Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

    (developer.chrome.com)
    552 points freedomben | 18 comments | 11 Oct 24 14:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.707s | source | bottom
    Show context
    sho ◴[11 Oct 24 14:49 UTC] No.41809962[source]▶
    Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely.

    Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's did with IE.

    replies(14): >>41810044 #>>41810118 #>>41810304 #>>41810320 #>>41810359 #>>41810375 #>>41810472 #>>41810519 #>>41810553 #>>41811938 #>>41812626 #>>41813079 #>>41813685 #>>41822203 #
    1. Rychard ◴[11 Oct 24 14:56 UTC] No.41810044[source]▶
    The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth, people like you and I installing it on our friend's/relative's computers and telling them it was safer/faster/better.

    Nothing stops us from doing the same thing again. I've been recommending Firefox to all my family/friends/colleagues for years (ever since I've seen the writing on the wall for Chrome). While Firefox isn't perfect, it's in a much better place than Chrome is, and meets the the needs of nearly 100% of people.

    replies(4): >>41810119 #>>41810134 #>>41810545 #>>41816693 #
    2. undercut ◴[11 Oct 24 15:04 UTC] No.41810119[source]▶
    >The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth

    No, it was driven by having a banner in the most privileged spot of the Internet, Google.com (the most visited site in the world with 0 ads on the homepage) saying that was faster and more secure than the alternatives. In fact Firefox benefited from some free ads on Google.com against Internet Explorer before Google developed Chromium.

    replies(5): >>41810173 #>>41810174 #>>41810991 #>>41812244 #>>41812327 #
    3. Izkata ◴[11 Oct 24 15:06 UTC] No.41810134[source]▶
    I swear I also remember it getting included in installation wizards for unrelated software (on Windows), so people would end up with Chrome/Chromium without even realizing it.
    replies(1): >>41810582 #
    4. freedomben ◴[11 Oct 24 15:09 UTC] No.41810173[source]▶
    It was kind of both, depending on the timeline. Early on it was word of mouth, then Google saw they had momentum and they capitalized on it with the banners and aggressive marketing.
    replies(3): >>41810558 #>>41814967 #>>41815834 #
    5. cyberpunk ◴[11 Oct 24 15:09 UTC] No.41810174[source]▶
    … isn’t that banner an ad?
    6. EasyMark ◴[11 Oct 24 15:48 UTC] No.41810545[source]▶
    Did you miss the barrage of ads for Chrome that google played for literally years on the internet and television?
    replies(1): >>41815701 #
    7. undercut ◴[11 Oct 24 15:50 UTC] No.41810558{3}[source]▶
    It was a long time ago but I'm 99% sure that there was a banner for Chrome on Google.com since the first public release.
    8. EasyMark ◴[11 Oct 24 15:52 UTC] No.41810582[source]▶
    I’ve been out of the windows game for so long I forgot all that malware that was installed by various installer engines and was so relieved when I found portable apps and oldversion.com and ninite. And now I guess there are things like chocolaty that do similar things. Switching to Mac and Linux I don’t really miss it at all
    9. Uehreka ◴[11 Oct 24 16:36 UTC] No.41810991[source]▶
    Yeah, I feel like in general we on HN give ourselves way too much credit in terms of our ability to drive public opinion or affect purchasing/usage patterns among the public. The idea of the “nerd-led revolution” may have had some impact in the past, but I think the days of that are over. Large corporations now know what they’re doing in ways that they hadn’t figured out in the 2000s or even the early 2010s.
    10. sunshowers ◴[11 Oct 24 18:49 UTC] No.41812244[source]▶
    The other aspect, somewhat memory-holed, was that Chrome was automatically installed as shovelware if you went to install Adobe Flash for IE or Firefox:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/23jnmy/why_is_chrom...

    This kind of not-freely-given consent was key to Chrome's growth.

    replies(1): >>41812965 #
    11. x0x0 ◴[11 Oct 24 18:56 UTC] No.41812327[source]▶
    Early chrome was driven by the fact that firefox was a piece of garbage. Firefox 3 was not good software, and had an unpleasant habit of totally crashing the entire browser regularly. Your only other popular choice was ie8. Also not great.

    Later Google's ability to buy installs and put it on google.com came into play, but for at least the first 5 years and probably longer, chrome was a far faster, more secure, and more reliable choice. They also pioneered the multi-process model to isolate different components of the browser.

    12. badwolf ◴[11 Oct 24 19:49 UTC] No.41812965{3}[source]▶
    Chrome was bundled with so many installers. Google probably spent billions shoving Chrome into any machine they could.
    replies(1): >>41829302 #
    13. j_maffe ◴[11 Oct 24 23:34 UTC] No.41814967{3}[source]▶
    They were pushing from the very start. They knew the potential of taking over the browser market share.
    14. Zak ◴[12 Oct 24 01:57 UTC] No.41815701[source]▶
    Yes. Thanks adblock!
    15. pkasting ◴[12 Oct 24 02:21 UTC] No.41815834{3}[source]▶
    So many replies in this sub thread opining authoritatively. Share your source. Did you have access to the data on Chrome's user growth and which marketing campaigns were the sources of which users?

    From my perspective, all of you are saying a lot of things as if you know them to be true, but you have no idea whether they're true or not; really, you just find them to be plausible.

    replies(1): >>41817573 #
    16. icehawk ◴[12 Oct 24 05:35 UTC] No.41816693[source]▶
    The adoption of firefox was driven by word of mouth.

    I still can't search on google with them trying to shove chrome down my throat

    17. lucianbr ◴[12 Oct 24 08:43 UTC] No.41817573{4}[source]▶
    Is this really something particular to this thread? I feel like most comments on HN are "opining authoritatively".
    18. hyperdimension ◴[13 Oct 24 16:27 UTC] No.41829302{4}[source]▶
    Tellingly, that very bundling is how Sundar got into the spotlight at Google.