Slashdot Mirror
Google Disables Inline Installation For Chrome Extensions (venturebeat.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Google today announced that Chrome will no longer support inline installation of extensions. New extensions lose inline installation starting today, existing extensions will lose the ability in three months, and in early December the inline install API will be removed from the browser with the release of Chrome 71. Critics have pointed out such moves make the Chrome Web Store a walled garden, while Google insists pushing users to the store ultimately protects them.
Apple did it first post.
If you've ever seen a regular Chrome user's computer, you know there's at least one rogue extension that they can't explain how it was installed. More likely, several - and one of them changing the new tab page or redirecting searches away from Google.
Right up to the moment you realize that as much as 30% of the apps there are not properly vetted, and that infections are RAMPANT! But, of course, going to a developer who doesn't want to pay google or conform to their BS, that you may have been downloading apps and content from for DECADES, is worse somehow because google can't extort them or force creative control over their code/IP.... Isn't it?
As long as they support Radial, Boxer, and V8 and Wankel Rotary installations, we're good to go.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Just gave me a reason to suggest ONLY using Chrome to most users. There is no end to the amount of sideloaded shitware extensions that fuck up your browser.
"But the website said I needed this to do X!" "I don't know. It just appeared there and I cant search anymore" "Why do I see so many ads?"
To their Credit, google has taken down a good 20 or 30 extensions I've reported as obvious garbage that violates their terms. Still. Anything to cut down on this crap is great.
Pushing them to the app store generate leads.
I will continue to use third party crxs, in dev mode, after having to white list them.
How else am I supposed to fix the UI on junky websites like youtube?
To push Chrome onto the vast majority of people. I can't even count the number of people who I've help with computer issues with odd, usually scammy/spammy/spyware/malware type extensions installed. 100% of the time they had no idea exactly what they were installing, they were essentially "drive by" installs because of this inline installation feature. 100% of the time, I uninstall those extensions and never get one single complaint about "hey this used to work, but now it doesn't"
The root of the problem is less that a tiny fraction of computer users actually read any of the fucking dialog prompts they are shown. If there is a "yes" or "ok" button, they push that the vast majority of the time and only click "no" or "cancel" on rare occasion.
To their Credit, google has taken down a good 20 or 30 extensions I've reported as obvious garbage that violates their terms.
And how did that "obvious garbage" get into the Chrome Store in the first place?
Google, Apple, whatever. NONE of them can be arsed to scrutinize things that are submitted to their store. Everybody knows it, and the "bad guys" exploit it routinely.
Their "walled garden" is a PR move and nothing more.
1. Put up a app walled garden.
2. Have government demand you remove app that chronicles torture and murder.
3. Profit
So long as Google has a walled garden for the expressed purpose of removing nefarious content based upon the whim of governments across the globe, Google is complicit in the support of crimes against humanity.
At first I thought that the article was saying that you wouldn't be able to install extensions from the Chrome Web Store. I have literally never sideloaded an extension. Who in their right mind would do this?
In order to sideload an extension, you have to not only have OS permission (you do have your group policies setup correctly, right?) and the knowledge to enable developer mode in Chrome, but you also have to know how to download and execute the extension file itself. It's also not like the Chrome Web store is any safer. There are tons of malware and spyware extensions there.
This is just another idiotic way that a corporation can scream out "look at me, look at me, we're protecting users", when in fact the exact opposite is true. They aren't protecting users, they are harming users by taking control and choice away from users.
I wrote a small Chrome extension previously. I did submit it to the Chrome store (where I can download it) - but during the development process I needed to modify and reload that extensions many times over (as is natural to any dev. process)
Without inline extension installation ability - how would a developer be expected to do that? Is there going to be a special "developer" Chrome version? Or would developer have to submit every line change of the extension to the store in order to test it?
Maybe on googles side. But Apple has their walled garden locked down pretty tight.
Not saying "nothing" gets thru. It's just that I trust them a lot more than I trust google.
Google has just created a problem in China, where the store is blocked and inline installation was the only way to get an extension installed. To add insult to the injury, installing an extension is the only way to get the screen shared via WebRTC.
Though it sucks to see another browser making it harder on Devs. I'm still trying to get my extension to play nice with FF Quantum (It's a slow, laborious re-write with a lot more C++ I need to write to do the conversion now). I'm not seeing a lot of improvements in security just more work for devs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Embrace, extend, extinguish. It's not just for Microsoft anymore.
So that's why Firefox has been becoming more and more Chrome-like, so it can be an alternative to Chrome after this change!
I've reported too many dodgy chrome extensions from the chrome store to trust it.
What this is really about is control over what you can install.
There are useful extensions for working round restrictions and google is trying to stop you using them.
Although this is often effective.
document.body.contentEditable = 'true'; document.designMode='on'; void 0
just add it as a bookmark usually is fairly successful, just delete the content you don't want.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
You brought this on yourselves. Who would have thought that a Google-owned browser monoculture would increasingly tend towards evil? Solution: use Chromium. Better solution: use Firefox.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
XUL was an interesting idea poorly executed.
To their Credit, google has taken down a good 20 or 30 extensions I've reported as obvious garbage that violates their terms.
And how did that "obvious garbage" get into the Chrome Store in the first place?
Google, Apple, whatever. NONE of them can be arsed to scrutinize things that are submitted to their store.
Google does not manually review every extension in the store. However, when an extension in the store is found to violate the rules, the removal from the store removes it for all users. That *dramatically* reduces the pay-off of tricking users into installing malware.
Does this mean you can no longer develop your own add-ons and test them locally on your computer?
But would this mean app developers can't test their extensions without first getting them in the store? If so is Google going to allow bad apps onto the store for the use of testing? Seems very odd.
What about Chrome that couldn't connect Chrome web Store.
I guess that if they disable "online installation" that already connect to Chrome Store in fact, they will disable the more invasible extension policies to allow alternative web to install the extension.
What a shame. My client will be unable to use my extension or needed to use a harder way to install it (no, developer mode is not an option)
Basilisk is just the beta of pale moon.
https://forum.palemoon.org/vie...
This indeed is a classic Protection scheme.
That's a real nice extension you've got there. ...
It'd be a shame if your users couldn't install it.
The boss, see, he's got this great web store
OK, so were removing from your phone any app that isn't G+ or Facebook. Its for your protection and that's the entire internet anyway.
Still feel safe?
How about we prohibit any retail store not called McDonald's, Walmart, Pizza Hut, and Lowes to cut down on illegal products and bad local service providers?
Want more?
Starting today Comcast is the only ISP allowed in America, as they have a vested interest in your protection that no one else has.
Also Verizon is now the only allowed cellphone provider in the US for obvious reasons.
If you can't figure out what the red light in an intersection is for, you shouldn't be driving a car. The same is true about extensions or any code for that matter. If there isn't a known reason why you need it beyond "because we said so", you shouldn't install it. And if you can't figure out how to remove them, then you shouldn't be using one period. Actually think before you click yes to everything, and you might not get hosed so easily. That's not the fault of others. Its your own fault, and you need to learn to take responsibility for your own actions instead of whining to the rest of us for protection at our detriment. I have a better idea: if you can't learn to use a web browser correctly, then you should be kicked off the internet.
Just gave me a reason to suggest ONLY using Chrome to most users. There is no end to the amount of sideloaded shitware extensions that fuck up your browser.
Hmm, I had to use Chrome this morning, and the once stable browser hung on me several times. I wonder if there is any relation. Can't think why, but that's never happened before. Ended up having to use FF.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What the fuck is " inline installation of extensions".
Wtf is wrong with slashdot? You define common terms, but don't bother to define shit like this.
It's MY PC. I will run the software THAT I WANT!
And the definition is? I've been a Chrome user since the beginning and I've never heard that term.
They probably are, and they should be.
Unless, of course, you like the idea of the computer equipment you paid for effectively being owned by a company, which is precisely what we are progressing towards.
Other the severely fragmented open source of Linux desktop, just about everything else is pretty much already considered working within a walled garden sort of ecosystem. Apple, Google and Microsoft all offer some crossover stuff into other ecosystems where it makes sense. But all three really want the end user to exclusively use all of their products and services the way they want you to use them. Or become one of the 5% who reject this walled garden system and simply use Linux desktop. I really think most will trade a bit of flexibility in order to achieve better security.
So I take it that now when someone tries to do something like join a web meeting via WebEx, instead of being able to help the user get on their meeting quickly, companies like WebEx are going to have to explain to the user how to go get the extension?
Thanks for saying what needed to be said, and for doing it so well:
OK, so were removing from your phone any app that isn't G+ or Facebook. Its for your protection and that's the entire internet anyway.
Still feel safe?
How about we prohibit any retail store not called McDonald's, Walmart, Pizza Hut, and Lowes to cut down on illegal products and bad local service providers?
Want more?
Starting today Comcast is the only ISP allowed in America, as they have a vested interest in your protection that no one else has.
Also Verizon is now the only allowed cellphone provider in the US for obvious reasons.
If you can't figure out what the red light in an intersection is for, you shouldn't be driving a car. The same is true about extensions or any code for that matter. If there isn't a known reason why you need it beyond "because we said so", you shouldn't install it. And if you can't figure out how to remove them, then you shouldn't be using one period. Actually think before you click yes to everything, and you might not get hosed so easily. That's not the fault of others. Its your own fault, and you need to learn to take responsibility for your own actions instead of whining to the rest of us for protection at our detriment. I have a better idea: if you can't learn to use a web browser correctly, then you should be kicked off the internet.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
$20 says "anonymous reader" just learned the phrase "inline installation" and has no idea what it means, but saw it somewhere and decided to use it a bunch of times in a paragraph in an attempt to look like a brilliant jargon-slinging badass, rather than putting in a single sentence explaining what it is.
Windows 10 forcibly spies on you. Android now REQUIRES location to be turned on for some Bluetooth and WiFi functions with no explanation from google.
Everyone knows that google products included chrome spies on you forcibly, so, why are we using chrome again? Out 10K user business won't touch it nor will be use Windows 10. Fortunately we have a unique situation that works well for us.
It's not a "walled garden", it's a "prison state".
Ahhhhhh, I do love the smell of astroturf in the morning!
Can we get a setting that allows me to use my computer the way I want to? I know how to not wreck myself and would maybe like to not be beholden to Google's strategy tax.
Oh well, I never got on the Chrome bandwagon, this just ensures I never will.
Just gave me a reason to suggest ONLY using Chrome to most users. There is no end to the amount of sideloaded shitware extensions that fuck up your browser.
Hmm, I had to use Chrome this morning, and the once stable browser hung on me several times. I wonder if there is any relation. Can't think why, but that's never happened before. Ended up having to use FF.
Looks like some folks with mod points must have been old-school AOL users who don't understand that what I posted wasn't a troll. It was a question. Carry on!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.