are available from their own store, and invite other Chromium-based browsers to use their store instead of Google's.
- nine_k 7y ago
  This would be a very funny inversion! 2004: M$ is so greedy, Google is so pro-user. 2019: Google is so greedy, MS is so pro-user.
l30n4da5 7y ago
i used opera for a while, and, while i liked it, it had a glaring bug in Windows 10 that jist didnt go away in the year or so i was using it. that being said ...opera already has their own extensions store.

mantap 7y ago

You can install extensions manually. You have to be able to because otherwise you wouldn't be able to develop new ones.

zzzcpan 7y ago

Walled gardens for extensions is also a big problem. Maybe web browsers will finally be forced to give up that control because of all this. Personally I would like at least user freedom to choose extension stores for themselves.

Proven 7y ago

I can't imagine Microsoft will follow Google and they already have a store that has a ton of ad blockers. If some sort of standardization emerges among the non-Google Chromium versions, Vivaldi users could load ad blockers from Microsoft's store.

LoSboccacc 7y ago

yeah this commitment inspires little long term confidence since the ecosystem is heavily chrome-centric I've already moved everything to Firefox to test out waters before moving all my relatives.

el_programmador 7y ago

My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to another browser like firefox/brave. And the PR repercussions will ensure that a lot of newbies will leave too (because they usually follow the power users on youtube) which will essentially kill the advertising income that they wanted in the first place?

user17843 7y ago
Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business. If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them. They may also want to get rid of paying Adblock Plus money for their highway robbery. Now that I think about it, getting rid of ABP may be the primary reason for this move. They have to basically pay a third party to get access to their own users. Either way, the battle is not over the power user minority, but over the average user. The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to disappear. Most users would probably be content with this. They will probably make it so they won't lose all of their power users. I think what they really want is increasing the amount of works it takes to have full adblocking functionality to the point where the average user has no access to it.
- chongli 7y ago
  The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to disappear. In other words, to block ads on third party networks but leave Google ads alone. That's a bold move these days, when antitrust regulators are putting big tech under the microscope.
  - user17843 7y ago

xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago

Opera does not use chrome web store: https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/ https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/

rhamzeh 7y ago
They do have their own store. However, Opera's add-on store is not a great experience. I'm not sure what's going on there, but I know of at least one company where they submitted a new extension to that store it took them around 6 months(!!!) to approve it. It was easier to self-host the add-on for people who want it, so that they can download it from your website.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

fouc 7y ago

We need a third party extensions store.

AsyncAwait 7y ago
We need companies to stop promoting the Blink monoculture and helping Google pull stuns like this as a result. These companies helping Mozilla getting Servo into shape would be a really good idea, which is why they won't do it.
U8dcN7vx 7y ago
I know of at least one, F-droid.

derefr 7y ago

Given that Firefox has now also moved to using WebExtensions, the Chromium forks could just rely on http://addons.mozilla.org http://addons.mozilla.org as their “store.”

kbrosnan 7y ago
Firefox add-ons have a different namespace and some additional APIs that Blink does not support. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Chrome_incompatibilities https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Differences_between_API_implementations https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
- jannes 7y ago
  And Firefox add-ons return promises instead of taking callbacks like Chrome.

_bxg1 7y ago

Why wouldn't the other vendors band together and make a single, non-Google chromium extensions repository? If anyone from Microsoft is reading, this would be an excellent opportunity to give Edge a leg up on Chrome.

tempguy9999 7y ago
I suppose an extension is easier but as browsers can be told to go through proxies, an extension isn't necessary for adblocking. A 2nd process on the machine, a change to the browser (set localhost and a port) and you're done. Someone did something similar and called it Dan's Guardian IIRC, but that's all it was. That's how I run mine, a local (and very ancient) version of squid blocks everything. It won't be as flexible but it works.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  That doesn't work as well for https connections where you can only block on domain name, for which any DNS/VPN-based blocking works just as well.
  - dgoldstein0 7y ago
    Usually proxying can work for https connections - by letting the proxy terminate ssl. But then you really need to trust the proxy's ssl implementation, and it probably also breaks standard security ui like viewing the cert. Definitely it has its problems.
    - Xylakant 7y ago
      The SSL implementation is the least of your problems. You’d need to have a private CA on your system that creates certificates on the fly. How do you secure that proper. You’d also have problems when reporting SSL errors between the site and the proxy to the browser because from the browsers PoV, the connection looks good.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago

superkuh 7y ago

The problem you described actually happened with Firefox and Firefox forks not too long ago. Mozilla kicked out all traditional Firefox add-ons from their repository to "replace" them (note: they didn't actually replace the vast majority) with chrome style webextensions. Firefox forks were forced to implement and run their own add-on hosting system and API, and navigate the complex legal waters of re-hosting the add-ons if they wished to continue having access. One notable example of this is the Pale Moon browser. But it all turned out all right. The PM add-on "store" works great and is reliable. It's not beyond the capabilities of efforts like Vivaldi or Brave to do the same as the Pale Moon team.

guelo 7y ago
Ironically Firefox killed their extension API to be compatible with Chrome's extensions. Now they probably don't want to be compatible with the new Chrome API.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > Ironically Firefox killed their extension API to be compatible with Chrome's extensions. This is misleading. They deprecated the old API primarily to be able to do multi-process and get rid of XUL.
  - kibwen 7y ago
    As well as to expose a stable extension API (no more XUL extensions breaking randomly on every browser update) and to enforce any sort of security boundary/permissions system.
    - metildaa 7y ago
      Note that this was done after two prior failed attempts to rewrite the CSS engine for multithread in C++: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/02/rewriting-a-browser-component-in-rust/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/02/rewriting-a-browser-compon... Its sad to lose DownThemAll and the plethora of othwr XUL extensions, but having performant multicore support is critical given the shift to having many cores (as single thread performance improvements become uncommon).

MiroF 7y ago

opera already had its own app store

pier25 7y ago

Opera blocks ads wihout the need of an extension. It's just a setting.

xaduha 7y ago
Well internally it shows as an extension, you can check yourself. Didn't use to, but does now.
- pier25 7y ago
  You are right, but my point was that the feature doesn't depend on the Chrome extensions store.

neilv 7y ago

Business-wise, I would love to own an app store, and exercise control, and (eventually) cut myself in as the middleperson on for-pay software sold through it, as well as paid placements and ads.

millisecond 7y ago

All of the other browsers shouldn’t worry about store nonsense, just ship u-block by default and enabled. Fight fire with fire.

kibwen 7y ago
The reason that no browser does this is because that's the easiest way to go from "some sites are broken in this browser because no webdevs care to test with it" to "many sites are broken in this browser because webdevs deliberately go out of their way to break it". It's the nuclear option that a browser like Firefox would only go for (in the climate of the current web) if things got truly desperate for them. It's why, for example, Firefox didn't start blocking third-party cookies until Safari did it first: it gave them political cover to do so (and Safari can do whatever it wants because it's the only game in town on iOS).

Swizec 7y ago

Isn’t one of Brave’s main selling points that it itself is an ad blocker and doesn’t require a third party extension? Something about removing ads from pages before they even make http requests.

cpeterso 7y ago

I hadn't considered the ramifications to extension distribution. If Google's Chrome extension store chooses to not host extensions that use the webRequest API, other Chromium-based browsers will need to maintain their own extension stores or users will start installing unvetted extensions from shady third-party websites.

owaislone 7y ago

Since Firefox support WebExtensions now (or will soon get it) which are very close to Chrome extensions, it wouldn't be unthinkable for all non-Chrome browsers to use Firefox store instead of the Chrome one. I think Mozilla could even be convinced to open it up as an "open web extensions" store or collaborate with others to build a new one. They certainly have the infrastructure and experience to run one.

techntoke 7y ago
Uh, Firefox already supports WebExtensions and it is like common knowledge. Mozilla barely has the experience to run a sync service, and even that is a disaster.
- nedp 7y ago
  I don't think Firefox Sync is a disaster. In fact, it's the opposite. They managed to handle the service pretty well.
  - l30n4da5 7y ago
    not originally. when sync first came out, and for a while after, it was a dumpster fire. that being said, it is load better now.
nedp 7y ago
Mozilla supports WebExtensions since 57+ afaik. Not sure about this if there are some differences in implementation and API's between Firefox's WebExt and Chrome's.
- skymt 7y ago
  MDN has a page documenting differences in API support between major WebExtension browsers: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

stcredzero 7y ago

Each browser such as Vivaldi, Brave, Opera has to implement their own app store just to host the old-API ad-blockers. And implementing such a store is a major feat. And the walled garden strikes again. How about "app store as a service?"

gremlinsinc 7y ago
They should team up for the good of all, and create a communally owned fork of Chromium that they all contribute to, and a marketplace. That way the ensure their ecosystem can thrive outside of Google's kingdom.

Element_ 7y ago

Brave has it's own ad blocking builtin.

directional 7y ago

This is an excellent opportunity for Microsoft to distinguish their Chromium-based Edge from Chrome. Leave the webRequest API intact, ensure that these adblocking extensions are available from their own store, and invite other Chromium-based browsers to use their store instead of Google's.

nine_k 7y ago
This would be a very funny inversion! 2004: M$ is so greedy, Google is so pro-user. 2019: Google is so greedy, MS is so pro-user.

l30n4da5 7y ago

i used opera for a while, and, while i liked it, it had a glaring bug in Windows 10 that jist didnt go away in the year or so i was using it. that being said ...opera already has their own extensions store.