Old Manifest V2 Chrome Extensions Will Be Disabled In 2024 (9to5google.com) 39
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 9to5Google: With Manifest V3, Google wants to make extensions safer by prioritizing privacy, but was initially criticized for the impact to ad blockers. The Chrome team has since added new features in response and is ready to disable old Manifest V2 extensions in 2024. Google will begin automatically disabling Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome Dev, Canary, and Beta as early as June 2024 (Chrome 127+). Similarly, Chrome Web Store installs will no longer be possible. Developers are encouraged to update and migrate before then.
This will gradually roll out, with Google taking into account user feedback and data to "make sure Chrome users understand the change and what actions they can take to find alternative, up-to-date extensions." [Google said in a statement:] "We expect it will take at least a month to observe and stabilize the changes in pre-stable before expanding the rollout to stable channel Chrome, where it will also gradually roll out over time. The exact timing may vary depending on the data collected, and during this time, we will keep you informed about our progress." This was originally schedule to take place in 2023, but Google spent this year closing the functionality gap between Manifest V2 and V3 [...].
This will gradually roll out, with Google taking into account user feedback and data to "make sure Chrome users understand the change and what actions they can take to find alternative, up-to-date extensions." [Google said in a statement:] "We expect it will take at least a month to observe and stabilize the changes in pre-stable before expanding the rollout to stable channel Chrome, where it will also gradually roll out over time. The exact timing may vary depending on the data collected, and during this time, we will keep you informed about our progress." This was originally schedule to take place in 2023, but Google spent this year closing the functionality gap between Manifest V2 and V3 [...].
Pulling a Firefox? (Score:2)
Re:Pulling a Firefox? (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly. Most extensions will either just work, or only need minor updates to work.
The main casualties are ad-blockers. Disabling Manifest V2 was postponed before due to complaints from ad-blocker devs. They have addressed a lot of the issues that were raised, although there are still some outstanding. The main one being that they can't auto-update filter lists, so will have to keep publishing updates to the extension itself instead.
All the other stuff about limits on the number of filters and so forth appears to have been resolved, either by removing the requirement or raising the limit to several times that of what is needed.
On the plus side, Manifest V3 may be a precursor to introducing extensions to Android. One of the main improvements is efficiency and power consumption. Having run ad-blockers on Firefox for Android, I can tell you that they eat up more power than they save, by quite a margin. I'd estimate that Firefox+uBlock uses around 3x as much energy as Chrome+DNS based blocking.
What do the ad-blockers think? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the postponed the disabling of Manifest V2, but can the problems faced by the ad-blocker projects be fixed with some extra time?
I.e. Is this an actual solution? I presume ad-blocking is a bit of a cat-and-mouse, so auto-update filter lists sound crucial for ad-blockers to function. If Chrome blocks that, then they're not allowing useful ad-blockers.
Ad-blockers are the canary in the coal mine of the open web.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The issue is that they don't want extensions to be running constantly in the background, or pulling lots of data from websites without user intervention. So background updates have two issues to overcome.
They could produce a new API to allow for that kind of updating. They could offer exceptions, but they are trying to move away from needing permissions at all. Basically the browser will do stuff that requires permissions, with the extension supplying the rules to e.g. inject a download button or remove an
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the details.
Sounds solvable. Not simple, but sounds like they'll be able to solve it, unless they're trying not to.
Maybe new lists could be downloaded per-domain. If I view one page on a domain, I'll probably view others in the same session. And energy use, there are probably ways to make the plug-ins more efficient - in their own code and by improving the functionality the browser makes available.
For the privacy problem of ad-blockers needing access to all of every webpage you view, this could
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with per-domain downloads is it reveals every domain you visit to the download server.
Their reasoning for not wanting background downloads is not just to save energy, it's because getting updates that way can be abused. Malware can pass through Google's checks and get onto their store, and then download the payload at some later date once it has a large number of installs.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, not having to trust extensions with access to every page you visit, and everything you enter into those pages, is a good thing.
Yes, but there is no doubt in my mind that these positives are only to offer Google plausible deniability in going after ad blockers. The only real source of revenue is ads, this funds everything else they do, including browser development. The only way this changes if they get broken up by anti-trust.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the API they have right now makes it trivial to block all Google ads, so that doesn't really hold water. If they wanted to stop people blocking their ads, they would not have bothered to engineer a whole new API so that everyone could continue doing so.
The issue is that the new API only offers simpler rules than extensions can currently implement on their own. They are good enough for blocking all Google stuff (and all other major ad networks), but the more complex rules are needed to improve user exp
Re:What do the ad-blockers think? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
This is just another way to track who is using ad blockers without having to use any code to see it. They will use it on youtube first, mark my words. They change the URL / test for ad blockers, and see who updates their plugins an hour or two later once a new filter comes out, since the filter list can't just be auto-updated anymore. And guess where the new extension is most likely going to be downloaded from? That's right, googles servers. I'd even go so far as to say they will start IP blocking users from youtube... and possibly search if the record downloads repeatedly coming from an IP address.
This also wastes more bandwidth than anything, since ANY time filters need to be updated to combat new intrusive ads or a new domain / IP address is discovered you have to download a whole extension rather than a plain text filter list update.
Re: (Score:2)
Having run ad-blockers on Firefox for Android, I can tell you that they eat up more power than they save, by quite a margin. I'd estimate that Firefox+uBlock uses around 3x as much energy as Chrome+DNS based blocking.
I'm confident you got this information directly from google reps.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trying to switch to Firefox on Android for years. I currently use it for Slashdot and Twitter. For Slashdot I have some uBlock rules that fix the desktop layout to be usable on mobile. For Twitter I need uBlock to remove the incessant advertising.
For other sites I use Chrome, with DNS66 to block ads. I use it because it's so much lighter on the battery. I really wish Firefox was better, I really do, but it just isn't. Doubtless the inefficiency of the current extension model is part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everything you say is false.
I doubt that you have ever written an extension for either firefox or chrome, or that you have used firefox for android at all.
You sound more like a shill or repwhore collecting his "wisdom" (= reasonably sounding bullshit) from google searches.
> Most extensions will either just work, or only need minor updates to work.
Except those that are using the webrequest api, which will have to be abandoned or rewritten from scratch (if simple enough).
> I'd estimate that Firef
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main improvements is efficiency and power consumption. Having run ad-blockers on Firefox for Android, I can tell you that they eat up more power than they save, by quite a margin.
Power consumption is one of the LAST things I concern myself with when considering ad blockers. In fact, I'd say any additional processing or battery power consumed is well worth it for the benefit!
Too little too late (Score:5, Interesting)
I switched to Firefox when Google announced they would seriously cripple ad-blockers with Manifest V3.
Except for one specific bug where Jira doesn't allow me to watch videos without downloading them first, I don't see any reason to stay on Chrome. I'm happy I made the switch.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to Waterfox Classic when FF screwed the pooch with UI mess, but it's no longer maintained. I've been using Palemoon recently and it's fine, even leaks less memory. It's extension repository is smaller, but you can usually just download the FF XPI and install that if there's something you really need/want.
Not looking forward to using firefox (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not looking forward to using firefox (Score:4, Informative)
I find that Firefox on desktop is about as fast as Chrome these days. Chrome can be faster if you enable things like pre-fetch, but without that (i.e. decent ad blocking and privacy settings) they seem the same.
On Android, Firefox is both slower and a massive battery hog compared to Chrome. I think a lot of that is due to extensions on Firefox, although the browser itself isn't up to Chrome standards for energy consumption.
If you are having performance issues, try creating a new profile and installing your extensions one by one. You may find it's a particular extension causing the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox on desktop is about as fast as Chrome these days
That's only the case if you don't block ads. Otherwise, >90% of time of both CPU and network, is spent pulling all the spyware/adware javascript, doing that "instant auction" then finally crapping upon your screen.
Chrome still has weak (intentionally crippled) ad blocking thus Firefox' advantage is way less than 10x, but there's no way it could possibly win on javascript/rendering speed alone (and, as your say, they're about on par today).
Then, speed is not the only concern. There is a reason all those
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's you, or your hardware.
I've been using Firefox for a decade or more on numerous platforms, and it's always been smooth and stable for me. No problem with videos or any other media.
My main complaint with FF is that it's morphed from a lean, mean browsing machine into a bloated mess burdened with tacked-on shit that virtually no one uses.
Re: (Score:2)
is it also me and my hardware?
Yes.
these complaints are not few in number
Yes they are
so maybe rather than blaming the victim, you should just shut the fuck up
Whatever buddy. It is high time you upgrade from Windows 7 and your 8GB of memory
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is you and your hardware. One thing Browsers are good at - since they task basically everything on a system now days - is to be used as a means to expose the weaknesses of your hardware due to how shitty and bloated the browser itself has become.
That's how I found out the Ryzen 5500 I recently bought was defective.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I mentioned it is on machines both at home and both at work. Everything is different, I am the only constant (which you did account for me lol).
At work I have 4 monitors pushed by an NVIDIA NVS 510. The CPU is an AMD Ryzen 5 3600. If I use my work youtube in chrome is it great, if I use firefox it will basically be stop animation if I happen to have our building video camera feed up.
At home, I only have 2 monitors with a GTX 3080 12 GB. The CPU is Ryze
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that people who use Firefox as a daily driver and call it smooth as butter are using something like the DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials [mozilla.org] or Disconnect [mozilla.org] extension. These extensions block the sort of third-party surveillance that is endemic to the ad tech industry. I'm among them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's work where using Firefox is a bit more annoying and I don't have pihole there. At work, Chrome has no problem with 4 surveillance feeds, a few ajax-heavy marketplace backends (walmart, amazon, ebay), and (shhh) a window for Twitch. And these could be spread out across Windows virtual desktops, of which I have 3 (so 12 "screens") or just all on one set of 4. That same setup just isn't smooth on Firefox.
uBlock Origin (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Crippling uBO is the one thing that could really hurt Chrome. They already delayed the introduction of v3 once because developers of uBO and similar extensions complained. They haven't completely fixed all the issues, and if they don't I can see a lot of people switching away from Chrome.
The issue for uBO and others will be that if they want to support Chrome and other more usable browsers, they will need to maintain two versions of their code. So it wouldn't surprise me if many abandon Chrome entirely, or
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, uBlock Origin is also one of the few ad-blockers that YouTube can't detect right now. And there are rules in uBO that fake YouTube ads as well making it harder to detect overall.
End result is that browsers like Edge and Firefox do give you ad-free YouTube (though some have reported issues with Firefox, so I use Edge instead).
Percentage of people who use extensions? (Score:2, Interesting)
Genuine question , I have no idea. I don't use any because I don't use the web for much - slashdot, google, youtube, a few news sites and thats about it. But I imagine power users might need them but I wonder how many power users there really are?
Re: (Score:2)
The same mistake over and over (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even eBay runs like garbage on Firefox!
I do not have this problem. At all. I use eBay on both FF on my desktop, and FF mobile on my Android phone. You have some wacky extension problem or just a profile configuration problem. Refresh your profile.
To understand the change (Score:2)
> make sure Chrome users understand the change
We understand the change alright. The world's largest advertising company is protecting its revenue.