3 ms·

The decision that lead to this was releasing the new browser before it was ready. This was done because Mozilla can't afford to be maintaining and supporting tw

The decision that lead to this was releasing the new browser before it was ready. This was done because Mozilla can't afford to be maintaining and supporting two different browsers on the same platform at the same time. This is nothing to do with extensions per se. They are just a casualty of pragmatism; given the initial decision the team had to prioritise. Secondly, Mozilla absolutely do have a responsibility to ship APIs that work to spec. It's not up to Addon authors to fix Mozilla's bugs (and that may not even be possible depending on the nature of the bug). And of course you're assuming Addon authors would be interested in going so far out of their way to support what is a relatively small user base.

codys 6y ago
This argument is continuing to ignore the solution that's already used to handle new APIs that are unstable and might not be ready: allowing developers to opt-in to deployment on that platform via standard metadata included in apps/extensions. If there was a concern with things being unstable, that would be the first thing to go to! There's already support for similar things. Creating special whitelisting is something extra that had to be done. Given the "we have too much work" angle here, I find it hard to understand why the existing mechanisms weren't extended instead of creating a new one. It seems very funny to say "we had to give up and release a broken browser" and in the same breath take on extra responsibility for API correctness prior to letting any one who can't convince Mozilla to whitelist them to use the APIs. And take on responsibility of maintenance of a whitelist
- ChrisSD 6y ago
  Who do you think people complain to when their browser doesn't work right? It doesn't matter if an addon is responsible, many people will blame the browser (or at least go to them for support). This increases the support cost and leads to a very negative perception of the browser itself. Also I'd suggest that addon authors publicly complaining about broken Firefox APIs would be a whole other headache for Mozilla. We've been here before with desktop Firefox when the browser got a lot of flak for issues that were mainly caused by addons.
  - Arnavion 6y ago
    >This increases the support cost and leads to a very negative perception of the browser itself. Their solution to that problem hasn't exactly led to a positive perception of the browser either, and it hasn't even left them the out of blaming it on anyone but themselves.
    - ChrisSD 6y ago
      Sure. But there's no good solution here. As I said, the decision to support only one browser on Android is what lead to this. That browser isn't fully ready so all the team can do is go for the least worst option (which is admittedly a judgement call). Besides, it would not be a good look to be blaming extension authors for Mozilla's problems. So I don't think that's a viable "out".

codys 6y ago

This argument is continuing to ignore the solution that's already used to handle new APIs that are unstable and might not be ready: allowing developers to opt-in to deployment on that platform via standard metadata included in apps/extensions. If there was a concern with things being unstable, that would be the first thing to go to! There's already support for similar things. Creating special whitelisting is something extra that had to be done. Given the "we have too much work" angle here, I find it hard to understand why the existing mechanisms weren't extended instead of creating a new one. It seems very funny to say "we had to give up and release a broken browser" and in the same breath take on extra responsibility for API correctness prior to letting any one who can't convince Mozilla to whitelist them to use the APIs. And take on responsibility of maintenance of a whitelist

ChrisSD 6y ago
Who do you think people complain to when their browser doesn't work right? It doesn't matter if an addon is responsible, many people will blame the browser (or at least go to them for support). This increases the support cost and leads to a very negative perception of the browser itself. Also I'd suggest that addon authors publicly complaining about broken Firefox APIs would be a whole other headache for Mozilla. We've been here before with desktop Firefox when the browser got a lot of flak for issues that were mainly caused by addons.
- Arnavion 6y ago
  >This increases the support cost and leads to a very negative perception of the browser itself. Their solution to that problem hasn't exactly led to a positive perception of the browser either, and it hasn't even left them the out of blaming it on anyone but themselves.
  - ChrisSD 6y ago
    Sure. But there's no good solution here. As I said, the decision to support only one browser on Android is what lead to this. That browser isn't fully ready so all the team can do is go for the least worst option (which is admittedly a judgement call). Besides, it would not be a good look to be blaming extension authors for Mozilla's problems. So I don't think that's a viable "out".