After Google announced the proposed changes to its Chrome browser in October, some software developers have criticized the search giant, claiming that they could paralyze extensions that block ads and improve security.
Although the changes, called Manifest v3, were first proposed last year, many developers have begun to notice – and express themselves – the. Last week, Google announced that it was reviewing its plan and sought to reassure angry developers.
"It is do notWe have never intended to prevent or remove content blocking, "said Devlin Cronin, software engineer for the Chrome team last week, in an article published on Google Groups. We are committed to preserving this ecosystem. ensuring that users can continue to customize the Chrome browser to meet their needs. This includes continuing support for extensions, including content blockers, development tools, accessibility features, and many others. "
Manifest v3 is designed to improve the performance, privacy, and security of Chrome extensions. But the negative reactions to the proposed changes illustrate the issues of Chrome's scale and dominance. The browser, StatCounter, employs over 1 billion people and has more than 1 billion users.
"These changes are being designed," a Google spokeswoman said in a statement. "We want to make sure that all basic use cases – including content blockers – are still possible with these changes and we work with extension developers to make sure their extensions continue." to work while optimizing the platform of extensions and protecting our users better. "
Cronin's message, published by Google, was published after the publication of a study last week by Ghosterly, one of the advertising blocker manufacturers who fiercely opposed the changes, which indicated that the extensions would only have an impact on Chrome's performance of about a tenth of a millisecond.
However, a source close to the situation disputed the methods used by Ghosterly in his study and stated that Cronin's message was not an answer to the study.
Ghosterly did not respond to a request for comment.