Earlier quoted context omitted.
>BUT - extensions are also often the cause of a slow and frustrating Firefox experience, which then leads folks to talk about how Chrome is better-performing/faster IE (used to?) have this bottom notification warning about 'X plugin is slowing IE, would you like to disable it?'. Perhaps Firefox should add similar feature and notify users about slow plugins, maybe even with some actual data instead of a vague slowness…
Mozilla does this already, to a degree. Using the Dark Reader extension hangs some sites for several seconds and Mozilla asks me if I'd like to kill it
Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
141–150 of 195 posts
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#142Regarding the monetization of NoCoin, I advertise the fact that I am accepting donations in the description of the extension and have links on the GitHub page. There is also a button to donate directly on the Firefox add-ons page. Almost all donations came from the Firefox Add-ons store. I guess if Google would do the same on the Chrome store, developers would get more donations?
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
>BUT - extensions are also often the cause of a slow and frustrating Firefox experience, which then leads folks to talk about how Chrome is better-performing/faster IE (used to?) have this bottom notification warning about 'X plugin is slowing IE, would you like to disable it?'. Perhaps Firefox should add similar feature and notify users about slow plugins, maybe even with some actual data instead of a vague slowness…
Your extensions are listed along with their resource usage in about:performance !
Then I went to check it out and found that I don't remember opening it since it's pretty much useless. It does show how much memory each consume and the _current_ energy impact. Utterly meaningless and doesn't help me at all to understand that a certain extension slows my browsing experience.
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#144> It is a regular occurrence to hear about open source developers selling their browser extensions, only for their users to be exploited later on by the new owners. ... We are witnessing the failure of browser vendors to recognize the value of our labor and the important role it plays in a healthy browser ecosystem. So this is an interesting philosophical question - the market value of the extension is the value of "…
The root cause of all this is autoupdating. I hope we will eventually move away from that paradigm. But currently its needed, since lack of updates is even less secure.
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#145Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#146I wouldn't have switched to Firefox from Chrome if most of the extensions I was using wouldn't have had readily available equivalents or workarounds. I would have held off on test-driving the new Edge as my daily workhorse browser if I hadn't noticed an extension for my password manager in the Microsoft Store and found that I can install most extensions from the Chrome Web Store too.
Netscape and Opera prove that the paid browser business model is dead, sure, but that doesn't mean browsers (especially browsers developed by companies with lots of related paid services) don't represent value for the companies developing them -- and that those companies don't profit from that value.
Google especially benefits massively from Chrome's marketshare -- even to the extent that their own web services can get away with treating competitor browsers as second-class citizens. Extension developers contribute to the value driving that marketshare and open source extension developers do so with practically no return on investment.
This is just another example of the true sharing economy of open source clashing with capitalism (which is inherently based on extracting surplus value as profit, not sharing it back). Which would be fine, really, if the people participating in the sharing economy wouldn't also exist in capitalism and have to rely on their success under capitalism to ensure basic subsistence like food, shelter and the means of extension development.
Extension developers using ads, tracking, malware or selling their extensions to malicious entities are just trying to find ways within the system to capitalise at least on some of the value they've provided. That's undesirable and developers shouldn't be in such dire circumstances to be willing to give in, but this is a systemic problem.
Luckily unlike with most systems, this system is almost entirely in the hands of browser vendors. Browser vendors could emphasize donation options -- just look at how big open source projects like some Linux distros push donations while still allowing for freeloading. But browser vendors currently have no direct incentive to do so -- in fact, doing so might actually harm their metrics.
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
The root cause of all this is autoupdating. I hope we will eventually move away from that paradigm. But currently its needed, since lack of updates is even less secure.
We will get away from auto updating and security issues once we have a feature complete browser and a stable HTML specification. Given past trends I would expect this no earlier than the heat death of the universe.
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just never allow such a transfer force a new user to create a new name. Ensure this is part of the terms of service. Prosecute violators that is to say buyer and dev under cfaa and ensure a hefty fine is levied with prison time. Nefarious parties will find few sellers thereafter.
As long as an extension can be owned by a company, you can bypass restrictions on transferring the extension by transferring ownership of the company. Unless you think plugins for HTTPS Everywhere, Google Translate, and LastPass should be signed by an individual developer - in which case you'll have to solve the problem of what to do when that developer moves between jobs :)
It's a superficially attractive answer, but the reality is that it's unenforceable.
Nation states get unstuck here on taxation, and bluntly it is unlikely any browser vendor will ever invest as heavily as nation states do on getting revenue.
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how one would automatically detect such a thing as a browser extension changing hands. If you require signing extensions to make a release, there's nothing stopping a developer from selling their keys. And even without changing hands, the threat to users remains the same if the company just goes from "we'll give you $10k for your extension" to "we'll give you $10k to link this library into your extension…
You held the développer legally liable of abuses with thé extension if he did not notify mozilla or Google that he sold it
Holding an individual responsible for the company is simply not plausible in most jurisdictions for anything short of actual criminal actions.
Re: Google and Mozilla are failing to support browser extension developers
#150NoCoin author here. With approx 700k users across 3 browsers, I have obviously received many emails for purchasing my extension. I have never accepted to sell my project, even when I had some low financial moments, because my intent was never to make money with it. And it being an open source project, it belongs to the community. I would also feel like I am breaching the trust of my users if I decide to hand it over…