You can take a look at Firefox, which has extensions that in Chrome are not currently possible. Or extension features that aren't possible, like the ability to block first-party analytics in uBlock Origin, as a small example.
I am, however, glad that all of them are adopting more or less the same APIs, because extension developers can now target all 3 major browsers with ease.
> the discussion on macOS browsers is going to come back to UX, speed, and battery usage
The biggest, most relevant component of a browser has always been the browser engine, because it dictates available features, and yes, speed and battery usage.
People keep talking about the UI as being an important differentiator. But I don't believe that's true, because the UI of all major browsers is decent. Of course, power users can cling on to features, like the Tree Style Tabs in Firefox, but for the most part, I don't think it's the UI that makes most people switch browsers.
UI is the differentiator of the Mac itself. Otherwise, why not just use Windows, which is "decent".
I use macOS because things usually just work, because it's a Unix, and because the available apps are good. I don't have a problem with the Windows 10 UI, I have a problem with everything else.
In fairness, switching from Linux to macOS because of the UI is an acceptable viewpoint.
Because Firefox had tabs!
But I agree, browser UI is irrelevant in 2020.
—-
For extensions, wont it be a while before enough preferred extensions move over to Safari? A solid amount might never? Unless there’s some initiative where some consortiums publish extensions on behalf of open source extension developers. Otherwise many made with no money in mind don’t have a good reason to pay $100/year.
Now for my bit of day dreaming and fantasizing:
(1) If this began a trend to begin charging for good extensions, I wouldn’t mind that. We pay for so much stuff, but extensions are assumed to be free. There’s less oversight on the data mining they do than almost any other niche. Then unfortunate part is how much of the revenue would be eaten by Apple’s 30% cut and $99/year. Since the developer fee is yearly, if this can also lead to yearly charges for extensions, but at very low rates, that would be awesome too.
(2) if some extensions are subscriptions at $1-5 a year or $1 for 2-3 years as the main price points for good extensions. It doesn’t come close to subscription saturation issues. At those low numbers, it would take a whole ton of extensions to get to $60/year. Which is a completely average price charged for apps these days that used to cost a fraction for one time payment.
If you really think something like https://1blocker.com/ is a "turd", then you must be hung up on something rather inconsequential to most people.
1blocker is fairly awful I find and rather expensive because you’re a captive audience that doesn’t have access to working uBlock.
This situation is one of several reasons I recently dumped macOS and went back to windows and am using edge and doing all my unixy stuff in VMs.
To get 100%, you use NoScript or turn Javascript off. Not many HNers even go that far.
You don't have to use 1blocker, it's just an example of a well-crafted solution that has made it so I haven't seen an ad since I started using it. There are free solutions.
The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations, else you're completely disconnected from the conversation everyone else is having.
You could call uBlock Origin a "turd" for its privacy violation of having access to every website you visit and request you make, but that's not a good way to have that conversation, either.
Sounds like there was more to your decision than this situation though. Chrome + uBlock work fine on macOS.
I wouldn't call it a fringe expectation. uBlock Origin in safariextz format was quite popular for Safari, until Safari 13 removed all support for it.
As a result, many users were forced to move from something that worked very well for them to something that didn't work as well. Nobody likes to be forced to adopt something worse. Imposing the "power user" vs. "normal user" dichotomy here is not an accurate story of the history of Safari extensions.
If I browse the same sites on Chrome for Windows my CPU goes to 100%. It's awful.
The development of these extensions is eased, but you still need to pay Apple tax to give them to users. If your extension generates revenue maybe that's fine. If it doesn't Apple is asking you to give them money so that you can help their users, how about No?
Browser extensions can seek very wide permissions and are extremely powerful because they can automate requests from a user’s IP address.
I’d guess Apple only did this because they had to.
Since the account costs $100 a year, this makes more sense for apps who want to offer a Safari extension, e.g. a Japanese learning aid with a website translation extension.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/saf...
> In addition to blocking unwanted content, a Content Blocker extension protects privacy. For example, the extension doesn’t have access to users’ browsing activity and it can’t report activity to your app.
https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
In what way ?
It also doesn't do anything for privacy. It is based on uBO, so just use UBO.
Getting banned from ads sounds like an amazing thing...
(Why would...? Ha.)
They don't stop showing you ads. They just don't register your clicks as part of impressions.
Open TOR. You get ads on all sites. But do a google search, you'll get a infinite captcha.
You can get your competitor's site banned this way. Just run bots on his site.
'Pay us, or we'll get Google to ban your ads' -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348568
What is "Dishonesty isn't really a topic if we are talking ads" supposed to mean?
Do we have examples were sites were banned for this behavior? I think "click fraud" doesn't actually fit, since it is not the operator of the site who is responsible. I would be more open to call that behavior fraudulent. I mean cases where users fake their activity.
edit: And if true, why wouldn't I go to google.com and let it run there for a while? Just researched the Google really put effort in banning it.
Google.com ads are search specific. They'll ban you first, before stopping ads.
However, if your wish is to stop seeing ads, but click them, use it.
Don't be surprised when your IP is banned, or the website is banned
- Current Safari users can get the goodness of Chrome extensions, specifically the ones focused on privacy such as NoScript and uBlock.
- Switchers from Chrome can feel familiar with Safari if their Chrome extensions are available to them in the new browser.
- New macOS users don’t need to select a browser based on whether extensions are available for it or not.
With extension availability out of the way, the discussion on macOS browsers is going to come back to UX, speed, and battery usage. UX is a personal choice. Based on my experience, Safari is the fastest and least battery hungry browser on macOS. Syncing using iCloud Just Works (TM) for my devices and account. YMMV.
Net-net, kudos to the team for getting past their “Not Invented Here” instincts and going with the market flow.