6 ms·

How about simply not supporting chrome. I believe some responsibility for this lies with us developers. It was developers who made extensions for chrome. We as

How about simply not supporting chrome. I believe some responsibility for this lies with us developers. It was developers who made extensions for chrome. We as technologists recommended chrome to our friends and families. Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. Maybe it is time that extension authors abandon ship, and we recommend alternative browsers? To those who argue that chrome is faster and therefore you prefer using it. You should ask yourself, what is more important to you, to see a website a few ms faster or preventing Google to to dictate how the Internet of the future works (apart from the fact that in my experience browser's are so close in performance, that I don't think anyone can consistently pick which browser their on).

throwaway09223 4y ago
I remember switching to Chrome because it was faster. I switched back to Firefox a few years ago. Firefox has improved a lot and the overall experience is just far better. One of the nicest small things is that I've got the full URL back in the URL bar, including http/https!
- colordrops 4y ago
  Yes, Firefox is no longer second tier. This is a relatively recent development, and anyone who avoided it for performance reasons should try it again. It's fast, and doesn't have any rendering issues.
tedivm 4y ago
I've been switching my family over to Firefox with UBlock Origin. I made the switch when these original changes were announced, and it's been a great experience. I run into maybe one website a month where I have trouble.
ameshkov 4y ago
This sort of boycotting will only work when widely supported by both developers and users and this is not the case. Despite all the public outcry and news outlets telling that the end is near, it didn't affect the Chrome's share. > Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. I kind of disagree with this. Google Chrome's current popularity stands on two things: 1. It is a great browser and it does its job very well. 2. Google in the first years was very active with its distribution. And this is not only about the link on their homepage. I remember how 10 years ago every piece of software you were trying to install was bringing Chrome alongside. Engineers recommending Chrome to their friends and relatives shouldn't be discounted, but I tend to think that it's less important that the two other points above.
- Fatnino 4y ago
  If suddenly there was no ad blocking available on Chrome cold turkey we would see nearly all users who are accustomed to an ad free experience go looking for a new browser. Coordinate this with a marketing blitz from Firefox and essentially you can take nearly all the Chrome ad block users and turn them into Firefox users. And from there it's word of mouth even from the non-techies. Good ad blocking is an essential part of a browser. Even Google who is actively slow boiling the frog knows they can't just hard cut it off because the users will jump ship immediately. Why should we let Google get away with this? I feel the right move is to proactively take steps that make Chrome very obviously noncompetitive. By not providing ad blocking at all or at least making it a much inferior experience. It needs to be obvious to the users, not just to tech folks.
  - Bedon292 4y ago
    What is the market share of Chrome users who use ad blocking though? I don't know if its large enough to make a dent in the overall market share. And even then not sure everyone who has one installed would jump. I have it in my mom's browser but if it stopped working tomorrow she wouldn't know enough to make any changes.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      It won't tip the balance but it is a significant percentage of active users. I want to say greater than 15 percent but I can't remember where I saw that. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what percentage of all users, just what percentage of techie word-of-mouth types use ad blockers. And that is a very significant percentage. Maybe your mom can't change it herself but come Thanksgiving she's going to complain about it to you and you are going to fix it so she has an ad free experience again.
      - gxnxcxcx 4y ago
        I agree. And a very small percentage of Chrome users turned Firefox users could still mean a significant increase in Firefox usage, which in an ideal world would allow Mozilla a much needed breather from their metrics-driven efforts to stop bleeding users.
ghoward 4y ago
I think you are right. It's not worth it. I just switched to Firefox. I'm typing this on Firefox. I used to use Ungoogled Chromium.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  Welcome! :)
HWR_14 4y ago
> to those who argue that chrome is faster and therefore you prefer using it Those comparisons never take into account the runtime costs of ads. Yay, code runs 10% faster. It runs 3x as much code and has to wait on a dozen ad servers, but yay!
Larrikin 4y ago
Not recommending Chrome is the way to go. There was a time where developers only tested against IE, built features on top of IE, and there didn't seem any way to defeat the garbage associated with IE. But people recommended Firefox anyway for most browsing since it was a better experience on the open web. Eventually it up ended the dominance by giving a better browsing experience except when forced to use IE through bad code, which eventually forced more developers to improve the experience outside of IE. I personally never stopped using Firefox for Chrome, since there was always some extension that just didn't work quite as well on Firefox for the longest time. I've always found it worked it well. A popular opinion of a vocal contingent of users on this site always say that Chrome is so fast, without any benchmarks other than their personal feelings for the most part. If Google is going to be openly hostile to extensions like UBlock working as intended I really wonder if they would feel Chrome is much faster if the developers of such extensions stopped looking for work arounds in an actively hostile environment and simply let them experience the garbage that is the current state of the web. They've already shown their hand as being a terrible steward of the web by blocking extensions like AdNauseum that try to destroy all the tracking and privacy violations they've created. I personally believe all the people who don't have their jobs tied to creating ad garbage would do another exodus. Although I'm sure a vocal minority would create noise on sites like this since their jobs are tied to making the world a worse place.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  This. While I appreciate the work AdBlock does, supporting MV3 is ludicrous. If no ad block extension supported it, it would be dead on arrival - with Chrome too (if Google tried to force it). Just let it be, fire up your Firefox and browse freely.
  - dcormier 4y ago
    > While I appreciate the work AdBlock does, supporting MV3 is ludicrous. If no ad block extension supported it, it would be dead on arrival Only to people like us. The amount of tech-savvy people I see not using an ad blocker is surprising. As a user of an ad blocker, I definitely feel like I’m in a small minority in the real world.
staticassertion 4y ago
I use Chrome because it's faster, safer, more stable. I don't believe V3 in any way is a serious issue for the internet in any meaningful sense either.
- callalex 4y ago
  It is objectively less safe to use the web without an ad blocker.
  - tssva 4y ago
    Then it is a good thing that MV3 doesn't prevent ad blockers as demonstrated by AdGuard having made one.
    - zelphirkalt 4y ago
      Unless Google really wants you to see that specific category of ads.
    - bornfreddy 4y ago
      > as demonstrated by AdGuard having made a crippled one. Fixed that for you.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      It doesn't really matter though. What matters is uBlock Origin and whatever gorhill says. Either uBlock Origin works at its full potential or the browser vendor is deliberately crippling ad blocking.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Did you read the entry on HN recently, where it is discussed, that Chromium-based browsers allow websites to set your clipboard content, without user action being involved at all? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32614037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32614037) Just one example of how it is not safer, that I thought I should mention, on the background of such a blanket statement as "Chrome is safer" : )
zelphirkalt 4y ago
One problem is of course, that Google managed to convince many fanboys, that it is a highly progressive modern and technologically superb company, that spits out revolutionary tech every month and only the developers of highest skill could work there, so all that comes out of Google must be naturally superior to any competition. If Google says, that they value speed of their browser as the main attribute, that mindset if adopted by the fanboys. If Google says you don't need more powerful ad blocking, then that idea is adopted by the fanboys. Google says it, so it cannot be wrong. Anyone saying something different is just being jealous, that they are not as good a developer to work at Google. Google! Oh please! Tell us what to think! This kind of thinking also proliferates into non-developer communities and people, who look at it from the financial success side of things. Google, one of the biggest tech companies evaaar! Surely they must be doing something right! This developer friend, what do they know, compared to the knowledge of Google employees?! Better listen to Google. Google has managed to twist the minds of many, who are too open for authority arguments and developers are no exception to that. As long as we still in some way think, that Google has our wellbeing at heart, I think things will not change. However, I support not supporting Chormium-based browsers any longer. People only learn the hard way, which is, when they have to fight through jungle of ads to use even the simplest websites. Some learn not even then.
- bambax 4y ago
  Very few fan boys can survive a day of web surfing with no adblock.
  - kroltan 4y ago
    Yes they can, because then they not will not be "annoying ads" anymore, they become "relevant recommendations" as a coping mechanism.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today No doubt it would. Google essentially advertised Chrome at the very top of the search results page. No amount of personal boycotting is ever going to win against that.

throwaway09223 4y ago

I remember switching to Chrome because it was faster. I switched back to Firefox a few years ago. Firefox has improved a lot and the overall experience is just far better. One of the nicest small things is that I've got the full URL back in the URL bar, including http/https!

colordrops 4y ago
Yes, Firefox is no longer second tier. This is a relatively recent development, and anyone who avoided it for performance reasons should try it again. It's fast, and doesn't have any rendering issues.

tedivm 4y ago

I've been switching my family over to Firefox with UBlock Origin. I made the switch when these original changes were announced, and it's been a great experience. I run into maybe one website a month where I have trouble.

ameshkov 4y ago

This sort of boycotting will only work when widely supported by both developers and users and this is not the case. Despite all the public outcry and news outlets telling that the end is near, it didn't affect the Chrome's share. > Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. I kind of disagree with this. Google Chrome's current popularity stands on two things: 1. It is a great browser and it does its job very well. 2. Google in the first years was very active with its distribution. And this is not only about the link on their homepage. I remember how 10 years ago every piece of software you were trying to install was bringing Chrome alongside. Engineers recommending Chrome to their friends and relatives shouldn't be discounted, but I tend to think that it's less important that the two other points above.

Fatnino 4y ago
If suddenly there was no ad blocking available on Chrome cold turkey we would see nearly all users who are accustomed to an ad free experience go looking for a new browser. Coordinate this with a marketing blitz from Firefox and essentially you can take nearly all the Chrome ad block users and turn them into Firefox users. And from there it's word of mouth even from the non-techies. Good ad blocking is an essential part of a browser. Even Google who is actively slow boiling the frog knows they can't just hard cut it off because the users will jump ship immediately. Why should we let Google get away with this? I feel the right move is to proactively take steps that make Chrome very obviously noncompetitive. By not providing ad blocking at all or at least making it a much inferior experience. It needs to be obvious to the users, not just to tech folks.
- Bedon292 4y ago
  What is the market share of Chrome users who use ad blocking though? I don't know if its large enough to make a dent in the overall market share. And even then not sure everyone who has one installed would jump. I have it in my mom's browser but if it stopped working tomorrow she wouldn't know enough to make any changes.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    It won't tip the balance but it is a significant percentage of active users. I want to say greater than 15 percent but I can't remember where I saw that. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what percentage of all users, just what percentage of techie word-of-mouth types use ad blockers. And that is a very significant percentage. Maybe your mom can't change it herself but come Thanksgiving she's going to complain about it to you and you are going to fix it so she has an ad free experience again.
    - gxnxcxcx 4y ago
      I agree. And a very small percentage of Chrome users turned Firefox users could still mean a significant increase in Firefox usage, which in an ideal world would allow Mozilla a much needed breather from their metrics-driven efforts to stop bleeding users.

ghoward 4y ago

I think you are right. It's not worth it. I just switched to Firefox. I'm typing this on Firefox. I used to use Ungoogled Chromium.

bornfreddy 4y ago
Welcome! :)

HWR_14 4y ago

> to those who argue that chrome is faster and therefore you prefer using it Those comparisons never take into account the runtime costs of ads. Yay, code runs 10% faster. It runs 3x as much code and has to wait on a dozen ad servers, but yay!

Larrikin 4y ago

Not recommending Chrome is the way to go. There was a time where developers only tested against IE, built features on top of IE, and there didn't seem any way to defeat the garbage associated with IE. But people recommended Firefox anyway for most browsing since it was a better experience on the open web. Eventually it up ended the dominance by giving a better browsing experience except when forced to use IE through bad code, which eventually forced more developers to improve the experience outside of IE. I personally never stopped using Firefox for Chrome, since there was always some extension that just didn't work quite as well on Firefox for the longest time. I've always found it worked it well. A popular opinion of a vocal contingent of users on this site always say that Chrome is so fast, without any benchmarks other than their personal feelings for the most part. If Google is going to be openly hostile to extensions like UBlock working as intended I really wonder if they would feel Chrome is much faster if the developers of such extensions stopped looking for work arounds in an actively hostile environment and simply let them experience the garbage that is the current state of the web. They've already shown their hand as being a terrible steward of the web by blocking extensions like AdNauseum that try to destroy all the tracking and privacy violations they've created. I personally believe all the people who don't have their jobs tied to creating ad garbage would do another exodus. Although I'm sure a vocal minority would create noise on sites like this since their jobs are tied to making the world a worse place.

bornfreddy 4y ago
This. While I appreciate the work AdBlock does, supporting MV3 is ludicrous. If no ad block extension supported it, it would be dead on arrival - with Chrome too (if Google tried to force it). Just let it be, fire up your Firefox and browse freely.
- dcormier 4y ago
  > While I appreciate the work AdBlock does, supporting MV3 is ludicrous. If no ad block extension supported it, it would be dead on arrival Only to people like us. The amount of tech-savvy people I see not using an ad blocker is surprising. As a user of an ad blocker, I definitely feel like I’m in a small minority in the real world.

staticassertion 4y ago

I use Chrome because it's faster, safer, more stable. I don't believe V3 in any way is a serious issue for the internet in any meaningful sense either.

callalex 4y ago
It is objectively less safe to use the web without an ad blocker.
- tssva 4y ago
  Then it is a good thing that MV3 doesn't prevent ad blockers as demonstrated by AdGuard having made one.
  - zelphirkalt 4y ago
    Unless Google really wants you to see that specific category of ads.
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    > as demonstrated by AdGuard having made a crippled one. Fixed that for you.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    It doesn't really matter though. What matters is uBlock Origin and whatever gorhill says. Either uBlock Origin works at its full potential or the browser vendor is deliberately crippling ad blocking.
zelphirkalt 4y ago
Did you read the entry on HN recently, where it is discussed, that Chromium-based browsers allow websites to set your clipboard content, without user action being involved at all? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32614037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32614037) Just one example of how it is not safer, that I thought I should mention, on the background of such a blanket statement as "Chrome is safer" : )

zelphirkalt 4y ago

One problem is of course, that Google managed to convince many fanboys, that it is a highly progressive modern and technologically superb company, that spits out revolutionary tech every month and only the developers of highest skill could work there, so all that comes out of Google must be naturally superior to any competition. If Google says, that they value speed of their browser as the main attribute, that mindset if adopted by the fanboys. If Google says you don't need more powerful ad blocking, then that idea is adopted by the fanboys. Google says it, so it cannot be wrong. Anyone saying something different is just being jealous, that they are not as good a developer to work at Google. Google! Oh please! Tell us what to think! This kind of thinking also proliferates into non-developer communities and people, who look at it from the financial success side of things. Google, one of the biggest tech companies evaaar! Surely they must be doing something right! This developer friend, what do they know, compared to the knowledge of Google employees?! Better listen to Google. Google has managed to twist the minds of many, who are too open for authority arguments and developers are no exception to that. As long as we still in some way think, that Google has our wellbeing at heart, I think things will not change. However, I support not supporting Chormium-based browsers any longer. People only learn the hard way, which is, when they have to fight through jungle of ads to use even the simplest websites. Some learn not even then.

bambax 4y ago
Very few fan boys can survive a day of web surfing with no adblock.
- kroltan 4y ago
  Yes they can, because then they not will not be "annoying ads" anymore, they become "relevant recommendations" as a coping mechanism.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today No doubt it would. Google essentially advertised Chrome at the very top of the search results page. No amount of personal boycotting is ever going to win against that.