Slashdot Mirror
Google Starts Charging a Signup Fee For Chrome Extension Developers
trooperer writes "On Thursday, Google introduced two significant changes in the Google Chrome Extensions Gallery: a developer signup fee and a domain verification system. The signup fee is a one-time payment of $5. The announcement says its purpose is to 'create better safeguards against fraudulent extensions in the gallery and limit the activity of malicious developer accounts.' Developers who already registered with the gallery can continue to update their extensions and publish new items without paying the fee."
Google also made available a developer preview for the Chrome Web Store.
how do you like them apples?
Seems like I always learn about a new fee two days after the deadline for "free" expires.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So you have to pay a fee to register an extension with them. So what?
I mean, ok, yes, I can see why I might prefer to be listed in Firefox's extension gallery for free, but there's nothing stopping me from distributing the extension on my own, via a third party.
Seriously, what kind of developer would even notice a $5 charge? Even modestly successful apps make over $500 per day.
1000s Warcraft Gold while you sleep
I won't budge until they drop the fee to 4.99.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
The $5 is probably a way for them to be able ID anyone who wants to sneak malicious code into an extension. If they have your CC number they have a pretty good way of knowing who you might be. If they took cash the $5 wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to poison their extension. A verifiable electronic payment will prevent most of those who might try it.
Paypal does same for same purpose and charges $1, to put it back in 24 hours. Does Google do it? Or they can't afford? (!)
What does your post have to do with liking them apples? Anyways, in terms of money consider that had they implemented this program from day 1 they would have netted about $30,000 had every developer paid the $5, and those developers are getting grandfathered in for free. Obviously it's not about the money for them.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Considering the bandwidth costs and the fact that (most?) extensions don't make them any money
Of course, extensions generally improve the browser, by providing features the browser doesn't. Firefox is a good example, which would quite likely be forgotten by many of its users if it weren't for it's many good extensions. Quite simply: more extensions, more users, more revenue.
> Man, really does apple.com or google.com has some very advanced background mind programming graphic so some people becomes rather like cult members?
No, but they have people releasing code for their platform who view the $5 charge in the same way they view their ISP/electricity/book costs - as part of doing business.
You're from the school of silver bullets. If it won't work to a high degree, it's completely worthless. You might note that Google is not without resources in identifying the difference between a valid CC number and one found floating down some pipe in the intertubes.
If half of the malicious lamers are too stupid to notice this, then Google has improved the signal to noise ratio in policing their chrome extension developers by 3dB.
It's a minor barrier to malfeasance. It discourages sock puppets. And it sends the message "we care" which is the main reason aggressively scrubbing graffiti off trains in NYC works so effectively.
The downside? Fewer chrome extensions written by the next teenage African Einstein. And shirt-rending despair over failure to attain the requisite degree of silver-bullet superhero mojo. Yet another superhero impostor. It's a tough life.
When Paypal verified my bank account, they actually deposited two sums that totalled more than a British Pound, and never wanted it back. And yes, this was intentional!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Palm trees and 8
I suspect the reason for this is that Google wants to have an enforceable contract with developers. This was the quick and easy way to do it.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
google adsense does the same thing. Ameritrade takes the deposits back afterwards.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
That's not really relevant - nobody's paying for any software. The developer is paying a fee for hosting - and a very small fee, at that.
All it takes is $1 dollar (or in this case, 5), and 90% of your "annoying" userbase goes away, where annoying is spammers, cheaters, jokesters, etc. Anyone seriously wanting to cause trouble still will, but bored kids out for a thrill won't bother. In this case, it likely has the benefit of washing out any DOA projects that will just clog up searches. Anyone serious about creating project won't really blink at the cost, since it's so small, even if they don't plan to make money themselves. If you want quantity over quality, leave a user-generated content service free. If you want quality over quantity, charge a nominal fee. Works very well I've found.
Were the HELL am I gonna get five fucking hundered dollars man? Are they out of there fucking minds? FUCK YOU GOOGLE ASSWIPEES!
Uh, it's only five dollars. Unless you plan on registering 100 accounts anyway.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
It shows what you can expect from their so-called free and open source browser.
What's "so-called" about a browser which is actually free, and actually open source?
In fact, everytime they do it, they prove GNU/FSF "nitpicking" about the FOSS and plain "open source".
The FSF wouldn't have a problem with this, as far as I can tell -- Chromium still is, and always was, Free as in Freedom. Paying Google $5 to list/host your extension hardly counts as making it proprietary -- if you like, you can still release source, and still allow anyone else to either pay the $5 or host it themselves.
I don't want to make anyone feel guilty or cheap but I personally know some open source developers who can't even afford a $30 external disk and development stops until they get some kind of donation.
Where in my post did I say anything about this being "cheap"? I don't care if it's $5, $50, or $5000 -- it's just a listing. If there's a really good extension which can't afford or doesn't want this service, they can always host it elsewhere. It's not as though that's entirely unprecedented -- PuTTY pretty much refuses to get a real domain, and they haven't suffered because of it.
I also have never once called GNU or the FSF "nitpicking" -- I understand why they do what they do, and while I don't agree that all software should be Free, I have no problem with their definition of Free. It seems you do, however -- remember, it's got nothing to do with price.
So, just who did you think you were responding to?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No.... Google realized they are in competition against Apple and Microsoft, and need to align their business practices a little more with them to successfully compete, I guess.
For example, they need to start treating APIs as more precious, make sure to create lots of internal API Frameworks, use them in their own extensions, and flog any third-party who dare touch internal Frameworks.
$5 today, but i'm surely they are just testing the waters.... in a year or so it might be $99 much like what Apple mobile devs have to fork over.
As a site operator, isn't that just another way of getting 33 attorneys general after you?
They already went after paid expediting of abuse complaints.
If the AGs find a pay-to-post-a-comment site, with some offensive comments.. who knows, they might deem it as equivalent to "Pay not to have your post removed" or "Pay to get your ocmments through the abuse filters"
Since I don't have vertical tabs in the Chrome browser it's completely worthless anyway. With all the monitors are now widescreen format and with my usual 5 to 20 to 40 tabs open there is no way I switch from Firefox to the Chrome browser.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
By charging *5* bucks to join the club? You have to be kidding.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Because otherwise they will have no developers left.
If it's not about money , they should indeed reimburse it.
This basically means you have to pay in order to be allowed to work on something Google would otherwise have to pay developers for.
Slipping shoelaces ?
On the contrary, in the EU Paypal is regulated as a bank and falls under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Authority in the UK.
I see it as a bad thing:
.5? I bet that there are some third world countries where paying $5 just to be able to submit your non-commercial web browser extension is a lot. If they wanted this as an authenticity tool, any (lower) value would work as well.
1) Not all developers have credit cards. My country is a perfect example. Since online payment is (sadly) still a relatively new term for our local banks, you need to go through a lot of hoops to get an "internet-capable" debit card (some require security deposits even though it is a debit card, others require additional paperwork, etc). By default you just get a Visa Electron card which doesn't work online.
2) There are some young developers who just want to play around and might produce some very creative things, but will be repelled by the fact that they need to ask their parents for CC. They'll just go ahead and make some cool stuff for Firefox instead.
3) Why $5 and not just $1 or
... anything free will be abused. If, within a company, department A does work at department B's behest, with no notion of "cost" associated with it, then department B will abuse department A, and just naturally dump more and more work onto them, because there's no reason not to. Even a simple "credit" system (i.e. each task costs 5 or 10 credits, and you get 200 credits per month) can help with this.
This is why I always thought micropayments for SMTP traffic would be a wonderful solution for spam. "For each message you want to send to my SMTP server, you must pay $0.02." For most businesses, the ratio of "messages sent":"messages received" is around 1:1, so it would amount to a net zero. But If it's free it will be abused.
Same with this. Apple charges $99 to be able to submit an app to the iTunes App store, I'm sure this is one reason why.
rooooar