Comments on: Google reveals Chrome extensions plan

Today, Google's Web browser can't be customized with extensions, but the company has published details of its plan to add the ability.

[rshah29]

Biggest extension: RoboForm compatibility. Work with RoboForm to get this implemented. So many of us who purchase online use RoboForm to fill out forms and billing info; it's ubiquitous at this point.

Google: don't miss the boat on this one.

[DarkHawke]

Copy and paste that!

[sahay]

100% agree and request this feature.
But this is what RoboForm has to says
Will RoboForm support the new Google Chrome Browser? When?
We are sorry, but RoboForm cannot integrate with Google Chrome.
Unfortunately, it is not possible due to the browser engine that Google chose, named WebKit.
We will look into possibility of integration.

[bdaughtry]

The #1 extension to add is "Adblock Plus". This is the one that keeps sending me back to Firefox.

[DarkHawke]

Dittoes!

[calande]

This addon works fine in Chrome, albeit still under development: http://www.adsweep.org

[tm_anon]

Even with an extensions network, Chrome doesn't beat Flocks native abilities. What good is rendering single pages more quickly when a large portion of users have at least a dozen sites they check on a regular basis more than once a day? I'm currently connected to Myspace, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, I'm checking my email, I'm checking all my RSS feeds and getting notified when one of a dozen job sites posts a new position open. At the same time, I could be posting to my blog site, saving photographs to my clipboard, uploading photographs from my computer for later use or looking up youtube videos and yes, Flock already supports adblock so I could do all of that without seeing those ads. My page to page rendering is on par with FF as I have both installed on my system with minimal addons installed and is as stable as FF. I've brought up the point many times that if Chrome were not associated with Google, it would get far less press exposure and would most likely be buried underneath far superior web browsers. All Chrome has going for it is speed and a few bells and whistles. FF has its addons and its stability and, best of all, its ability to not send in your personal info to Google every few minutes. Flock on the other hand, does everything FF does, but it does a whole lot more. It's not made for a 2 second stint at checking your email because you don't have time to do that and make the webpage you're supposed to be making along with working on the reports you need to do online research for, posting to your companies blog, checking the RSS feeds which are vital to your job or uploading news pics for an ad campaign you're responsible for getting ready for next week. No, Flock isn't for that at all. Flock is for taking all of that accumulated crap that always seems overwhelming just from the shear amount of it and getting it down to size, letting the browser be your assistant, storing those photographs for the ad campaign until you're ready to use them, checking your email for you so that you know the moment the one you're waiting for comes in, checking your various RSS feeds that are so essential so when that story you've been waiting to hear about is posted, you know it. The best example is that of a race car and a jet. If you want to make a short trip with just one person and get there really fast, you take the race car. Now, imagine transporting 500 people 100 miles. You wouldn't take the race car for that, you'd take the jet. The jet is bulkier for a reason. It takes more fuel and takes a lot more time to start moving. The difference in the two is how fast those 500 people get that 100 miles. Chrome is the race car, it starts faster and makes short trips very well, but when you have so much piled up that needs to be done, you don't need to be able to do bits and pieces faster, you need to be able to do it all at once. If all you need is to check a page or two a day, get Chrome and screw the addons, they'll slow you down and then you'll complain about those. If you don't care about web 2.0 at all and just want to fill in a couple forms, get FF with RoboForm. If you need some help so you don't go crazy and kill some people just to reduce your workload, get Flock and start breathing again.

[FroZone]

When you write so much it makes me not read your post. Or use Flock.

[timster799]

To write a post this long and sign it anonymous is just plain wrong.

[zschork]

just plain obnoxious

[snowden11]

yeah, umm i dont see why people use flock, FF etc. Opera has all these features with Chromes speed + a customisable interface... Basiclly to me, Opera is like FF, Flock, Chrome and IE combined.

[DarkHawke]

One major miss from the article is the current lack of themes/skins in Chrome. Not as important as add-ons like Ad Block, NoScript, Roboform, etc., but another killer feature of Firefox with which Chrome must compete is the ability to customize the look of the browser.

Also, for me to even consider switching, they're gonna have to do something about being able to re-open inadvertently or prematurely closed tabs. I know it's part of the architecture that you can't directly re-open closed tabs, but there's got to be some kind of work-around other than re-browsing or rummaging in the History.

[Shankland]

To reopen closed tabs (this was a big problem for me, too), open a new tab by clicking the + icon to the right of your tabs or by typing Ctrl-T. A list of recently closed tabs is on lower right.

[DarkHawke]

@Shankland: Is that something that's configurable? 'Cause all I see to the right of the pictures of my five most visited sites is the Google Chrome logo, a History search box (which I guess could help if you remember the name of the page in the closed tab), and a list of my most recent *bookmarks*. Can you change this to a list of recently closed tabs? It would still be less elegant than a Tab Mix Plus-enabled right-click menu, but that would be an acceptable work-around.

[BrodieB]

If Chrome gets Adblock working like it should I may switch from Firefox 3. Ads are not only a pain in the rear but also dangerous and annoying - Chrome has a bright future and it is nice to see that Google sees this and is willing to work on it and allow users to make it great like Firefox.

[mattumanu]

What makes anyone think that Google will be fair when implementing adblock? There's a conflict of interest here. Google lives off of ads, but they are going to offer a browser that blocks ads?

I don't think that will be happening.

[DarkHawke]

@mattumanu: Well, the good thing is that Chrome is open source (it has to be, since it's built with Webkit and parts of Firefox which are both open source), so if they monkey with the code to curtail the abilities of any add-on, that should be something that can be ferreted out. Or even forked, if there are enough folks who want to develop a flavor of Chrome not under the purview of Google. So once add-ons become a reality in Chrome, one way or another, Ad Block will be there.

[synthetikz]

what happened to talks that they would be releasing chrome for mac?

Roboform...Roboform...Roboform!

Did I mention that being able to use Roboform is the only reason that I tried Chrome for half a day and then stopped!

[strongpimphand]

No Adblock Plus = no download. It's that simple!

Shoot, that's why I haven't downloaded Safari! Why even waste my time if I can't block annoying flash ads???

[AppleSuxLeo]

As soon as they have a "flashblock" , I`m in. It is at least ten times faster than any other , including the browser pushed by the Syrian Liar (rhymes with nobs) ;)
Did you know Apple spent over a BILLION in anti-microsoft ads ? And at the same time they poked fun at MSFT for spending a mere 300 million. Flashblock prevents any Apple-Crap-Ads from reaching my PC. The Syrian-Liar is a jack-ass. And I love making him waste money on ads that go unseen.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Use "flashblock" to make Jobs-The-Liar waste money on unseen adverts ;) Did you know Chrome is at least 10x faster than Safari ??? Proof ? yes.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2335242,00.asp

[pd83]

All chrome has going for it right now is its speed. It's lack of extensions such as ad block and my personal fav, IE tab, clearly means it can't be compared to FF yet.
If they add similar features as FF and its faster than FF then you can say its competition. Supposedly FF 3.1 is supposed to even faster than the current version, so Google has a long ways to go. Also thought of personal info going from my computer to Google is reason enough for me not to switch from FF to Chrome.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Steve Nobs pees on your iPhones...and laughs all the way to the bank.http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2335710,00.asp

[linytxky]

****!I am usering it now!

[darthvador365]

It's about time they start planning these extensions - especially the Content Filterinfgand Video Helping. Can't wait 'till that's available.

[sparcdr1]

In respect to internet standards, Chrome and Safari 4 are the top contenders. While I'm sure that Firefox 4 is also planning on making sure it passes the ACID4 test and is compliant with draft CSS3 and HTML5 specifications, currently Chrome is the most viable browser to test these features with. Personally speaking, it's always important to keep a neutral stance on which browser to support, granted the vendors behind them also keep up the end of their bargain.

It'll be a strange 2009 when further permeation of the Web 2.0 craze continues to push complexity and increase demands on the server infrastructure, but it is in the best hope that there are still those out there who in the interest of accessibility and fairness to make sure their goals are met with the bare minimal subset of these features to keep management reasonable and compatibility at top priority.

[snowden11]

Yeah im pretty sure Safari 4 and Chrome have nothing on web standards in comparision to Opera

[cioob]

foxmark anyone?
it saves your bookmarks online with ease, comes in real handy when u want to redo your system. it now even saves passwords..

[Shankland]

I'm a big Foxmarks fan. It's dead to me for now, though--broken in Firefox 3.1 beta 1. I'll resync once it supports 3.1.

[n25philly]

I bet it's still going to suck ass

[mnl1121]

the only reason i dont exclusively use Chrome is just like the article says; extensions, mostly adblock plus. Get adblock to work in chrome and i'm sold!

[OutRider2003]

The one extension that will have me sold on Chrome if it happens is one that will synchronize your bookmarks and passwords...similar to Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer, Mozilla Weave, and Google Browser Sync. I will definitely switch to Chrome as soon as that type of extension becomes available.

[dallas7]

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the nature of the ads: with the "free this" and "free that" and "you will die without this" flashing, bouncing, spinning, pulsating and obnoxious audio. Type "nrumphlaxz" in shopping engines and get "buy nrumphlaxz at" frames and pop ups by the dozens from every Tom, Dick and Harry Web merchant on the planet. My recent experiences with Chrome and Safari confirm to me the noise is worse than ever - one of my favorite news sites having no less than nine totally intrusive ads and at least a dozen not quite as loud.

Having been a warrior in the battle against ad noise in my Web experience heralding back to pre-Lavasoft Ad-Aware days and maintaining hosts files ad nausea, the availability of Ad Block Plus in Firefox is mead from Asgard. I have become accustomed to "silent" browsing and I'm never going back. Or there needs to be a return to unobtrusive text and still graphic advertising. (OK. You can stop laughing now...)

Developers who ponder the public's cry for ad and flash (the app doesn't deserve capitalization) blocking need only to look to the harshest advertising motion on the Web site they're currently viewing.