It's a single anecdote that deleting Chrome on two computers sped them up. It provides zero evidence (even anecdotal) that it has anything to do with "Keystone" specifically. It provides zero evidence for the idea that "Keystone" is able to "nefariously hide itself from Activity Monitor". And it also completely contradicts the normal user experience of Chrome, which is that most people's computers don't slow down after a Chrome install. (WindowServer on my MBP usually uses <10% CPU and I've used Chrome for many, many years.)
Why is this nonsense being upvoted? I get people dislike Google and Chrome, but wouldn't it be better to stick to things backed by real evidence?
This was the first comment on Hacker News about that “Google Chrome is secretly making your Mac super slow even when it’s not running” article floating around this weekend. The article was such a clear example of one person’s anecdote that they used to draw the most nefarious conclusion…and then everyone with a bone tp pick with Chrome replied, “yeah, Google Chrome is basically malware eating up 80% of your CPU at all times!”
To believe this is true is the exact truth is to suggest that a whole decade’s worth of Mac fans, many of whom have their CPU usage displayed at all times in their menu bar with iStat Menus, has never noticed this in the 11 years since this has apparently been a scourge on macOS.
I for one have a 2012 Mac Mini, it has a paltry 2-core ancient Intel mobile processor, and of course Chrome is installed. I would certainly notice if some rogue process was sucking up my CPU and it absolutely is not. Even with Chrome running, my CPU remains close to 0% unless pages are loading.
I’m not saying that this is not an issue for anyone, but I suspect this is a bug that impacts a sliver of users. Additionally, I would bet that if the author of this piece re-installed Chrome after this incident he would not have issues again. Can I prove this? Nope, but neither can he.