4 ms·
I disagree. If they are able to deliver a browser that's much faster and consumes less battery, I believe that would be enough to make a lot of users change the
by JD557 10y ago
I disagree. If they are able to deliver a browser that's much faster and consumes less battery, I believe that would be enough to make a lot of users change their browser.
Maybe I'm wrong and I'm not a good example, but I the only add-ons that I have installed that I really care about is 1password (which is easy to live without, as I can use the stand-alone application) and HTTPS everywhere (which just means that I have to be extra careful when browsing).
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of internet users that do not even have add-ons in their browsers, but I doubt that there's any user who would not care about browser speed/battery life.
- cpeterso 10y agoAFAIK, about 40% of Firefox users don't have any add-ons.
- WorldMaker 10y agoFurthermore, the recent e10s transition was already tree shake of the long tail of ancient add-ons in terms of how many still had old bindings and used ancient versions of the NPAPI. Then there is the fact that every other browser has, or is in the process, dropped any notion of direct native add-on APIs and an increasing majority of actively developed add-ons for all browsers is now modern "Chrome-style" JS+HTML components.
- dblohm7 10y agoYou seem to be confusing NPAPI plugins with browser extensions. Firefox doesn't allow addons that contain binary XPCOM components anymore. Everything has to be JS, whether the addon is XPCOM based, addon SDK (JetPack) based, or WebExtensions-based. NPAPI is deprecated and is to the point where it is only used for Flash.
- WorldMaker 10y agoSorry, yes I was using NPAPI as a handwaving shorthand for both NPAPI and binary XPCOM to save time. I appreciate the extra technical detail, though. (Because technically correct is the best kind of correct.)