[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.

[lapcat]

> My point is that this is Lina Khan's specialty.

So what? I've already explained in detail why there's no case here. I would hope that Khan isn't dumb enough to start a futile, unwinnable fight.

Google has plenty of antitrust problems, for example, paying Apple $billions per year to be the default search engine on iOS. But the desktop Chrome extension API is not one of those problems.

> Google is undoubtedly calibrating many of their business decisions to make sure that they don't attract scrutiny.

The word "undoubtedly" is incorrect. I'm explicitly doubting you. Not to mention that if Google was actually worried, they wouldn't be doing this extension transition in the first place.

[gnicholas]

TBH, it gives me pause to be in protracted disagreement with someone whose comments I often find insightful. But I guess what it comes down to is I don't think we can accurately predict the path of the transition, especially because it has already changed several times. If you have an inside scoop on how this is unfolding inside Google, or have worked there in the past, then you'd be in a better position to know.

[lapcat]

> But I guess what it comes down to is I don't think we can accurately predict the path of the transition, especially because it has already changed several times.

The schedule was pushed back. That's the only change. Could the schedule be pushed back again? Perhaps. But speculations about various other unspecified changes are entirely imagined and not based on the evidence.

> If you have an inside scoop on how this is unfolding inside Google, or have worked there in the past, then you'd be in a better position to know.

I'm a professional browser extension developer and have been watching this closely for quite some time, for obvious reasons.

[gnicholas]

I guess we're on the same footing, as I run a company whose products are browser extensions.

Only time will tell what Google will do; look forward to seeing your opinions as this continues to unfold.