Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Backtracks on Chrome Modifications That Would Have Crippled Ad Blockers (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Google has changed its stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit. Catalin Cimpanu, writing for ZDNet: A study analyzing the performance of Chrome ad blocker extensions published on Friday has proven wrong claims made by Google developers last month, when a controversy broke out surrounding their decision to modify the Chrome browser in such a way that would have eventually killed off ad blockers and many other extensions. The study, carried out by the team behind the Ghostery ad blocker, found that ad blockers had sub-millisecond impact on Chrome's network requests that could hardly be called a performance hit. Hours after the Ghostery team published its study and benchmark results, the Chrome team backtracked on their planned modifications. At the root of Ghostery's benchmark into ad blocker performance stands Manifest V3, a new standard for developing Chrome extensions that Google announced last October.

10 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Even if the performance was bad by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.

    1. Re:Even if the performance was bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if the performance was good, google still does not want you to use an adblocker (at least not one they dont control)...

    2. Re:Even if the performance was bad by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we have a company whose main business is selling ads controlling the software that either allows the ads to be blocked or not be blocked? Seems like an enormous conflict of interest. This only will end one way if Google is in charge... ultimately ad blockers will go away, one way or another. They just need to figure out the way to accomplish it that causes the smallest uproar.

    3. Re:Even if the performance was bad by fred6666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they banned ad blockers everybody would move to Firefox. They can't afford that. Somehow on Android, people don't move to Firefox so they still don't allow ad blockers in their browser.

    4. Re:Even if the performance was bad by Jahta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.

      Well, given that ads typically increase page load time significantly (for example ~2.5 seconds for Wordpress WordAds), you are probably still coming out ahead by using a blocker.

    5. Re:Even if the performance was bad by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >"If they banned ad blockers everybody would move to Firefox. They can't afford that."

      I was about to post the same thing.

      THANK YOU, FIREFOX

      Whether you use it or not, the fact that it exists most certainly prevents a complete takeover by Google and the resulting lack of freedom. And my suggestion is, if you value freedom, privacy, open standards, and choice, to use Firefox whenever possible, and encourage others to do so, also. The days of Chrome being "much faster" or "better" on the desktop [MS-Windows, Linux, MacOS] are long since gone.

      >"Somehow on Android, people don't move to Firefox so they still don't allow ad blockers in their [Chrome] browser [on Android]."

      I also use it on Android, even though on Google's platform it seems to have an unfair performance disadvantage (I wonder why that is).

    6. Re:Even if the performance was bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly, huge rule lists will be slower than small rule lists. Cronin says the rule list size limit will be increased, though there will still be a limit.

      There's no technical reason why there has to be a limit that users will run into. It's their problem if the browser gets slower, not google's. I call shenanigans.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Even if the performance was bad by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other issue was that the Chrome native method was simpler than many ad-blockers allow for. It was a simple rule matching engine, where as something like uBlock is much more complex and has many other anti-ad and anti-tracking features. Even relatively simple stuff like "only block if matching a 3rd party object" is very useful for avoiding breakage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Even if the performance was bad by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This only will end one way if Google is in charge... ultimately ad blockers will go away, one way or another. They just need to figure out the way to accomplish it that causes the smallest uproar.

      Per past experience, I expect we’ll see a series of small, under-the-radar moves over the next 18-24 months which will basically accomplish the same thing. They’ll (rightly) assume inertia will keep the vast majority of users on their platform.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  2. Adblockers are performance enhancers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll take that sub milisecond delay to prevent the ad that takes much longer.