5 ms·

I think you underestimate the value of controlling the platform that you base all your revenue from. Chrome controls the internet and android has a huge market

I think you underestimate the value of controlling the platform that you base all your revenue from. Chrome controls the internet and android has a huge market share on mobile. The latest changes to chrome that breaks plugins like ublock origin allows them to keep maximising their advertising revenue. I think these two being open source is a major reason why they have been so successfully adopted. It isn’t direct revenue, but the control and indirect revenue that comes from that which is the driver

IX-103 2y ago
People keep bringing up Manifest v3 like it's some evil plot to show people ads. Nevermind that Chrome already ships with its own adblocker which blocks bad ads. The fact is that with the Spectre mitigations added to Chrome, the performance of networking with manifest v2 was bad. Having to keep sending every network request through 3 different processes just in case there is a plugin (uses by the minority of users) that wants to filter the requests before they are made. Of course, blocking resource fetches like that could have easily been detected by any server that cares about it, and the interaction with service workers was...weird. With manifest v3 you can still block ads. You can remove them from the DOM, you can make them invisible, you can replace them. You just can't programmatically decide which resources to filter - only a declarative model for resource filtering is supported.
- ledauphin 2y ago
  it's at the very least an evil plot to stop users (and extension authors) from _making their own decisions_ about the efficiency trade-off. which is really just absurd when you think about it. I don't care about another hour of battery life, but even if I did, I'd be perfectly happy if Chrome just told me "hey these extensions aren't very battery-efficient!" and I got to make my own decision about that.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >I don't care about another hour of battery life If you're stuck having to run a ton of shitty JS code with ad malware in it, because your web browser doesn't allow you to effectively block it, that's probably going to cost you more in battery life than the overhead needed by MV2 to block that stuff.
  - mvkel 2y ago
    This just sounds like Hobson's choice. There's only one right answer, and Google is making it on behalf of the user. Fine.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Chrome already ships with its own adblocker which blocks bad ads. No it doesn't, because I define all ads as bad, so Chrome's ad "blocker" is does not even remotely meet my needs. > You just can't programmatically decide which resources to filter That "just" is doing a ton of work there. Declarative ad blockers aren't terrible, but they're not great either. And I don't want my browser fetching ads (which could also be malware) at all. Downloading them and then hiding them is insufficient.
- rockskon 2y ago
  Bad ads? No, that is horseshit. The goal of blocking ads isn't to only allow in "good ads". It's to block ads. Not some ads. Not a few ads. Not just malware delivered via ads. Not just Google's competitors. It's to block ads. All of them. To stop the relentless harassment of the advertising industry claiming other peoples' screens and time as their own.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    At least be intellectually honest here Ads might suck a lot, but you are also not entitled to free content.
    - mission_failed 2y ago
      Ads force you to pay for some thing Actually no, it's worse. Ad companies take everything they can from you using any method they can including monitoring everything you browse or watch on TV or say near your phone or TV or in your car or what you look at in every shop or what you buy or who you chat to, compile massive secret databases and sell 'you' to anyone willing to pay, regardless of what the information is used for.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        I mean, every other business I am aware of forces you to pay for something too? I don't see what is confusing here. Consumers love the ad-model because they can get things "free". If the real cost of ad-supported products is too much for you, then its too expensive for you to use. Like someone found the backdoor to the movie theater, and people just go in that way rather than pay for a ticket, and then these same people go on rants about how movie tickets are a rip-off and they make you watch 30 mins of ads before the movie, and candy is 5x overpriced, and proudly declaring "I will never pay for a movie ticket again!", as if they are some righteous moral champion standing against the greed of people wanting to get paid for their work. Straighten out your head, then come back and make an argument.
        2y ago
- lupusreal 2y ago
  All ads are psychological warfare being waged by corporations against the public. They ruthlessly exploit human psychology to sell product.
  - andriesm 2y ago
    People are mindless pawns? People are not free to say no thanks, ignore or tune out? That's what I do my entire life. And I actually appreciate and value highly targeted marketing messages that show me things I'm interested in and WANT to buy. Really good targeted marketing is a win-win, it helps consumers find stuff they want and it helps the companies generate profits. (which in turns pays salaries to employees) I don't have a solution for weakminded and vulnerable people, but perhaps such people should be under parental supervision.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Your ability to say no to an ad does not in any way negate the point that ads are psychologically abusive. Why are you so keen to simp for the interests of corporations anyway? The ads have effected you more than you admit.
hzia 2y ago
I think you are drastically overestimating the revenue gain from ad blockers But I agree that default search with being Google must have heavily blocked competition. Comparing how much they pay Mozilla and Apple to maintain search, it would be reasonable to estimate Chrome’s implementation to save them $1b a year But I highly doubt they make any back given > 1k people work on it
- thayne 2y ago
  Possibly a greater benefit to Google is the influence it gives them over web standards. For example, if google didn't control the most popular browser, they probably would have had to say goodbye to third party cookies a long time ago, but since they do they've been able to delay it for quite a while, at least for a considerable portion of users.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    Google is the group pushing hardest for the removal of third party cookies; they don't need them because they get your data from other sources. It's everyone else who wants to keep them around.
    - thayne 2y ago
      Firefox and Safari have disabled third party cookies years ago, but chromium based browsers still have them on. And then look at Google's "privacy sandbox proposals, that aim to replace third party cookie functionality. They have largely been rejected by Mozilla and Apple, over privacy concerns.
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        Firefox still accepts 3rd party cookies by default. They've made some moves to reduce reliance on them. Sadly privacy zealous prefer the perfect over the good, so won't get either.
- Kbelicius 2y ago
shiroiushi 2y ago
>android has a huge market share on mobile. Not in the US they don't; it's a minority share, split across many different manufacturers who all have their own flavor of Android, their own (crappy) app stores and pre-loaded crapware apps, etc. Apple has a clear majority of the US smartphone market (and it's a vertical monopoly, with Apple controlling the phone hardware and the app store and not allowing any alternatives), but no one's looking at breaking them up. >I think these two being open source is a major reason why they have been so successfully adopted. iOS isn't open-source, and it has a commanding majority of the US smartphone market.
- sciurus 2y ago
  If these measurements are correct, iOS has about 11% more of the US market share than Android. This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-share/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-s...
  - hzia 2y ago
    Majority of revenue base lives on iOS globally (due to being a monopoly in the US) That's why Apple has higher profits than all other mobile operators combined!
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      I thought the higher revenue was because Apple charges more for everything, and the people who buy Apple products are also more likely to purchase other things, driving product for app store etc. (based on some study I saw many years back that is probably out of date by now)
    - briandear 2y ago
      iOS isn’t a monopoly.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more.' This case is about US antitrust law, so what happens outside US borders isn't really that important, except as far as it affects the companies' revenues and profits. Supposedly, the actions of any antitrust action are to protect consumers/the general public, but what that really means is consumers in the US. Consumers outside the US are irrelevant. And the simple fact is that, by your own numbers, consumers in the US are mostly using iOS, not Android.
lolinder 2y ago
What you're describing is why Google is willing to sink money into Chrome, and you're right. But that doesn't mean that Chrome can become a viable independent company. Chrome synergizes with the rest of Google's portfolio.

IX-103 2y ago

People keep bringing up Manifest v3 like it's some evil plot to show people ads. Nevermind that Chrome already ships with its own adblocker which blocks bad ads. The fact is that with the Spectre mitigations added to Chrome, the performance of networking with manifest v2 was bad. Having to keep sending every network request through 3 different processes just in case there is a plugin (uses by the minority of users) that wants to filter the requests before they are made. Of course, blocking resource fetches like that could have easily been detected by any server that cares about it, and the interaction with service workers was...weird. With manifest v3 you can still block ads. You can remove them from the DOM, you can make them invisible, you can replace them. You just can't programmatically decide which resources to filter - only a declarative model for resource filtering is supported.

ledauphin 2y ago
it's at the very least an evil plot to stop users (and extension authors) from _making their own decisions_ about the efficiency trade-off. which is really just absurd when you think about it. I don't care about another hour of battery life, but even if I did, I'd be perfectly happy if Chrome just told me "hey these extensions aren't very battery-efficient!" and I got to make my own decision about that.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >I don't care about another hour of battery life If you're stuck having to run a ton of shitty JS code with ad malware in it, because your web browser doesn't allow you to effectively block it, that's probably going to cost you more in battery life than the overhead needed by MV2 to block that stuff.
- mvkel 2y ago
  This just sounds like Hobson's choice. There's only one right answer, and Google is making it on behalf of the user. Fine.
kelnos 2y ago
> Chrome already ships with its own adblocker which blocks bad ads. No it doesn't, because I define all ads as bad, so Chrome's ad "blocker" is does not even remotely meet my needs. > You just can't programmatically decide which resources to filter That "just" is doing a ton of work there. Declarative ad blockers aren't terrible, but they're not great either. And I don't want my browser fetching ads (which could also be malware) at all. Downloading them and then hiding them is insufficient.
rockskon 2y ago
Bad ads? No, that is horseshit. The goal of blocking ads isn't to only allow in "good ads". It's to block ads. Not some ads. Not a few ads. Not just malware delivered via ads. Not just Google's competitors. It's to block ads. All of them. To stop the relentless harassment of the advertising industry claiming other peoples' screens and time as their own.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  At least be intellectually honest here Ads might suck a lot, but you are also not entitled to free content.
  - mission_failed 2y ago
    Ads force you to pay for some thing Actually no, it's worse. Ad companies take everything they can from you using any method they can including monitoring everything you browse or watch on TV or say near your phone or TV or in your car or what you look at in every shop or what you buy or who you chat to, compile massive secret databases and sell 'you' to anyone willing to pay, regardless of what the information is used for.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      I mean, every other business I am aware of forces you to pay for something too? I don't see what is confusing here. Consumers love the ad-model because they can get things "free". If the real cost of ad-supported products is too much for you, then its too expensive for you to use. Like someone found the backdoor to the movie theater, and people just go in that way rather than pay for a ticket, and then these same people go on rants about how movie tickets are a rip-off and they make you watch 30 mins of ads before the movie, and candy is 5x overpriced, and proudly declaring "I will never pay for a movie ticket again!", as if they are some righteous moral champion standing against the greed of people wanting to get paid for their work. Straighten out your head, then come back and make an argument.
      - 2y ago
lupusreal 2y ago
All ads are psychological warfare being waged by corporations against the public. They ruthlessly exploit human psychology to sell product.
- andriesm 2y ago
  People are mindless pawns? People are not free to say no thanks, ignore or tune out? That's what I do my entire life. And I actually appreciate and value highly targeted marketing messages that show me things I'm interested in and WANT to buy. Really good targeted marketing is a win-win, it helps consumers find stuff they want and it helps the companies generate profits. (which in turns pays salaries to employees) I don't have a solution for weakminded and vulnerable people, but perhaps such people should be under parental supervision.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Your ability to say no to an ad does not in any way negate the point that ads are psychologically abusive. Why are you so keen to simp for the interests of corporations anyway? The ads have effected you more than you admit.

hzia 2y ago

I think you are drastically overestimating the revenue gain from ad blockers But I agree that default search with being Google must have heavily blocked competition. Comparing how much they pay Mozilla and Apple to maintain search, it would be reasonable to estimate Chrome’s implementation to save them $1b a year But I highly doubt they make any back given > 1k people work on it

thayne 2y ago
Possibly a greater benefit to Google is the influence it gives them over web standards. For example, if google didn't control the most popular browser, they probably would have had to say goodbye to third party cookies a long time ago, but since they do they've been able to delay it for quite a while, at least for a considerable portion of users.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Google is the group pushing hardest for the removal of third party cookies; they don't need them because they get your data from other sources. It's everyone else who wants to keep them around.
  - thayne 2y ago
    Firefox and Safari have disabled third party cookies years ago, but chromium based browsers still have them on. And then look at Google's "privacy sandbox proposals, that aim to replace third party cookie functionality. They have largely been rejected by Mozilla and Apple, over privacy concerns.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Firefox still accepts 3rd party cookies by default. They've made some moves to reduce reliance on them. Sadly privacy zealous prefer the perfect over the good, so won't get either.
Kbelicius 2y ago

shiroiushi 2y ago

>android has a huge market share on mobile. Not in the US they don't; it's a minority share, split across many different manufacturers who all have their own flavor of Android, their own (crappy) app stores and pre-loaded crapware apps, etc. Apple has a clear majority of the US smartphone market (and it's a vertical monopoly, with Apple controlling the phone hardware and the app store and not allowing any alternatives), but no one's looking at breaking them up. >I think these two being open source is a major reason why they have been so successfully adopted. iOS isn't open-source, and it has a commanding majority of the US smartphone market.

sciurus 2y ago
If these measurements are correct, iOS has about 11% more of the US market share than Android. This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-share/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-s...
- hzia 2y ago
  Majority of revenue base lives on iOS globally (due to being a monopoly in the US) That's why Apple has higher profits than all other mobile operators combined!
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    I thought the higher revenue was because Apple charges more for everything, and the people who buy Apple products are also more likely to purchase other things, driving product for app store etc. (based on some study I saw many years back that is probably out of date by now)
  - briandear 2y ago
    iOS isn’t a monopoly.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more.' This case is about US antitrust law, so what happens outside US borders isn't really that important, except as far as it affects the companies' revenues and profits. Supposedly, the actions of any antitrust action are to protect consumers/the general public, but what that really means is consumers in the US. Consumers outside the US are irrelevant. And the simple fact is that, by your own numbers, consumers in the US are mostly using iOS, not Android.

lolinder 2y ago

What you're describing is why Google is willing to sink money into Chrome, and you're right. But that doesn't mean that Chrome can become a viable independent company. Chrome synergizes with the rest of Google's portfolio.