Re:Safari adopts the Chrome/Firefox extension model
by bredren on Thursday August 27, 2020 @11:31PM
(#24301109)
I don’t know if it was arcane so much as it was very conservative in what it allowed.
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.
Re:Safari adopts the Chrome/Firefox extension model
by alwillis on Friday August 28, 2020 @12:24AM
(#24301344)
Even Chrome-style extensions will have limits compared to what they can do in Chrome.
Re:Safari adopts the Chrome/Firefox extension model
by saagarjha on Friday August 28, 2020 @12:15AM
(#24301304)
This isn't really any more powerful.
Re:Safari adopts the Chrome/Firefox extension model
by bredren on Friday August 28, 2020 @01:19AM
(#24301591)
I’m saying it doesn’t need to be.
Re:Safari adopts the Chrome/Firefox extension model
by Razengan on Thursday August 27, 2020 @11:58PM
(#24301222)
You can publish free extensions, as long as you have a developer account.
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.
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?