[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.