8 ms·

Am I reading this right? They're going to launch a browser update that removes support for most extensions and claim it's an upgrade?

by wging 7y ago

recursive 7y ago
I didn't see anything about removing any extension support. The word "upgrade" also isn't anywhere on the page that I can see. So my guess is no, you're not reading it right.
- westmeal 7y ago
  Well I've heard that they are moving to a new extension api for the mobile release and it seems like ublock origin is the only thing thats supported for now per this webpage. I use that and umatrix so I'd like to know if uMatrix is going to be supported for mobile in the future... Does the developer for umatrix browse HN?
  - kwierso 7y ago
    I don't know that uMatrix will be supported any time soon, but you can turn uBlock Origin into Advanced mode and get much of the same functionality that way.
- mqus 7y ago
  See point 3, this is a complete redesign so they don't have support for any other extensions yet, compared to the existing Firefox on android. But what irks me is that they will only support "recommended extensions" in the near future with no indication on how to install "unsupported" extensions or how to get "recommended". Mozillas own FAQ on the subject, with many more questions in the comments there: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-support-in-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension...
  - twelvechairs 7y ago
    But this is only for preview and nightly preview versions? If you don't want things to break occasiinally just use normal Firefox not a pre-release
    - coldpie 7y ago
      This article is about the final release to all Firefox users. It is not about the preview and nightly versions. They are going to break all extensions for all users (except for uBO).
      - twelvechairs 7y ago
        It IS about nightly and preview. Also the first comment on the page is on this issue (normal Firefox users) and answer is clear about their transition > At that time, other add-ons will be supported (although there’s a chance that some of the ones you currently have installed will not be supported.) I don't know what else you can expect? That add ons will never be deprecated?
        coldpie 7y ago
        From the article being discussed here <https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-android-new-features/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-android-new-feature... >: "The biggest ever update to Firefox browser for Android is on its way. Later this spring, everyone using the Firefox browser on their Android phones and tablets will get the update. ... This update will initially include support for one of the most popular extensions on Android, uBlock Origin. Additional extensions will be supported in subsequent releases so you can customize and expand your mobile browsing experience even more." >I don't know what else you can expect? That add ons will never be deprecated? I thought we went through the whole round of destroying support for non-WebExtensions so that we wouldn't have to do this ever again.
- wging 7y ago
  "3. Extension-ready This update will initially include support for one of the most popular extensions..." Having support for exactly one means you don't support the others. They also say "Additional extensions will be supported in subsequent releases", which implies they aren't supported initially. Also supported by someone's link to https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-support-in-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension..., thanks for that. It's phrased in a way that avoids saying outright what they are actually doing (dropping support), though.
untog 7y ago
Yes. Because for the majority of users, who do not use extensions, it is an upgrade. And it comes with built-in tracking prevention and still supports ad blocking, surely the two the big reasons most people use extensions in the first place. And they're going to restore extension functionality, so the power users who depend on extensions can keep the current version and wait if they wish.
- zeveb 7y ago
  > And they're going to restore extension functionality I put the odds of that somewhere around the same as the odds that GNOME Screensaver will ever support any of the xscreensaver demos it claimed it would … which is to say, I'm not holding my breath.
  - untog 7y ago
    Why?
    - blackearl 7y ago
      Eventually you'll suffocate
    - Reelin 7y ago
      How long did it take them to finish implementing all the equivalent WebExtension APIs after they dropped XUL?
  - paulie_a 7y ago
    I'd be more concerned about gnome leaking data when unlocking the screensaver.
- cesarb 7y ago
  > can keep the current version and wait if they wish. Unfortunately, web browsers are one of the few applications where "keep the current version" is not a viable option. Web browsers are very exposed to every web site they visit (including code injected by ad networks), and once a new version is released, many serious vulnerabilities on the previous version are revealed (for instance, https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities... is the list for Firefox). Keeping an old version can be a serious security risk.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
coldpie 7y ago
God Damnit I Hoped They Wouldn't Do This. I love you Firefox but you make it so hard. I've come to depend on NoScript on mobile (the mobile web is a _nightmare_ with JS enabled by default) and now they're going to break it on me. The worst part is the part of this article about how their browser is not ready for extensions is labeled "Extension-ready". No it fucking isn't. Fuck this is so frustrating.
- kd913 7y ago
  It's not like there isn't really a solution to this. You don't really need NoScript if you can learn how to use ublock origin in advanced mode.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    I've never tried the uBO script blocker, but NoScript's UI is really nice for performing common tasks related to blocking JS. Stuff like allowing temporary permissions per domain, or allowing all on the current tab. Does uBO have similar features?
    - enitihas 7y ago
      You can try the brave browser on Android. Disabling and enabling js temporarily is easy. Even better, enabling js on a website in private mode does not persist. So you can disable all js by default, enable it on trusted sites via 1 click easy to use UI, and enable anywhere in private mode without worrying about forgetting to disable it later.
      - boring_twenties 7y ago
        > enable it on trusted sites via 1 click easy to use UI Does this just enable all scripts loaded by that site, or does it allow filtering by domain the scripts themselves are loaded from? E.g. when browsing site.com you want to allow site.com (and often sitestatic.com or something), but still not allow doubleclick.net even though it's loaded by the same page.
    - 7y ago
yoavm 7y ago
Actually I think you're right, and in fact they've already done this for those of us who used Firefox Nightly on Android. I had both Nightly and Preview on my phone, and kept using Nightly precisely because it supported all my extensions (Cookie AutoDelete, Bypass Paywall etc). One morning I woke up to see that Nightly was "upgraded" to Preview, and my extensions (except uBlock) were disabled. From what I understood, it seems like the same is going to happen with the stable branch - first it'll be "upgraded" to Preview and only later Preview will get all extensions support. Another bitter thing about this is that as much as the new Preview UI is slicker, it's actually browsing noticeably slower on my Google Pixel.
jsjddbbwj 7y ago
I mean, they are Mozilla.
MadWombat 7y ago
They did it on desktop already, what did you expect?
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  It was unpopular on desktop, but they had an argument as to why they couldn't keep the old extension model without crippling the browser. Firefox mobile already used the new extension type, and if there's some technical limitation that justifies killing existing extensions then I've not heard about it.
  - kwierso 7y ago
    They're not killing it. Preview/Fenix is essentially a complete re-write of the mobile browser, and they just haven't added all of the extension hooks back into the new version yet.
  - sfink 7y ago
    (I work for Mozilla, but not specifically on mobile.) The reason I've heard is that the new GeckoView architecture requires piping each and every WebExtension API through a Java layer (that naturally doesn't exist on desktop). So it's some amount of manual work per API entry. The definition of the MVP only included critical extensions like reader mode and uBlock. And there's still a fair bit of other work remaining for the MVP, so nobody can spare time for noncritical tasks. Whether that's the right definition of the MVP, and how many resources we'll be able to spend on it post-MVP (especially post-layoffs)... your guess is as good as mine, I'm going by the same public info you have. Extensions are a pretty important distinguishing factor of mobile firefox, though.
Jonnax 7y ago
Well it's a rewrite that'd much faster than chrome now. Can't things be a work in progress?
- Macha 7y ago
  Of course they can. The issue is when you push a work in progress as a replacement for a finished solution
- kelnos 7y ago
  A work in progress that removes significant features that the existing release has is... not a great idea. I'm not sure what percentage of Firefox Android users have more extensions installed than uBlock Origin, but this is a recipe for losing users. And not just any users, but the more-technical power users that tend to be best at evangelizing products to their less-technical friends and family.
- anoncake 7y ago
  That's great for all the people that want a fast browser that doesn't need to support extensions but accidentally installed Firefox instead.
photon-torpedo 7y ago
On top of the missing extensions, Firefox Preview (nightly) also crashes a lot. Been giving it a spin in the past two weeks but I don't feel it's ready to replace current Firefox.
- Semaphor 7y ago
  I’ve had more problems with the old FF android than Preview Nightly.
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    What kind? It's rock solid for me here.
    - Semaphor 7y ago
      It’s sometimes not loading pages without me force-closing it.
- chrysoprace 7y ago
  I'd say that's to be expected of a Nightly release. Have you considered the stable Firefox Preview? I've had some crashes, but not many.
rdslw 7y ago
I’m really interested about TRUE reason about skipping of extensions in next version ( you can check current MESS by simply checking of number of firefox apps from mozilla only (sic!)). For the organization of mozilla size it is not technical reason (also considering that this will be downgrade). They have ample of resources, they solved much more difficult problems in recent year, they easily can allocate their resources accordingly, they know what users ask for (simply read this discussion), they know that mobile>desktop. Yet.... There is some other factor at play, and i simply would like to know the truth. Not zuck-truth about connecting people...
- hoistbypetard 7y ago
  > they know what users ask for (simply read this discussion) This discussion only shows what people who like to spend time online talking about implementation details of HTTP user agents ask for. It does not tell us what most users want.
- jamesgeck0 7y ago
  It's a rewrite of a huge complicated application. Why does there need to be a conspiracy?
- roca 7y ago
  What makes you think Mozilla has ample resources? They just laid off some people, which strongly suggests they don't.
sterwill 7y ago
I've been using the nightly builds of Firefox Preview for a couple of weeks, and it supports the extension I need the most (uBlock Origin). The new preview is so much faster than the old Firefox for Android I probably won't need to buy a new phone for another year or two. I like the UI changes, too.
- ebg13 7y ago
  Me too, but does yours crash all the time like mine does or is that something with my phone?
  - jobstijl 7y ago
    For me it did a few updates ago, now it's pretty much stable. I really do like this release and i can live with not all extentions being enabled on the nightly, but for releasing this to stable users i would think they should first fix the extentions.
  - sciurus 7y ago
    For the last few days for me, Firefox Preview Nightly crashes almost immediately but Firefox Preview is still stable. My understanding is that Preview picks up changes from Preview Nightly every two weeks. (Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla but not on our Android browser)
    - dblohm7 7y ago
      I hope you’re reporting these...
      - sciurus 7y ago
        Yes, I follow Android's prompt to report the crashes. I don't see them listed in about:crashes though, so I'm unsure how to follow up about them.
jpangs88 7y ago
It's true that most the extension support is going away for now. From there GitHub project it doesn't sound like the only thing that won't meet feature parity in the new version. That being said I am using nightly preview and am really enjoying it and would recommend it. And if you still want all those extensions you could always fork the current version like waterfox.
kelnos 7y ago
Yes, this is such a foolish move. I have six extensions on my Firefox Android install, and the fact that five of them will not work for who knows how long after initial release makes me want to switch to another browser. I just might. We'll see.
enitihas 7y ago
To be fair, current firefox is very slow and resource hungry, and works well only on top of the line phones. For example, I have 2 android phones, 1 with 4GB and 1 with 8 GB of RAM. In the 8 GB one, I can use firefox with ublock origin, but it is a terrible experience on the 4GB phone (which has a slower processor too). The new firefox is much faster and runs snappily on both phones.
- stiray 7y ago
  This is nonsense, I am running it on samsung galaxy s5 and s7 and both are running without issues. But with a small twist, both are free from google with microg lineage installed and xprivacy lua and netguard blocking all unneeded communication. Maybe you should think about removing all google apps to remove bloatware from your phone to save the resources for somethinv usefull instead od wasting your batter life (30% longer battery life) and cpu to feed google? Anyway, I dont use firefox due to speed but as I dont want any of google products on my phone, regardless of how fast they are. It is not about speed. It is about having some dignity within survailance capitalism. And I am filtering everything trough mitm proxy so I dont need ublock. For the fingerprinting part... I wont update untill they fix this mess.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  I'm using it on a Moto G6 which is last I checked literally the cheapest phone you can buy brand new in the US, and Firefox works fine on it. Of course I usually have JavaScript disabled.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  That doesn't match my experience at all. My phone has 4GB of RAM, my firefox has over tabs up (yes I'm a monster but it makes my point a lot stronger here), and other than taking a bit to open from a cold start it's perfectly fine performance-wise.
danShumway 7y ago
Ugh. Now I need to choose between disabling updates for Firefox, which is a pretty big security risk, and giving up UMatrix, which I also consider to be at least somewhat of a security risk. It's such a questionable decision. I understand that addons take a while to support, I understand for most users it's still an upgrade since they don't use extensions, I understand that at some point you need real users instead of just beta-testers. But they're taking a huge step backwards for user freedom. It's a bad look for Mozilla. I'm disappointed. I wish they'd develop the apps in parallel until they had actual feature parity. Even if the old version of Firefox got pushed to a separate app; I'd be fine uninstalling Firefox and reinstalling 'Firefox Classic' from Mozilla. I feel like they don't really understand what the community response to this is going to be.
- Macha 7y ago
  Yeah, I'm not a hardcore extension user on mobile, and even then losing HTTPS Everywhere is going to suck (HSTS isn't everywhere still).
- kozziollek 7y ago
  I never used uMatrix, but as far as I am aware uBlock Origin has the same functionality if you check "I am an advanced user" in settings. See: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
  - cobby 7y ago
    No. uMatrux offers way more granular control.
    - 0-_-0 7y ago
      I don't know about that, but it breaks some of uBlock's functionality: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/706xrr/umatrix_vs_ublock_origin_medium_blocking_mode/dn1goxr/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/706xrr/umatrix_vs_...
- 7y ago
shultays 7y ago
Again?
dralley 7y ago
>They're going to launch a browser update that removes support for most extensions It's not like they're "removing" it, they rewrote half the browser and not all of the APIs are hooked back up yet. They're going to be added back eventually.
- fwn 7y ago
  It's not like they're removing it. They'll just push an update and your extensions will be gone. A lot of corporate communication wizards might be required to dress this up as something else than direct removal.
- shock 7y ago
  > It's not like they're "removing" it, they rewrote half the browser and not all of the APIs are hooked back up yet For most users this is a distinction without a difference.
  - Paul-ish 7y ago
    The distinction to me is they removed it but didn't also deprecate it.
  - petecox 7y ago
    What part of "it ain't finished yet" would most users not understand? It's a Preview release for a reason. Mozilla aren't exactly pulling a KDE 4 here.
    - iggldiggl 7y ago
      It was a preview release, but they've already started rolling it out to the regular Nightly channel and according to this very blog post we're discussing it's supposed to have a "public release later this spring". Given that any changes have to work their way through the Beta channel, too, there's not much time left for landing changes in Nightly that will still make it into the first Release version... so the first official Release version that will be pushed out to everybody will indeed be in an unfinished state.
Karunamon 7y ago
This is hardly the first time that Mozilla has done this to its users (re: what happened to Firefox on the desktop). Breaking people's experiences and worfklows in an extreme way is demonstrably not high on their list of concerns.
soapdog 7y ago
It is kinda of a complete rewrite as far as I know. This is using GeckoView, lots of things changed and moved places. And yes, I don't think this should be pushed to stable before extension support is in place but apparently the metrics tell a different story.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Then maybe it's time to stop listening to metrics and start using our brains again.

Am I reading this right? They're going to launch a browser update that removes support for most extensions and claim it's an upgrade?

by wging 7y ago

Am I reading this right? They're going to launch a browser update that removes support for most extensions and claim it's an upgrade?

recursive 7y ago

I didn't see anything about removing any extension support. The word "upgrade" also isn't anywhere on the page that I can see. So my guess is no, you're not reading it right.

westmeal 7y ago
Well I've heard that they are moving to a new extension api for the mobile release and it seems like ublock origin is the only thing thats supported for now per this webpage. I use that and umatrix so I'd like to know if uMatrix is going to be supported for mobile in the future... Does the developer for umatrix browse HN?
- kwierso 7y ago
  I don't know that uMatrix will be supported any time soon, but you can turn uBlock Origin into Advanced mode and get much of the same functionality that way.
mqus 7y ago
See point 3, this is a complete redesign so they don't have support for any other extensions yet, compared to the existing Firefox on android. But what irks me is that they will only support "recommended extensions" in the near future with no indication on how to install "unsupported" extensions or how to get "recommended". Mozillas own FAQ on the subject, with many more questions in the comments there: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-support-in-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension...
- twelvechairs 7y ago
  But this is only for preview and nightly preview versions? If you don't want things to break occasiinally just use normal Firefox not a pre-release
  - coldpie 7y ago
    This article is about the final release to all Firefox users. It is not about the preview and nightly versions. They are going to break all extensions for all users (except for uBO).
    - twelvechairs 7y ago
      It IS about nightly and preview. Also the first comment on the page is on this issue (normal Firefox users) and answer is clear about their transition > At that time, other add-ons will be supported (although there’s a chance that some of the ones you currently have installed will not be supported.) I don't know what else you can expect? That add ons will never be deprecated?
      - coldpie 7y ago
        From the article being discussed here <https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-android-new-features/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-android-new-feature... >: "The biggest ever update to Firefox browser for Android is on its way. Later this spring, everyone using the Firefox browser on their Android phones and tablets will get the update. ... This update will initially include support for one of the most popular extensions on Android, uBlock Origin. Additional extensions will be supported in subsequent releases so you can customize and expand your mobile browsing experience even more." >I don't know what else you can expect? That add ons will never be deprecated? I thought we went through the whole round of destroying support for non-WebExtensions so that we wouldn't have to do this ever again.
wging 7y ago
"3. Extension-ready This update will initially include support for one of the most popular extensions..." Having support for exactly one means you don't support the others. They also say "Additional extensions will be supported in subsequent releases", which implies they aren't supported initially. Also supported by someone's link to https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-support-in-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension..., thanks for that. It's phrased in a way that avoids saying outright what they are actually doing (dropping support), though.

untog 7y ago

Yes. Because for the majority of users, who do not use extensions, it is an upgrade. And it comes with built-in tracking prevention and still supports ad blocking, surely the two the big reasons most people use extensions in the first place. And they're going to restore extension functionality, so the power users who depend on extensions can keep the current version and wait if they wish.

zeveb 7y ago
> And they're going to restore extension functionality I put the odds of that somewhere around the same as the odds that GNOME Screensaver will ever support any of the xscreensaver demos it claimed it would … which is to say, I'm not holding my breath.
- untog 7y ago
  Why?
  - blackearl 7y ago
    Eventually you'll suffocate
  - Reelin 7y ago
    How long did it take them to finish implementing all the equivalent WebExtension APIs after they dropped XUL?
- paulie_a 7y ago
  I'd be more concerned about gnome leaking data when unlocking the screensaver.
cesarb 7y ago
> can keep the current version and wait if they wish. Unfortunately, web browsers are one of the few applications where "keep the current version" is not a viable option. Web browsers are very exposed to every web site they visit (including code injected by ad networks), and once a new version is released, many serious vulnerabilities on the previous version are revealed (for instance, https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities... is the list for Firefox). Keeping an old version can be a serious security risk.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

coldpie 7y ago

God Damnit I Hoped They Wouldn't Do This. I love you Firefox but you make it so hard. I've come to depend on NoScript on mobile (the mobile web is a _nightmare_ with JS enabled by default) and now they're going to break it on me. The worst part is the part of this article about how their browser is not ready for extensions is labeled "Extension-ready". No it fucking isn't. Fuck this is so frustrating.

kd913 7y ago
It's not like there isn't really a solution to this. You don't really need NoScript if you can learn how to use ublock origin in advanced mode.
- coldpie 7y ago
  I've never tried the uBO script blocker, but NoScript's UI is really nice for performing common tasks related to blocking JS. Stuff like allowing temporary permissions per domain, or allowing all on the current tab. Does uBO have similar features?
  - enitihas 7y ago
    You can try the brave browser on Android. Disabling and enabling js temporarily is easy. Even better, enabling js on a website in private mode does not persist. So you can disable all js by default, enable it on trusted sites via 1 click easy to use UI, and enable anywhere in private mode without worrying about forgetting to disable it later.
    - boring_twenties 7y ago
      > enable it on trusted sites via 1 click easy to use UI Does this just enable all scripts loaded by that site, or does it allow filtering by domain the scripts themselves are loaded from? E.g. when browsing site.com you want to allow site.com (and often sitestatic.com or something), but still not allow doubleclick.net even though it's loaded by the same page.
  - 7y ago

yoavm 7y ago

Actually I think you're right, and in fact they've already done this for those of us who used Firefox Nightly on Android. I had both Nightly and Preview on my phone, and kept using Nightly precisely because it supported all my extensions (Cookie AutoDelete, Bypass Paywall etc). One morning I woke up to see that Nightly was "upgraded" to Preview, and my extensions (except uBlock) were disabled. From what I understood, it seems like the same is going to happen with the stable branch - first it'll be "upgraded" to Preview and only later Preview will get all extensions support. Another bitter thing about this is that as much as the new Preview UI is slicker, it's actually browsing noticeably slower on my Google Pixel.

jsjddbbwj 7y ago

I mean, they are Mozilla.

MadWombat 7y ago

They did it on desktop already, what did you expect?

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
It was unpopular on desktop, but they had an argument as to why they couldn't keep the old extension model without crippling the browser. Firefox mobile already used the new extension type, and if there's some technical limitation that justifies killing existing extensions then I've not heard about it.
- kwierso 7y ago
  They're not killing it. Preview/Fenix is essentially a complete re-write of the mobile browser, and they just haven't added all of the extension hooks back into the new version yet.
- sfink 7y ago
  (I work for Mozilla, but not specifically on mobile.) The reason I've heard is that the new GeckoView architecture requires piping each and every WebExtension API through a Java layer (that naturally doesn't exist on desktop). So it's some amount of manual work per API entry. The definition of the MVP only included critical extensions like reader mode and uBlock. And there's still a fair bit of other work remaining for the MVP, so nobody can spare time for noncritical tasks. Whether that's the right definition of the MVP, and how many resources we'll be able to spend on it post-MVP (especially post-layoffs)... your guess is as good as mine, I'm going by the same public info you have. Extensions are a pretty important distinguishing factor of mobile firefox, though.

Jonnax 7y ago

Well it's a rewrite that'd much faster than chrome now. Can't things be a work in progress?

Macha 7y ago
Of course they can. The issue is when you push a work in progress as a replacement for a finished solution
kelnos 7y ago
A work in progress that removes significant features that the existing release has is... not a great idea. I'm not sure what percentage of Firefox Android users have more extensions installed than uBlock Origin, but this is a recipe for losing users. And not just any users, but the more-technical power users that tend to be best at evangelizing products to their less-technical friends and family.
anoncake 7y ago
That's great for all the people that want a fast browser that doesn't need to support extensions but accidentally installed Firefox instead.

photon-torpedo 7y ago

On top of the missing extensions, Firefox Preview (nightly) also crashes a lot. Been giving it a spin in the past two weeks but I don't feel it's ready to replace current Firefox.

Semaphor 7y ago
I’ve had more problems with the old FF android than Preview Nightly.
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  What kind? It's rock solid for me here.
  - Semaphor 7y ago
    It’s sometimes not loading pages without me force-closing it.
chrysoprace 7y ago
I'd say that's to be expected of a Nightly release. Have you considered the stable Firefox Preview? I've had some crashes, but not many.

rdslw 7y ago

I’m really interested about TRUE reason about skipping of extensions in next version ( you can check current MESS by simply checking of number of firefox apps from mozilla only (sic!)). For the organization of mozilla size it is not technical reason (also considering that this will be downgrade). They have ample of resources, they solved much more difficult problems in recent year, they easily can allocate their resources accordingly, they know what users ask for (simply read this discussion), they know that mobile>desktop. Yet.... There is some other factor at play, and i simply would like to know the truth. Not zuck-truth about connecting people...

hoistbypetard 7y ago
> they know what users ask for (simply read this discussion) This discussion only shows what people who like to spend time online talking about implementation details of HTTP user agents ask for. It does not tell us what most users want.
jamesgeck0 7y ago
It's a rewrite of a huge complicated application. Why does there need to be a conspiracy?
roca 7y ago
What makes you think Mozilla has ample resources? They just laid off some people, which strongly suggests they don't.

sterwill 7y ago

I've been using the nightly builds of Firefox Preview for a couple of weeks, and it supports the extension I need the most (uBlock Origin). The new preview is so much faster than the old Firefox for Android I probably won't need to buy a new phone for another year or two. I like the UI changes, too.

ebg13 7y ago
Me too, but does yours crash all the time like mine does or is that something with my phone?
- jobstijl 7y ago
  For me it did a few updates ago, now it's pretty much stable. I really do like this release and i can live with not all extentions being enabled on the nightly, but for releasing this to stable users i would think they should first fix the extentions.
- sciurus 7y ago
  For the last few days for me, Firefox Preview Nightly crashes almost immediately but Firefox Preview is still stable. My understanding is that Preview picks up changes from Preview Nightly every two weeks. (Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla but not on our Android browser)
  - dblohm7 7y ago
    I hope you’re reporting these...
    - sciurus 7y ago
      Yes, I follow Android's prompt to report the crashes. I don't see them listed in about:crashes though, so I'm unsure how to follow up about them.

jpangs88 7y ago

It's true that most the extension support is going away for now. From there GitHub project it doesn't sound like the only thing that won't meet feature parity in the new version. That being said I am using nightly preview and am really enjoying it and would recommend it. And if you still want all those extensions you could always fork the current version like waterfox.

kelnos 7y ago

Yes, this is such a foolish move. I have six extensions on my Firefox Android install, and the fact that five of them will not work for who knows how long after initial release makes me want to switch to another browser. I just might. We'll see.

enitihas 7y ago

To be fair, current firefox is very slow and resource hungry, and works well only on top of the line phones. For example, I have 2 android phones, 1 with 4GB and 1 with 8 GB of RAM. In the 8 GB one, I can use firefox with ublock origin, but it is a terrible experience on the 4GB phone (which has a slower processor too). The new firefox is much faster and runs snappily on both phones.

stiray 7y ago
This is nonsense, I am running it on samsung galaxy s5 and s7 and both are running without issues. But with a small twist, both are free from google with microg lineage installed and xprivacy lua and netguard blocking all unneeded communication. Maybe you should think about removing all google apps to remove bloatware from your phone to save the resources for somethinv usefull instead od wasting your batter life (30% longer battery life) and cpu to feed google? Anyway, I dont use firefox due to speed but as I dont want any of google products on my phone, regardless of how fast they are. It is not about speed. It is about having some dignity within survailance capitalism. And I am filtering everything trough mitm proxy so I dont need ublock. For the fingerprinting part... I wont update untill they fix this mess.
boring_twenties 7y ago
I'm using it on a Moto G6 which is last I checked literally the cheapest phone you can buy brand new in the US, and Firefox works fine on it. Of course I usually have JavaScript disabled.
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
That doesn't match my experience at all. My phone has 4GB of RAM, my firefox has over tabs up (yes I'm a monster but it makes my point a lot stronger here), and other than taking a bit to open from a cold start it's perfectly fine performance-wise.

danShumway 7y ago

Ugh. Now I need to choose between disabling updates for Firefox, which is a pretty big security risk, and giving up UMatrix, which I also consider to be at least somewhat of a security risk. It's such a questionable decision. I understand that addons take a while to support, I understand for most users it's still an upgrade since they don't use extensions, I understand that at some point you need real users instead of just beta-testers. But they're taking a huge step backwards for user freedom. It's a bad look for Mozilla. I'm disappointed. I wish they'd develop the apps in parallel until they had actual feature parity. Even if the old version of Firefox got pushed to a separate app; I'd be fine uninstalling Firefox and reinstalling 'Firefox Classic' from Mozilla. I feel like they don't really understand what the community response to this is going to be.

Macha 7y ago
Yeah, I'm not a hardcore extension user on mobile, and even then losing HTTPS Everywhere is going to suck (HSTS isn't everywhere still).
kozziollek 7y ago
I never used uMatrix, but as far as I am aware uBlock Origin has the same functionality if you check "I am an advanced user" in settings. See: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
- cobby 7y ago
  No. uMatrux offers way more granular control.
  - 0-_-0 7y ago
    I don't know about that, but it breaks some of uBlock's functionality: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/706xrr/umatrix_vs_ublock_origin_medium_blocking_mode/dn1goxr/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/706xrr/umatrix_vs_...
7y ago

shultays 7y ago

Again?

dralley 7y ago

>They're going to launch a browser update that removes support for most extensions It's not like they're "removing" it, they rewrote half the browser and not all of the APIs are hooked back up yet. They're going to be added back eventually.

fwn 7y ago
It's not like they're removing it. They'll just push an update and your extensions will be gone. A lot of corporate communication wizards might be required to dress this up as something else than direct removal.
shock 7y ago
> It's not like they're "removing" it, they rewrote half the browser and not all of the APIs are hooked back up yet For most users this is a distinction without a difference.
- Paul-ish 7y ago
  The distinction to me is they removed it but didn't also deprecate it.
- petecox 7y ago
  What part of "it ain't finished yet" would most users not understand? It's a Preview release for a reason. Mozilla aren't exactly pulling a KDE 4 here.
  - iggldiggl 7y ago
    It was a preview release, but they've already started rolling it out to the regular Nightly channel and according to this very blog post we're discussing it's supposed to have a "public release later this spring". Given that any changes have to work their way through the Beta channel, too, there's not much time left for landing changes in Nightly that will still make it into the first Release version... so the first official Release version that will be pushed out to everybody will indeed be in an unfinished state.

Karunamon 7y ago

This is hardly the first time that Mozilla has done this to its users (re: what happened to Firefox on the desktop). Breaking people's experiences and worfklows in an extreme way is demonstrably not high on their list of concerns.

soapdog 7y ago

It is kinda of a complete rewrite as far as I know. This is using GeckoView, lots of things changed and moved places. And yes, I don't think this should be pushed to stable before extension support is in place but apparently the metrics tell a different story.

anoncake 7y ago
Then maybe it's time to stop listening to metrics and start using our brains again.