Google announces ban on "multi-purpose" Chrome extensions

http://www.zdnet.com/google-announces-ban-on-multi-purpose-chrome-extensions-7000024566/

by cpeterso • 13 years ago

45 51 13 years ago

I am a satisfied Firefox user. Google just has too much power these days.

evan_• 13 years ago

It should be noted that this is just for the official extension listing, you can install any extension you want manually.

thelibrarian• 13 years ago

Only on Linux and Mac though. Windows users can no longer manually install extensions, "for their protection".

salient3• 13 years ago

Not anymore:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57611380-93/google-to-ban-e...

I agree with others - there's a trend here.

gergles• 13 years ago

This is why I started using Chromium instead of Chrome -- Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store (it's impossible to install extensions not hosted by Google, if you're running on Windows because "think of the users!"[1]) and if your extension doesn't get along with any of their policies (i.e. the extensions listed here), then Chrome users can't use it at all. Super-awesome, Google.

Chromium doesn't (at the moment) have these restrictions.

[1]: The post with this fucking Newspeak title: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...

zobzu• 13 years ago

I'm just using Firefox instead. Because the browser is just as good, and seems to genuinely push for http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

k-mcgrady2• 13 years ago

> "Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store"

Huh? Seems free for me to use. What specifically do you have to pay for?

tokenizerrr2• 13 years ago

I think he means for developers. There's no way to distribute extensions for free now, where before they could be self-hosted.

akurtzhs• 13 years ago

It costs $5 to get a developer account for the Chrome Web Store.

Cheap compared to an iOS developer account, but still...

matchu2• 13 years ago

If it's important that your extension not be hosted on the Web Store, Windows users can still install it as an unpacked extension and perform updates manually. But it's definitely designed to be much more of a pain.

cpleppert• 13 years ago

EDIT:Apparently this doesn't work on windows at all. Wow

The process is much more difficult(you have to actually drag it onto the extension page or open the downloaded file) and unlike in safari it won't automatically update so you need to design your own update system. You also lose the permissions systems when you do that.

guiambros• 13 years ago

As part of our continuing security efforts, we’re announcing a stronger measure to protect Windows users: starting in January on the Windows stable and beta channels, we’ll require all extensions to be hosted in the Chrome Web Store. We’ll continue to support local extension installs during development as well as installs via Enterprise policy, and Chrome Apps will also continue to be supported normally. [1]

My understanding is that you won't be able to sideload extensions locally anymore, unless you're using the dev channel.

Yes, this sucks big time.

[1] http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...

manicbovine• 13 years ago

You seem to care about this a lot more, and I'm honestly ignorant about these issues. But I'd just add that nearly every casual computer user is running some unwanted extension, toolbar, DNS hijacker, or worse. For whatever reason, it seems like this shit software ends up on a lot of computers through extensions

Wouldn't Google's decision this help to eliminate that problem?

fhd2• 13 years ago

I'm increasingly getting the impression that Google would just love extensions to disappear altogether. They probably just added them to get Firefox power users, now that Chrome is king and they're pushing it like crapware (large scale bundling), they probably don't care anymore.

lukifer• 13 years ago

They're walking a fine line, though, because Chrome extensions are the cousins of ChromeOS apps, which is an ecosystem they obviously want to promote.

While I've never released any of them, the extensions I've built on on the Chrome API have been a sheer pleasure, if somewhat limited in capability compared to Firefox plugins.

emilv• 13 years ago

Maybe they should just stop pay for Firefox development if they don't like Firefox. Google pays huge amounts of money to Mozilla.

tyw• 13 years ago

that's a little bit disingenuous. google pays huge amounts of money to Mozilla to be the default search engine because of the huge amounts of money Mozilla users make google by using google services on a daily basis. it's not like they're propping up a competitor just for the hell of it (or even to avoid anti-trust issues).

salient3• 13 years ago

Well I can think of at least one extension that they'd love to make disappear for good.

vezzy-fnord• 13 years ago

Keep it simple, stupid. If you know what's good for you.

AKA: the Unix philosophy by racket.

serge2k• 13 years ago

have you seen firefox/chrome/any modern web browser?

I just wonder how long until google infects android with this BS.

Sorry, sorry, android is 100% free I forgot. How long until they infect play services with this.

iPhones are looking nicer.

adamki• 13 years ago

I think that Microsoft associated bloggers should try and resist the urge to "puntificate" on Google related matters and announcements in any professional capacity, it always comes off as though they are trying to take advantage of the situation and somehow spin it to the benefit of those who have them 'not quite on their payroll'.

Avoid the spin, here's the original post: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-s...

edbott• 13 years ago

Thanks for the career advice. But perhaps you didn't notice that, as I always do, I provided a prominent link to the original Google post (the same one you just provided) in my original write-up. I always make sure my readers have the opportunity to go to the original source.

PS: I'm not on anybody's payroll. I am a freelancer and my compensation for this post comes from ZDNet, a division of CBSInteractive. You can take sides if you want to. I write for the benefit of my readers, a very diverse group.

- Ed Bott

matchu2• 13 years ago

As I understand it, this rule primarily targets extensions that do sketchy things without their users' knowledge, like how HoverZoom recently started silently tracking their users. This feels like a good policy to me, and I'm not aware of any benevolent extensions that will suffer for it.

OzzyOzbour• 13 years ago

The Ban Calendar

July 20, 2012 - First step to ban plugins. NPAPI plug-ins in Windows 8 Metro mode

October 31, 2012 - 2nd step to ban plugins. Smarter NPAPI installs from the Chrome Web Store

November 15, 2012 - Banned packaged Apps v.1 Restricting extension APIs in legacy packaged apps

December 21, 2012 - First step to ban external extensions. No more silent extension installs

September 23, 2013 - Banned plugins. Saying Goodbye to Our Old Friend NPAPI

November 07, 2013 - Banned external extensions. Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions

December 19, 2013 - First step to ban all extensions Keeping Chrome Extensions Simple

Next? When Chrome extensions will be disabled at all?

jarnix• 13 years ago

Well, it's great that they keep their browser the way they want it to be. We can download Chromium if we want so I don't see any problem here. Anyway, if they could think of the publishers and remove AdBlock once for all instead of giving money to their developers, I would be more than happy.

dergachev• 13 years ago

What about things extensions Tampermonkey, are those at risk by this?

cratermoon• 13 years ago

No more startpage24?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/startpage24-incl-v...

How sad!

loceng• 13 years ago

I wonder if something like Reddit Enhancement Suite considered to be "multi-purpose."

haberman• 13 years ago

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.

Google announces ban on "multi-purpose" Chrome extensions

Related Stories