[woofie11]

You're confusing two things:

  laxness <--> strictness scale

  carefulness/competence <--> carelessness / incompetence scale

Google tries to do this with automated processes and minimum wage drones, which results in both million dollar extensions being bump AND widespread malware being let through.

[thephyber]

> Google tries to do this with automated processes and minimum wage drones

Do you have an alternative suggestion for how they could do it better?

[ncallaway]

Yes, but it involves spending more money.

[x0x0]

Not necessarily?

Eg you could sell developer support at $10k/annum with a 3h SLA for escalation to a senior eng. Serious companies with business that rely on chrome plugins would purchase in a second.

[miohtama]

$1000 yearly subscription for the store membership for human curated content.

[xnyan]

Apple can do it for $99 a year (plus thirty percent of course). Their system is by no means perfect, but there absolutely is less bullshit malware on their market vs google chrome.

[kelnos]

I think the parent meant that the Chrome user would pay $1k/year for human-curated extensions.

[michaelmrose]

This is kind of strange thought isn't it? At that rate even if people were inclined to pay its affordable to what 10% of the US or a fraction of 1% of the world.

Why would it even cost that much? You could literally use the actual chrome store for curation and make a white list of the top 100 extensions that aren't skeevy or run by skeevy people and pull in updates periodically after checking that it hadn't become obvious malware or been sold.

If you imagine that such a list would consume meager resources per person using it a million people paying 1 dollar would probably pay more than it would cost to run it. It would be easier to convince a million people to pay a dollar than it would be to convince anyone to pay a thousand per year for chrome extensions while they are using computers and OS which cost them less combined.