Nope, the problem is they haven't finished the plugin api/architecture/ whatever yet. The code is open source, if someone wanted to fork it and make a browser with ad blocking built in, they could. Google couldn't stop them. They aren't holding back plugin capabilities because of someone eventually making an adblocking plugin. They are still working on a beta product with incomplete features, simple as that.
On Sep 4, 9:04 pm, Spicy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, Chrome does allow plugins. But the problem (well at least for > Google) is the adblocker plugin. I mean, google makes profit from > internet advertising... lol > > On Sep 4, 10:50 am, sEver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Exactly. Most feature requests on this list so far are about > > interface. Mouse gestures, some buttons here and there... if chrome > > would allow extension mechanism similar to Firefox, so people could > > make their own plugins, You could have any feature You like in there, > > like in Firefox. > > > On Sep 4, 10:49 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > i agree with it... i a kind of miss add-ons from firefox. i think that > > > even if you provide world-best user interface, without a possibility > > > of easy extending it it might be not enough > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I installed Google Chrome just yesterday and i would say that i like > > > > it very much, it's startup launch speed is perfect, interface is the > > > > best i have used (Firefox and Opera), it's light-weight, clutter-less, > > > > omni-bar and the search features are great, etc. the best thing is it > > > > recognized all the installed plug-ins flash + silverlight and i > > > > browsed several ria sites and it worked 95% of the time. although, > > > > it's not displaying silverlight content on Microsoft web main page! > > > > there is no full screen mode, but the maximized interface and custom > > > > web applications make up for that so that almost not required. Themes > > > > as well (only for me?) are not required. But it still misses some > > > > basic things: > > > > RSS, feeds subscription feature and add-ons. > > > > but i think instead of add-ons, there should be an inbuilt feature > > > > which acts like greasemonkey add-on Firefox, which would be able to > > > > run html-tricks and other good harm-less scripts. > > > > Because i think almost everything is possible using such scripts. So, > > > > having a greasemonkey like feature built in to the Chrome itself, > > > > there won't be any requirement for addons and the browser would still > > > > be light. i think if many things are added like addons etc, then even > > > > Chrome would take up much time to load and use even more resources. > > > > I am now using both chrome and firefox, maybe i would switch to Chrome > > > > later when some of these or other good features are added to it in the > > > > final version. > > > > I thank Chrome team for such a great browser! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
