Google Chrome extensions have arrived

The latest development builds of Google Chrome possess a feature that is desired by many, extensions. It is reported that four Chrome extensions have surfaced. Of those four are two very notable releases:

Cleeki: This extension offers functionality similar to that of IE8's accelerators. It can also import accelerators from IE8 into Chrome.

Adsweep: An advertisement blocker.

Since the extension functionality is still in development in must be enabled (on a recent development build of Chrome) by editing the "Target" line in your Google Chrome shortcut properties, adding "- -enable-extensions" as a suffix (without the quotations). Installing an extension is as simple as visiting their website, such as the aforementioned.

The extension functionality, clearly, is not at the level that it is with Firefox. However, with development happening quickly, Google Chrome could see a surge in market share once the extension feature becomes mainstream.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hulu releases Hulu Desktop software

Next Story

Steve Wozniak: Steve Jobs sounds "healthy, energetic"

66 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Yes... installed both extensions (after I read how to do it... hope Google automates this soon) and both work fine. No complaints so far.

I actually left Firefox for this which I have used for years. Chrome simply runs faster, and yes I am using the Dev builds.

I agree Firefox better hurry up and find something in their back pocket... and quick.

You guys also forgot FlashBlock (Link to extension here),
NoSpeedDial: Start Chrome and open each new tab with a clean blank page here
and GmailDefaultClient: Set Gmail as default application to handle the "mailto" protocol in your web browser here

Hey. Just to letting you know, you dont need to restart chrome, just launch a new tab for it to be in effect, so you can continue browsing the internet with the addons automaticly disabled.
Also, if you want to edit your extensions, go to
C:\Users\[Username]\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Extensions for Vista/7 or
C:\Documents and Settings\[Username]\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Extensions for xp.

You can then edit your extensions to your liking, as they are js, so you can block any site you haven't, and you can remove the whitelist. You can also edit the gui in cleeki and stuff. Pretty cool

chrome still needs an rss reader. Plus I like the sitelauncher addon. Allows me to cut my top toolbar to just one line and hide everything else maximising my viewing space on screen, while still allowing quick access to my favorite sites

Awesome news, I will be keeping a close eye on this once the core addons I use in Firefox adopt Chrome I'm sold, as I'm already window shopping and test driving now just this one problem is keeping me from clicking that button saying "Yes make Chrome my default browser."

OMG the adblocker rocks!!!

****es on adblock plus in Firefox...mind you i preferred the original adblock

Give me an adblocker and the ability to automatically open torrents into my torrent app instead of downloading them to a folder and launching them afterwards and chrome could easily become my default browser. Especially if it gets a move media plugin, so I can watch the shows on abc.com.

Though this is positive it's not as extensive as firefox's capabilities with add-ons so it's a great additional feature but need alot of improving and simplifying to get on firefox's radar.

Seventh Son said,
Adsweep site has a huge ad that for some reason manages to sneak past Adblock :/

LOL, I think that one's just part of a joke though

Mikee4fun said,
The ads load on the page and then adsweep hides them hides them. Takes about three seconds or so.

So it's less efficient than AdBlock Plus for Firefox which won't allow the ads to load at all.

tom5 said,
So it's less efficient than AdBlock Plus for Firefox which won't allow the ads to load at all.

But at least it's not destroying the income of websites that way.

Harlem39s Finest said,
which is exactly what people( using adblock, etc) care about :)

Not sure what you're getting at, but unless people want a paid internet, stop blocking ads.

Well comparing chrome ver 3.0.182.3 with adsweep extention enabled and firefox ver 3.5b4 with adblock plus and no script. Firefox blows chrome out the water on loading neowin.net.

So chrome to me is a big FAIL for now. We will have to wait and see if and when it gets out of beta.

Mikee4fun said,
Well comparing chrome ver 3.0.182.3 with adsweep extention enabled and firefox ver 3.5b4 with adblock plus and no script. Firefox blows chrome out the water on loading neowin.net.

So chrome to me is a big FAIL for now. We will have to wait and see if and when it gets out of beta.

I think he was referring to the *startup* time, not the page loading time. And really this is where Firefox fails.

Ok, fair enough, but on my rig, firefox starts up about .500ms slower than chrome. Not an issue for me, but chrome does start from a closed app a tad quicker. But with rendering pages slower it is not a winner for me at this time. On another note I have seen firefox on some client rigs take a while to open compared to IE. I just don't see those issues on mine.

Just my thoughts...

tom5 said,
I think he was referring to the *startup* time, not the page loading time. And really this is where Firefox fails.

Firefox is pretty fast to launch on my machine. I can't say whether or not Chrome is faster on the same system but I can say that I could not care less if it was anyway. Unless your constantly restarting the browser then the start up time is the least of your concerns...especially on newer OS's that cache recently used apps in memory better than previous OS's did.

tom5 said,

I think he was referring to the *startup* time, not the page loading time. And really this is where Firefox fails.

And why startup times really matter? Welcome to 2009 where tabbed browsing is possible! My PC runs for ~12 hours/day and guess how many times/day I launch FF. Yeah, a whole 1.

Harbinger said,
And why startup times really matter? Welcome to 2009 where tabbed browsing is possible! My PC runs for ~12 hours/day and guess how many times/day I launch FF. Yeah, a whole 1.

I close the app when I don't need it so it's somewhat different in my case. But I agree it's not of utmost importance. The more important thing is Firefox is resource hungry and has some problems with many tabs open. I use Firefox because it's the best browser as for now but I'm seriously considering Chrome + ad blocker.

Hilarious on the adsweep site there is a nice fat banner ad stating "no joke!! You won 1 million dollars" Just classic.

Mikee4fun said,
Hilarious on the adsweep site there is a nice fat banner ad stating "no joke!! You won 1 million dollars" Just classic.

Yeah exactly. /facepalm

This extensions command has been there for at least a few weeks when I first tried it. Google has even released a couple of their own basic extensions, a gmail notifier and one-click subscribe button for adding new feeds to google reader. But again, just like the javascript command, there are still a lot of features missing and won't be able to pack the same muscle Firefox has. Though, the speed of chrome gives me enough reasons to keep using it over firefox and chrome keeps getting better each week.

If they can actually get the extension feature up to par with Firefox then I might jump the nerdy bandwagon to Chrome. I honestly love trying new things, but haven't seen a real reason to go to a browser that just doesn't offer as much as the one I'm currently doing. I want to upgrade not downgrade.

This is news that I have been waiting for since Chrome was released, and a major step towards securing a larger piece of the browser usage pie. It would be great if they could somehow make all firefox extensions compatible with Chrome. I noticed a user above mentioned that Chrome extensions would never be as powerful as Firefox's extensions. Does this mean that it would require a major rewrite of Chrome's code in order for us to see extensions such as FoxyTunes etc. for Chrome? I don't know what changes this would entail, or if such a thing is even possible. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the matter.

That is it, Chrome will replace Firefox on my Windows machines...now if only there was a OS X version.

KeR said,
That is it, Chrome will replace Firefox on my Windows machines...now if only there was a OS X version.

I thought there was one?

the question is, can Adsweep block googlesyndication and google-analytics, two the most annoying web sites on Internet

cpu said,
the question is, can Adsweep block googlesyndication and google-analytics, two the most annoying web sites on Internet :)

Google Analytics is immensly useful for website owners to tailor the experience for the users. Blocking it does you no good, as it means your feedback is entirely lost. (This is coming from a product manager for a big website)

micro if thats the only plug-in you use then you really should have a look at chrome, its much quicker and now has a ad blocking plug.. im using it right now

As great as extensions are, I find that most of them simply bloat the browser to the point of causing crashes sometimes. I know additional functionality is great sometimes, but sticking random crap in a browser turns me off. I care more about speed than anything else.

Admodieus said,
The question is, what will arrive first: Firefox 3.5 or a Chrome build with officially supported Extensions?

Haha, true that. These have both been "on the horizon" for months.

Admodieus said,
The question is, what will arrive first: Firefox 3.5 or a Chrome build with officially supported Extensions?

Hey have you guys had problems with FF 3.5 beta?.. well it didn't crash on me.. but im so used to hitting CTRL + ENTER for my URL's and that doesn't seem to work. I've gotten so used to that, that I find it annoying not to have that feature so switched back to 3 hoping that would change.

So did you have the same prob?

Google Chrome can never outdo Firefox, unless they change the basis of their UI. Firefox is XUL-based, meaning that the entire user interface is a DOM (Document Object Model) and can be manipulated with Javascript during runtime, meaning that a developer can put anything anywhere, or change anything. It's massively powerful, but breaks easily across versions. The most that Google can do with Chrome is add extension points to allow plug-ins to add small features to various areas of the UI, or use the existing XHTML DOM in pages (probably converted to an internal Webkit-compatible DOM), which is what these two plug-ins appear to be doing. While this is slightly more stable and exposes less internal API, it is also massively constrictive.

No matter how you justify it, building your UI in HTML is a stupid idea.
HTML is for webpages, not applications.

Dessimat0r said,
Google Chrome can never outdo Firefox, unless they change the basis of their UI. Firefox is XUL-based, meaning that the entire user interface is a DOM (Document Object Model) and can be manipulated with Javascript during runtime, meaning that a developer can put anything anywhere, or change anything.

Too bad FF looks like ass, and most every theme for it does little to improve that fact. So yes, the capability is there, unfortunately it's not being used to a level worth a crap.

You know... I prefer my browser interface to NOT be manipulated by Javascript during runtime. ;)

I have never been a big "extension" fan anyways. These things have the ability to intercept and manipulate the pages you view, and most of them are written by hobbyist programmers. That's a big security concern to me.

Chugworth said,
These things have the ability to intercept and manipulate the pages you view, and most of them are written by hobbyist programmers. That's a big security concern to me.

Very true. While most are innocuous, things like gmail checkers etc. are a little scary, as there is very little to stop an unscrupulous programmer from nicking your login details etc.

Good thing you guys with your security stuff all forget that every single addon on addons.mozilla.org has been checked by mozilla before it got released?

Chrome's UI is nice as it is, there's simply no point in making it customizable so people can destroy it with their shoddy designs. Screw customization. I prefer everything standard and uniform.

Dessimat0r said,
Google Chrome can never outdo Firefox, unless they change the basis of their UI. Firefox is XUL-based, meaning that the entire user interface is a DOM (Document Object Model) and can be manipulated with Javascript during runtime, meaning that a developer can put anything anywhere, or change anything. It's massively powerful, but breaks easily across versions. The most that Google can do with Chrome is add extension points to allow plug-ins to add small features to various areas of the UI, or use the existing XHTML DOM in pages (probably converted to an internal Webkit-compatible DOM), which is what these two plug-ins appear to be doing. While this is slightly more stable and exposes less internal API, it is also massively constrictive.

Nothing in this post says why Google Chrome can never outdo Firefox due to the XUL-based UI that "breaks easily across versions" and is sluggish. Sure, devs can put things "anywhere", but why would that cause problems for Chrome? In reality, Firefox addons only put things in the status bar or menus, or a toolbar button. That's it. I'm not even sure they're allowed to put things elsewhere; I've never seen a plugin modify the chrome at least.

And as for Chrome, extensions already add themselves into the UI, so there is not an as big difference to the end user as one might want to believe, and IMHO, the disadvantages with XUL rather becomes paramount. You can turn this argument and say Firefox will never outdo Chrome in terms of performance as long as it's sluggishly XUL-based.

XUL has its advantages for a "web platform" though -- it's an excellent foundation to build your own web browser derivates from, and much more customizable for an application developer than an extension developer. But that's not what neither Firefox itself or Chrome is about for the end user.

VIVIsectVI said,
Too bad FF looks like ass, and most every theme for it does little to improve that fact. So yes, the capability is there, unfortunately it's not being used to a level worth a crap.

I think if FF gets rid of the FILE MENU, and changes the icons just a bit, we are good to go. Although, I have tried that new plugin personas.. and yeah it really does jazz up FF a bit. Loving it. Will never switch.

@dimithrak; https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4762

@Jugalator; Half the point about Firefox is that its designed to be completely customizable. If you wanted you could remove basically the whole UI and re-make it yourself, to how you want it to feel, and some "sluggishness" when you start the process may be the price of that.
If you're not someone who likes to have software "just your way" and are happy with a generalized/generic interface then I would say you're not really who Firefox is aimed at. (Before someone else says it - the other half of the point of Firefox is to comply with web standards in open-source.)

All this talk about having it 'just your way', so you are already regulating FF to the bottom barrel with the linux guys?