Here's what's not new: lack of anti-tracking protections

Meanwhile, Mozilla is pushing forward in that area!

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/08/30/changing-...

I'm almost 100% Firefox at this point. I trust Mozilla.

I trust Mozilla and have zero trust in Google. But I just switched back to Chrome after an experiment with Firefox. It’s just too much of a resource hog vs Chrome. Hopefully they sort that out soon.

Really? What use case? I've had the opposite experience, ff uses much less ram than chrome.

Anecdotally lots of tabs open (30+) in Firefox uses more RAM than Chrome and brings my 2017 MBP to its knees.

Resource usage is worth more than your privacy?

I'm on waterfox. Mozilla lost my trust when they started installing advertising extensions without user permission.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...

Poor play on Mozilla's part, sure, and they paid their price. But it seems pretty damn silly to switch off Firefox for good because of this. In fact you'd be directly impacting the only browser vendor that does care about your privacy, reducing their ability to push forward with privacy focused initiatives. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

But, if you want to use a poorly maintained, out of date and insecure fork of Firefox privacy reasons (as if Mozilla is somehow terrible in this area!) then go for it, but understand you're sacrificing your security for no particularly good reason whilst simultaneously reducing their impact in influencing the design of a privacy orientated web.

What about this?

> ... We launched an ad blocker to keep you safe from malicious and annoying ads ...

It's a start, at least. I still use uBlock Origin until Chrome gets their game together with ad blocking.

Let me rephrase that for you.

> ... We launched an ad blocker to keep you safe from ads that are not part of google ad-network ...

For that, there's Brave: https://brave.com/ Chromium-based, ad blocking by default

Agreed. I just can't go back to a browser without an ad blocker nowadays. I've forgotten how absolutely ugly and distracting most of the web looks with today's ads, not to mention the out of control tracking of users and invasion of their privacy.

I thought Chrome was supposed to be getting an ad blocker? Whatever happened to that?

you can install on adblocker on any browser with extensions

JS based blockers are not the same as declarative, native content blockers like safari pioneered.

Extensions have access to various browser APIs and you can enter a list of sites just like Safari. There is no difference.

Their Android screencasts look nice but my Pixel 2 still doesn't have that slick new launcher (I am on Pie, however). Did anyone get that update?

You have to turn on "Swipe up on home button" in Pie to get it.

Oh my, that's it. Thanks!

Like the new Gmail design, I do NOT like what appears to be a similar design applied to Chrome. Everything old is new again I guess. Material design is out; bubbly everything is in. Changing these for no described nor apparent reason is not "boost your productivity".

Yes, seems Google just suddenly changed their design language within the last 18 months into a strange rounded-material style for no real reason. And it doesn't look good at all to me.

The new design is pretty good actually (change is good this time around, to defy the stereotype!). But, how do I get it updated on my Win 10 machine? It seems the update does not carry forward everywhere with you.

Go to Help -> About Google Chrome to get the update option.

I'd like to see more sportsmanship between browsers (not just Chrome). As an example “Search for a website in your Omnibox and Chrome will tell you if it’s already open and let you jump straight to it with “Switch to tab [a good idea we took from Browser X].” (here Firefox, as far as I know)

How about fixing some bugs? Chrome/Chromium for Linux stopped remembering which windows are minimized and which are not after a restart. Such an annoying bug that surfaced less than a year ago. Still not fixed.

I wonder if that's a Chrome bug or a bug in a popular window manager users are using.

It's a Chromium bug: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=827711

I have the same in Firefox on Linux.

That browser is feeling less and less like a Mac app every release. :-(

I have to agree with this comment. It looks really out of place now.

That password piece seems particularly dangerous, and a huge lock in.

But that's helpful for the 99% of Chrome users who aren't technical enough to even know that they should be using a password manager. Having a halfway-decent password manager "just work" when they "open the Internet" is still a huge plus.

Why? Chrome has had a built-in password manager for years, synced to your account, and accessible on the web: https://passwords.google.com

And it doesn’t work! It breaks on several websites I use routinely (e.g. my credit union). As far as I can tell, browser password management is a dirty hack. There is no real “login API” that could be used to build a proper password manager.

It works fine for millions of people and websites. What exactly is the issue you're running into? All the other password managers use browser extensions to do the same thing Chrome does natively.

There is the Web Authentication API: https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/

It asks before storing passwords and, in case of generated passwords, also displays the password - so it seems okay for me. Or do you think it's a lock-in because of missing export options?

Exporting passwords from Chrome:

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95606

"Export: To the right of "Saved Passwords," click More : > Export passwords"

It's a lock in because people using this won't even know their own passwords.

Why would it be more dangerous than any other password manager?

I'm sure Blink will continue to improve, but I'm not impressed with anything in the post - certainly not the design refresh.

> When it’s time to create a new password, Chrome will now generate one for you (so you’re not using your puppy’s name for all of your passwords anymore).

One less reason to use a password manager now.

Yes, for the casual internet users like my parents. I rather have my passwords stored in an encrypted container with a password I'm sure it's not linked to something I have online.

Why anyone thinks that reduced contrast is an improvement in usability needs to talk to someone over the age of 10.

Seriously.

Also, what's with the smaller icon on the start page?

Not a good change for me.

The current chrome tab design is iconic, I hope they took that into consideration.

Just upgraded; the UI is fucking ugly.

I doubt anyone gives a toss if Chrome is having a "10th birthday" except Google.

Never liked how this browser forces updates down your throat including "new looks" without any choice. Feels like software I have zero control over, if every time I open it, a new version of itself downloads and installs without my permission. Google enjoys forcing itself on users regularly without consent. Which is creepy when put like that.

You can disable auto updates [https://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-upd...]. But the risk, of course, is that security updates are then also disabled.

There's a case to be made that one could develop security updates separate from "look-and-feel" updates, but I think, sadly, it's a weak case; it's all one software package, and look-and-feel changes can impact security and vise-versa. I don't think the system would actually be more secure if Chrome tried to maintain various mini-forks of versions with different look-and-feels.

I'm curious though: how is this handled in your browser of choice? IE updates look-and-feel all the time and so does Mozilla. Perhaps it's the auto-updating that's the issue? But we already know what happens if the auto-updating is removed from the equation: the web has to collectively support IE6 approximately forever.

That doesn't work. You've linked to outdated information. If you search the web for how to disable Chrome updates, you'll find people on StackOverflow etc saying the same thing... that it's not easy or not possible when following that page you linked to.

In my case, I don't even have that Google Update registry key you've linked to. So they're doing some other nasty hacky thing to silently install new versions over itself without my permission.

Google REALLY doesn't want people disabling auto updates. It's like other things they do, they don't hesitate to build-in arrogant patterns in order to herd everyone into the same behaviour.

Like with the account chooser, it's no longer possible to simply sign out of Google and be properly signed out, so your name doesn't appear on the sign in page. Google remembers your login and shows your email address on the sign in page, even though you're logged out. This is Google REALLY not wanting anyone to sign out.

Browsers have a huge, huge attack surface that is persistently exploited. Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places. Not to single Firefox out here, but take a look at their release notes[1].

- 4 critical, 5 high vulns fixed in 61.

- 2 critical, 7 high in 60.

- 4 critical, 4 high in 59.

Your feelings on not liking security updates 'forced down your throat' are kind of immaterial. They absolutely should be. And that's the price you pay. Not a huge one, by any means.

1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities...

Nonsense.

> Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places.

Oh please. "Nasty bugs fixed in various places"? You're not replying to your mum here.

Nothing, ever, should be forced down anyone's throat. Your attitude is what is making software become some kind of time-locked online service, even when it's installed on our machines.

I will update software when I choose to, not when some commercially driven product manager decides to.

How can you be so naive at the motivation behind taking away control of software installs on your machine? You think they're doing it to "keep you safe" because "your safety is their number one priority". Wow.

Go ahead and let tech giants control your life at the granular level, but I will choose to control software updates on my machine, thanks.

Thankfully for the world this kind of nonsense, naive and borderline militant stance against your own security has not caught on.

And yeah I would describe multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities that can be triggered with pretty much no user interaction as 'nasty'.

You can find out just how vulnerable you are if you'd like, just find whatever crusty Firefox (or better yet a crusty fork!) version you are running here[1] and take a look.

1. https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/452/3264/1/Mozilla-F...

What you're saying is these world class engineers can't develop a browser without giant security holes and vulnerabilities popping up every week. Sounds like a con job and intravenous koolaid drip you've volunteered yourself to.

Security updates should be separate to whatever cosmetic product enhancements, feature additions or removal they push everyone to swallow. It's a basic principle to separate those concerns. The whole reason everyone advocates modular architecture is so we can update one area without it screwing over something else. Apparently "new look tabs we think you're going to love" can't be uncoupled from fixing a "critical security vulnerability". Anyone who fails to question that is drunk on kool-aid.

You can be run over by a bus if you don't look both ways. Quick... everyone must install proximity alarms up their rear ends immediately, no opt out possible.

Microsoft, Google, etc as a result see higher uptake of their new product offerings getting installed on machines much sooner than if the fear and urgency wasn't underlined.

Windows now seems to allow software vendors to silently install updates, and re-install "update processes" that persist even when you explicitly remove them via msconfig, and opt out of them via the app's settings. Dropbox and others now behave like malware. That's on Microsoft for allowing this aggressive and silent update enforcement.

Keep the fear levels high, and user control options low because it's good for business. We'll sell it as "good for security".

I run recent versions of browsers, and obviously care about security. I just don't panic about being on some nightly cutting edge version out of fear of being compromised by the "critical" security holes built into the product cycle. I look both ways before crossing road. Those who don't shouldn't impact my freedom to cross the road without help from a mandatory rectal alarm.

There is so much wrong in this monologue I'm not even sure where to start.

Then I realized, why start at all.

Pointless. Next time say nothing if you have nothing.

>Feels like software I have zero control over, if every time I open it, a new version of itself downloads and installs without my permission.

Just like all of the websites that you browse, you can't have control over the styles or the updates that someone pushes to their servers, forcing you to download the latest page and install the latest service workers without your permission.

A website is obviously something that changes according to third party wishes. I am visiting their domain from my machine using my browser.

Software I decide to install on my machine, is under my control. I could update it, re-install it, delete it, change it.

I don't appreciate this mindset that software is like a "website" that is controlled by someone else. If that's what you want, then that's your preference.

First, there is a huge difference between the software installed on my own computer and websites I visit. Second, I can and regularly do change their looks and the way they work.

I do understand Google in this case and support their decision though. And if someone wants more control, fortunately they can always use Firefox.