Google plans to disable legacy V2 browser extensions next June | Hacker News Reader

Google plans to disable legacy V2 browser extensions next June

theregister.com

69 pointsbeardyw17 comments

> Users impacted by the rollout will see Manifest V2 extensions automatically disabled in their browser and will no longer be able to install Manifest V2 extensions from the Chrome Web Store.

Does this mean there are no plans to remove the ability to sideload V2 extensions?

Maybe not yet? Google already made having non-store extensions as annoying as possible (e.g. a nag every time you open Chrome that tells you to disable them) and maybe they think that's working well enough to dissuade people.

They nag every time you open Chrome? Terrible. I guess that's why I use Brave, which sideloads with no problem. Hopefully V2 will continue to be sideload-able there indefinitely.

the lengths google fans will go to not use a proper browser...

Nice!!! That's mean more people will switch to Firefox, MS Edge and Safari and Google will pay additional 30+ billions to all those companies to make Google default search engine there. Google already pays Apple 18+ billions to make Google the default search engine on iPhones.

Unfortunately, Google makes more than 18+ billions by showing ads to Apple users... Otherwise there is no reason to work together.

Safari has had Manifest V3 like restrictions for years now. https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

Microsoft announced Edge will stop supporting Manifest V2. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...

This means more users for Firefox, on platforms that actually support it.

[dupe]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38292409

More reason to use Firefox.

For me, the last straw was Chrome's insistence on saving JPEG images from the Internet as WEBP. That just plainly corrupts the data without my consent.

Edit: as pointed out below, it is probably CDNs to blame, not Chrome. Sorry for a false alarm (still going to continue using Firefox, though).

Firefox seems to do this also, but not consistently.

I think that's when the server returns WebP.

Lots of image "optimizing" CDNs will return WEBP images even if the URL specifies JPG, as long as the browser indicates support in the Accept header. As far as I know Chrome (nor Firefox) will "convert" images from one format to another when saving, so if Chrome is saving images as WEBP, it's because that's what the website is serving you, even if the URL say it's a JPG.

That could be. Thanks!

I've never experienced this behavior, but I see people do mention it online. I also just tried to save a JPEG image, and Chrome offered to save it as JPEG.

Could it be that the web page offered different formats and Chrome chose WebP? Developers can do this now:

    <picture>
        <source srcset="some-image.webp" type="image/webp">
        <source srcset="some-image.jpg" type="image/jpeg">
        <img src="some-image.jpg" alt="...">
    </picture>

If Chrome chose to display the WebP image, that's what it will offer to save even if the <img> tag points to the JPEG version.

You can be rest assured that Firefox will roll this out 6 months to a year after chrome does under the auspices of "too difficult to maintain, all the extensions are moving to v3, nobody uses this feature".

Recent related discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38292409

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801

Reply on news.ycombinator.com