Would be nice if one could run uBlock Matrix on Fennec.
Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
181–190 of 220 posts
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#182I've closely been following Mobile Firefox development over the past year - this browser is dead, like totally dead. Bug reports pile up, nothing is really fixed, a ton of commits about telemetry, some commits here and there changing certain UI elements, some refactoring, almost nothing else. Go check its revision history all you want: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/commits/main Mozilla has seemingly totally…
I'm starting to think that maybe browsers on Android and iOS just don't matter much anymore, other than as the foundation for in-app web views. I have a fairly new phone on a 5G network and the browser is soooo much better than it was even ten years ago yet I use it far, far less than I did back then. Part of it is that my phone just didn't do as much back then and so I spent more time in the browser, but I think the…
If you use any kind of browser sync, that alone makes the choice of browser important, since you need the same one on all devices that you use for it to work seamlessly across all of them.
(I wish we had standardized sync protocols for this stuff. But we couldn't even standardize IM, so that's just futile dreaming on my part.)
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep NewPipe updated. You must install every update as soon as it tells you one is available. I've not got any error for a while.
Also, add the NewPipe repository [1]. The versions in the main F-Droid repository are often out of date. [1]: https://newpipe.net/FAQ/tutorials/install-add-fdroid-repo/
Thanks, will do!
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO: Product managers are super important: it's their job to understand the market (where it was, where it is, and where it is going), the competitive landscape, and work with leadership on strategic planning. However, all three groups (UX, PM, Eng) need to work symbiotically. Everybody needs to be sharing information and acting as partners in the work they're doing.
> it's their job to understand the market It’s their job to understand and copy chrome. Fixed that for you.
[deleted]
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#185I like using Firefox on Android because uBlock origin makes mobile browsing at least tolerable and it lets me use the "desktop mode" view on certain sites so e.g. I can listen to youtube playlists even if the phone is locked without paying for a premium service (for what I consider basic functionality). Surprised to hear literally the sole reason I use it on mobile is also neglected. Do they think they're going to ou…
> so e.g. I can listen to youtube playlists even if the phone is locked
Coincidentally, there's an addon for that, which is in the ‘recommended’ from its early days, and you don't need the desktop mode for this feature. The addon is called ‘Video Background Play Fix’.
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry, he's speaking for the majority of long term firefox users. You're the exception. I started using Firefox when it was Gecko/Phoenix in 2002, then Firebird, then Firefox. I started using it because it was so customizable. I stopped using it at version 37 in 2015 because that was when Mozilla destroyed the browser by removing user freedoms to install their own add-ons without Mozilla's approval. And no, usi…
> There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them. Firefox isn't Chrome that's not labeled Chrome, though. Less customization doesn't mean it's necessarily more Chrome-like, especially lately where Chrome's implementing things like tab groups and keeping more or less the same UI design. The new Firefox looks more Safari-ish than Chrome-ish. to me.
True. I should have been more clear. I meant it's like Chrome in that it prioritizes being a javascript OS for e-commerce applications from corporate persons over a browser for HTML websites made by human persons. And with those priorities come inevitable design decisions re: ability to customize.
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
then you could try fennec from f-droid, which enables custom extensions and about:config, but unlike iceraven is compiled from firefox stable release, so it is updated shortly after a new firefox stable release.
Last time I used Fennec, it had the same extension whitelist as Firefox. Did that change?
Fennec F-Droid does have the same extension whitelist by default, but it also supports the Collections workaround that adds access to all add-ons on addons.mozilla.org:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...
Since Firefox Nightly is unstable, some users prefer to use Firefox forks like Fennec F-Droid and Mull that are based on the stable release channel, yet also offer expanded add-on support.
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair, I think in GV at the time we were more thinking about Fennec parity, so that's where my thoughts originate.
Right, I think it's pretty close to parity! I vaguely recall seeing some odd API that wasn't supported in Fenix that was in Fennec, but they're pretty rare. Fairly sure you could access history in Fennec via a webextension, and I think that's not supported in Fenix. I think what's generally missing in these discussions is that the whole project to bring extensions into Fenix was extremely user-driven - whatever peopl…
> What may have been missing from it is the ideological bit - for a platform to be truly open - and to be a viable platform!, it can't have a restricted "whitelist".
> What's probably needed for full webextension support is a strong, perhaps not purely rational leader that will rally folks and actually push the teams to do the work that may be useless, or useful to a tiny percentage of the user base, in a belief that it'll produce a better future. Which may or may not pan out!
While I appreciate the development work you and other Mozilla engineers have done on Firefox, this kind of attitude is causing Firefox to bleed users. This argument dismisses honest feedback from users as "ideological" and "not purely rational" because it doesn't align with Mozilla's product decisions. Desiring access to more add-ons is a utilitarian position to take, not an irrational one. On the other hand, continuously ignoring your users is a surefire way to lose them as soon as they find a viable alternative to your product, and that's what I would call irrational.
Allowing users to opt out of the extension whitelist on the stable channel of Firefox for Android is a low-effort, high-impact change that would greatly benefit users who use add-ons other than the 18 whitelisted ones, while not harming the users who choose to stay with the whitelist (enabled by default) in any way. By refusing to make the whitelist optional, Mozilla is making Firefox for Android significantly less useful to users who want to use non-whitelisted add-ons, while not improving the experience for the users who choose not to opt out.
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#189I'm confused by this. Yesterday there was an article about how Apple only lets browsers use WebKit for rendering, and that was considered bad because it means that mobile browsers can't support add-ons. But it looks like Firefox doesn't support them anyway, so what's the problem again?
Even though Mozilla's execution leaves much to be desired, Firefox does support a limited number of extensions on Android (including the incomparable uBlock Origin), which is still more than the number of extensions Apple allows Firefox to support on iOS (zero). Forks of Firefox for Android, such as Mull and Fennec F-Droid, gain access to all compatible add-ons on addons.mozilla.org, while an equivalent fork of Firefox for iOS would also be restricted to zero add-ons. So yes, Apple's anti-competitive App Store restrictions are still a problem because they prevent Safari's competitors from implementing an important feature that Safari supports.
Re: Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)
#190Submitted title was "Firefox addons are still unavailable on Android, two years after Fenix release". Since that language doesn't appear in the OP, it seems a little editorialized and I've replaced it with the page title now. If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title that uses representative language from the article itself, we can change it again.
dang, this is a really bad title change. The original title was clear and to the point, the new one is vague and omits the most important fact of the whole thing. At least something like "Lack of add-on support in new Firefox (2021)" would be better.