Most active commenters
  • pjmlp(3)

←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 16 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 20:51 UTC] No.44545060[source]▶
Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.
replies(26): >>44545103 #>>44545185 #>>44545382 #>>44545931 #>>44545951 #>>44546164 #>>44546522 #>>44546599 #>>44546664 #>>44546763 #>>44547531 #>>44548200 #>>44548246 #>>44548399 #>>44548418 #>>44548820 #>>44549698 #>>44550098 #>>44550599 #>>44551061 #>>44551130 #>>44551663 #>>44553615 #>>44554220 #>>44556476 #>>44571602 #
pjmlp ◴[12 Jul 25 21:34 UTC] No.44545382[source]▶
A monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.
replies(9): >>44546061 #>>44546268 #>>44546519 #>>44546556 #>>44546560 #>>44546615 #>>44546764 #>>44549899 #>>44550943 #
azangru ◴[13 Jul 25 01:08 UTC] No.44546615[source]▶
> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application

I am confused.

- The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part seems to refer to Electron; but Electron is hardly guilty of what is described in the article.

- The "learning web standards" bit seems to impune web developers; but how are they guilty of the Chrome monopoly? If anything, they are guilty of shipping react apps instead of learning web standards; but react apps work equally well (or poorly) in all major browsers.

- Finally, how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them.

replies(4): >>44547181 #>>44547228 #>>44547237 #>>44551418 #
quacksilver ◴[13 Jul 25 03:24 UTC] No.44547237[source]▶
Devs, particularly those with pressure to ship or who don't know better, unfortunately see 'it works in Chrome' as 'it works', even if it is a quirk of Chrome that causes it to work, or if they use Chrome related hacks that break compatibility with other browsers to get it to work in Chrome.

- Sometimes the standards don't define some exact behavior and it is left for the browser implementer to come up with. Chrome implements it one way and other browsers implement it the other way. Both are compatible with the standards.

- Sometimes the app contains errors, but certain permissive behaviors of Chrome mean it works ok and the app is shipped. The developers work around the guesses that Chrome makes and cobble the app together. (there may be a load of warnings in the console). Other browsers don't make the same guesses so the app is shipped in a state that it will only work on Chrome.

- Sometimes Chrome (or mobile Safari) specific APIs or functions are used as people don't know any better.

- Some security / WAF / anti-bot software relies on Chrome specific JavaScript quirks (that there may be no standards for) and thinks that the user using Firefox or another browser that isn't Chrome or iOS safari is a bot and blocks them.

In many ways, Chrome is the new IE, through no fault of Google or the authors of other browsers.

replies(2): >>44548295 #>>44552037 #
1. lowwave ◴[13 Jul 25 07:36 UTC] No.44548295[source]▶
Before shipping any web site/app, make sure it works in Apple Safari Mobile is usually the one that is dragging it is foot in Web Standards.
replies(3): >>44548423 #>>44548958 #>>44549126 #
2. gus_tpm ◴[13 Jul 25 08:01 UTC] No.44548423[source]▶
Even in portugal/spain se have to worry about this. Safari mobile users are a minority here but they usually spend or have more money to spend
replies(1): >>44549565 #
3. pjmlp ◴[13 Jul 25 09:52 UTC] No.44548958[source]▶
On the contrary, they are the last one standing fighting Google takeover of the Web as ChromeOS development platform.

Without Safari we are done, just close shop on the Web standards group.

replies(1): >>44550102 #
4. meindnoch ◴[13 Jul 25 10:22 UTC] No.44549126[source]▶
Web Standards™ [1]

__________________

[1] some feature a Chrome engineer decided to implement, to boost their yearly performance review

5. meindnoch ◴[13 Jul 25 11:40 UTC] No.44549565[source]▶
Those stupid rich people don't know what's good for them and keep buying iPhones. I wonder why?
replies(1): >>44552436 #
6. judge2020 ◴[13 Jul 25 12:55 UTC] No.44550102[source]▶
This is a lesson in capitalism. It’s so much more profitable to ignore small users bases when you can just tell them to “try switching to Chrome”.

I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.

replies(3): >>44550168 #>>44550830 #>>44551843 #
7. pjmlp ◴[13 Jul 25 13:04 UTC] No.44550168{3}[source]▶
It is exactly the same by another words

The moment Chrome gets free reign on iOS variants, it is about time to polish those CVs as ChromeOS Application Developer instead of Web Developer.

8. azinman2 ◴[13 Jul 25 14:49 UTC] No.44550830{3}[source]▶
Other browser engines can exist. JIT has to be the system’s. Others can use Apple’s JavascriptCore to gain access to it and do whatever they want on top.
replies(1): >>44552421 #
9. nozzlegear ◴[13 Jul 25 17:08 UTC] No.44551843{3}[source]▶
> I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.

It sounds like capitalism has so far saved us from a Chrome monopoly, then.

replies(1): >>44552001 #
10. mopenstein ◴[13 Jul 25 17:33 UTC] No.44552001{4}[source]▶
Capitalism doesn't exist. The fact that trademark, copyright, and patents exist nullify capitalism.

There can be no free market if your government intervenes in every transaction.

replies(2): >>44552845 #>>44560243 #
11. flkenosad ◴[13 Jul 25 18:32 UTC] No.44552421{4}[source]▶
JIT only has to belong to the system because of capitalism. If users could install whatever software they want, Apple couldn't exist.
12. flkenosad ◴[13 Jul 25 18:35 UTC] No.44552436{3}[source]▶
They have no friends who like them enough to help them troubleshoot their androids.
13. ako ◴[13 Jul 25 19:27 UTC] No.44552845{5}[source]▶
True capitalism can never exist due to lack of transparency, urgency, monopolies, etc. The best we can have is government controlled capitalism.
replies(2): >>44560566 #>>44564599 #
14. noobr ◴[14 Jul 25 13:49 UTC] No.44560243{5}[source]▶
lol
15. TeMPOraL ◴[14 Jul 25 14:15 UTC] No.44560566{6}[source]▶
Yup. It's quite obvious that such unfettered, true capitalism quickly decays to the good ol' rule of warlords.

There should be a name for this kind of fallacy, where you look at a snapshot of a dynamic system (or worse, at initial conditions), and reason from them as if they were fixed - where even mentally simulating that system a few time steps into the future makes immediately apparent that the conditions mutate and results are vastly different than expected.

16. godelski ◴[14 Jul 25 20:02 UTC] No.44564599{6}[source]▶

  > True capitalism can never exist
To nitpick, you mean "unfettered capitalism". As in no government involvement. Which has the identical problem to unfettered anarchy: coalitions form, creating governments. Since many markets have network effects (e.g. bulk purchasing gives lower price per unit) a monopoly tends to be one of the possible steady state solutions. But any monopoly can choose to become a governor of their market, being able to impose regulation even through means other than government (e.g. pull resources, poach, lawsuits, or even decide to operate at a loss until the competition is dead (i.e. "Silicon Valley Strategy").

I just mention this because it's not a problem exactly limited to capitalism. It's a problem that exists in many forms of government and economics (like socialism). It just relies on asymmetric power