Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Starts Charging a Signup Fee For Chrome Extension Developers

Posted by Soulskill on from the got-my-mind-on-my-money dept.

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.

7 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. say... by fattmatt · · Score: 4, Funny

    how do you like them apples?

  2. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Extortion! by oldhack · · Score: 5, Funny

    I won't budge until they drop the fee to 4.99.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  4. The $5 ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The $5 ... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is also a good filter against random trouble makers.

      Rich Kaynka (Something Awful) actually talked about this that you get some people, kids in particular, with a lot of time on their hands who will spend it making life difficult for you. In his case it was someone repeatedly spamming stupid shit on the forums. One thing that does a nice job of eliminating that is a small charge. Reason is that you have to be at least somewhat serious to be willing to pay that.

      As you said, it wont' stop someone who really wants to make an evil extension (though verifiability helps with that), but it'll probably stop people who just want to be a pain in the ass and submit lots of stupid and/or non functional extensions to try and cause trouble. It's easy to create hundreds of bogus accounts and post crap with them. It is hard to spend hundreds of dollars to do the same.

  5. rhinestone bullet by epine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have time, read all about it. "Get users credit card number" validation scheme is over. Completely over.

    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.

    1. Re:rhinestone bullet by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It raises the bar though, and makes for offenses that can be charged if the person doing credit card fraud is caught.

      A physical example. If a bike is leaning against a wall, that is just a mere theft. If it has a crappy lock, it is theft and property destruction. If the bike has a good lock and is locked to a parking meter in such a way that it can't be lifted off, then some thief cuts off the parking meter head, the thief is now facing larceny charges, as well as destruction of state/federal property. Similar with keeping things behind a display case. Smashing glass to grab something usually gets a lot more charges than grabbing something off a rack and bolting for the door.

      I agree though -- nothing is 100%, but this makes fraudsters have to do more work, and potentially face more jail time if caught.