14 ms·

This marks the last Android release with extensions/add-on support. There will not be a 69 release of this edition of Firefox for Android ("Fennec"). The new

This marks the last Android release with extensions/add-on support. There will not be a 69 release of this edition of Firefox for Android ("Fennec"). The new remake of the mobile browser ("Fenix") does not have extensions support and it is on an indefinite and easily ignorable backlog. It is explicitly not being worked on this quarter. At the end of this quarter is the scheduled release of Firefox 69. Unless there's no release at all of Firefox 69 upon the Android platform, that's the time when Mozilla I think will deceptively try to drop support for extensions/addons on android. Bug to have Add-ons pages declare Fenix extensions as unsupported. "version <= 68.0.98 is legacy Fennec version >= 68.0.99 is Fenix (or some other GeckoView-powered browser)" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548428 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548428 "Or do nothing because Fennec 68 and Fenix 68 will overlap for only 6–8 weeks with a preview audience." https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/7963 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/7963 Firefox 69 releases 2019-09-03 at the end of Quarter 3. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar Extensions support are in the "Reserved Backlog" category. Also locked to prevent any more comments about it. https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/574 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/574 Extensions support is not in Q3 backlog https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/projects/19 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/projects/19

StavrosK 7y ago
Wait what? Extensions are the biggest reason I'm using Firefox on my mobile and the only way I got people to switch to it. How can they just be removing them for any period of time?
- melinoe 7y ago
  Yeah, no kidding. Seems pretty significant, like pretty much a non-negotiable reason to switch to another browser if there is one with extension support.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  We will find out the hard way when the 69 release comes up.
- swinglock 7y ago
  Extensions is the ONLY reason to use Firefox on Android. It's not good browser compared to Chrome on slower Android phones, apart from being customizable. To me it's even the single biggest reason to use Android over iOS as there's no full featured browser on iOS.
  - ProAm 7y ago
    Give Kiwi Browser a shot on Android. It's a fork of Chrome with all the google tracking removed and fully supports Chrome Add-ons. I love it and it's fast (I was a long time Firefox on Android user but it just got to slow to use).
    - gruez 7y ago
      Chromium fork with closed source patches? No thanks.
      - ProAm 7y ago
        You do you [1] [1] https://github.com/kiwibrowser https://github.com/kiwibrowser
        iokanuon 7y ago
        This is just for show. [1] >No. The browser is not fully open source like open in open source. It is a common myth and misconception about Kiwi Browser. >Damn, 1 commit and nothing else but keeps updating and releasing apks? Looked into the issues and scarcely seen replies. >I think this repo is just to show that "hey, I provided the so-called source code (even though not fully open-source as said above) so trust me and install me" thing. [1]: https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android/issues/30 https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android/issues/30
        rvnx 7y ago
        The way you share quotes sounds like you personally have a problem with the browser :D Kiwi was started as a fun+independent project, then more and more people asked access to some source to be able to develop their own hacks (new tab page, extensions, bottom toolbar, import/export bookmarks, AMP, etc) and they are shared when the devs ask politely. At the end of the day, if you use Samsung, Kiwi, Fennec or Yandex, what matters is to understand why the developers are doing their project, what do they get from it (not necessarily money), and what are the influences around. The source-code is one indicator, and, unless you actually have reproducible builds (and only Fennec has them from all the mentioned browsers) you have to use your intuition.
- iamnotacrook 7y ago
  Hopefully the ESR version of Firefox will support add-ons on Linux/Android and will be supported (security fixes, I don't care about other changes) until any replacement browser supports add-ons on Linux/Android.
  - bzbarsky 7y ago
    That is the idea, yes.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  I've honestly looked, and while there are several versions of Firefox in the play store. None of those I've tried seem to support extensions. Can you tell me where to find one that does?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The "Mozilla Firefox" app does: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi... (they call them "add-ons" in the description) It's the new "Firefox Preview" that doesn't (yet).
modzu 7y ago
if this is true mozilla is way more broken than i thought
- modzu 7y ago
  callahad's comments are appreciated; GP's comment read like fact but its early days so hopefully its just fud.
hu3 7y ago
uBlock Origin is the only reason I use Firefox on Android. Mozilla broke extensions on desktop Firefox before and lost many users. Can't help but wonder what the hell are their product managers thinking? How can I recommend Firefox if they keep breaking it with little regard for users? Is there another browser that supports uBlock Origin for Android? I'm not talking about biased half baked built-in ad blockers, I want the full open source extension.
- rvnx 7y ago
  Kiwi Browser (Chromium-based) runs Nano Adblocker and uBlock Origin with full support (like on Firefox)
  - hu3 7y ago
    Thanks! I'm investigating it and sadly it seems a bit stale with last commit made 5 months ago: https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android For browsers this seems like a bit too long without updates. I can imagine maintaining such project is demanding but hopefully the project can gain more attention now with the new version of Firefox breaking extensions on Android.
    - green-bottle 7y ago
      Last I checked Kiwi is not open source. There are bits and pieces of code lying around in the Github repo, but not the full source code. The browser seems to get regular enough updates on play store, has decent ad blocking (at least good enough for my purposes) and to date has the best night mode out of all android browsers I've tried. No white flashes like I've faced in Firefox for Android. The dark mode applies to the whole of the browser UI. I use Bromite, Firefox for Android or Fenix mostly equally during the day and Kiwi at night. Though the fact that it is not open source may put some people off.
    - rvnx 7y ago
      There are almost daily builds on Discord if you want to join
JoshTriplett 7y ago
Firefox 68 is a long-term support release. Even if Fenix exits preview without extension support, nothing stops you from continuing to run Firefox Android 68.
- basch 7y ago
  as long as 69 doesnt auto update from 68 in the play store, it doesnt seem like a problem. people can switch over once extension support is added.
  - craftyguy 7y ago
    It seems like there will be no 69..
  - curiousgal 7y ago
    You can just grab the 68 apk from apkmirror.
  - dblohm7 7y ago
    Firefox Preview ("Fenix") uses a different ID from Firefox for Android ("Fennec") in the play store.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
conradfr 7y ago
Please noooo. I can tolerate the downgraded experience since Quantum on desktop but I can't deal without uBlock Origin on mobile.
rat9988 7y ago
The only add-on I need on y phone is an adblocker. This is why I've been using samsung browser for a long time. It does what I want and does it well. (I'm not paid by samsung, just trying to help fellow readers)
- catacombs 7y ago
  But does the Samsung browser, in exchange for adblocking, collects heaps of data on its users?
  - propogandist 7y ago
    Yes. If you use netguard you will see samsung browser and all the other preinstalled samsung apps (junk) are trying to constantly phone home.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
johnbrodie 7y ago
I don't understand Mozilla's position regarding extensions. First, they released a new desktop version with way less extension support, gimping the largest reason I use FF for - vimperator and it's successors. Now they are going to kill extensions in Android FF, which will kill the only non-ideological reason my family is using it - for the adblocking extensions.
- catacombs 7y ago
  > Now they are going to kill extensions in Android FF, which will kill the only non-ideological reason my family is using it - for the adblocking extensions. I'm guess enough ad-based companies with deep pockets finally bullied Mozilla hard enough.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    Looking at Mozilla IRC at the time, the reason wasn't bribery, but something way more basic. Did you ever support an old SOAP server made in '90, that had a lot of bugs, that was slow as hell made of molasses, and was vulnerable to several security exploits? Now imagine you have millions of users demanding, speed, security and those XML add-ons , I mean servers. Basically Mozilla decided to ditching the old system in favor of the newer one, was the best choice at the time.
    - catacombs 7y ago
      > Looking at Mozilla IRC at the time, the reason wasn't bribery, but something way more basic. I wasn't saying bribery. I'm talking about bullying through other means.
      - Ygg2 7y ago
        Either way, the results were linked to Firefox overall performance, rather than caused by outside agent.
- zbraniecki 7y ago
  Mozilla is not "going to kill extensions in Android FF".
tvanantwerp 7y ago
Without uBlock Origin on mobile Firefox, I guess I'll just stop visiting websites on mobile devices entirely. They're unusable without ad blocking.
- YinLuck- 7y ago
  iphone + safari
Paul-ish 7y ago
Is there any reason to believe Mozilla wont just leave the android version at 68 with addon support until Fenix gets add-on support?
snek 7y ago
This is a lot of FUD. Making a browser is hard, and making a modular browser is harder. It's clearly on their list of things to do, but it's behind all the other "making a browser" things.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  They've made no commitment to extensions, but clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months. What they haven't done is given a clear statement. Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support. But every response from Mozilla has been a sidestep and that I cannot overlook.
  - callahad 7y ago
    > clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months. That is incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of our release model. > What they haven't done is given a clear statement. The clearest statement is this dev-platform post from April, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/k-irJtmCcqg https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform..., which includes a link to a much more detailed project planning document. > Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support. That's because we are not yet ready to make public commitments. Honest. We're building the app and its underlying embedding library (GeckoView) from scratch, and as with all new greenfield projects, we're still working on getting the foundation right. It's simply too early to forecast how that specific design and development work will play out.
    - acrispino 7y ago
      Speaking generally, in development, some features are considered must-have even though much of roadmap may be unclear, right? So why isn't extension support considered a must-have?
    - 7y ago
lol768 7y ago
And the other point of view: > We're certainly aware of how significant ad blocking extensions are. This release required a great quantity of features with only a six month timeline until now. > We already support a very limited set of the WebExtensions API to offer features like Reader Mode. Rest assured that more features will land in the coming months. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20298143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20298143 This reads like FUD to me. The dev team know how important extensions are to their users.
- JeremyNT 7y ago
  > This reads like FUD to me. The dev team know how important extensions are to their users. Just because they know how important it is doesn't mean they care. I'm sure Google also knew how important ad blocking was to many Chrome users when they decided to remove that functionality from their browser, too.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Chrome didn't remove ad-blocking.
  - BiosElement 7y ago
    uBlock seems to work just fine, not sure why you're claiming they removed it.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      He's not claiming that they removed it. He's referring to the fact that Google announced their intention to remove the APIs that uBlock relies on. They haven't followed through with the plan yet, but neither have they completely backtracked. See eg. https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-to-kill-chromes-existing-adblock-apis/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-... and reports that they'll continue to provide that functionality only to enterprise users: https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterprise-manifest-v3/ https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterpr...
jtgeibel 7y ago
I don't understand why this comment is currently ranked so highly. It is based on pure conjecture, goes against what Mozilla has publicly stated, and assumes Mozilla is working in bad faith to deceptively drop add-on support.
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  Oh, I admit it is a good bit of conjecture considering the lack of public information Mozilla has provided. What has Mozilla publicly stated about extensions and their rewrite of android firefox? I'd love to see something clear they've stated.
gobblegobble2 7y ago
The amount of FUD in this post is astounding. Here's relevant github issue: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomment-477905130 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomm...
jraph 7y ago
"Fenix MVP will not replace Fennec" (MVP meaning "Minimum Viable Product"). https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomment-477905130 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomm... I'm sure Fennec users will not be migrated to Fenix until extensions are supported. This would be a big fuck up and Mozilla is aware of this. Linked bugs about the user agent seem irrelevant to this issue. Everything will be okay. You can sleep on both ears.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > Linked bugs about the user agent seem irrelevant to this issue. They're relevant because that's what suggests that they aren't planning for a Fennec 69: addons.mozilla.org is currently interpreting version 69 to mean Fenix, so if Fennec gets updated to 69 they'll have broken extension support anyways. If Mozilla is abandoning Fennec at version 68 before Fenix is even close to having extension support, they probably can't be trusted to not push out Fenix to users prior to implementing extension support. Their messy transition to WebExtensions certainly provides precedent for Mozilla making this kind of fuck-up.
  - callahad 7y ago
    Fennec is moving to an Extended Support Release model so we can focus on Preview. This means that the engine will remain at major version 68 for the next year, but it will still receive security updates and bugfixes. And it will continue to support add-ons.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      Why hasn't Mozilla put out a clear statement that Fennec is EOL'd and that the replacement definitely won't be pushed out until it's ready (including support for extensions)? It would go a long way with users if Mozilla could just clearly state that Firefox for Android will be skipping versions 69 through at least ~73 due to Fenix not being ready for public consumption. Stating that extension support is not part of the MVP and failing to set a clear deadline for getting that feature back is not reassuring.
callahad 7y ago
Hi. I work for Mozilla. Firefox for Android is not dead. You are free to continue using it. It will continue to support add-ons, and it will receive regular security updates and bugfixes for at least the next year. We are focusing all new feature development in Firefox Preview, but we're continuing to support Firefox for Android as an Extended Support Release while we build Preview. And, for what it's worth, we do understand how important extensions are to folks, and we are taking that into account in our planning.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Will Preview be guaranteed to support extensions before Firefox for Android goes EOL?
  - callahad 7y ago
    I can't make any specific commitment, but there's a lot of time between now and Firefox for Android going EOL (and we haven't committed to specific timing for that, either.) However, we do have concrete plans for supporting adblocking as a built-in feature in the near future (https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/96 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/96), which should make Preview more palatable to folks who rely on add-ons for that, even if only as a stopgap. More fundamentally, when considering major features like add-on support, we want to take the time to ensure that we're getting our design right at all relevant levels: Firefox Preview, the underlying GeckoView library, and the Gecko engine itself. And though development on Preview moves quickly, there's still a lot of design and development work yet to be done.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Thanks for replying; I'm sad that Mozilla hasn't committed to that, it'd be helpful to squelch the FUD.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      > However, we do have concrete plans for supporting adblocking as a built-in feature in the near future I also work on an open-source project, and I understand where you're coming from WRT decisions that are unpopular on the outside, but make sense when viewed from the inside. But as a user of Firefox, having already gone through one round of breaking extensions I quite liked with no apparent benefit to me as a user, I'm really not enthused about going through another round of this. Adding a built-in ad-blocker is fine, I guess, but I also use NoScript on mobile. Is that going to die when Firefox for Android goes EOL? What benefit am I going to gain by giving up another one of my core add-ons? I know you can't answer that here and now, but please, seriously consider how this looks from the user's perspective. I love Firefox and I would like to continue to do so.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

StavrosK 7y ago

Wait what? Extensions are the biggest reason I'm using Firefox on my mobile and the only way I got people to switch to it. How can they just be removing them for any period of time?

melinoe 7y ago
Yeah, no kidding. Seems pretty significant, like pretty much a non-negotiable reason to switch to another browser if there is one with extension support.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
kevin_b_er 7y ago
We will find out the hard way when the 69 release comes up.
swinglock 7y ago
Extensions is the ONLY reason to use Firefox on Android. It's not good browser compared to Chrome on slower Android phones, apart from being customizable. To me it's even the single biggest reason to use Android over iOS as there's no full featured browser on iOS.
- ProAm 7y ago
  Give Kiwi Browser a shot on Android. It's a fork of Chrome with all the google tracking removed and fully supports Chrome Add-ons. I love it and it's fast (I was a long time Firefox on Android user but it just got to slow to use).
  - gruez 7y ago
    Chromium fork with closed source patches? No thanks.
    - ProAm 7y ago
      You do you [1] [1] https://github.com/kiwibrowser https://github.com/kiwibrowser
      - iokanuon 7y ago
        This is just for show. [1] >No. The browser is not fully open source like open in open source. It is a common myth and misconception about Kiwi Browser. >Damn, 1 commit and nothing else but keeps updating and releasing apks? Looked into the issues and scarcely seen replies. >I think this repo is just to show that "hey, I provided the so-called source code (even though not fully open-source as said above) so trust me and install me" thing. [1]: https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android/issues/30 https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android/issues/30
        rvnx 7y ago
        The way you share quotes sounds like you personally have a problem with the browser :D Kiwi was started as a fun+independent project, then more and more people asked access to some source to be able to develop their own hacks (new tab page, extensions, bottom toolbar, import/export bookmarks, AMP, etc) and they are shared when the devs ask politely. At the end of the day, if you use Samsung, Kiwi, Fennec or Yandex, what matters is to understand why the developers are doing their project, what do they get from it (not necessarily money), and what are the influences around. The source-code is one indicator, and, unless you actually have reproducible builds (and only Fennec has them from all the mentioned browsers) you have to use your intuition.
iamnotacrook 7y ago
Hopefully the ESR version of Firefox will support add-ons on Linux/Android and will be supported (security fixes, I don't care about other changes) until any replacement browser supports add-ons on Linux/Android.
- bzbarsky 7y ago
  That is the idea, yes.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
I've honestly looked, and while there are several versions of Firefox in the play store. None of those I've tried seem to support extensions. Can you tell me where to find one that does?
- icebraining 7y ago
  The "Mozilla Firefox" app does: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi... (they call them "add-ons" in the description) It's the new "Firefox Preview" that doesn't (yet).

modzu 7y ago

if this is true mozilla is way more broken than i thought

modzu 7y ago
callahad's comments are appreciated; GP's comment read like fact but its early days so hopefully its just fud.

hu3 7y ago

uBlock Origin is the only reason I use Firefox on Android. Mozilla broke extensions on desktop Firefox before and lost many users. Can't help but wonder what the hell are their product managers thinking? How can I recommend Firefox if they keep breaking it with little regard for users? Is there another browser that supports uBlock Origin for Android? I'm not talking about biased half baked built-in ad blockers, I want the full open source extension.

rvnx 7y ago
Kiwi Browser (Chromium-based) runs Nano Adblocker and uBlock Origin with full support (like on Firefox)
- hu3 7y ago
  Thanks! I'm investigating it and sadly it seems a bit stale with last commit made 5 months ago: https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android For browsers this seems like a bit too long without updates. I can imagine maintaining such project is demanding but hopefully the project can gain more attention now with the new version of Firefox breaking extensions on Android.
  - green-bottle 7y ago
    Last I checked Kiwi is not open source. There are bits and pieces of code lying around in the Github repo, but not the full source code. The browser seems to get regular enough updates on play store, has decent ad blocking (at least good enough for my purposes) and to date has the best night mode out of all android browsers I've tried. No white flashes like I've faced in Firefox for Android. The dark mode applies to the whole of the browser UI. I use Bromite, Firefox for Android or Fenix mostly equally during the day and Kiwi at night. Though the fact that it is not open source may put some people off.
  - rvnx 7y ago
    There are almost daily builds on Discord if you want to join

JoshTriplett 7y ago

Firefox 68 is a long-term support release. Even if Fenix exits preview without extension support, nothing stops you from continuing to run Firefox Android 68.

basch 7y ago
as long as 69 doesnt auto update from 68 in the play store, it doesnt seem like a problem. people can switch over once extension support is added.
- craftyguy 7y ago
  It seems like there will be no 69..
- curiousgal 7y ago
  You can just grab the 68 apk from apkmirror.
- dblohm7 7y ago
  Firefox Preview ("Fenix") uses a different ID from Firefox for Android ("Fennec") in the play store.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

conradfr 7y ago

Please noooo. I can tolerate the downgraded experience since Quantum on desktop but I can't deal without uBlock Origin on mobile.

rat9988 7y ago

The only add-on I need on y phone is an adblocker. This is why I've been using samsung browser for a long time. It does what I want and does it well. (I'm not paid by samsung, just trying to help fellow readers)

catacombs 7y ago
But does the Samsung browser, in exchange for adblocking, collects heaps of data on its users?
- propogandist 7y ago
  Yes. If you use netguard you will see samsung browser and all the other preinstalled samsung apps (junk) are trying to constantly phone home.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

johnbrodie 7y ago

I don't understand Mozilla's position regarding extensions. First, they released a new desktop version with way less extension support, gimping the largest reason I use FF for - vimperator and it's successors. Now they are going to kill extensions in Android FF, which will kill the only non-ideological reason my family is using it - for the adblocking extensions.

catacombs 7y ago
> Now they are going to kill extensions in Android FF, which will kill the only non-ideological reason my family is using it - for the adblocking extensions. I'm guess enough ad-based companies with deep pockets finally bullied Mozilla hard enough.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  Looking at Mozilla IRC at the time, the reason wasn't bribery, but something way more basic. Did you ever support an old SOAP server made in '90, that had a lot of bugs, that was slow as hell made of molasses, and was vulnerable to several security exploits? Now imagine you have millions of users demanding, speed, security and those XML add-ons , I mean servers. Basically Mozilla decided to ditching the old system in favor of the newer one, was the best choice at the time.
  - catacombs 7y ago
    > Looking at Mozilla IRC at the time, the reason wasn't bribery, but something way more basic. I wasn't saying bribery. I'm talking about bullying through other means.
    - Ygg2 7y ago
      Either way, the results were linked to Firefox overall performance, rather than caused by outside agent.
zbraniecki 7y ago
Mozilla is not "going to kill extensions in Android FF".

tvanantwerp 7y ago

Without uBlock Origin on mobile Firefox, I guess I'll just stop visiting websites on mobile devices entirely. They're unusable without ad blocking.

YinLuck- 7y ago
iphone + safari

Paul-ish 7y ago

Is there any reason to believe Mozilla wont just leave the android version at 68 with addon support until Fenix gets add-on support?

snek 7y ago

This is a lot of FUD. Making a browser is hard, and making a modular browser is harder. It's clearly on their list of things to do, but it's behind all the other "making a browser" things.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kevin_b_er 7y ago
They've made no commitment to extensions, but clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months. What they haven't done is given a clear statement. Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support. But every response from Mozilla has been a sidestep and that I cannot overlook.
- callahad 7y ago
  > clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months. That is incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of our release model. > What they haven't done is given a clear statement. The clearest statement is this dev-platform post from April, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/k-irJtmCcqg https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform..., which includes a link to a much more detailed project planning document. > Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support. That's because we are not yet ready to make public commitments. Honest. We're building the app and its underlying embedding library (GeckoView) from scratch, and as with all new greenfield projects, we're still working on getting the foundation right. It's simply too early to forecast how that specific design and development work will play out.
  - acrispino 7y ago
    Speaking generally, in development, some features are considered must-have even though much of roadmap may be unclear, right? So why isn't extension support considered a must-have?
  - 7y ago

lol768 7y ago

And the other point of view: > We're certainly aware of how significant ad blocking extensions are. This release required a great quantity of features with only a six month timeline until now. > We already support a very limited set of the WebExtensions API to offer features like Reader Mode. Rest assured that more features will land in the coming months. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20298143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20298143 This reads like FUD to me. The dev team know how important extensions are to their users.

JeremyNT 7y ago
> This reads like FUD to me. The dev team know how important extensions are to their users. Just because they know how important it is doesn't mean they care. I'm sure Google also knew how important ad blocking was to many Chrome users when they decided to remove that functionality from their browser, too.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Chrome didn't remove ad-blocking.
- BiosElement 7y ago
  uBlock seems to work just fine, not sure why you're claiming they removed it.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    He's not claiming that they removed it. He's referring to the fact that Google announced their intention to remove the APIs that uBlock relies on. They haven't followed through with the plan yet, but neither have they completely backtracked. See eg. https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-to-kill-chromes-existing-adblock-apis/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-... and reports that they'll continue to provide that functionality only to enterprise users: https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterprise-manifest-v3/ https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterpr...

jtgeibel 7y ago

I don't understand why this comment is currently ranked so highly. It is based on pure conjecture, goes against what Mozilla has publicly stated, and assumes Mozilla is working in bad faith to deceptively drop add-on support.

kevin_b_er 7y ago
Oh, I admit it is a good bit of conjecture considering the lack of public information Mozilla has provided. What has Mozilla publicly stated about extensions and their rewrite of android firefox? I'd love to see something clear they've stated.

gobblegobble2 7y ago

The amount of FUD in this post is astounding. Here's relevant github issue: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomment-477905130 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomm...

jraph 7y ago

"Fenix MVP will not replace Fennec" (MVP meaning "Minimum Viable Product"). https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomment-477905130 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/662#issuecomm... I'm sure Fennec users will not be migrated to Fenix until extensions are supported. This would be a big fuck up and Mozilla is aware of this. Linked bugs about the user agent seem irrelevant to this issue. Everything will be okay. You can sleep on both ears.

wtallis 7y ago
> Linked bugs about the user agent seem irrelevant to this issue. They're relevant because that's what suggests that they aren't planning for a Fennec 69: addons.mozilla.org is currently interpreting version 69 to mean Fenix, so if Fennec gets updated to 69 they'll have broken extension support anyways. If Mozilla is abandoning Fennec at version 68 before Fenix is even close to having extension support, they probably can't be trusted to not push out Fenix to users prior to implementing extension support. Their messy transition to WebExtensions certainly provides precedent for Mozilla making this kind of fuck-up.
- callahad 7y ago
  Fennec is moving to an Extended Support Release model so we can focus on Preview. This means that the engine will remain at major version 68 for the next year, but it will still receive security updates and bugfixes. And it will continue to support add-ons.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    Why hasn't Mozilla put out a clear statement that Fennec is EOL'd and that the replacement definitely won't be pushed out until it's ready (including support for extensions)? It would go a long way with users if Mozilla could just clearly state that Firefox for Android will be skipping versions 69 through at least ~73 due to Fenix not being ready for public consumption. Stating that extension support is not part of the MVP and failing to set a clear deadline for getting that feature back is not reassuring.

callahad 7y ago

Hi. I work for Mozilla. Firefox for Android is not dead. You are free to continue using it. It will continue to support add-ons, and it will receive regular security updates and bugfixes for at least the next year. We are focusing all new feature development in Firefox Preview, but we're continuing to support Firefox for Android as an Extended Support Release while we build Preview. And, for what it's worth, we do understand how important extensions are to folks, and we are taking that into account in our planning.

icebraining 7y ago
Will Preview be guaranteed to support extensions before Firefox for Android goes EOL?
- callahad 7y ago
  I can't make any specific commitment, but there's a lot of time between now and Firefox for Android going EOL (and we haven't committed to specific timing for that, either.) However, we do have concrete plans for supporting adblocking as a built-in feature in the near future (https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/96 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/96), which should make Preview more palatable to folks who rely on add-ons for that, even if only as a stopgap. More fundamentally, when considering major features like add-on support, we want to take the time to ensure that we're getting our design right at all relevant levels: Firefox Preview, the underlying GeckoView library, and the Gecko engine itself. And though development on Preview moves quickly, there's still a lot of design and development work yet to be done.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Thanks for replying; I'm sad that Mozilla hasn't committed to that, it'd be helpful to squelch the FUD.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    > However, we do have concrete plans for supporting adblocking as a built-in feature in the near future I also work on an open-source project, and I understand where you're coming from WRT decisions that are unpopular on the outside, but make sense when viewed from the inside. But as a user of Firefox, having already gone through one round of breaking extensions I quite liked with no apparent benefit to me as a user, I'm really not enthused about going through another round of this. Adding a built-in ad-blocker is fine, I guess, but I also use NoScript on mobile. Is that going to die when Firefox for Android goes EOL? What benefit am I going to gain by giving up another one of my core add-ons? I know you can't answer that here and now, but please, seriously consider how this looks from the user's perspective. I love Firefox and I would like to continue to do so.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]