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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Sunday February 17, 2019 @02:01AM 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.

58 of 112 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Even if the performance was bad by fred6666 · 2019-02-17 02:07 · 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 · 2019-02-17 02:09 · 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 · 2019-02-17 02:11 · 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 cheesybagel · 2019-02-17 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Remember Doubleclick.com? The lovely people behind those "Punch the Monkey" animated ads a couple decades ago? Guess who bought them.
4. Re:Even if the performance was bad by fred6666 · 2019-02-17 02:33 · 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.
5. Re:Even if the performance was bad by Jahta · 2019-02-17 02:47 · 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.
6. Re:Even if the performance was bad by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-17 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.
  You're right, but you're missing the point.
  Google makes 60+ Billion dollars a year. Nearly all of it from advertising. This is only the beginning. Google is not simply going to give up. They aren't just going to say "Oh, OK, we were wrong, performance isn't that bad after all. Never mind."
  No, I guarantee they are hard at work trying to figure out a new excuse to kill off ad blocking.
7. Re:Even if the performance was bad by swillden · 2019-02-17 03:33 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.
  It should be pointed out that the new API being proposed will actually make adblocking more efficient. The new API allows extensions to configure Chrome with a set of rules that specify what URLs to block. These rules would be evaluated by Chrome, in native code. In contrast, the method currently used by adblockers is an API that simply calls a snippet of extension-provided Javascript on each network request. While this can be fast if the adblock extension author codes it well, it clearly will never be as efficient as matching rules implemented in native code.
  The source of the controversy is that the new API has an upper bound on the number of rules that can be provided: 30K So an adblocker could not add more than 30K adblocking rules. The message from Devlin Cronin (lead engineer for the extensions team) implies that they think that should be enough for good adblocking, if rules are managed properly. He cites research which finds that 90% of the 60K EasyList rules aren't useful, which implies that the same adblocking benefit would be achieved with 6K rules. 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.
  For anyone interested in the technical details, here's the documentation of the new API: https://developer.chrome.com/e... and of the existing API: https://developer.chrome.com/e...
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
8. Re:Even if the performance was bad by markdavis · 2019-02-17 03:36 · 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).
9. Re:Even if the performance was bad by ilsaloving · 2019-02-17 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  But Microsoft said that Mozilla is wasting their time, and that they should give up their silly 'own browser' stuff and just reskin Chromium like Microsoft is doing!
  I mean, if Microsoft said it, it can't be wrong!
  (Wow, I can't believe I managed to type all that with a straight face...)
10. Re: Even if the performance was bad by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-17 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  At the time the drama was starting for this new standard (which OF COURSE would have removed backwards compatibility with ublock origin), firefox openly considered a similar step, to keep pace with google.
  Firefox is a risk too, just a smaller one.
11. Re:Even if the performance was bad by drinkypoo · 2019-02-17 03:50 · 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.'"
12. Re:Even if the performance was bad by FudRucker · 2019-02-17 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  for the moment i am using chromium, but if a new version was released that broke adblocker extensions i would abandon chromium in a second, i already have all my bookmarks and passwords exported where i can use them in another browser, and i do have firefox kept updated and sitting on standby just in case chromium turns on me (dont keep your eggs in one basket)
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
13. Re:Even if the performance was bad by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-17 04:02 · 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
14. Re:Even if the performance was bad by theweatherelectric · 2019-02-17 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Really, the goal here seems to be to make adblocking safer and more efficient, better for users, not to kill it.
  That presupposes that adblockers are inefficient now. But, as linked to in the summary, simple measurements show that isn't true.
  
  And I use an adblocker, advise everyone I know to use adblockers, and would switch to a different browser if Chrome were to block adblockers.
  Adblockers work better in Firefox. You should advise everyone to switch to Firefox now instead of waiting. uBlock Origin uses WebAssembly in Firefox for better performance, but Chrome does not allow this yet.
15. Re:Even if the performance was bad by theweatherelectric · 2019-02-17 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  It should be pointed out that the new API being proposed will actually make adblocking more efficient.
  But adblockers aren't inefficient. If Chrome's interested in efficiency then it should enable WebAssembly for add-ons, like Firefox does.
16. Re:Even if the performance was bad by theweatherelectric · 2019-02-17 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  i would abandon chromium in a second
  Then you should abandon Chromium now. The fact that you use it (or any Chrome based browser) now is what emboldens Google to do this sort of thing in the first place.
17. Re: Even if the performance was bad by lister+king+of+smeg · 2019-02-17 05:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Already been done. Get yourself some Brave Browser and enjoy.
  Just because I want a independent browser does not mean I want one with associated shady micro transaction processor and cryptocurrency bolted on thank-you very much. I think I will stick with Firefox for a truly independent browser that at least tries to respect my privacy between ill-conceived attempts by their corporate overlords to shoot themselves in the foot.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
18. Re:Even if the performance was bad by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-02-17 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.
  Yup.
  Frankly, until companies can prevent malicious ads from being broadcast over their networks, I'll use an ad blocker. Which means for that reason alone I'll be running an ad blocker forever.
  But it's not just the potential for malicious adware to wreck your PC that I hate. Ads take up a lot of page space, they increase load times, they increase bandwidth usage, and they're a fucking distraction.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
19. Re:Even if the performance was bad by sjames · 2019-02-17 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  The rest of us can only go by what Google releases publicly. And what was released publicly was that they were removing an essential API for ad blockers and replacing it with nothing at all useful.
  Now that the excuse has been publicly debunked with actual measurements, they are reversing that decision.
  The size of the static list was never the point of controversy. Even an infinite static list would be less useful than the current API.
  I agree that we can't prove a particular intent form what we see, we can only make good guesses. It COULD be some developer with a wild hair up their nether regions. It could be someone wanting to mark their territory (much as a dog does), or it could be because Google really isn't that fond of ad blockers.
  But since this isn't a court of law, we're not obligated to use "beyond reasonable doubt" as our cutoff.
  In general, let the users decide would be a better answer. Make the new API available concurrently. If the old API has security implications, state them clearly and make sure the user can easily see which API a given extension is using. Let them decide if something using the new API is doing an adequate job. Mark the new API as experimental to indicate that it might be pulled back out if it doesn't work out.
  But also worth considering, people are tired of churn. I really don't give a crap if my favorite extension is so 30 seconds ago, it works for me and I have too many things to do to keep finding workarounds for the churn.
20. Re:Even if the performance was bad by Aighearach · 2019-02-17 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Some of my boxes still have them in the hosts file :)
  Oh, doubleclick? I love them so much, I love them like localhost. ;)
21. Re:Even if the performance was bad by sjames · 2019-02-17 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  And of course, nobody could ever possibly want to use a general purpose API for a general purpose that may or may not be ad blocking.
  The rule list size limit is a bit of a red herring, that's not the worst feature of the new API. The new API is a static list. Point out the error if I'm wrong, but it certainly looks like the rule list is loaded at browser startup and I see no API for updating it. No more "allow this for this site" or "don't allow this anymore" etc. No more OK for this but not with cookies. You can turn the filtering on or off for a particular group of pages but not modify it. We don't really need to return to the old Microsoft joke "you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make the change take effect"
  Of course, the size of the list should be flexible. Nobody uses fixed size lists for things like this beyond programming 101 and I doubt the Google developers do either. That makes the size cutoff arbitrary.
  It only took me a few minutes on a lazy Sunday afternoon to see the crippling limitations, surely you're not trying to tell me that nobody at Google noticed that the new API is in no way a proper replacement for the old API.
  That's not to say that the new API has no uses, just that it doesn't actually replace the API it is claimed to replace. Sorry, we don't sell front loaders anymore, try this table spoon.
  In the words of Judge Judy, "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".
22. Re: Even if the performance was bad by caseih · 2019-02-17 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I just use normal firefox on Android, with the ublock origin add-on. And also ghostery. Android on Firefox is actually really good.
  And another essential add-on for mobile browsers is a tap to reflow column add-on. I have a simple one in firefox that works well enough. Many mobile sites are awful compared to the desktop sites (slashdot I'm looking at you), so being able to zoom in on some text for a normal website and reflow it is wonderful. I never quite figured out why Google removed that feature from chrome years ago.
23. Re:Even if the performance was bad by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2019-02-17 08:51 · 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
24. Re: Even if the performance was bad by apoc.famine · 2019-02-17 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I will stick with Firefox for a truly independent browser
  Aaah, yes, the browser from the truly independent Mozilla organization.
  
  In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received US$66.8 million in revenues, of which US$61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties" from Google.
  From 2004 to 2014, the foundation had a deal with Google to make Google Search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site was also made the default home page of Firefox. The original contract expired in November 2006. However, Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011. On December 20, 2011, Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at three times the amount previously paid, or nearly US$300 million annually. Approximately 90% of Mozilla’s royalties revenue for 2014 was derived from this contract.
  In November 2014, Mozilla signed a five-year partnership (effective December 2014) with Yahoo!, making Yahoo! Search the default search engine for Firefox in North America. The default search engine in Russia will be Yandex, and in China, Baidu. Due to Mozilla's financial release timetables, the results of the Yahoo! contract will not be public until November 2016.
  In November 2017, however, Mozilla announced that it was switching back to Google as the default search engine. This represented an early termination of its Yahoo partnership.
  If you want truly independent, 90% funded by google isn't what you want. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not Firefox.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
25. Re:Even if the performance was bad by trawg · 2019-02-17 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Huh. This post kind of explains why Microsoft opted for Chrome for their next browser engine instead of Firefox. They're actually probably better off with a Chrome-lead monoculture for this reason.
  The more resources they can starve from Mozilla, the more powerful a position they will be in in terms of being able to dictate the terms of the browser-based advertising market.
26. Re:Even if the performance was bad by yes-but-no · 2019-02-17 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  But why do they let it on youtube? Google could blend the ad seemlessly into the video. Not sure when they will do it; until then we can enjoy youtube ad free with ad-blocker. I"m sure even firefox or other software can't solve that problem that easily.
27. Re:Even if the performance was bad by mattventura · 2019-02-18 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Not just that - even if adblockers and scriptblockers were quite a bit less performant, it would still provide a faster browsing experience than letting some advertising network’s 500kb of JavaScript run rampant.
An ad company by AHuxley · 2019-02-17 02:14 · Score: 1

has to ad.
The ads still get in.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:An ad company by drinkypoo · 2019-02-17 02:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Remember when Google primarily had text ads? Not even pepperidge farms remembers, their products are pure garbage now. They cheaped them out so much in content without lowering the price, in pursuit of profit, that they're no longer worth buying.
  Sadly, many people still make purchases without any consideration for whether they're getting anything for their money. The ad on heavy rotation right now on YouTube is for some shitty horror movie sequel. I see this ad because we use a fire tv stick, obviously I block such things on my PC. Some ads still sneak through occasionally, so if I actually want to watch something without interruption I YouTube-dl it first. But back to the ad. How much have they spent to ensure that I see their unskippable ad 20 times a day? That kind of entrainment might work on toddlers, but it's alienating to everyone else. Even horror movie devotees must get tired of it after the tenth time or so. I, for one, don't want to hear a woman screaming in terror right before I watch a comedy clip, or some daily show. That puts me off right quick.
  Did an unskippable ad ever increase revenue?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:An ad company by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-17 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Unskippable ads are at the discretion of the person who uploaded the video (or the company that stole it with a bogus copyright claim). Google offers it because some uploaders want it, but no-one is forced to use it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:An ad company by hjf · 2019-02-17 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  As a user I can't choose if I want to see unskippable ads or not though.
4. Re:An ad company by Aighearach · 2019-02-17 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a user, and I choose not to see any of the ads. They're not skipable because I never saw them in the first place.
5. Re:An ad company by drinkypoo · 2019-02-17 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why, in a thread about adblockers, is someone implying there are ads on YouTube?
  If you could read, you'd know. Since you can't, why are you here?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What backtracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-17 02:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only commitment given by Google is to keep the observational API, but that's not the API adblockers care about! Adblockers need the blocking API, and there's no commitment to keep it by Google. Most likely Google will still remove it later, when the heat is off and people moved on to the next outrage.
We still need to fight against Chrome by xack · 2019-02-17 02:23 · Score: 2

I have warned in several posts that the current browser monoculture is bad for the web. Mo$illa is too closely connected with Google and browsers like Pale Moon and Waterfox also have their own paid deals. Until we have a truly independent browser engine we will be at the mercy of ads which are a form of DRM.
1. Re:We still need to fight against Chrome by AHuxley · 2019-02-17 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  An ad company making the ad ready OS and the ad supporting crypto.
  Its in the OS, crypto, browser. Extensions cant keep protecting at that level of support for ads.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:We still need to fight against Chrome by swillden · 2019-02-17 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  ads which are a form of DRM.
  How so? This is a very interesting claim. I'm not saying it's false, just that I don't see the connection.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
3. Re:We still need to fight against Chrome by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-17 05:38 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Oops, triggered a Google-hater.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:We still need to fight against Chrome by AHuxley · 2019-02-17 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Windows still lets a users browser run extensions that block ads, scripts and tracking.
  Ad supporting crypto is crypto that gets an ad past any attempts to block an ad at the browser level.
  The ad is full protected by the OS, browser and the user will find it hard work to block, removed, not display.
  Windows still gives the user control over a users selected browser to block ads.
  Other OS give the users even more control over their own OS to block ads, tracking.
  Freedom and control over a real OS is great like that.
  Not having to accept ads pushed down by an ad company.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Adblockers are performance enhancers by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-17 02:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll take that sub milisecond delay to prevent the ad that takes much longer.
Mistake by Dan+East · 2019-02-17 02:37 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess someone at Google made an honest mistake. Now if we lived in some alternate universe, one in which Google made, say, $116.3 billion dollars in 2018 selling ads primarily viewed through web browsers, then the skeptic in me might think shenanigans were afoot. But since we don't live in that universe, we can have peace of mind that this was purely an error by an overzealous software engineer trying to make browsers faster. Because, you know, there is absolutely no performance impact (CPU, rendering time, network bandwidth) caused by loading multiple advertisements on every web page that stream video. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would realize that blocking those ads in the first place would surely require far more resources than loading and rendering them. So I can totally see how this honest mistake was made.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Mistake by thegarbz · 2019-02-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  The world is not black and white. Just because this wasn't some engineering mistake, doesn't automatically make it some huge conspiracy. The reality was probably somewhere in the middle:
  Engineer proposes something, likely nothing to do with ads in the first place, something aligns well with Google's business model and how it would block adblockers so it gets fast tracked to production, someone realises the backlash may cost market share and they roll it all back.
2. Re:Mistake by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-17 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Why does anything less than "google is teh evil" trigger people around here?
  It's like they have turned hating google into some kind of religion, far stronger than the Microsoft hate from back in the day.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Google wants Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-17 02:53 · Score: 1

They are the ADVERTISMENT COMPANY. Fuck you slashdot, i'll scream as much as i want, cause they deserve it.
we can't use caps to convey what we mean ?? GO FUCK YOURSELF SLASHDOT.! !!!!!!!
Too late. by Gravis+Zero · 2019-02-17 02:56 · Score: 2

I already switched to Firefox.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It was never an issue of performance by Ecuador · 2019-02-17 03:12 · Score: 2

It was never an issue of performance. That was just an excuse that Google expected would be hard to prove otherwise. As you say, it is a very shaky excuse too, when add-ons are optional. Google is #1 in the ad space and they make their money from that, not from Chrome directly. Controlling the browser market does help them maximize their ad revenue and disallowing Ad-blockers they don't control it is one way. As they are trying to not alienate people too much, once this excuse was shot down they backtracked and will find another way later on.

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
misleading title - they are NOT backtacking!!! by abc__cba · 2019-02-17 03:57 · Score: 2

Support Firefox
1. Re:misleading title - they are NOT backtacking!!! by citizenr · 2019-02-17 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  I am in awe of how successful Google shills were in pushing this "google backtracks" message by citing article clearly stating V3 proposal is full steam ahead and NOTHING is being changed apart from maybe considering bigger static list ...
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Electron is Chromium by tepples · 2019-02-17 05:26 · Score: 3, Informative

So don't use Chrome. Problem solved.
Good luck with that. Native applications built with Electron, such as Discord, Slack, Skype, Atom, and Visual Studio Code, all bundle a copy of Chromium. This is Google Chrome with a handful of non-free parts cut out, mostly related to video DRM and Adobe Flash Player. The use of Chromium in Electron encourages development of web applications that work only with Chromium. For example, the owner of a Discord server can upload images to that server for use as emoji, but clicking the upload button does absolutely nothing in Firefox. This encourages Firefox users to switch to Google Chrome (on Windows or macOS) or Chromium (on X11/Linux) to make web applications work again.
In addition, on a phone or tablet running Android 4 or later, Google Chrome has a RAM use advantage over Firefox because its HTML engine is always loaded. This is analogous to IE's advantage on Windows 98 through 8.1.
1. Re:Electron is Chromium by Aighearach · 2019-02-17 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's just silly nonsense technicality "gotcha" bullshit, though.
  Who cares if skype embeds a sucky browser, or not? How does that affect users who are intentionally using a browser?
  This isn't something that is harmful if it is hidden under the hood of another product, it is something that is harmful when it interferes with the choices the user would otherwise be making.
  And, Firefox has a RAM advantage if you keep a lot of tabs open.
2. Re:Electron is Chromium by tepples · 2019-02-17 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares if skype embeds a sucky browser, or not? How does that affect users who are intentionally using a browser?
  If the desktop version of Skype and the web version of Skype share code, the supermajority usage share of Chromium discourages Microsoft from making the web version of Skype compatible with anything but Chromium.
3. Re:Electron is Chromium by tepples · 2019-02-17 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Is an app that doesn't work on your machine at all because it's made for a different OS superior to an Electron app? For example: If you use a Mac, is a Windows-only app superior to an Electron app? Or if you use a Windows PC or X11/Linux PC, is a Mac-only app superior to an Electron app?
4. Re:Electron is Chromium by Aighearach · 2019-02-18 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares?
  That would reduce their customer base for the product. They wouldn't do that.
  They support linux, and other popular operating systems anyways.
  There is not anything about web dev that would actually push them to want to lock it to a browser. This isn't the 1990s when they were doing it to push people at their language and integration tools. And even if MS of all companies was going to "go there" on browsers, why would they do it to pimp out Chromium?!
5. Re:Electron is Chromium by tepples · 2019-02-19 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  That would reduce their customer base for the product. They wouldn't do that.
  If a company makes a web application Chromium-only, users will do one of two things:
  A. Quit
  B. Install Opera, Vivaldi, Chrome, or an Electron-based desktop application in order to retain access to their contacts who use the service
  If the cost reduction of no longer catering to Firefox exceeds the revenue reduction attributable to those who choose option A over option B, then going Chromium-only and recommending option B to Firefox users makes business sense.
  
  They support linux, and other popular operating systems anyways.
  Yet the Linux version of Skype, Slack, or Discord takes just as much RAM as running a second web browser: roughly 300 MB. In fact, it takes even more if you use more than one such Electron app, as each one has its own copy of Chromium, none of which share memory. People with multiple computers may toss GNU/Linux on a secondary machine that has already been maxed out at 2 GB or 4 GB of RAM, and on a machine with that little RAM, 300 MB here and 300 MB there add up quickly. A Raspberry Pi single-board computer has even less RAM than that.
  
  There is not anything about web dev that would actually push them to want to lock it to a browser.
  Other than not having to deal with A. things that work differently between Gecko and Blink or B. revenue loss and instability due to content blocking and modification extensions in Firefox Addons that Google has chosen not to carry in Chrome Web Store.
About Time For A Monopoly Investigation by Greyfox · 2019-02-17 07:31 · Score: 2

The shit Microsoft and IBM did seems a lot less bad than what Google's been up to recently. Perhaps it's time for a FTC inquiry?

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:About Time For A Monopoly Investigation by bug_hunter · 2019-02-17 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly, but I think you'll need to cite examples other than this.
  This being Google trying to sandbox extensions a little more at the cost of ad-blockers, then backtracking.
  While there was a report that showed blockers having little negative effect (and mostly overall positive effect) Google's announcement of winding their changes back happened only hours later. I doubt their internal technical strategy can pivot that quickly so I assume the strategy had already changed but this accelerated their announcement.
  
  --
  It's turtles all the way down.
I want my tabs back & less white! by Billly+Gates · 2019-02-17 11:40 · Score: 1

I refuse to leave Chrome 70 and put in a hack to disable Google update until that happens.
Current Chrome is unusable and migraine inducing. They need to fire these kids with their flat phone interfaces. I can't even see which tab is which now on my monitors

--
http://saveie6.com/