News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Browser Extensions Standard. Parent comment

Re:Browser Extensions Standard by gcp on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:17AM (#14899861)
The add-on ecosystem of Chrome currently dwarfs Firefoxes. Firefox extensions used to be more capable, but there's just more and certainly more NEW ones for Chrome.

(I'm sure this was an important consideration for Mozilla as well - it reduced the supposed value of their "more powerful" XUL extension system, as in practice you can often find a Chrome extension to do what you want, but not a Firefox one)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browser Extensions Standard by josteink on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:18AM (#14899863)
But Firefox can already run WebExtensions (aka Chrome extensions).

So how does this change anything?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browser Extensions Standard by gcp on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:25AM (#14899906)
It can.

But it can't keep XUL compatibility and do major overhauls of the browser.

If XUL compatibility doesn't even get you a clear advantage in the add-ons area, should it block modernizing the browser?

Firefox can't be the browser that people use only because they're stuck on it because they have extensions that changes how the browser works. Think about that for a bit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browser Extensions Standard by josteink on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:30AM (#14899931)
I know all about the issues with Firefox, the new WebExtensions and how the "old" XUL extensions which let you do "anything" are being phased out.

I just don't see how any of that is relevant to the original comment I replied to:

> But will Google allow this to happen, as it would strip them a huge selling point for Chrome?

In what way would standardizing WebExtensions, which are already supported by all modern browsers (sans Safari), strip Chrome of selling points?

Why should Google have to "allow" this?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browser Extensions Standard by gcp on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @10:33AM (#14901008)
Chrome currently has the largest amount of extensions, which is an advantage for that browser.

Standardized WebExtensions dilute that, because they allow easy ports to the other browsers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browser Extensions Standard by connorcpu on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @05:36PM (#14905607)
I think the point is more, in what way does google have any power to stop other browsers from implementing this API?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browser Extensions Standard by gcp on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:34AM (#14908620)
They don't. Unless you want to claim API's are copyrightable, but there are some downsides to that :-)
[ Parent | on HN ]