3 ms·
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 Chr
by gcp 9y ago
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)
- josteink 9y agoBut Firefox can already run WebExtensions (aka Chrome extensions). So how does this change anything?
- gcp 9y agoIt 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.
- josteink 9y agoI 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?
- gcp 9y agoChrome 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.