9 ms·

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence. Again, the solution in the face of this company is not to ask them to behave nicely, but to force them to open up their platforms, so that the future of software we enjoy today does not depend on the whims of Google. As an example of their behavior, I've shared my discussion [1] with Chrome Web Store reviewers when the time came for one of my projects to be taken down. You cannot expect them to respond properly and apply critical thinking, and showing even slight resistance may lead to further retaliation from their part. The extension review process at Firefox is not flawless either, but you get to talk to human beings who respond appropiately, offer sensible viewpoints, listen to your feedback, and adjust their position during reviews. [1] https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57 https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57

helpPeople 7y ago
Switching browsers is easy. I have 3 on my desktop. This is a non issue for me. But I agree with your premise, Apple has been pulling this for a decade, consumers and developers all lose.
- SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
  Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. One day ads will start being plexed with content over websockets and the DOM-level protections will be all we have. Firefox is really the only alternative here.
  - mgleason_3 7y ago
    Yup I really wish uBlock origin was available for Safari 13...
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. No, Safari content blockers can target selectors as well.
    - roar-of-time 7y ago
      Yup, the only problem is the limit on the number of filters, which many people think is way too small.
    - SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
      Oh wow, my bad. Still, I’m not a fan—I don’t trust apple to be a good judge of behavior here.
visarga 7y ago
What a horror show of a response! I would try in the future to avoid making projects that depend on that kind of feedback.
- dessant 7y ago
  Limiting our creativity and avoiding to take certain routes because Google might disapprove is horrifying. Though in this case the takedown was arbitrary, there is no defense against your project being singled out.
echelon 7y ago
Google must be forced to divest of its search business, Android business, ad business, browser business, office software, and web properties into wholly separate corporate entities. The same should happen to Apple. Both companies are anti-consumer monopolies.
- mjevans 7y ago
  How would this actually improve competition? I agree there is a problem, but in my view and opinion the solution is enforcing a regulated market that protects consumers and allows for new competition to enter even lacking scale.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Competition is means to an end, not an end goal itself. The goal is user-friendliness, and solutions improving on that are OK even if they don't improve market competitiveness.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    It would reduce conflicts of interest. For example, The Chrome Company would optimize for user experience rather than advertising profits.
    - 0xEFF 7y ago
      No, the Chrome company would go out of business.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        If it will go out of business in a functioning market, it should.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  Separate companies can still collude and cooperate for larger mutual ends... especially if they're only nominally separate.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
Can't Chromium be modified in order to use other extension sources?
- dessant 7y ago
  It can be, but then you'll be left with a modified browser that has little or no users.
  - snaky 7y ago
    It depends on amount of people willing to use it. Bromite and Ungoogled-Chromium have some userbase.
zaroth 7y ago
The top ranked comment on the page is a call to switch to Firefox. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on browsers, and we should let the market decide which extensions policy is preferred. Now, whether Google is abusing its monopoly on Search to prop up its Chrome install numbers is a different matter.
- Judgmentality 7y ago
  > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers Chrome has 2/3 of the browser market and growing. At what point does it become a monopoly? Also don't forget the vast majority of Firefox's revenue is a royalty from Google. https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/ https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/
  - zaroth 7y ago
    It becomes a monopoly when the supply of browsers is controlled by a single entity and the entry of new market participants is prevented or highly restricted. Having a large market share does not make you a monopoly if you do not control the supply and restrict or prevent new market participants. Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes, and anyone who wants to can make one, even mostly based on the same code as Chrome in fact - I fail to see how Chrome can be considered a monopoly. Even if it had 90% market share. Chrome got where it is by computer savvy users telling everyone who would listen to just install Chrome and going to every computer they helped keep running and installing Chrome on it. The exact same thing could happen for Firefox over the next 5 years if the winds really start blowing in that direction.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      > Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.
lazyguy2 7y ago
> Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. How about instead of acting as a victim and waiting for some government technocrat from the consequences of your own choices... Just stop using Google-Chrome? IT's not a monopoly when there are other good browsers you can use. In fact the only real monopolies that exist only due so in conjunction with government through some special grant of privilege.
- dessant 7y ago
  I am not a Chrome user, but my users are. Good luck with your project getting traction when you are censored from distributing it to 70% of the market. It's actually baffling how people are defending Google and saying it does not have a monopoly in the browser market. Just imagine Microsoft banning your software for arbitrary reasons from being installed on Windows, and then being told that there are still other operating systems on the market.

helpPeople 7y ago

Switching browsers is easy. I have 3 on my desktop. This is a non issue for me. But I agree with your premise, Apple has been pulling this for a decade, consumers and developers all lose.

SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. One day ads will start being plexed with content over websockets and the DOM-level protections will be all we have. Firefox is really the only alternative here.
- mgleason_3 7y ago
  Yup I really wish uBlock origin was available for Safari 13...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. No, Safari content blockers can target selectors as well.
  - roar-of-time 7y ago
    Yup, the only problem is the limit on the number of filters, which many people think is way too small.
  - SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
    Oh wow, my bad. Still, I’m not a fan—I don’t trust apple to be a good judge of behavior here.

visarga 7y ago

What a horror show of a response! I would try in the future to avoid making projects that depend on that kind of feedback.

dessant 7y ago
Limiting our creativity and avoiding to take certain routes because Google might disapprove is horrifying. Though in this case the takedown was arbitrary, there is no defense against your project being singled out.

echelon 7y ago

Google must be forced to divest of its search business, Android business, ad business, browser business, office software, and web properties into wholly separate corporate entities. The same should happen to Apple. Both companies are anti-consumer monopolies.

mjevans 7y ago
How would this actually improve competition? I agree there is a problem, but in my view and opinion the solution is enforcing a regulated market that protects consumers and allows for new competition to enter even lacking scale.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Competition is means to an end, not an end goal itself. The goal is user-friendliness, and solutions improving on that are OK even if they don't improve market competitiveness.
- anoncake 7y ago
  It would reduce conflicts of interest. For example, The Chrome Company would optimize for user experience rather than advertising profits.
  - 0xEFF 7y ago
    No, the Chrome company would go out of business.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      If it will go out of business in a functioning market, it should.
Santosh83 7y ago
Separate companies can still collude and cooperate for larger mutual ends... especially if they're only nominally separate.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

Can't Chromium be modified in order to use other extension sources?

dessant 7y ago
It can be, but then you'll be left with a modified browser that has little or no users.
- snaky 7y ago
  It depends on amount of people willing to use it. Bromite and Ungoogled-Chromium have some userbase.

zaroth 7y ago

The top ranked comment on the page is a call to switch to Firefox. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on browsers, and we should let the market decide which extensions policy is preferred. Now, whether Google is abusing its monopoly on Search to prop up its Chrome install numbers is a different matter.

Judgmentality 7y ago
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers Chrome has 2/3 of the browser market and growing. At what point does it become a monopoly? Also don't forget the vast majority of Firefox's revenue is a royalty from Google. https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/ https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/
- zaroth 7y ago
  It becomes a monopoly when the supply of browsers is controlled by a single entity and the entry of new market participants is prevented or highly restricted. Having a large market share does not make you a monopoly if you do not control the supply and restrict or prevent new market participants. Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes, and anyone who wants to can make one, even mostly based on the same code as Chrome in fact - I fail to see how Chrome can be considered a monopoly. Even if it had 90% market share. Chrome got where it is by computer savvy users telling everyone who would listen to just install Chrome and going to every computer they helped keep running and installing Chrome on it. The exact same thing could happen for Firefox over the next 5 years if the winds really start blowing in that direction.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    > Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.

lazyguy2 7y ago

> Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. How about instead of acting as a victim and waiting for some government technocrat from the consequences of your own choices... Just stop using Google-Chrome? IT's not a monopoly when there are other good browsers you can use. In fact the only real monopolies that exist only due so in conjunction with government through some special grant of privilege.

dessant 7y ago
I am not a Chrome user, but my users are. Good luck with your project getting traction when you are censored from distributing it to 70% of the market. It's actually baffling how people are defending Google and saying it does not have a monopoly in the browser market. Just imagine Microsoft banning your software for arbitrary reasons from being installed on Windows, and then being told that there are still other operating systems on the market.