7 ms·
I think this was only a matter of time. The Chrome extension model has become the de facto standard, has a large existing extension ecosystem and huge user base
by jhatax 6y ago
I think this was only a matter of time. The Chrome extension model has become the de facto standard, has a large existing extension ecosystem and huge user base, and other browsers have adopted this model. While sticking to their own extension model would ensure that they remained in control, this is the right thing for users, both current and possible switchers. Here’s why:
- Current Safari users can get the goodness of Chrome extensions, specifically the ones focused on privacy such as NoScript and uBlock.
- Switchers from Chrome can feel familiar with Safari if their Chrome extensions are available to them in the new browser.
- New macOS users don’t need to select a browser based on whether extensions are available for it or not.
With extension availability out of the way, the discussion on macOS browsers is going to come back to UX, speed, and battery usage. UX is a personal choice. Based on my experience, Safari is the fastest and least battery hungry browser on macOS. Syncing using iCloud Just Works (TM) for my devices and account. YMMV.
Net-net, kudos to the team for getting past their “Not Invented Here” instincts and going with the market flow.
- NegativeLatency 6y agoDoes ublock origin actually work? Saw on the github a couple of months ago that safari had some potentially problematic resource limits.
- ms7m 6y agoIt does not. There is a handful of APIs that are blocked. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/safari_web_extensions/assessing_your_safari_web_extension_s_browser_compatibility https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/saf...
- saagarjha 6y agoI think a more charitable interpretation is "not implemented".
- fomine3 6y agoFrom what Apple say for Content Blocker API on iOS, I suspect that they really avoid to implement those API. > In addition to blocking unwanted content, a Content Blocker extension protects privacy. For example, the extension doesn’t have access to users’ browsing activity and it can’t report activity to your app. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/ContentBlocker.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
- airstrike 6y agoI've moved away from ublock origin to Ad Nauseam on firefox and it's such a huge improvement I can't imagine going back
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rubber_duck 6y ago> it's such a huge improvement I can't imagine going back In what way ?
- airstrike 6y agoIt actually blocks everything and the kitchen sink but also seems to break less stuff? It's just a more seamless experience
- ffpip 6y agoAdNauseam is a good way to get your account banned or your whole IP banned. It also doesn't do anything for privacy. It is based on uBO, so just use UBO.
- perryizgr8 6y ago> your account banned or your whole IP banned Getting banned from ads sounds like an amazing thing...
- comboy 6y agoUnless the ad company is also your e-mail, maps, photos and whatnot provider. (Why would...? Ha.)
- LeoNatan25 6y agoHere’s a crazy idea: don’t use that ad company.
- skinnymuch 6y agoSafari doesn’t have profiles yet, does it? That’s a pretty big deal for my workflow. Though I could get by with Safari’s Beta and Safari. Two sets of profiles is the bare minimum I like. —- For extensions, wont it be a while before enough preferred extensions move over to Safari? A solid amount might never? Unless there’s some initiative where some consortiums publish extensions on behalf of open source extension developers. Otherwise many made with no money in mind don’t have a good reason to pay $100/year. Now for my bit of day dreaming and fantasizing: (1) If this began a trend to begin charging for good extensions, I wouldn’t mind that. We pay for so much stuff, but extensions are assumed to be free. There’s less oversight on the data mining they do than almost any other niche. Then unfortunate part is how much of the revenue would be eaten by Apple’s 30% cut and $99/year. Since the developer fee is yearly, if this can also lead to yearly charges for extensions, but at very low rates, that would be awesome too. (2) if some extensions are subscriptions at $1-5 a year or $1 for 2-3 years as the main price points for good extensions. It doesn’t come close to subscription saturation issues. At those low numbers, it would take a whole ton of extensions to get to $60/year. Which is a completely average price charged for apps these days that used to cost a fraction for one time payment.
- saagarjha 6y agoNote that Safari Technology Preview and Safari share iCloud Keychain and occasionally share history as well.
- skinnymuch 6y agoAh. Okay Keychain isn’t so bad. I use 1Password more than keychain. Sharing history occasionally is annoying, but if just occasionally, not so bad. Thanks for the heads up and info.
- pankajdoharey 6y agoI agree that's a big deal, but there are many good things in safari like it is very efficient, even with many tabs Safari ends up consuming very low processing power and thus longer battery life, chrome on the other hand is just a memory hog constantly recording every move and sending it to Google, it really feels like a spyware. Which is why I use Safari 99% of the time except when it is not supported or I need a special extension for which I use Firefox.
- tialaramex 6y agoI agree it was only a matter of time, the previous arrangement was pointlessly arcane. But make no mistake, Apple still wants to remain firmly in control. The development of these extensions is eased, but you still need to pay Apple tax to give them to users. If your extension generates revenue maybe that's fine. If it doesn't Apple is asking you to give them money so that you can help their users, how about No?
- bredren 6y agoI don’t know if it was arcane so much as it was very conservative in what it allowed. Browser extensions can seek very wide permissions and are extremely powerful because they can automate requests from a user’s IP address. I’d guess Apple only did this because they had to.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Razengan 6y agoYou can publish free extensions, as long as you have a developer account. Since the account costs $100 a year, this makes more sense for apps who want to offer a Safari extension, e.g. a Japanese learning aid with a website translation extension.
- _qulr 6y agoNoScript and uBlock Origin will not be happening for Safari. The API is missing and won't be implemented. Safari does not have the same full API as Chrome or Firefox. Instead, Safari relies on a more limited, Apple-specific content blocking API.
- zerocrates 6y agoIsn't it along the lines of what Chrome's been talking about moving to, where you basically get to tell the browser what to block but not get at the requests in the way you can now?
- the_gipsy 6y agoIf it's the same API as iOS' NetworlExtension, then I don't see why uBlock couldn't happen. uBlock doesn't "phone home" for each request/site, does it?
- jon-wood 6y agoIt doesn't phone home, but it does depend on access to the DOM for at least some of its functionality like being able to block particular elements in a page based on pattern matching. If the new API allows more or less equivalent functionality without having to give an extension access to every page I open I'm all for it though.
- the_gipsy 6y agoAccessing and modifying the DOM based on some rules, in a sandbox without leaking data, seems technically feasible.
- Lorin 6y agoMy primary issue with Safari is that I practically need an OSX device to test against it.
- bad_user 6y agoAdopting the extension model doesn't mean that the capabilities available to extension developers are the same. You can take a look at Firefox, which has extensions that in Chrome are not currently possible. Or extension features that aren't possible, like the ability to block first-party analytics in uBlock Origin, as a small example. I am, however, glad that all of them are adopting more or less the same APIs, because extension developers can now target all 3 major browsers with ease. > the discussion on macOS browsers is going to come back to UX, speed, and battery usage The biggest, most relevant component of a browser has always been the browser engine, because it dictates available features, and yes, speed and battery usage. People keep talking about the UI as being an important differentiator. But I don't believe that's true, because the UI of all major browsers is decent. Of course, power users can cling on to features, like the Tree Style Tabs in Firefox, but for the most part, I don't think it's the UI that makes most people switch browsers.
- _qulr 6y ago> People keep talking about the UI as being an important differentiator. But I don't believe that's true, because the UI of all major browsers is decent. UI is the differentiator of the Mac itself. Otherwise, why not just use Windows, which is "decent".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bad_user 6y agoTBH, I don't know why other people use Macs, but speaking in my own name, no, I'm not using it for its UI. I use macOS because things usually just work, because it's a Unix, and because the available apps are good. I don't have a problem with the Windows 10 UI, I have a problem with everything else. In fairness, switching from Linux to macOS because of the UI is an acceptable viewpoint.
- dangus 6y agoThe UI is probably what got people to switch from IE to Firefox. Because Firefox had tabs! But I agree, browser UI is irrelevant in 2020.
- bumblebritches5 6y ago> Current Safari users can get the goodness of Chrome extensions, specifically the ones focused on privacy such as NoScript and uBlock. lol thats a step down from content blockers...
- swiley 6y agoIMO they’re all pretty much the same. Firefox lets you see where a link goes without clicking it. Safari has minimalist chrome. It’s just speed.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]