
Google announces ban on "multi-purpose" Chrome extensions - cpeterso
http://www.zdnet.com/google-announces-ban-on-multi-purpose-chrome-extensions-7000024566/
======
OzzyOzbour
The Ban Calendar

July 20, 2012 - First step to ban plugins. NPAPI plug-ins in Windows 8 Metro
mode

October 31, 2012 - 2nd step to ban plugins. Smarter NPAPI installs from the
Chrome Web Store

November 15, 2012 - Banned packaged Apps v.1 Restricting extension APIs in
legacy packaged apps

December 21, 2012 - First step to ban external extensions. No more silent
extension installs

September 23, 2013 - Banned plugins. Saying Goodbye to Our Old Friend NPAPI

November 07, 2013 - Banned external extensions. Protecting Windows users from
malicious extensions

December 19, 2013 - First step to ban all extensions Keeping Chrome Extensions
Simple

Next? When Chrome extensions will be disabled at all?﻿

------
gergles
This is why I started using Chromium instead of Chrome -- Chrome forces you
now to use (and pay for!) the web store (it's impossible to install extensions
not hosted by Google, if you're running on Windows because "think of the
users!"[1]) and if your extension doesn't get along with any of their policies
(i.e. the extensions listed here), then Chrome users can't use it at all.
Super-awesome, Google.

Chromium doesn't (at the moment) have these restrictions.

[1]: The post with this fucking Newspeak title:
[http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-
fr...](http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-from-
malicious.html)

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store"

Huh? Seems free for me to use. What specifically do you have to pay for?

~~~
akurtzhs
It costs $5 to get a developer account for the Chrome Web Store.

Cheap compared to an iOS developer account, but still...

~~~
GrinningFool
That sounds more like it's "show us you're a real person before we host your
stuff" than any real attempt to make money...

~~~
teddyh
“We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files…”

------
fhd2
I'm increasingly getting the impression that Google would just love extensions
to disappear altogether. They probably just added them to get Firefox power
users, now that Chrome is king and they're pushing it like crapware (large
scale bundling), they probably don't care anymore.

~~~
emilv
Maybe they should just stop pay for Firefox development if they don't like
Firefox. Google pays huge amounts of money to Mozilla.

~~~
tyw
that's a little bit disingenuous. google pays huge amounts of money to Mozilla
to be the default search engine because of the huge amounts of money Mozilla
users make google by using google services on a daily basis. it's not like
they're propping up a competitor just for the hell of it (or even to avoid
anti-trust issues).

~~~
mark_l_watson
+1 I donated to Mozilla a few days ago, thinking how small my donation was
compared to Google. However, Google must make $$ on Firefox hosted searches.

------
lauradhamilton
I am a satisfied Firefox user. Google just has too much power these days.

~~~
evan_
It should be noted that this is just for the official extension listing, you
can install any extension you want manually.

~~~
thelibrarian
Only on Linux and Mac though. Windows users can no longer manually install
extensions, "for their protection".

~~~
dragonwriter
> Windows users can no longer manually install extensions

Windows users can manually install extensions; you have to flip the developer
mode setting and unpack the extension to install it.

~~~
salient
Unpack the extension, too? This process probably reduced the external
extension installations by 100x, while they can still pretend that you can
still technically install external extensions.

First off, I think their original excuse was BS, because I very much doubt
more than a marginal number of users were affected by malicious extensions
this way. And second, there has to be a balance between what's safe by
default, and what level of freedom/flexibility you have. If that "freedom" is
hidden away in 10 layers of submenus, then might as well kill it for good,
because it's not going to help anyone.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Unpack the extension, too? This process probably reduced the external
> extension installations by 100x, while they can still pretend that you can
> still technically install external extensions.

Er, no, they say you can't, except for development (and the method that you
can use, whether or not you are actualyl doing development, has always been
the preferred method for development.) They aren't pretending that they making
things available to Windows users, they are saying straight-up that, outside
of development, Windows users cannot use non-Web Store Chrome Apps.

Heck, even before they disabled the old, less onerous manual method, Chrome
pretended that you couldn't -- if you tried to install extensions directly
from the web without setting a command-line flag, Chrome would just tell you
that you couldn't install extensions except from the Web Store (you _could_
then drag the downloaded extension to the extensions page and it would
install, but Chrome did everything to hide it from you.)

> First off, I think their original excuse was BS, because I very much doubt
> more than a marginal number of users were affected by malicious extensions
> this way.

I'm glad you think that. Is there any reason you'd care to share why anyone
_else_ should believe it?

> And second, there has to be a balance between what's safe by default, and
> what level of freedom/flexibility you have.

Any position you choose on the continuum is _a_ balance between those things.

> If that "freedom" is hidden away in 10 layers of submenus, then might as
> well kill it for good, because it's not going to help anyone.

I think the flexibility retained for developers helps exactly the people it is
designed to help.

------
matchu
As I understand it, this rule primarily targets extensions that do sketchy
things without their users' knowledge, like how HoverZoom recently started
silently tracking their users. This feels like a good policy to me, and I'm
not aware of any benevolent extensions that will suffer for it.

------
vezzy-fnord
Keep it simple, stupid. If you know what's good for you.

AKA: the Unix philosophy by racket.

~~~
serge2k
have you seen firefox/chrome/any modern web browser?

I just wonder how long until google infects android with this BS.

Sorry, sorry, android is 100% free I forgot. How long until they infect play
services with this.

iPhones are looking nicer.

------
jarnix
Well, it's great that they keep their browser the way they want it to be. We
can download Chromium if we want so I don't see any problem here. Anyway, if
they could think of the publishers and remove AdBlock once for all instead of
giving money to their developers, I would be more than happy.

------
haberman
> It might have been helpful for Google to have created a sample extension as
> a “don’t do this” example. Bizarrely, Google chose instead to illustrate the
> problem using an infamous gag screenshot of the seven-year-old Internet
> Explorer 7 stuffed to the limit with toolbars and add-on panes.

It's not bizarre. If you read the original blog post, the IE screenshot is
there to illustrate the motivation behind Chrome's longstanding goal of making
addons/extensions unobtrusive: "The name "Chrome" came from this principle as
we wanted the browser to be about "content, not chrome." "

> Google won't allow third-party developers to build toolbars for Chrome, but
> the company still makes its own toolbar for Internet Explorer and
> distributes that toolbar widely.

As do Bing and Yahoo. Since IE has not put the same emphasis on minimizing
chrome in their browser, and since all major search engines distribute
toolbars for it, it is not hypocritical to follow the local conventions and
distribute a toolbar for IE like everyone else does. When in Rome, do as the
Romans do.

> The real reason for the new policy might have less to do with user interface
> guidelines and more with Google's attempt to shut down extensions that
> intrude on its advertising fiefdown.

Or it could have to do with the fact that an extension that unexpectedly
starts injecting ads into all of your web pages is extremely annoying, and
(worse) is hard to attribute to the unrelated extension you installed. The
article itself shows an example of one star reviews from unhappy users.

> In other words, images on the pages you visit, be they ads or content, can
> be replaced with ads from the Superfish network.

Yep, sounds pretty seriously annoying, doesn't it? What sane person would
install extensions if this behavior became commonplace?

There is a lot of aspersion-casting here, but no mention of any innocent actor
who is hurt by this. This seems like a pretty common-sense move that benefits
users. And yet the article and some of the comments here are hostile. Google
has become the company that people love to hate.

------
loceng
I wonder if something like Reddit Enhancement Suite considered to be "multi-
purpose."

------
cratermoon
No more startpage24?

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/startpage24-incl-v...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/startpage24-incl-
video-do/idmjjnnadgpnniaebiicdndgjlgpadcb)

How sad!

------
dergachev
What about things extensions Tampermonkey, are those at risk by this?

------
adamki
I think that Microsoft associated bloggers should try and resist the urge to
"puntificate" on Google related matters and announcements in any professional
capacity, it always comes off as though they are trying to take advantage of
the situation and somehow spin it to the benefit of those who have them 'not
quite on their payroll'.

Avoid the spin, here's the original post:
[http://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-
extensions-s...](http://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-
simple.html)

~~~
edbott
Thanks for the career advice. But perhaps you didn't notice that, as I always
do, I provided a prominent link to the original Google post (the same one you
just provided) in my original write-up. I always make sure my readers have the
opportunity to go to the original source.

PS: I'm not on anybody's payroll. I am a freelancer and my compensation for
this post comes from ZDNet, a division of CBSInteractive. You can take sides
if you want to. I write for the benefit of my readers, a very diverse group.

\- Ed Bott

