The new Chrome Web Store policy

[ErikRothoff]

I just saw the news today about the "single-purpose extension"-policy and that it will start to be enforced in June 2014. I would like some clarity in what "single-purpose extension" means, and help in knowing if an extension is in the wrong. It seems from the description in the Program Policies document that some of the more popular extensions are breaking the new rules. The rules also seem to be a bit contradicting at times, for example:

Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator

If Gmail supplies an atom feed for their users, and the extension is a RSS reader, then the user can use the extension as an email notifier, but also a news headline aggregator. Does this count as multi-purpose?

What I find the most scary is the ambiguity of the terms and difficulty of knowing what is breaking the rules. Will you be e-mailing out to the developers of extensions that currently are? It would be great if there was some kind of contact where you could ask questions, get clarity or see if your extension will be disabled.

[Ozzy Ozbour]

I would not even be surprised if they announce that all extensions will be disabled for "security reasons" or other "user friendly purposes" like they already banned plugins, external extensions etc. Remember my words.

[Joe Marini]

Hi Erik,

The main reason we're making this change is so that our users have clearer expectations of extensions and to prevent potential bad actors from abusing the system. Extensions are a very big part of Chrome's success, so we don't want to change that, but we've been seeing some behaviors in the store that we want to get out in front of. Since this is mainly a policy change instead of a technical one, there will be a period during which we have to make some case-by-case decisions. The very nature of things that are policy based is that it's hard to list out a complete set of "rules". 

To take your specific example, that's the kind of case where we would probably need to take a specific look. In general, the kind of situation we're trying to avoid is:

- user downloads extension that does A, but also does B and C

- problem is, user only wants A, and B and C are pretty unrelated to A

Extensions that aren't following the policy can expect to be contacted by us to help them work through it. 

Just to be clear: we're not trying to actively boot anybody out; the ecosystem benefits greatly (especially our users) when everyone plays by the rules and is above-board, and I'm here to help any developers get and stay within the policy.

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/dc5b684d-a4b8-48fb-aaa5-abb00f340c1e%40chromium.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

--
Joe Marini

Developer Advocate / Chrome

joem...@google.com | +Joe Marini | @joemarini

[ErikRothoff]

I don't really see why my example would prompt a specifik look. That's like saying a multi-purpose tool is only allowed to be used for on specific task? (FYI I'm worried about that specific example because my RSS Feed Reader extension fits that description.) 

I get the impression that this policy change is only to kill off the monetization schemes that are based on bundling other "features". For example price comparison tools and in-page ads. Is this the case? Then why isn't it more talked about? It feels like your declaring sweeping changes when what you're wanting to protect your users from are some bad apples? Are there any more examples of things you don't want in the Web Store?

On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:37:26 PM UTC+1, Joe Marini wrote:

Hi Erik,

The main reason we're making this change is so that our users have clearer expectations of extensions and to prevent potential bad actors from abusing the system. Extensions are a very big part of Chrome's success, so we don't want to change that, but we've been seeing some behaviors in the store that we want to get out in front of. Since this is mainly a policy change instead of a technical one, there will be a period during which we have to make some case-by-case decisions. The very nature of things that are policy based is that it's hard to list out a complete set of "rules". 

To take your specific example, that's the kind of case where we would probably need to take a specific look. In general, the kind of situation we're trying to avoid is:

- user downloads extension that does A, but also does B and C

- problem is, user only wants A, and B and C are pretty unrelated to A

Extensions that aren't following the policy can expect to be contacted by us to help them work through it. 

Just to be clear: we're not trying to actively boot anybody out; the ecosystem benefits greatly (especially our users) when everyone plays by the rules and is above-board, and I'm here to help any developers get and stay within the policy.

Joe

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM, ErikRothoff <erik.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just saw the news today about the "single-purpose extension"-policy and that it will start to be enforced in June 2014. I would like some clarity in what "single-purpose extension" means, and help in knowing if an extension is in the wrong. It seems from the description in the Program Policies document that some of the more popular extensions are breaking the new rules. The rules also seem to be a bit contradicting at times, for example:

Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator

If Gmail supplies an atom feed for their users, and the extension is a RSS reader, then the user can use the extension as an email notifier, but also a news headline aggregator. Does this count as multi-purpose?

What I find the most scary is the ambiguity of the terms and difficulty of knowing what is breaking the rules. Will you be e-mailing out to the developers of extensions that currently are? It would be great if there was some kind of contact where you could ask questions, get clarity or see if your extension will be disabled.

--

[Gmail]

Single purpose is not a helpful classification, obviously. It would be great to have concrete examples of extensions that are acceptable and also ones that are not . 

Can you do that?

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/e9861ce0-7cff-4de4-a974-fa0174c0779b%40chromium.org.

[Ray Guzman]

Google, be realistic. This was originally stated by Joe Marini (in this thread):

The main reason we're making this change is so that our users have clearer expectations of extensions and to prevent potential bad actors from abusing the system.

- user downloads extension that does A, but also does B and C

- problem is, user only wants A, and B and C are pretty unrelated to A

So, how is that the "developer's fault"? This is not a "problem", be realistic.

If develop MY extension to do A, B, and C; because I felt it was useful and needed (for example). "User A" loves and needs all three functions; then "user B" only wants the functionality of "A" but not "B" or "C", why then should they download it? How is that the "developer's fault"? Wait and see if someone creates an extension that does only "A".

Then one can also argue that "user C" wants the functionality of "A" and "B" but not "C", so then you go about changing your policy and "protect users from evil". I believe Google's intentions are malicious themselves and quite frankly fishy.

If I explain that my extension does "A", "B", and "C", but you only need "A", guess what, don't download it. Google, wake up and make better decisions.

If user's need "clearer expectations of extensions" then your policy just basically should require developers to explain that their extension does "A", "B", and "C" so that the "user" is aware of these functions and basically KNOWS what it's doing, this then should be sufficient. I understand the feel to protect users, but you're going about it the absolute wrong way. And it makes almost no sense.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/4F222050-E1A4-4D62-BBDC-76CB6617931E%40gmail.com.

[Stan Wiechers]

Not to mention that its a pretty complex interaction to install extensions. The easier the better for the user. Installing a set of those is non trivial. Also dependeny management is hard, if B depends on A, what happens I delete A? B becomes a Zombie? Or if the user finds first B in the store, prompt him to install A as well? Don't think so. Packaging makes sense.

—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

[Ray Guzman]

Good point Stan Weichers.

[Joe Marini]

Yes, and we're looking at ways we can improve that. For example allowing multiple items to be installed at the same time might help with this, but there are separate challenges there as well.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CABrhXs-rV5A-O3E49FAKmgWiMN977uhx5%3Dh7eC%3DxLZFNvboOAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

--

Joe Marini

Developer Advocate / Chrome Apps, Extensions, Web Store

joem...@google.com | +Joe Marini | @joemarini

[ErikRothoff]

I'm still honestly just looking for answer to "Will my extension be banned or not". How will we know if our extensions will be removed or need to be changed?

Good point Stan Weichers.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsub...@chromium.org.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/e9861ce0-7cff-4de4-a974-fa0174c0779b%40chromium.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsub...@chromium.org.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/4F222050-E1A4-4D62-BBDC-76CB6617931E%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsub...@chromium.org.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CABrhXs-rV5A-O3E49FAKmgWiMN977uhx5%3Dh7eC%3DxLZFNvboOAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

[Joe Marini]

Oh - sorry Erik.

I actually don't think that kind of case would be banned (I think the example given in the post was actually borderline and confusing). 

And just to be clear, we're not looking to bring any hammers down on people. If an extension looks like it is doing something that's outside the policy, we'll contact and work with the developer (assuming they aren't doing anything else malicious).

Joe

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/bd71d9fe-0922-4cff-881f-ccda4e41ed5d%40chromium.org.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

[Chris Naegelin]

Hi Joe - just jumping in on this thread:

I feel that Google's messaging needs clarification for the sake of the development community, especially on the single purpose / monetization front.

As an example - the policy states: " For example, functionality that displays product ratings and reviews, but also injects ads into web pages, should not be bundled into a single extension."

Does that mean extensions can or cannot use advertising as a means for monetization?? Its pretty hard for non-hobbyist developers to justify spending any time/money in building chrome apps if clear policies aren't set AND stay consistent. 

In the policy announcement blog post there was mention on easier payment options for extensions - if Google thinks this is a successful method of monetization why is it that as a consumer I can't buy google services as an alternative to being ad-served? Just saying. 

Why not create an actual monetization eco system where Google + the developer make money for popular extensions (shared search revenue for example) - as you point out extensions were a big part of the success of Chrome - why not share that Success with those who are making it such? 

My guess is such a move would actually encourage "bad actors" to be "good developers".

Regards,

Chris

[Tony Wong]

Joe

I got a canned email regarding this single purpose issue on 1 of my extensions. What is the process for me to make a case for my extension, seems like single purpose is up for interpretation as Erik mentioned above but before I start destroying my product completely I want to talk to someone from Google. My monetization of existing users will be impacted.

In the email it didn't not specify time period for blocking or disabling, it did not specify how I should proceed and to what extent I should change my extension. The email says do not reply since the email reply address is not monitored.

Also if you guys start blocking would it affect my existing user base? Or would it just affect new installs? How would I be able to upgrade existing users if you guys start blocking it.

Please provide more information, I feel as if you guys are dictating the ideal case and what you guys want to enforce without any details on how this will be enforced and what the review process is. How is this helping developers, especially the open source community?

[Joe Marini]

Hi Tony,

Send an email to chromewebs...@google.com, and someone will contact you.

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/3774e745-5c0e-401a-92f0-872c86ec1376%40chromium.org.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/groups/opt_out.

--

Joe Marini

[DeC.]

Hi guys,

Just a few questions regarding this new single purpose policy and Ads, maybe it will help others also..

I have my product which does functionality A (primary functionality) and I want to use chrome extension to serve Ads (functionality B) as monetization system. 

The best thing for me would be if A and B were same extension. But Google mentioned in CWS policies:

"For example, functionality that displays product ratings and reviews, but also injects ads into web pages, should not be bundled into a single extension."

But, in Chrome dev dashboard there is checkbox which says that extension is Ad supported. It seems obsolete, if extension can't have Ads as second functionality (because of single purpose). So, can you just clarify how this checkbox in dashboard relates to Single Purpose policy. Why is it there if extension can't have injecting Ads as additional functionality, like example above?

If I need to have separate extension just for Ad serving, it would be single purpose extension simply doing just Ads. Would it be ok? Probably, it would be most boring extension on the CWS, definitely. But if it respects all CWS policies for Ads it should be OK? Even if it had very poor rating?

Probably, sometime it would need reviewing. Is there a problem with obfuscated js code? I'm planing to use it because of some internal things, but I have no problem to show plain code to Chrome review team. (Would be great if we could upload plain extension and then Google obfuscate js for us. So review team can have plain code any time.)

I always thought that Ads wouldn't be considered as separate functionality and needed separate extension, but Google mentioned example above.. Single purpose, in my opinion, should be rule to separate functionality which are totally unrelated, like extensions which shows weather, facebook status, gas prices together and have search provider... Ads as extension monetization option shouldn't be considered as separate functionality. Of course, by ads I mean CWS compliant ads. 

By pushing ads from extensions, it is mostly just pushed outside of Chrome, but will still be there. This is even worse, now 'bad guys' will (instead of using less aggressive and safer js chrome api) push it to Windows as separate process or service, maybe injecting ads in network layer or something similar, we are aware that they can do it.

Thanks for help, 

Dejan

[Serge Strukoff]

We also got an email from CWS

Dear Developer,
Our records indicate that you have a Chrome Web Store extension.....

An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users. Do not create an extension that requires users to accept 
bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator. If two pieces of functionality 
are clearly separate, they should be put into two different extensions, and users should have the ability to install and 
uninstall them separately. For example, functionality that displays product ratings and reviews, but also injects ads into web 
pages, should not be bundled into a single extension. Similarly, toolbars that provide a broad array of functionality or entry 
points into services are better delivered as separate extensions, so that users can select the services they want.
For new extensions and existing extensions that have moved out of compliance after December 19, 2013, the policy will go into 
effect immediately.  We're not going to start enforcing the policy for other existing extensions in the Web Store until June 
2014 in order to give developers time to adapt their code. Please take a moment to review your items, make appropriate changes 
and re-publish in your developer dashboard to ensure compliance with our policies.
For more information regarding the policy change and transition, please refer to our external blog post.
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-simple.html
Please do not reply to this email - the response is not monitored.
Thanks,
Google Chrome Web Store Team

This extension is for reading/writing Facebook messages, users can get notifications (play sound) when a new message arrives. 

This is prohibited functionality into one extension? We must create a separate extension for this? 

End users need to install separate extension for a sound notification? 

Okay, we can delete this extension from CWS, because without notifications this is not a product, but "yet another porn". 

We have no idea what to do regarding our another extensions. Are they violating this new policy or not and who we can contact?

[Elvie]

There’s been a lot of discussion surrounding Chrome’s new single-purpose policy and how it affects extension and app ad-supported monetization. As a developer that faced similar concerns, my team and I have been developing a new monetization platform for extensions and apps that complies with Chrome’s web store policies.

Built on top of our proprietary ad network, our publisher platform works in conjunction with a browser extension whose single purpose is to seamlessly integrate relevant ads into your users’ browsing experience.

You can check out the overview and how it works on our website but in a nutshell users are given the option to install the FairShare extension as a way for users to unlock features in your product, earn virtual rewards in your game, or simply donate to your extension and apps.

If you’re interested in learning more about how we can help you monetize your extension, visit our website or shoot me an email.

Best,

Elvie

[Elvie Stephanopoulos]

Hey Chris,

Thanks for the feedback. We've actually gone ahead an updated our website with more information about our company and officers. As you might imagine, it was never our intention to come off as spammy or sketchy. Our product was designed based on feedback we received from the Chrome store team, so we thought it pertinent to present it as a valid monetization option for extensions and apps. 

Best,

Elvie

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Chris Naegelin <ch...@spotflux.com> wrote:

I think this question is better answered by someone at google and its probably not the appropriate forum to be advertising your product. As a side note - since you don't list any information about your business, its address, or its officers on your website it just doesn't come across as being very legit. 

[marc fawzi]

Hi Elvie,

I for one want to be supportive, but I can't help but be bothered by the fact that you guys have access to the Chrome store "team" while everyone else (who has complained on this list about their extensions going into pending status for weeks or indefinitely) has to deal with an algorithm and one that often puts extensions in prolonged or indefinite detention (or pending status) 

Can you share your contact info for the Chrome Store "team" ?

I feel that it's unfair to withhold that info, no matter what the rationale or concern is, because everyone else is having a shitty time trying to find out what happened to their extensions, and I certainly don't want to be one of them.

It comes across that you have some sort of favored status with the Chrome store "team" because they actually have gave you feedback and guidance. The developers here who are out of luck with their rejected or in-limbo extensions don't have such favored status. Their messages go un-answered (just look at the messages here from the last 60 days) So it comes across like you're flaunting your relationship with the Chrome store "team" or your "access" privilege. 

I have yet to hear anything from the "team" about the reason so many legitimate extensions are being put in long lived or indefinite pending status. If you have access to the "team" can you please share that with the rest of the list? It can only bring you and your company much needed good will. No one likes to pick a product because they have no other choice, especially not a product from a 3rd party that's hardly known, with all due respect to you personally and your team.

Marc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAG1fM2C5ps%3DOCZkuD8R%3DGJ%2BBc20Z4GCi7qj6Y%2Bb7A9NbhC6HdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.

[Elvie]

Hey Marc,

Just to clear up any confusion, we have neither favored status with nor privileged access to the Chrome store team. When the single-purpose policy was announced, we, like many other developers, submitted our questions to the Chrome team and waited patiently for several weeks until they had the opportunity to provide us feedback.

Elvie

[Marc Fawzi]

I know some people in Google are pushing for change behind the scene.

Your product is interesting. Is there a mechanism that we may use in that checks to see if another extension (yours in this case) is already installed? I suppose this can be done by sending it a message and getting back some response. 

I'll read up more on your web site. I think it maybe worth giving it a try but at the same time I feel that in-app advertising should be a platform that is provided as part of the extension's API just like with iOS apps. 

Not sure if a 3rd party ad platform that requires users to specifically load an extension for the purpose of serving ads is going to be easy to sell but it may in fact be the only way to go if ads are the way developers find their extensions.

I have to think. 

Thanks for being forthcoming and communicative.

Marc

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/d85bba70-93fb-4a7a-bea8-d79469c494ec%40chromium.org.

[Marc Fawzi]

*fund* not find

Sent from my iPhone