5 ms·

My understanding: They are not changing the extension model, Firefox Preview simply doesn't have the full extension API of old Firefox implemented yet. Some peo

My understanding: They are not changing the extension model, Firefox Preview simply doesn't have the full extension API of old Firefox implemented yet. Some people are always ready to assume the worst when it comes to Mozilla and threw a hissy fit over the fact that Mozilla is running an open Beta with Firefox Preview [1] that is only slowly coming up to full extension support, hence the 'controversial'.

Macha 6y ago
To be fair, their initial roadmap early last year had Firefox Preview replacing the current Firefox for Android early this year with 0 extension support. So it's more than "extension support wasn't ready for beta". I wonder if that would have changed without the complaints...
- Certhas 6y ago
  Fair, initial communication focused around a fast timeline and didn't mention extensions. Given the history that was clearly a mistake. I still think the reaction was a bit hysterical. Mozilla had very good reasons (conveniently ignored by some people) to break the extension ecosystem when they did, and they communicated that reason. In contrast they didn't say anything about not supporting extensions for future Firefox mobile.
  - Macha 6y ago
    It's easy to say that the reaction was hysterical when the change that users wanted was made (well sort of, there's still a whitelist for extensions with no definite end date). But if people just posted on the first HN thread "I don't like this" and left it at that, I bet they would have followed their original roadmap more closely if there was no outcry of the plan to replace the current browser with no extension support. It's also worth putting into perspective that most of the "hysteria" is people posting their disapproval in HN/Reddit threads or putting thumbs down reactions on github comments. It's not like people were picketing Mozilla HQ. I'm sure you can find examples of crazy people on Twitter, it's a group of over 100 dissatisified people, but that's certainly not the majority.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      > I'm sure you can find examples of crazy people on Twitter, it's a group of over 100 dissatisified people, but that's certainly not the majority. The world is so large, you can find examples of just about anything if you go searching for it.
      - Macha 6y ago
        I know, it's a defensive reflex these days. A lot of criticisms of company decisions these days get "Look, there's this person on Twitter/Reddit/whatever saying they wish bad things on an individual at the company", and an attempt to tar all critics as being like these examples. Usually in combination with calling the reaction overblown, which is I guess why I'm very defensive on this thread specifically.
    - Certhas 6y ago
      Hey I am not saying people weren't perfectly in line to ask about this and raise the point/push for only releasing at feature parity. That's not what I recall the tone was though, heck even in this thread people are claiming that Mozilla wanted to eliminate extensions altogether. Mozilla employees also responded to these HN threads straight away clarifying that extensions were being looked at closely with intent (albeit no commitment) to have feature parity at launch. As I said, given the history they should have had a clear communication of what they intend to do about extensions when they premiered Firefox Preview. Of course that also implies that they would have had to have a clear idea of what they are going to do about them at the time.
- mook 6y ago
  My understanding is that extension support got bumped high in priority after the unrelated extension breakage (due to an expiring certificate) in the old Firefox for Android. When that happened their rating in the Play store positively tanked with people commenting about broken extensions, even though it was fixed fairly shortly.
retox 6y ago
Thank you for the clarification. I found it hard to believe that another iteration of the extension APIs would happen so soon, especially after the last backlash (despite the long warning time) but a brief search didn't throw up anything either way. Perhaps you forgot to paste the [1] source in your post, but the point was well made.

Macha 6y ago

To be fair, their initial roadmap early last year had Firefox Preview replacing the current Firefox for Android early this year with 0 extension support. So it's more than "extension support wasn't ready for beta". I wonder if that would have changed without the complaints...

Certhas 6y ago
Fair, initial communication focused around a fast timeline and didn't mention extensions. Given the history that was clearly a mistake. I still think the reaction was a bit hysterical. Mozilla had very good reasons (conveniently ignored by some people) to break the extension ecosystem when they did, and they communicated that reason. In contrast they didn't say anything about not supporting extensions for future Firefox mobile.
- Macha 6y ago
  It's easy to say that the reaction was hysterical when the change that users wanted was made (well sort of, there's still a whitelist for extensions with no definite end date). But if people just posted on the first HN thread "I don't like this" and left it at that, I bet they would have followed their original roadmap more closely if there was no outcry of the plan to replace the current browser with no extension support. It's also worth putting into perspective that most of the "hysteria" is people posting their disapproval in HN/Reddit threads or putting thumbs down reactions on github comments. It's not like people were picketing Mozilla HQ. I'm sure you can find examples of crazy people on Twitter, it's a group of over 100 dissatisified people, but that's certainly not the majority.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    > I'm sure you can find examples of crazy people on Twitter, it's a group of over 100 dissatisified people, but that's certainly not the majority. The world is so large, you can find examples of just about anything if you go searching for it.
    - Macha 6y ago
      I know, it's a defensive reflex these days. A lot of criticisms of company decisions these days get "Look, there's this person on Twitter/Reddit/whatever saying they wish bad things on an individual at the company", and an attempt to tar all critics as being like these examples. Usually in combination with calling the reaction overblown, which is I guess why I'm very defensive on this thread specifically.
  - Certhas 6y ago
    Hey I am not saying people weren't perfectly in line to ask about this and raise the point/push for only releasing at feature parity. That's not what I recall the tone was though, heck even in this thread people are claiming that Mozilla wanted to eliminate extensions altogether. Mozilla employees also responded to these HN threads straight away clarifying that extensions were being looked at closely with intent (albeit no commitment) to have feature parity at launch. As I said, given the history they should have had a clear communication of what they intend to do about extensions when they premiered Firefox Preview. Of course that also implies that they would have had to have a clear idea of what they are going to do about them at the time.
mook 6y ago
My understanding is that extension support got bumped high in priority after the unrelated extension breakage (due to an expiring certificate) in the old Firefox for Android. When that happened their rating in the Play store positively tanked with people commenting about broken extensions, even though it was fixed fairly shortly.

retox 6y ago

Thank you for the clarification. I found it hard to believe that another iteration of the extension APIs would happen so soon, especially after the last backlash (despite the long warning time) but a brief search didn't throw up anything either way. Perhaps you forgot to paste the [1] source in your post, but the point was well made.