[gnicholas]

It does say they’ll be automatically disability, but it seems strategically ambiguous to me. What would be the point of saying “you can’t install from the Chrome webstore” if they’re permanently disabling them and not allowing sideloading?

My read was that they’ll disable existing installs (which may be manually re-enable-able by the user), and they definitely won’t let users install them from the Chrome webstore. But it isn’t clear whether these can be sideloaded. My guess is that it will depend on how the rollout goes, and what the antitrust landscape looks like.

[lapcat]

It's not strategically ambiguous, just unintentionally ambiguous. Google's earlier announcement was clearer, before the long delay occcured: "The Chrome browser will no longer run Manifest V2 extensions." https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/

> What would be the point of saying “you can’t install from the Chrome webstore” if they’re permanently disabling them and not allowing sideloading?

It's a gradual rollout:

"We will begin disabling Manifest V2 extensions in pre-stable versions of Chrome (Dev, Canary, and Beta) as early as June 2024, in Chrome 127 and later. 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. Also in June 2024, Manifest V2 extensions will lose their Featured badge in the Chrome Web Store if they currently have one.

We will gradually roll out this change, gathering user feedback and collecting data to make sure Chrome users understand the change and what actions they can take to find alternative, up-to-date extensions."

MV2 extensions will remain in the Chrome Web Store for some time. The rollout starts in the pre-release Chrome channels and eventually moves to the stable channel. So Chrome canary users will start seeing MV2 disabled even while Chrome stable users can continue to install and use MV2 extensions. Even the stable release will be a gradual rollout.

Let me ask you the reverse question: What would be the point of toggling off MV2 extensions if users could just immediately open the Extensions window and toggle them right back on? That would be a pointless, silly waste of time and effort. Google is not that dumb.

[gnicholas]

> What would be the point of toggling off MV2 extensions if users could just immediately open the Extensions window and toggle them right back on?

The point would be to get people off MV2 by default, but giving themselves more cover on the antitrust front by technically still allowing people to use these extensions.

Given the ways in which the story has changed about this rollout, my default is to assume that nothing that is projected is set in stone. This is certainly the case for things that have been left unsaid, like the possibility of sideloading.

[lapcat]

> giving themselves more cover on the antitrust front

There's no antitrust front on the MV2 to MV3 transition. You're imagining something that doesn't exist.

> Given the ways in which the story has changed about this rollout, my default is to assume that nothing that is projected is set in stone.

That's fine, and Google itself said in the announcement that they're doing a slow rollout in order to collect data and see the effects, but it has nothing to do with antitrust. The MV2 deprecation was delayed because Chrome extension developers complained that MV3 still had serious shortcomings that prevented them from migrating their extensions from MV2, so Google paused to address many of those issues.

[gnicholas]

> There's no antitrust front on the MV2 to MV3 transition. You're imagining something that doesn't exist.

My understanding is that there is a widespread perception that the transition is largely being executed to neuter adblockers since Google makes so much money on ads. Given how aggressive the federal antitrust authorities have been in pursuing novel claims, I could easily see them going after Google if they prevent users from accessing MV2 extensions at all.

[lapcat]

> I could easily see them going after Google

Like I said, you're imagining something that doesn't exist.

There are several points worth noting:

1) Mobile Chrome doesn't even have extension support. This transition affects only desktop.

2) Chrome is not the default web browser on either Windows or Mac.

3) Chrome's Declarative Net Request API is very similar to Safari's content blocker API.

4) Given what Adguard says about MV3 on their blog and indeed in HN comments on this thread, such an imagined antitrust case would seem very hard to win. https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan...

5) I suspect that the majority of desktop Chrome users don't even have ad blocking extensions installed in the first place.

The more I think about this, the closer I come to the conclusion that an antitrust case here is wildly implausible.

[gnicholas]

> Like I said, you're imagining something that doesn't exist.

My point is that this is Lina Khan's specialty. Everyone knows it, and Google is undoubtedly calibrating many of their business decisions to make sure that they don't attract scrutiny. This would be especially true where the product involved has over 60% market share globally.