3 ms·
They aren't solving this problem, they're killing off extensions. And I say this having received many unsolicited attempts to "purchase" Chrome extensions.
by onefuncman 6y ago
They aren't solving this problem, they're killing off extensions. And I say this having received many unsolicited attempts to "purchase" Chrome extensions.
- andrewmutz 6y agoI disagree. I think this practice could be seen as anti-developer, but it is pro-consumer.
- AmericanChopper 6y agoThe bit that improves user’s privacy is pro-consumer. The bit that removes user’s access to products is anti-consumer.
- danpalmer 6y agoIt's obviously a balance, but you could use that argument to allow any plugin on the store. It gives more choice. I think it's important to remember that while PushBullet is known to many of us, is posting on Hacker News, is a valued part of "the community" in some respect, at Google scale this fact is not know. PushBullet is obviously good to _us_, and maybe just needs to tweak permissions a little, but to a reviewer at Google it probably looks very similar to the hundreds of extensions they may review a day, many of which may contain malware. They have to use certain metrics to sort the good from the bad, and abuse of the permission system – intentional or not – is a pretty good one when you care about the end user.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Drew_ 6y agoYou can freely sideload any Chrome extension it doesn't have to be on the Chrome Web Store
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- karlicoss 6y agoI often wish for a separate browser for consumers that are also devs. I'd happily lift the permissions for some open source extensions I'm using if that means better functionality.
- hckr_news 6y agoI've noticed more recently of software products having an opt-in option for data collection