Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

blog.mozilla.org

71–80 of 251 posts

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#71
post #61

Extensions are nice to have, but pointless as long as FF for Android doesn't render most pages correctly (HN, for example).

Care to expand a bit?

I've been daily driving FF Android for a few years now and I've had the opposite experience: the vast majority of pages work and render fine (including HN) and it's an extremely rare occasion that I switch to Chrome to use a website. Even then, I often find that Chrome isn't any better and the underlying issue was the website's mobile handling in general (e.g. touch events working differently than mouse events, or just a completely broken mobile-only component swaps)

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#72
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I always thought the holdup was that third party things used in-app were expressly forbidden because they're not vetted by the app store onboarding process (in addition to the requirement of using webkit). Didn't occur to me that webkit could be extended to support webext either.

Yeah, Apple likes to say that (and reject apps for violating that rule!), but then there's also things like Linux x86 userspace emulators in the app store that can run unmodified ELF binaries downloaded via curl from any random website... At this point it's just a polite fiction, maintained jointly by Apple and app developers, that allows Apple to maintain a somewhat straight face when saying things like "you can't d…

Not sure what “userspace emulators” you're speaking of, but the apps I tried, for running a programming language (for education purposes) are rubbish due to limitations (you can only interpret, you can't compile). And the restrictions are mostly in place; otherwise, for example, there would be apps that allowed you to download torrents, or do other forbidden activities.

Even if what you're saying is true, businesses that can't afford a ban from the App Store, can't afford to bend the rules. If Mozilla developed Firefox for iOS, with its engine, and Apple banned it from the App Store, the consequence would be millions of dollars going down the drain. And Mozilla would let their current users down, too, since the current Firefox for iOS is somewhat useful.

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#73
post #36

This is great news. On GrapheneOS, every time I use the stock browser without the benefit of my uBlock Origin setup, I feel a bit creeped-out and violated.

In fairness, uBo has been supported even when most extensions were being artificially left out.

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#74
This was a clincher for me that made me switch from Chrome/Chromium on my Pixel. Previously, I was using Kiwi Browser because it supported Chrome extensions however while it works it has a lot of annoying quirks. I just couldn't stomach the experience of browsing the web without an ad blocker though. Now Firefox and UBlock work on Android, Firefox has quickly become my preferred browser. Still using Chrome on desktop though for now.. maybe that'll change too!

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#75

We've had lots of news about this coming for months, but with Mozilla's quite low market share, and the share of those users that use extensions - who's really caring about this other than some power users?

Power users matter a lot for web browsers, because web developers are power users of web browsers.

Firefox's loss of market share in general is a direct consequence of its loss in market share among web developers, because web developers stopped testing their websites in Firefox.

Any time Firefox does something good for power users, it's a good thing for the whole web ecosystem.

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#76

This is progress, but Mozilla needs to do more. Firefox for Android still lacks the ability to sideload add-ons, a feature that works on the desktop version of Firefox. This means Android users aren't able to install extensions outside addons.mozilla.org (AMO) unless they switch to a Firefox alternative that supports it, such as Iceraven[1] or SmartCookieWeb-Preview.[2] For me, the most important add-on that has been…

AFAIK, it was available in nightly. You could curate your own add on list which you could then install on Firefox for Android Nightly, and I'm fairly certain you can still do that if you want something that isn't in this new, expanded list.

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#77

We've had lots of news about this coming for months, but with Mozilla's quite low market share, and the share of those users that use extensions - who's really caring about this other than some power users?

This is Hacker News - if you don't want things that are interesting, even primarily, to power users, this is a terrible forum to frequent.

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Firefox paradox: People b***h about Firefox's (lack of) market share, Mozilla doing stupid things (fair criticism), Firefox not having X (extension support on Mobile, moving from legacy extensions to standard manifest format) Then people will still bring up this baggage even when something good happens, will refuse to move away from the browser monoculture/monopoly, s**t on Firefox devs FFS, something good happen…

> s*t on Firefox devs The nerd rage is targeted at Mozilla's dishonest and incompetent managers, no? The actual dev work is top notch.

No, people go after the devs too. I was specific about distinguishing Firefox and Mozilla in my post. Firefox in too often caught in the political/flame crossfire.

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#79
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Apple likes to say that (and reject apps for violating that rule!), but then there's also things like Linux x86 userspace emulators in the app store that can run unmodified ELF binaries downloaded via curl from any random website... At this point it's just a polite fiction, maintained jointly by Apple and app developers, that allows Apple to maintain a somewhat straight face when saying things like "you can't d…

Not sure what “userspace emulators” you're speaking of, but the apps I tried, for running a programming language (for education purposes) are rubbish due to limitations (you can only interpret, you can't compile). And the restrictions are mostly in place; otherwise, for example, there would be apps that allowed you to download torrents, or do other forbidden activities. Even if what you're saying is true, businesses…

I've linked one (iSH) in my comment. It really does run most completely unmodified x86 binaries for Linux, including CPython and Java.

aShell [1] is very similar. It takes another approach – it compiles POSIX C source code to WASM and runs that using iOS's JIT-enabled web engine, which gives it much better performance than x86 software emulation. There's another one that uses lldb to interpret LLVM IR. In other words, if Apple doesn't want that type of app, they sure have been explicitly enabling the use case for a long time now.

> And the restrictions are mostly in place; otherwise, for example, there would be apps that allowed you to download torrents, or do other forbidden activities.

App store reviews don't exist to "prevent forbidden activities" in the legal sense; they are there to maintain their walled garden ecosystem financially, as well as protect their platform and products from reputational or legal harm.

The issue of legality and passing the App Store review process are largely orthogonal: Just like you can already do plenty of illegal things using stock iOS (e.g. writing threatening emails, downloading copyrighted material using WebTorrent etc.), you can do infinitely many legal things using Turing-complete computing as enabled by first and third party apps on iOS.

Now if you start offering an app that features a big button labeled "click here to dynamically load software facilitating copyright infringement", and Apple distributes it in their App Store after having reviewed it, that could get them into a tricky situation; offering a full-featured browser or OS emulator very likely doesn't, given that Google has been allowing these types of apps in their Play Store for more than a decade now.

[1] https://holzschu.github.io/a-Shell_iOS/

Re: Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android

#80
post #37
post #9

This is good. Now, all extensions marked by the developer as being compatible with Android are shown on AMO. (If you toggle to Desktop mode, you can actually install any other extension on AMO, too.) The baffling thing is why this took so damn long. FF for Android supported add-ons from the beginning. That's the best thing about Firefox for Android! They decided to rewrite the UI in 2020, and there were fair reasons…

For those who are wondering, I _think_ AMO is supposed to mean "addons.mozilla.org" although neither the author of the article nor this comment define the acronym.

I was also somehow aware of this acronym. Turns out the about page of Mozilla's add-ons page also uses it[1], so it's "official" so to speak.

[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/about

Post reply on HN