DailyTech - Google Looks to Add Support for 3rd Party Plug-ins to Chrome

Submit News

Software Google Looks to Add Support for 3rd Party Plug-ins to Chrome
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - December 2, 2008 1:22 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

18 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Dec 3 at 3:14 PM

Google wants to add plug-in support to browser in hopes to gain market share

Microsoft may hold the lion's share of the web browser market with its Internet Explorer browser, but alternative browsers are drawing a cadre of followers. A couple of the alternative web browsers that are available include Mozilla Firefox and Google's Chrome browser.

Google's Chrome browser is still in beta and has less than 1% of the browser market at this time according to InformationWeek. Google and its developers are looking for ways to make the browser more useful and appealing to internet surfers. One of the ways it hopes to improve the browser is via an extension system that allows users to install third-party plug-ins to do things that Google didn’t integrate into the browser.

The ability to add third party extensions is one of the main reasons for the popularity of Mozilla Firefox, which currently holds the record for most downloads in a day and about 20% of the web browser market.

A developer working for Google announced this weekend that Google was looking into enabling third-party browser plug-ins for Chrome. A design document was released that outlined what had to happen to make the ability to add plug-ins available.

According to Google, types of plug-ins it would like to support include ad and flash blockers, two of the most popular extension types in Firefox. An extension system is reportedly the top of the wish list for Chrome users.

Google has not set a time frame for designing and implementing an add-on system for its beta browser. However, fans of the browser or those looking for an alternative to Internet Explorer and Firefox may be glad to hear that Google plans to offer extension support.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Isn't it ironic...

By mikeyD95125 on 12/2/2008 2:07:05 PM , Rating: 3

...that Google wants it's browser to be able block advertisements

RE: Isn't it ironic...

By Shig on 12/2/2008 2:25:18 PM , Rating: 2

Yes it is ironic, and here is how you do it.

http://lifehacker.com/5046529/how-to-block-ads-in-...

Not as good as ad blocker plus, but better than nothing.

Parent

RE: Isn't it ironic...

By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 5:24:04 PM , Rating: 2

Not all places will allow you to use proxies. When I was in the military, they prohibited the use of proxies because they threw off their internet content filters. So this solution wasn't an option. 3rd party apps will be a welcome addition. Really, it should be standard on all browsers.

Parent

RE: Isn't it ironic...

By MamiyaOtaru on 12/3/2008 12:29:20 AM , Rating: 2

That doesn't really apply when the proxy is on your own local computer.

Parent

Chrome requires adblock and flashbock

By the goat on 12/2/2008 3:53:26 PM , Rating: 1

Just today I switched from chrome back to firefox (only at work, at home I use 64bit linux so no chrome at home anyway). I couldn't stand all the adobe flash crap all over my screen. Honestly how can people stand browsing the web with all the annoying flash advertisements popping up on every page?

I am surprised google will allow 3rd party plug-ins. I thought for sure the prime directive of chrome is to guaranty google advertisements got to their destination unmolested.

RE: Chrome requires adblock and flashbock

By Bruneauinfo on 12/2/2008 4:03:50 PM , Rating: 2

i'd say adoption of their apps is higher on their agenda - a browser that works well on mobile devices... they want ubiquity from desktop to phone/mobile to workstation.

Parent

RE: Chrome requires adblock and flashbock

By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 2

While they may not completely live up to "Don't Be Evil", they at least make a show of trying. Compared to the standard, amoral corporation, that's a step in the right direction, I guess.

And before somebody starts ranting about how corporations exist to maximize shareholder value, I'll say that I disagree with that. Corporations exist to fulfill their mission statement. Usually, that mission statement involves making money, at least implicitly. But if you invest in a company that publicly states that it is working for the public good, then you, as an investor, are consenting to them using your money to that end. (Of course, Google intends to make money as well as not be evil.) For those who weren't aware of the goals of Google when they invested, I only have to say that ignorance isn't innocence. You should research your investments before you make them.

Parent

Adblock rules!

By Jjoshua2 on 12/2/2008 1:27:35 PM , Rating: 3

I'm not using any browser besides Firefox until it supports some form of adblock. I can live without my other extensions. If chrome adds adblock, I will switch to it at least for a while to show my support.

For any new browser it is going to be really tough

By subhajit on 12/3/2008 5:18:32 AM , Rating: 3

I've been using Firefox from version 0.9. I remember when it was released it was such a big step forward from the IE. It improved the browsing experience by leaps and bounds. That is what helped it gain a respectable market share against the mighty Microsoft. From that time onwards Mozilla continually updated their browser and fixed almost all the issues. So, I never felt the urge to switch my primary browser again.
If a new browser wants to do the same it has to provide something which is completely new and not just tweaks and enhancements. Unfortunately that is not the case for Chrome. Let's see if Google developers can deliver.

My $.02

By Souka on 12/2/08, Rating: -1

RE: My $.02

By icrf on 12/2/2008 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 2

I'm a huge Opera fan, and if Chrome had Opera-style mouse gestures, I'd use it a hell of a lot more (FF gesture plug-ins always felt lacking). I've never had any problems with Chrome on the javascript-laden pages, like google maps.

Parent

RE: My $.02

By threepac3 on 12/2/08, Rating: 0

RE: My $.02

By icrf on 12/2/2008 2:39:42 PM , Rating: 1

I haven't used FF since 2.0, at which time Opera was definitely the faster of the two. It has bloated features (I couldn't give a shit about the mail client) but so long as it doesn't slow it down or get in my way, I'm fine with it. I don't know if FF 3.0 beats it out, I'll have to try one of these days. Still, I'm too addicted to Opera mouse gestures, and the FF plug-ins just don't work quite right (and by "right" I mean "the Opera way" of course).

Do you have any specific bloat complaints about Opera? The only thing I usually hear (not bloat related) is that it's "missing plug-in X that I can't live without" which I can understand. I don't care about AdBlock, but I do love my mouse gestures. I can't judge who finds what important.

Parent

RE: My $.02

By quiksilvr on 12/2/2008 3:47:24 PM , Rating: 2

If Chrome gets Adblock Plus, DownThemAll and DownloadHelper then I'll switch to Chrome. Until then, Firefox is the only browser I use.

Parent

RE: My $.02

By MamiyaOtaru on 12/3/2008 12:37:24 AM , Rating: 2

Typical Opera vs Firefox debate:
Firefox User: Opera is bloated.
Opera User: Opera does useful stuff like gestures and gives better control over tabs etc. It has more features.
Firefox User: That can all be added to Firefox through extensions.

1: extensions break and are occasionally no longer supported. I remember when Tabbrowser Preferences stopped being updated for a while and I had to use Tab Mix Plus. Hunting for (working) extensions that don't have compatibility issues with other extensions is not the best use of my time.

2: Opera is a smaller package with the added features (that can be ignored). my opera.exe: 78k with 3.1 MB of dlls. My firefox.exe: 7.5 MB with 2.4 MB of dlls. Your definition of bloat is weird. And no, I don't have the very latest versions, but I'd be shocked if anything has changed.

Apparently by "slim" you mean fewer features out of the box. Sounds like Chrome is the one you want. Get out of XUL land.

Parent

RE: My $.02

By Clauzii on 12/3/2008 3:14:48 PM , Rating: 2

You were being sarcastic, yes?

Even FF3 don't go easy on memory used. It actually still takes a bit more than 100 MB if a few tabs are open; ~150 MB with my 7 favorite news sites open.

Parent

RE: My $.02

By fishbits on 12/2/2008 2:03:21 PM , Rating: 2

Obviously my mileage varied. Bob was a disaster no one cared for. Chrome is simply a nice browser and a zippy performer. How you saw any comparison there is beyond me. It may not be everyone's favorite browser, but out of the box, what it does, it does well.

Its tabs, windows and auto-complete are a joy. I love that each tab is a seperate process, and that they can be monitored through Chrome's task manager. Other than that, the browser generally stays out of my way, which is ideal. It certainly crushes IE7 for me, and is worth checking out.

Parent