5 ms·

Safari is a great browser for MacOS, what it lacks right now, is not more features, is opening the extension system. Let's face it, it is ridiculous to have to

Safari is a great browser for MacOS, what it lacks right now, is not more features, is opening the extension system. Let's face it, it is ridiculous to have to pay 100$ a year to be able to improve Apple's product in exchange for nothing. Making plugins for a browser doesn't have in any way the same opportunities to make money from it as making apps for iOS or for MacOS. Still Apple, in all their usual stubbornness refuse to let people to publish and sign their extensions for Safari without paying them their 100$ anual fee.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
comex 10y ago
I don't know whether it's ridiculous or not, but it's definitely a culture clash. Safari had a hard time attracting ports of other browsers' extensions even when you could distribute them for free and they were fully HTML-based. (Probably because there was no Windows version.) Now, not only do you have to pay, the old extension system has been deprecated in favor of a new system where you have to bundle your extension within a native app and implement a native-code-based interface. It's probably not a bad interface in isolation (haven't tried it myself), and makes it easier for existing native app developers to add extensions, but I expect it makes code reuse between extensions for Safari and other browsers quite difficult. In comparison, both Firefox and Edge are going in the exact opposite direction and moving to an extension API directly based on, and largely compatible with, Chrome extensions. So pretty soon you'll be able to use popular extensions with any browser you prefer... except Safari. But hey, at least now Safari will be able to take advantage of the popularity of building apps for the Mac App Store. Oh wait...
- bfred_it 10y ago
  If Safari starts supporting WebExtensions we're halfway there, but I don't see them switching from their current model anytime soon — sadly for its users.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

comex 10y ago

I don't know whether it's ridiculous or not, but it's definitely a culture clash. Safari had a hard time attracting ports of other browsers' extensions even when you could distribute them for free and they were fully HTML-based. (Probably because there was no Windows version.) Now, not only do you have to pay, the old extension system has been deprecated in favor of a new system where you have to bundle your extension within a native app and implement a native-code-based interface. It's probably not a bad interface in isolation (haven't tried it myself), and makes it easier for existing native app developers to add extensions, but I expect it makes code reuse between extensions for Safari and other browsers quite difficult. In comparison, both Firefox and Edge are going in the exact opposite direction and moving to an extension API directly based on, and largely compatible with, Chrome extensions. So pretty soon you'll be able to use popular extensions with any browser you prefer... except Safari. But hey, at least now Safari will be able to take advantage of the popularity of building apps for the Mac App Store. Oh wait...

bfred_it 10y ago
If Safari starts supporting WebExtensions we're halfway there, but I don't see them switching from their current model anytime soon — sadly for its users.