7 ms·

You're confusing two things: laxness <--> strictness scale carefulness/competence <--> carelessness / incompetence scale Google tries to do this with aut

You're confusing two things: laxness <--> strictness scale carefulness/competence <--> carelessness / incompetence scale Google tries to do this with automated processes and minimum wage drones, which results in both million dollar extensions being bump AND widespread malware being let through.

thephyber 6y ago
> Google tries to do this with automated processes and minimum wage drones Do you have an alternative suggestion for how they could do it better?
- ncallaway 6y ago
  Yes, but it involves spending more money.
  - x0x0 6y ago
    Not necessarily? Eg you could sell developer support at $10k/annum with a 3h SLA for escalation to a senior eng. Serious companies with business that rely on chrome plugins would purchase in a second.
- miohtama 6y ago
  $1000 yearly subscription for the store membership for human curated content.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Apple can do it for $99 a year (plus thirty percent of course). Their system is by no means perfect, but there absolutely is less bullshit malware on their market vs google chrome.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      I think the parent meant that the Chrome user would pay $1k/year for human-curated extensions.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        This is kind of strange thought isn't it? At that rate even if people were inclined to pay its affordable to what 10% of the US or a fraction of 1% of the world. Why would it even cost that much? You could literally use the actual chrome store for curation and make a white list of the top 100 extensions that aren't skeevy or run by skeevy people and pull in updates periodically after checking that it hadn't become obvious malware or been sold. If you imagine that such a list would consume meager resources per person using it a million people paying 1 dollar would probably pay more than it would cost to run it. It would be easier to convince a million people to pay a dollar than it would be to convince anyone to pay a thousand per year for chrome extensions while they are using computers and OS which cost them less combined.

thephyber 6y ago

> Google tries to do this with automated processes and minimum wage drones Do you have an alternative suggestion for how they could do it better?

ncallaway 6y ago
Yes, but it involves spending more money.
- x0x0 6y ago
  Not necessarily? Eg you could sell developer support at $10k/annum with a 3h SLA for escalation to a senior eng. Serious companies with business that rely on chrome plugins would purchase in a second.
miohtama 6y ago
$1000 yearly subscription for the store membership for human curated content.
- xnyan 6y ago
  Apple can do it for $99 a year (plus thirty percent of course). Their system is by no means perfect, but there absolutely is less bullshit malware on their market vs google chrome.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I think the parent meant that the Chrome user would pay $1k/year for human-curated extensions.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      This is kind of strange thought isn't it? At that rate even if people were inclined to pay its affordable to what 10% of the US or a fraction of 1% of the world. Why would it even cost that much? You could literally use the actual chrome store for curation and make a white list of the top 100 extensions that aren't skeevy or run by skeevy people and pull in updates periodically after checking that it hadn't become obvious malware or been sold. If you imagine that such a list would consume meager resources per person using it a million people paying 1 dollar would probably pay more than it would cost to run it. It would be easier to convince a million people to pay a dollar than it would be to convince anyone to pay a thousand per year for chrome extensions while they are using computers and OS which cost them less combined.