Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

This article makes no sense, and Google isn't "locking down Chrome".

Google is removing proprietary Google services like sync from Chromium.

Which honestly makes 100% sense. Chromium is supposed to be a bare-bones open-source browser. Other browsers can build on it, and they do. They can provide their own sync capabilities and everything else.

If you want to use Google services, wouldn't you already just be using Chrome?

So this seems like a positive development, untangling Google-specific features from the Chromium project.

View on HN

It's called "lock-in". First give users the service for free, then limit where they can use it and move some features to the subscription only area. When users have reached a certain amount of people. BOOM! Forced subscription or forced usage of a certain proprietary software (Chrome) to use the service. The same thing is happening to Windows 10.

Fun fact: Google is stealing your data if you use Chrome via many ways. Among them is a software called software_reporter_tool that scans your hard drive and other stuff.

Here's another example: You can find it here: chrome://settings/searchEngines?search=search This is the default search engine: "{google:baseURL}search?q=%s&{google:RLZ}{google:originalQueryForSuggestion}{google:assistedQueryStats}{google:searchFieldtrialParameter}{google:iOSSearchLanguage}{google:searchClient}{google:sourceId}{google:contextualSearchVersion}ie={inputEncoding}"

This is what google actually need to make a search: "https://www.google.com/search?q=%s"

Notice the difference? Google is abusing its position as usual.

People want sync to function since they have a google account but they don't want the privacy and security violations that come with using Chrome.

I'm hoping EU will step in soon. It's monopoly behavior to remove sync from Chromium. It's free after all so what is google butthurt about? Oh right, they can't track and collect user data since that's the first thing devs remove in their Chromium fork.

I'm sorry but whatever you're talking about has nothing whatsover to do with the issue at hand.

Google isn't charging subscriptions for sync. Chromium isn't even really designed to be an end-user product, but a bare-bones browser application that other browsers can build features on top of. It's browser market share used directly is... 0.06%. Less than a tenth of a percent.

And to say that users are forced to use Chrome to use their browser sync settings feels pretty... backwards? Sync is a Chrome feature. It's like complaining Microsoft forces you to use Excel if you want to use Microsoft's pivot table functionality. It's simply a product feature. Not a lock-in mechanism.

As far as I can tell, you're... arguing that users should be allowed to use other browsers (like Firefox and Edge?) but have them sync with their Google account? Even though Mozilla and Microsoft already provide their own sync feature? And which would further entrench Google accounts?

I'm truly confused. Product lock-in is a real thing, but this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

> Product lock-in is a real thing, but this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Many people install Chrome on the Desktop because it allows them to sync with their mobile Android devices. Yes, you can install Firefox on your phone too, but fewest people do that.

The problem is that sync is a "Google feature" and not a "Chromium feature" that any server can implement. Why can't I switch my sync from Google to Mozilla or Your Startup?

Microsoft did.

> If you want to use Google services, wouldn't you already just be using Chrome?

Would you make the same argument if those services were Google search, Gmail, or Youtube?

Those are just websites.

Yes, if Chrome had Gmail, etc integration built into the client I would prefer that not be in Chromium.

First, many people log into non-Google services using their Google account. If you can't log into it from a third party browser, you'd have to keep using Chrome even if you didn't want to.

Also there is speculation that with browsers blocking third party cookies, Google might eventually perform ad tracking via the browser, via your Google account. Websites that live from ads like news websites will notice this and block users who are not logged into Google, as they don't add revenue. So eventually it might be possible that large parts of the web become inaccessible to you.

> If you can't log into it from a third party browser, you'd have to keep using Chrome even if you didn't want to.

Oauth is browser agnostic, right?

Yes but Google blocks browsers that don't belong to the group of "large" ones for "security" reasons:

https://developers.googleblog.com/2020/08/guidance-for-our-e...

https://security.googleblog.com/2019/04/better-protection-ag...

If you're creating your own browser you are not going to start with CEF. You're going to take the Chromium source code and build from there.

> many people log into non-Google services using their Google account

Is that actually affected by this change? i.e. have they prevented you logging into Google at all from this browser?

I personally don't use Chrome or a Chromium based browser and I have zero problems logging into other non-Google services using my Google account. The fact that my browser of choice doesn't "know" about it (natively) and doesn't display this in its own UI is of no consequence (except the positive ones of why the eff would my browser even _need_ to?)

Blocking non-Google users would be nonsensical. News sites currently have tons of non-revenue adding users. The problem they're trying to solve isn't "How do we block these people?"—it's how do we monetize them.

This is why the real shift you're seeing in media right now is back towards subscriber models. Ads are still providing the lion's share of revenue, but as someone whose worked with many media companies, I can tell you that nearly everyone is obsessed with growing their paying subscriber base.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com