It's undoubtedly true that power users will lose a little of the functionality they like in Firefox, but that normal users will have a more secure browser. I'm sure someone will fork Firefox to keep a version alive for those power users.
You might not agree with it, but the logic is sound.
Why are these 'normal users' going to use Firefox when their power user friend no longer recommend it, when Google is pushing Chrome as hard as they can on every Google property, and when there are even installers that 'offer' to install Chrome for you? Mozilla can't compete with Google and Microsoft marketing efforts, they can't make anything more than a UI for the most popular mobile browsing platform, and they're alienating power users. Who is going to be pushing Firefox to normal users?
I get it, it's a hard problem to fix. There would be a lot of pain in getting there, both for Mozilla and addon developers. But throwing in the towel feels like a cop-out.
The logic is sound, but so is closing down every theater because someone got shot in one of them. After all, everyone has TVs and blu-ray players now, and you can't get shot in a theater if there are no theaters...
And the theatre analogy is just silly. It's not like shutting down a theatre because someone got shot in it, it's like enacting a "no guns in this theatre" policy instead.
> Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure
Android, iOS, and many other OSes do this all the time via rather granular ACLs. It can be done.
All analogies are flawed - but Firefox is closing the theaters by completely killing off their add-on interface in exchange for an comparatively shallow experience.
If it were that simple, then the Chrome team would simply have asked the Android team to provide their expertise in designing Chrome's extension API. And of course, it's not like Android provides apps unrestricted access to the hardware (there's a reason that people bother to root their phones). Firefox addons are currently less restricted than Android apps.
Chrome's choice to not use such ACLs has no bearing on whether it is possible or reasonable for a web browser to use. Chrome is not the be-all-end-all of browser technology.
> Firefox addons are currently less restricted than Android apps.
And that's what could be changed. The lack of restrictions in the current state doesn't mean that it can't (or that it shouldn't) change.
Even PG has remarked in an essay that success isn't easy - the people who will really succeed are the ones who put in the effort to do the hard things.
Of course it's hard. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
> Appealing to PG makes no sense here.
When the argument is being made that it's better to make it easier on Firefox developers at the cost of the user base, the argument made in PG's essay is pretty relevant.
What? kibwen is saying that that is exactly what Firefox is doing!
Bear in mind that this is not just "copying Chrome's API", it's copying the base design (how the manifest works, etc), and adding new Firefox-specific APIs on top of it. The whole idea is that most of the APIs addons need will be added to firefox's webextensions API.
It is being done. That's what people are up in arms about.
> When the argument is being made that it's better to make it easier on Firefox developers at the cost of the user base
As far as I can tell, you're the only one making that argument?
Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer.
I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.