> It might have been helpful for Google to have created a sample extension as a “don’t do this” example. Bizarrely, Google chose instead to illustrate the probl

> It might have been helpful for Google to have created a sample extension as a “don’t do this” example. Bizarrely, Google chose instead to illustrate the problem using an infamous gag screenshot of the seven-year-old Internet Explorer 7 stuffed to the limit with toolbars and add-on panes. It's not bizarre. If you read the original blog post, the IE screenshot is there to illustrate the motivation behind Chrome's longstanding goal of making addons/extensions unobtrusive: "The name "Chrome" came from this principle as we wanted the browser to be about "content, not chrome." " > Google won't allow third-party developers to build toolbars for Chrome, but the company still makes its own toolbar for Internet Explorer and distributes that toolbar widely. As do Bing and Yahoo. Since IE has not put the same emphasis on minimizing chrome in their browser, and since all major search engines distribute toolbars for it, it is not hypocritical to follow the local conventions and distribute a toolbar for IE like everyone else does. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. > The real reason for the new policy might have less to do with user interface guidelines and more with Google's attempt to shut down extensions that intrude on its advertising fiefdown. Or it could have to do with the fact that an extension that unexpectedly starts injecting ads into all of your web pages is extremely annoying, and (worse) is hard to attribute to the unrelated extension you installed. The article itself shows an example of one star reviews from unhappy users. > In other words, images on the pages you visit, be they ads or content, can be replaced with ads from the Superfish network. Yep, sounds pretty seriously annoying, doesn't it? What sane person would install extensions if this behavior became commonplace? There is a lot of aspersion-casting here, but no mention of any innocent actor who is hurt by this. This seems like a pretty common-sense move that benefits users. And yet the article and some of the comments here are hostile. Google has become the company that people love to hate.